The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
M O N T H L Y 1 AD/r>>D DC7 IE W U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics May 1986 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis In this issue: International labor force participation Productivity in metal stamping Foreign housing vouchers ■***«J [Hi» J h«#** 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, DC 20212. Phone: (202)523-1327. Subscription price per year—$24 domestic; $30 foreign. Single copy—$4, domestic; $5 foreign. Subscription prices and distribution policies for the Monthly Labor Review (ISSN 0098-1818) and other Government publications are set by the Government Printing Office, an agency of the U.S. Congress. Send correspondence on circulation and subscription matters (including address changes) to: Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, DC 20402 Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents. The Secretary of Labor has determined that the publication of this periodical is necessary in the transaction of the public business required by law of this Department. Use of funds for printing this periodical has been approved by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget through April 30, 1987. Second-class postage paid at Washington, DC and at additional mailing addresses. Regional Commissioners for Bureau of Labor Statistics Region I— Boston: Anthony J. Ferrara 1603 John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Government Center Boston, ma 02203 Phone: (617)223-6761 Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont Region II— New York: Samuel M. Ehrenhalt 1515 Broadway, Suite 3400, New York, ny 10036 Phone: (212)944-3121 New Jersey New York Puerto Rico Virgin Islands Region III— Philadelphia: Alvin I. Margulis 3535 Market Street P.O. Box 13309, Philadelphia, p a 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) 347-4418 Alabama Florida Georgia Kentucky Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Region V—Chicago: Lois L. Orr 9th Floor, Federal Office Building, 230 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, ll 60604 Phone: (312)353-1880 Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota Ohio Wisconsin Region VI— Dalltas: Bryan Richey Federal Building, Room 221 525 Griffin Street, Dallas, tx 75202 Phone: (214)767-6971 Arkansas Louisiana New Mexico Oklahoma Texas May cover: "Construction,” a drawing by Harry Sternberg; photograph courtesy of the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Cover design by Richard L. Mathews https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Regions VII and VIII— Kansas City: Kenneth Lee, (A c tin g ) 911 Walnut Street, Kansas City, MO 64106 Phone: (816)374-2481 VII Iowa Kansas Missouri Nebraska VIII Colorado Montana North Dakota South Dakota Utah Wyoming Regions IX and X—San Francisco: Sam M. Hirabayasht 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415)556-4678 IX American Samoa Arizona California Guam Hawaii Nevada Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands X Alaska Idaho Oregon Washington MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW MAY 1986 VOLUME 109, NUMBER 5 Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chief Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor Patrick J. McMahon 3 An international comparison of labor force participation, 1977-84 Comparisons of labor force participation in six countries, including the U.S., show vastly different patterns, both overall and for different demographic groups H. Brand, C. Huffstutler 13 Trends of labor productivity in metal stamping industries Overall growth in the annual rate of output per employee hour was sluggish in 1963-83, but performance was stronger in 1972-83 for the producers of automotive parts E. Jay Howenstine 21 Foreign housing voucher systems: evolution and strategies European governments have historically used housing allowance concepts, with strategies which include a model for workers based on labor mobility CONFERENCE PAPERS Frank W. Schiff 28 Short-time compensation: assessing the issues Stuart Kerachsky and others 31 Work sharing programs: an evaluation of their use John Zalusky 33 Short-time compensation: the afl -cio perspective REPORTS J.P. Cullity 35 A new leading indicator: workers recently laid off David J. Eisen 37 Union response to changes in printing technology: another view Guy A. Toscano 39 Computer-aided telephone interviewing used in the Hours at Work Survey Diane M. Cotter 42 Work-related deaths in 1984: BLS survey findings G.H. Moore, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis DEPARTMENTS 2 Labor month in review 28 Conference papers 35 Communications 39 Technical notes 42 Research summaries 47 Major agreements expiring next month 50 Developments in industrial relations 52 Book reviews 57 Current labor statistics Labor M onth In Review KLEIN AWARD. The Lawrence R. Klein Award trustees selected two authors of the best articles published in the Monthly Labor Review in 1985 as winners of the 17th annual Klein Award. The award was presented at the Bureau of Labor Statistics awards ceremony on April 28. Award for the best Review arti cle by a BLS author went to Neal H. Rosenthal, chief of the Division of Oc cupational Outlook, for “ The shrinking middle class: myth or reality?” in the March issue. Winner of the best article written by an author outside of the bls was Helen Ginsburg, professor of economics at Brooklyn College, for “ Flexible and partial retirement for Norwegian and Swedish workers,” in the October issue. Rosenthal article presents an analysis of statistical data that might better inform the debate stirred by re cent articles suggesting a decline in the middle class—defined as middle income earners—claiming that most of the new jobs are at the top and bottom of the earnings structure. Rosenthal focused primarily on how changes in occupa tional structure and wage levels affect the distribution of earnings of in dividuals in 1973 and 1982. He arrayed 416 occupations by earnings and arrang ed them into three earnings groups—bot tom, middle, and top; summed the number of workers and occupations in each earnings group; and calculated a percent distribution of employment. He explains, “ If the proportion of middle income earners are declining, the proportion of total employment in the middle would show a decline between 1973 and 1982, and the bottom and top, an increase.” The analysis shows an in crease for the top group, a modest decrease for the middle and a decrease for the bottom. Rosenthal concludes, “ Changes in occupational structure alone from 1973 to 1982 do not support The 2 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis the notion of bipolarization.” The combined effect of changes in relative wages and in occupational struc ture of workers over the 1973-82 period show total employment increasing for the top and middle income groups and decreasing for the bottom. This, states Rosenthal, “ Indicates a shift of workers from the low to the middle and high earn ings levels....” According to Rosenthal, the middle class is not declining, although, he says, “ Some trends in the industrial and oc cupational structure of employment could cause a degree of earnings bipolarization. However, a multitude of factors have an effect on the occupational structure of our economy an on the earnings of workers in specific occupations. Although not all factors can be quantified, an analysis of available data indicates that the combined effect of all factors ap parently has not caused bipolarization over the 1973-82 period. Also, given bls projections of employment by occupa tions, bipolarization is not likely to occur between 1982 and 1995.” The Ginsburg article focuses largely on the Swedish retirement plan because o f its g re a te r p o p u la rity , m ore widespread use, and because it offers an unusual degree of flexibility in both age and extent of retirement, compared with the Norwegian plan. Ginsburg discussed the plans of the two countries—noting that a major difference is that Sweden’s plan encourages partial retirement prior to normal retirement age, while the Norwegian plan encourages it after the normal retirement age. Under the Swedish partial pension plan, a person age 60 to 64 can reduce his or her work hours, receive full pay for the time worked, and also receive a pension to replace 50 percent of the lost earnings, up to a limit. Work time must be reduced by at least 5 hours a week, and after reduction, must average at least 17 hours weekly. Also, to be eligi ble, a person must have had pensionable earnings for at least 10 years after age 45 (unemployment and sickness benefits are pensionable income in Sweden), and must have been gainfully employed for at least 5 of the last 12 months. Although not designed to be a weapon against unemployment, Ginsburg notes, partial pensions act as a form of w orksharing, preventing employee dismissals in some cases and working against (but not eliminating) the tenden cy to take early retirement. Ginsburg concludes, “ Developments in Norway and Sweden, which have a more elderly population than the United States, could provide the starting point for a discussion of a comprehensive older-worker policy in the United States.” About the award. Trustees of the Klein Award Fund are Lawrence R. Klein; Charles D. Stewart, president; Ben Burdetsky, secretary-treasurer; Peter Henle; Harold Goldstein; Howard Rosen; and Henry Lowenstern. The award was established in 1968 in honor of Lawrence R. Klein, editor-in-chief of the Monthly Labor Review for 22 years until his retirement in 1968. Instead of accepting a retirement gift, Klein donated it and matched the amount collected to initiate the fund. Since then, he has con tributed regularly to the fund as have others. The purpose of the award is to en courage Review articles that (1) exhibit originality of ideas or method of analysis, (2 adhere to the principles of scientific in quiry, and (3) are well written. Each winn ing article carries a cash prize of $200. Tax-deductible contributions to the fund may be sent to Ben Burdetsky, Secretary Treasurer, Lawrence R. Klein Fund, c/o School of Government and Business Administration, The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052. □ An international comparison of labor force participation, 1977-84 International comparisons of labor force participation in six countries, including the United States, show vastly different patterns, both overall and for demographic groups P a t r ic k J. M c M ahon Over the past decade there have heen substantial changes in the structure and performance of labor markets in most countries. These changes stem from changes in various eco nomic factors such as the oil price crises in 1974 and 1978 and the subsequent slowdown in economic growth and emergence of international recession. However, labor force responses since 1975 to these changes have varied consider ably between countries and the outcomes may usefully be compared and contrasted. In this article, six countries with similar approaches to labor force measurement are com pared.1 The largest is the United States, followed by Japan and West Germany. The smallest markets considered are, in order of size, Canada, Australia, and Sweden. The aggregate participation rates in each country are shown in table 1. The range is large. Sweden had the highest labor force participation rate, followed by Canada, the United States, Japan, Australia, and West Germany.2 The overall changes in labor force participation since 1975 are also shown in table 1. In Australia the labor force participation rate fell 1.7 percentage points from 61.6 per cent in 1975. West Germany and Japan experienced little change in the aggregate participation rate. By contrast, labor markets in the other countries were characterized by large growth in participation rates, particularly in Canada and the United States. In Sweden, which had the highest proportion Patrick J. McMahon is an economist, Australian Bureau of Labour Market Research. He wrote this article while visiting the Bureau of Labor Statis tics, U .S. Department o f Labor. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis of the working age population in the labor force of any country considered, the participation rate rose by slightly less. The magnitude and nature of these different changes in the aggregate labor force participation rate can be seen more clearly by examining the change in the labor force parti cipation rate (shown in column 3) decomposed into the change in the employment-population ratio (shown in column 4) and, completing the identity, the change in the unemployment-population ratio.3 In all countries but the United States, the employmentpopulation ratio either increased by less than the participa tion rate or fell between 1975 and 1984. Australia and West Germany also stand apart from the remaining countries, having experienced both a large decline in employment growth relative to population growth and hefty increases in unemployment. The fall in participation in Australia decom poses into a large fall in the employment-population ratio accompanied by a smaller offsetting increase in unemploy ment. In West Germany, contrary to the Australian experi ence, the effect of a fall in the employment-population ratio was completely offset by an increase in unemployment. In Japan, almost all of the small increase in the participation rate was attributable to a small increase in the employmentpopulation ratio, while, in Canada, most of the increase in participation rate decomposes into a dominant increase in unemployment. In Sweden, both employment and unem ployment grew roughly by the same magnitude, at least according to the official “unadjusted data” for the popula3 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1986 • International Labor Force Participation tion aged 16 to 74. bls estimates, shown as the “unadjusted data” for the population aged 16 and over, suggest that in Sweden the participation rate altered predominantly from an increase in unemployment with very little change in the employment-population ratio. Of all the countries examined, the Australian and U.S. experiences appear to be unique at either end of the spec trum. Only Australia experienced a large decline in the participation rate together with a very large increase in the unemployment-population ratio, and only the United States experienced a large increase in the participation rate to gether with a decline in the unemployment-population ratio. Changes in composition Observed changes in the labor force may reflect shifts in the age and sex structure of the population, changes in labor force behavior within demographic groups, or both. The role of composition effects vis-a-vis behavioral influences is examined in this section. The effect of demographic changes can be measured by computing the aggregate participation rate for 1984, main taining the 1975 participation rates for each individual de mographic group. The difference between the 1975 and the 1984 rate calculated by assuming no participation change in the demographic components indicates that change in the participation rate was due solely to demographic shifts. Be tween 1975 and 1984, demographic shifts would have mar ginally altered the aggregate participation rates of the United States, Canada, and Sweden. (See table 2.) More substantial shifts occurred in Australia (down 1.1 percentage points), Japan (down 1.1 percentage points), and West Germany (up 0.8 percentage points). After adjusting for demographic factors, West Germany appears to have had similar experiences to Australia. Thus Australia and West Germany were the only countries to have experienced behaviorally induced declines in aggregate labor force participation and large increases in unemploy ment. Participation rates by sex The participation rates of men and women are shown for each country in table 3. Male participation rates varied little between most countries but the rate for West Germany was particularly low. In 1984, Japan had the highest rate (78.9 percent), followed by Canada, the United States, Sweden, Australia, and West Germany which had the lowest (71.9 percent). Between 1975 and 1984, male labor force participation fell in all countries. Australia experienced the largest change, from 80.5 to 75.7 percent, and the United States the smallest, from 77.9 to 76.4 percent. Most of these changes were because of shifts in behavior rather than demographic factors as the following tabulations of the percentage point change due to the effect of demographic change show: Australia .. —0.3 Sweden ............—0.2 (unadjusted) or 0.1 Canada.. . . 0.6 Japan........ -0 .6 United States .. West Germany . (bls adjusted) 0.5 0.7 Female participation rates varied considerably between countries and the Australian and West German rates were low, compared with Sweden, the United States, Canada, and Japan. Female participation rates rose in all countries but the magnitude of the increases varied widely. The rates rose markedly in Canada, Sweden, and the United States. Small increases were recorded in Japan, West Germany, and Australia. Estimates of the change in participation, net of the effects of demographic shifts, result in large gains in Canada, Sweden, and the United States, moderate gains in Japan and Australia, and a very small increase in West Germany. The conclusion is that changes in labor force participation rates for both men and women in all countries mainly reflect changes in behavior. It would appear, however, that demo graphic influences are important in contrasting changing patterns of female labor force participation in Australia with Table 1. Labor force participation rates and the relative shares of changes in employment and unemployment to changes in labor force participation, six countries, 1975 and 19841 L a b o r fo rc e E m p lo ym e n t- P erc en tag e po in t c h an g e in th e : p a rticip a tio n C o u n try Australia................................................................ Canada ............................................................................... Sweden: Unadjusted......................................................................... bls adjusted2 .................................................................. United States....................................................................... West Germany3 ........................................................................... 1 Refers to annual average data in Canada, Sweden, the United States, and Japan (except for 1984, where an 11-month average was used). The data for Australia refer to the August survey and were chosen because it is the only month for which a historically consistent time series exists. The data used for West Germany are from the microcensus and are collected each April/May. The microcensus data were chosen because they are the only labor force data collected in West 4 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis rate ratio L a b o r fo rc e E m p lo ym e n t- U n e m p lo y m e n t- p a rticip a tio n p o p u la tio n p o p u la tio n 1975 1984 1975 1984 rate ratio ratio 61.6 61.1 63.0 59.9 64.8 63.5 58.8 56.9 61.9 54.8 57.4 61.8 -1 .7 3.7 0.5 -4.0 0.5 -0.1 2.3 3.2 0.6 69.6 65.9 61.2 55.5 71.9 67.0 64.4 55.6 68.5 64.8 56.1 53.6 69.6 64.9 59.5 51.6 2.3 1.1 3.2 0.1 1.1 0.1 3.4 -2 .0 1.2 1.0 -0 .2 2.1 Germany which conform to International Labor Organization concepts and definitions. 2 The published Swedish data are shown as “unadjusted” and refer to the population aged 16 to 74. bls calculations of the labor force participation rate and employment-population ratios for the population aged 16 and over are shown as “bls adjusted.” 3The latest data available are for 1983 and the data refer to that year. those that occurred in West Germany. Further insights can be gained by considering separately the change in the male and female participation rates relative to the change in employment. Between 1975 and 1984, most of the decline in male labor force participation occurred on the employment side with offsetting increases in unemploy ment. Large declines in employment were significant in Australia and W est Germany, and to a lesser extent, Canada. Modest rises in employment occurred in Japan and Sweden. The United States contrasts with all other coun tries, but particularly Australia and West Germany. The U nited States had the sm allest d eclin e in the male employment-population ratio and was the only country to achieve an improvement in the male unemploymentpopulation ratio. Similarly, much of the increase in female participation occurred on the employment side with relatively small in creases in unemployment. This holds for all countries ex cept Australia and West Germany. In these countries, unem ployment increases accounted for much of the rise in participation rates. Again the United States contrasts starkly. The United States recorded the largest increase in the female employment-population ratio and at the same time was the only country able to achieve an improvement in the unemployment-population ratio. Demographic groups Comparisons of labor force participation of various demographic groups in the six countries highlight the rea sons why Australia and West Germany have performed so poorly relative to the other countries, and the United States in particular. The groups compared are teenagers and young adults, prime working age persons (aged 25 to 54), and older persons (aged 55 and over).4 Teenagers and young adults. The youth labor market is conventionally split into teenage (that is, aged 15 to 19 or 16 to 19) and young adult (aged 20 to 24) groups for analysis, because each component typically exhibits different labor force behavior. These differences are usually reflected in differentiated policy interest in the two groups. The participation rates of teenagers in each country are shown in table 4. The variation is remarkable. In 1984, for example, the participation rate for female teenagers ranged from 55.7 percent in Australia to only 18.4 percent in Japan. Between 1975 and 1984, large differences between coun tries are evident in both the direction and magnitude of change in teenage labor force participation rates. Large de clines were recorded in teenage participation rates of Sweden and West Germany. The participation rates of Swedish teenagers fell from 59.0 to 43.8 percent for males and from 56.2 to 47.0 percent for females.5 West German teenage male participation rates fell from 57.2 to 46.1 per cent for males and from 50.7 to 38.6 percent for females. In contrast, small declines in teenage participation rates were https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 2. Estimates of contributions of demographic and behavioral changes to labor force participation rate changes, 1975 and 19841 ____________ C h a n g e in p a rtic ip a tio n P artic ip atio n rate ra te d u e to : C o u n try Australia........................ Canada ........................ Japan............................ Sweden: Unadjusted............... bls adjusted............. United States............... West Germany2 ........... 198 4 using D e m o g rap h ic B e h a vio ra l 1975 w e ig h t shift s h ift 1975 1984 61.6 61.1 63.0 59.9 64.8 63.5 60.5 61.0 61.9 -1.1 -0.1 -1.1 -0 .6 3.7 1.6 69.6 65.9 61.2 55.5 71.9 67.0 64.4 55.6 69.4 66.0 61.3 56.3 -0 .2 0.1 0.1 0.8 2.5 1.0 3.1 -0.7 1 Refers to annual average data in Canada, Sweden, the United States, and Japan (except for 1984, where an 11-month average was used). The data for Australia refer to the August survey and were chosen because it is the only month for which a historically consistent time series exists. The data used for West Germany are from the microcensus and are collected each April/May. The microcensus data were chosen because they are the only labor force data collected in West Germany which conform to International Labor Organization concepts and definitions. 2 The latest data available are for 1983 and the data refer to that year. recorded in Australia and Japan for both males and fe males.6 In the United States and in Canada, male teenagers recorded small declines while small increases were recorded for female teenagers. As seen above, changes in age composition could explain the changes observed. In Sweden, roughly half of the fall in the male teen participation rate (7.6 of 16.3 percentage points) was because of shifts in the age composition. Among female teenagers, demographic effects should have raised the participation rate 0.2 percentage points but actually it fell 6.9 percentage points. In Canada, demographic effects should have increased the male teen participation rate 1.3 percentage points but it fell 0.6 percentage points. Demo graphic changes should have increased the female teen par ticipation rate 1.4 percentage points, but the actual increase was 3.3 percentage points. Similarly, in the United States demographic effects should have raised participation rates of male teens by 0.6 percentage points and female teens by 0.4 percentage points but, the actual changes were —3.1 and + 2 .7 percentage points. In other words, the evidence sug gests that demographic influences are swamped by behav ioral changes, at least in Sweden, Canada, and the United States, the only countries for which the data is available at a low level of aggregation. The usual explanation of declining teenage participation rates is that increasing proportions of young people are staying in school. This argument is consistent with teenage participation rate trends in Sweden, West Germany, and Japan. In Australia, Canada, and the United States, how ever, substantial increases in teenage labor force participa tion have occurred among teenagers still in school. The nature of the change in teenage participation rates can be better appreciated by considering the relative contribu tion of employment and unemployment changes. In Aus tralia and West Germany, many were unable to find work because the growth in employment substantially lagged the 5 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1986 • International Labor Force Participation Table 3. Labor force participation rates and the relative shares of employment and unemployment to changes in the labor force participation of men and women six countries, 1975 and 1984 La b o r fo rc e p a rticip a tio n rate E m p lo ym e n t- P erc en tag e p o in t c h an g e in the: p o p u la tio n C o u n try a nd Sex 1975 1984 ratio 1984 using 1975 w eig h ts L ab o r fo rc e E m p lo ym e n t- U n e m p lo y m e n t- p a rticip a tio n po p u la tio n po p u la tio n 1975 1984 rate ratio ratio Men: Australia............................................................................... Canada .................................................................. Japan............................................................................. Sweden: Unadjusted................................................................ bls adjusted3 ............................................................................. United States.................................................................... West Germany4 ................................................... 80.5 78.4 81.4 75.7 76.6 78.9 80.2 79.1 80.8 77.7 73.5 79.8 69.1 68.0 768 - 4 .8 - 1.8 - 2 .5 8.6 - 5 .5 - 3 .0 3.8 3.7 0.5 80.0 77.0 77.9 74.5 76.3 73.0 76.4 71.9 79.8 76.4 78.4 75.2 78.9 (2) 71.7 72.1 74.0 (2) 70.7 67.4 - 3 .7 - 4 .0 - 1 .5 - 2 .6 - 4 .9 (2) - 1 .0 - 4 .7 1.2 (2) - 0 .5 2.1 43.0 44.4 45.7 44.6 53.5 49.0 41.3 43.7 44.1 40.3 40.8 45.0 40.9 47.3 47.6 1.6 9.1 3.3 0.6 6.5 2.6 1.0 2.6 0.7 59.2 55.2 46.3 38.8 67.5 61.5 53.6 41.0 59.4 54.5 46.0 39.3 58.0 (2) 42.0 37.4 65.3 (2) 49.5 37.5 8.3 6.3 7.3 2.2 Women: Australia.......................................................... Canada ........................................................................... Japan..................................................................... Sweden: Unadjusted................................................................ bls adjusted3 ................................................................................. United States.............................................................. West Germany4 ............................................................ 1 Refers to annual average data in Canada, Sweden, the United States, and Japan (except for 1984, where an 11-month average was used). The data for Australia refer to the August survey and were chosen because it is the only month for which a historically consistent time series exists. The data used for West Germany are from the microcensus and are collected each April/May. The microcensus data were chosen because they are the only labor force data collected in West Germany which conform to International Labor Organization concepts and definitions. growth in the population. In the United States, the situation would appear to be entirely different, unemployment changed little and even improved slightly for female teenagers.7 In Canada, employment and unemployment changes substantially offset each other for men, but for women most of the increased participation was reflected in increased unemployment. In all other countries, substantial declines in the teenage employment-population ratio oc curred with little or no increase in unemployment. There has been less of a difference between the countries in the participation rate trends of young adults than for teenagers. Australia, along with Canada and the United States, had the highest male young adult participation rates in 1984. (See table 4.) Sweden and West Germany had rates that lay midway on the range, and Japan had a relatively low rate, 70.9 percent. Male young adult participation rates have changed very little over time in all countries except Japan.8 Participation rates fell there from 76.5 to 70.9 percent, which may reflect the strong move towards further education. Some differences were apparent in the relative impor tance of changes in the employment component vis a vis the unemployment component to changes in young adult male participation rates. Almost all of the large decline in Japan reflected declines in employment with little or no unemploy ment effect. In all other countries, except the United States, declines in employment were largely offset by increases in unemployment. These were substantial in Australia and Canada, and to a lesser extent in West Germany. Only in the 6 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 7.3 1.0 (2) (2) 7.5 0.1 - 0 .2 2.1 2 Unfortunately, separate estimates of employment of the sexes aged 75 and over were not available to calculate the relevant employment-population ratios. 3 The published Swedish data are shown as “unadjusted” and refer to the population aged 16 to 74. bls calculations of the labor force participation rate and employment population ratios for the population aged 16 and over are shown as “bls adjusted." 4 The latest data available are for 1983 and the data refer to that year. United States was there an increase in the employmentpopulation ratio of young adult men and a reduction in the unemployment-population ratio. The participation rates of young women were lower than those for men. In 1984, the rate for women ranged from 80.4 to 68.9 percent, and was highest in Sweden, followed by Canada, Australia, West Germany, the United States, and Japan. In recent years, the labor force participation rates of young women have increased markedly in all countries ex cept West Germany, where the rise was much smaller. The reasons for this upsurge were mainly the expansion of the service sector (which employs large numbers of women), increased opportunities in part-time labor markets, and de clining fertility.9 The very high labor force participation rate of young women in Sweden has also reflected changes in taxation arrangements for married women, the introduction of parenthood insurance in the 1970’s, and governmentfinanced child care centers.10 The relative contributions of employment and unemploy ment changes to these increases varied considerably be tween the countries. Only in the United States, which achieved the largest increase in the female young adult employment-population ratio of any country, was there a reduction in the unemployment-population ratio. Japan also achieved strong employment growth with a small increase in unemployment. West Germany was the only country to experience an actual decline in the employment-population ratio, with a substantial increase in unemployment. Canada had the lowest increase in the employment-population ratio, but the largest increase in unemployment, while Australia and Sweden experienced more moderate increases in both. Prime working age persons. Prime working age men (aged 25 to 54) have the highest participation rates of any population subgroup. (See table 4.) Unlike other age groups, there has been little change in the labor force partic ipation of prime working age men in any of the countries considered. In 1984, Japan had the highest rate followed by Sweden, West Germany, the United States, Australia, and Canada. The close similarity across all countries is not sur prising, however, given the high degree of labor market attachment of men in the prime working age range. While Australia had the second highest prime working age male participation rate in 1975 (96 percent), it had the second lowest rate in 1984 (93.6 percent). This decline has been larger than in any other country and, although small in magnitude, is highly significant given the degree of labor force commitment by prime working age men. Moderate declines were experienced in Canada and West Germany, and slight declines occurred in Sweden, the United States, and Japan. The participation of prime working age men are hardly affected by shifts in the age composition of this group. These shifts would have marginally increased participation rates in Australia (0.4 percentage points), Canada (0.1 per centage points), Sweden (0.2 percentage points), and the United States (0.3 percentage points), and marginally de creased participation in West Germany (0.1 percentage points) and Japan (0.1 percentage points). Behavioral, rather than demographic, influences were important. These declines in prime working age participation rates are generally attributed to the variety of governmental pro grams and subsidies (for example, sickness and disabilities payments and retraining programs) available to persons not in the labor force or wishing to leave it. It has also been argued that the increasing participation of married women has relieved prime working age men of the burden of being the sole family breadwinner. In theory, these changes give these men opportunities to reduce their participation, al though in practice there are no studies to suggest that these factors have any significant effect. While the changes in all countries were small, some quite different patterns have emerged in the relative contributions of changes in employment and unemployment. Participation has declined since 1975 in Australia, Canada, and West Germany because their historically large declines in em ployment were not wholly offset by increases in unemploy ment. However, the declines were double those of most countries. Japan, the United States, and Sweden have recorded slight declines in participation among prime work ing age men since 1975, but these changes were predomi nantly the result of a small decline in employment, relative to the population, with a smaller increase in unemployment. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Unlike the male participation patterns, enormous changes have occurred since 1975 in the labor force participation of prime working age women. Again major differences are apparent between Australia and West Germany and the other countries. In 1984, female labor force participation was still lowest in Australia (55 percent) and West Germany (57.1 percent) and highest in Sweden (88.1 percent). The American, Canadian, and Japanese rates were much higher than Australia and West Germany, but still were well below those for Sweden. Between 1975 and 1984, the participation rate of prime working age women rose 12 to 16 percentage points in Canada, Sweden, the United States, and Japan. Much less spectacular rises were recorded in Australia (6.7 percent) and West Germany (5.9 percent). Changes in the age composition of prime working age women again had very little influence on their participation rate. Changes in age composition would have raised the participation rate in Australia by 1.6 percentage points, Japan by 1.0 percentage points, Sweden by 0.4 percentage points, Canada by 0.3 percentage points, and West Ger many by 0.2 percentage points and would have lowered the rate in the United States by 0.1 percentage points. Once again, we believe that behavioral, not demographic, changes were important. Several reasons appear important in explaining these pat terns of change in behavior. The expansion of employment in the service sector and the expansion of part-time employ ment opportunities. Both of these areas of employment tend to be dominated by women in most countries (particularly Australia, Canada, Sweden, and the United States). How ever, in Japan, female employment in the service sector has been much lower than in other countries, and there are comparatively few women in part-time employment in West Germany.11 These developments suggest that an increase in employ ment opportunities is a major reason for the upsurge in the labor force participation of prime working age women and this is borne out by an examination of the sources of labor force participation changes. In Canada, Japan, Sweden, and the United States (all of which have had the largest increases since 1975), the increases resulted from large increases in employment and small changes in unemployment. Even in Australia, the employment increases were still dominant. Only in West Germany were increases in unemployment larger than employment growth. Declining fertility rates are also frequently cited as impor tant in the marked upsurge in prime working age female labor force participation. In the last two decades, fertility rates have fallen in most Western countries except Sweden (which already had a very low rate in the 1960’s) and Japan (where fertility has actually risen slightly over the last two decades). Other reasons often cited are the radical improve ments in “household technology” and the development of commercial substitutes for household products— dryclean7 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1986 International Labor Force Participation Table 4. Labor force participation rates and the relative shares of employment and unemployment to chanaes in the labor torce participation of selected age groups, six countries, 1975-19841 L a b o r fo rc e E m p lo ym e n t- P erc en tag e p o in t c h an g e in the: p a rticip a tio n A g e , s ex , a n d c o u n try rate rate La b o r fo rc e E m p lo ym e n t- U n e m p lo y m e n t- p a rticip a tio n isrb p o pulation p o pulatio n 1984 1975 1984 rate ratio ratio Male: Australia .................................... Canada ...................................... Japan ......................................... Sw eden....................................... United S tates.............................. West Germany3 .......................... 60.0 54.6 20.5 59.0 59.1 57.2 59.1 54.0 18.4 43.8 56.0 46.1 53.5 46.2 19.5 56.5 47.2 53.5 46.0 42.5 16.7 41.5 44.9 40.6 -0.9 -0.6 -2.1 -15.2 -3.1 -11.1 -7 .5 -3 .7 -2.8 -15.0 -2 .3 -12.9 66 31 07 02 07 1.8 Female: Australia .................................... Canada ...................................... Japan ......................................... S w eden...................................... United S tates.............................. West Germany3 .......................... 57.3 47.4 21.7 56.2 49.1 50.7 55.7 50.3 18.4 47.0 51.8 38.6 48.7 40.6 21.2 52.2 39.4 47.3 44.7 41.0 17.5 44.8 42.5 32.1 -1.6 2.9 -3 .3 -9 .2 2.7 -12.1 -4 .0 0.4 -3 .7 -7 4 3.1 -15.2 24 25 04 18 -0 4 3.1 Male: Australia .................................... Canada ....................................... Japan ......................................... Sw eden...................................... United S tates.............................. West Germany3 .......................... 90.1 85.0 76.5 82.7 84.5 79.8 89.4 83.7 70.9 82.8 85.0 80.1 85.4 76.1 74.1 80.9 72.4 75.8 76.6 68.3 68.1 77.7 74.9 72.2 -0 .7 -1 .3 -5 .6 0.1 0.5 0.3 -8.8 -7 .8 -6.0 -3 .2 2.5 -3 .6 81 65 04 33 -2 0 3.9 Female: Australia .................................... Canada ...................................... Japan ......................................... S w eden...................................... United S tates.............................. West Germany3 .......................... 65.3 67.0 72.5 73.7 64.1 68.4 71.7 74.6 68.9 80.4 70.4 70.5 60.8 60.9 64.4 71.1 56.0 65.5 64.3 63.5 68.9 74.8 62.7 62.7 6.4 7.6 6.3 6.7 6.3 2.1 3.5 2.6 4.5 3.7 6.7 -2.8 29 5.0 18 30 -0 4 4.9 Male: Australia .................................... Canada ...................................... Japan ......................................... Sw eden...................................... United S tates.............................. West Germany3 .......................... 96.0 94.8 97.4 95.2 94.4 95.9 93.6 93.5 97.0 94.9 93.9 94.7 93.7 90.8 95.9 94.4 89.0 93.2 87.8 84.8 95.1 92.9 88.4 89.5 -2 .4 -1 .3 -0.4 -0 .3 -0 .5 -1 .2 -5 .9 -6.0 -0.8 -1 5 -0.6 -3 .7 35 47 04 12 01 2.5 Female: Australia .................................... Canada ...................................... Japan ......................................... S w eden...................................... United S tates.............................. West Germany3 .......................... 48.3 50.5 52.2 74.2 55.1 51.2 55.0 66.7 65.5 88.1 68.2 57.1 47.2 47.1 51.4 73.2 51.0 49.6 51.7 59.9 63.8 86.1 63.9 52.7 6.7 16.2 13.3 13.9 13.1 5.9 3.5 12.8 12.8 12.9 12.9 3.1 32 07 07 10 02 Male: Australia .................................... Canada ...................................... Japan ......................................... S w eden...................................... United S tates.............................. West Germany3 .......................... 79.1 79.3 86.0 82.8 75.6 69.2 61.2 71.1 83.9 76.2 68.5 62.9 76.5 76.2 83.3 80.7 72.4 67.3 57.4 65.2 79.6 73.0 65.1 55.9 -17.9 -8 .2 -2.1 -6.6 -7.1 -6 .3 -19.1 -11.0 -3.7 -7 7 -7.3 -11.4 -0 2 5.1 Female: Australia .................................... Canada ...................................... Japan ......................................... Sw eden...................................... United S tates.............................. West Germany3 .......................... 23.7 30.8 43.7 49.6 41.0 25.3 19.8 33.4 45.3 59.6 42.1 26.8 23.2 29.3 43.1 48.9 38.9 24.7 19.2 30.9 44.4 56.6 39.9 25.4 -3 .9 2.6 1.6 10.0 1.1 1.5 -4 .0 1.6 1.3 7.7 1.0 0.7 01 1.0 03 23 01 0.8 T e en a g e rs 2 A g e s 2 0 to 24 A g e s 2 5 to 5 4 9J) A g e s 5 5 to 64 1 Refers to annual average data in Canada, Sweden, the United States, and Japan (except for 1984, where an 11-month average was used). The data for Australia refer to the August survey and were chosen because it is the only month for which a historically consistent time series exists. The data used for West Germany are from the microcensus and are collected each April/May. The microcensus data were chosen because they are the only labor force data collected in West Germany Digitized for 8 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 12 28 16 •j 1 which conform to International Labor Oraanization conceDts and defin * I eenagers rerer to it>- to 1 9-year-olds in Australia, Canada, Japan, and West Germany, and to lb - to 19-year-olds in Sweden and the United States. 3 The latest data available were for 1983 and the data refer to that year. ing, fast-foods, restaurants— which have released female labor for the market place. Finally, improved education among women may have shifted their preferences in favor of work outside the home. The comparatively small increase in prime working age female participation in West Germany probably reflects the historical importance of foreign workers at times of employ ment expansion and this may have restricted the opportuni ties for women to successfully enter the labor force. The guest worker has not been significant since the early 1970’s but neither has there been a significant employment expan sion. While female participation rates have generally been lower in Europe, the higher rates in North America and Scandinavia are now beginning to be replicated in other European countries and the differences currently observed are probably differences in timing and in the overall pace of job growth. Older persons. People aged 55 and over are defined here as “older persons.” The group is split into those aged 55 to 64 and those aged 65 and over, because the participation rates of the latter group are substantially lower than those of the former. The participation rate of men aged 55 to 64 in 1984 was lower in Australia and West Germany than in most other countries. The rate was relatively high in Japan, Sweden, Canada, and the United States. (See table 4.) The changes in the participation rate of these men since 1975 have been quite different between Australia and other countries. A particularly large drop was observed in Aus tralia. A large decline was also recorded in Canada. Modest decreases were observed in Sweden and the United States, and only a marginal decline was observed in Japan. While a modest decline was also observed in West Germany, it occurred from an already low base. Shifts in the age composition of this group should have raised participation rates in West Germany (6.3 percentage points) and lowered participation rates in the United States (0.2 percentage points), Australia (0.3 percentage points), and Sweden (0.5 percentage points). Similar computations could not be made for Canada or Japan. This suggests that age composition effects were insignificant explanations of the overall declines. The age composition effect calculation also shows that the behavioral shifts in West Germany are much greater than indicated by a comparison of participa tion rates over time. Declines in the participation rates of older men in Aus tralia and in most countries reflect large declines in employ ment. In Australia and Canada, the participation drop was because of a decrease in the employment-population ratio with little change in unemployment. The declining partici pation of older men reflects trends towards earlier retirement ages and the expansion of pension schemes. The reasons for a high participation rate and very small declines in participa tion in Japan are also related to cultural factors and the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis pension system, which is not generous.12 The trends in the labor force participation rates of older women aged 55 to 64 have been rather different than those of older men. The participation rate of women aged 55 to 64 in 1984 ranged from a low 19.8 percent in Australia to 59.6 percent in Sweden. Since 1975, there have been small declines in the partic ipation rates of older women in Australia. In the same pe riod, very small increases were recorded in the United States, Canada, Japan, and West Germany. A large increase was recorded in Sweden. Shifts in the age composition of this group would have raised participation rates by an insignificant amount in the United States (0.3 percentage points) and lowered it by an insignificant amount in Australia (1.5 percentage points). However, the increase in the participation rate of German women aged 55 to 64 is illusory because demographic shifts should have increased the participation rate by 2.5 percent age points. Much more variation in participation rates and their em ployment and unemployment components was evident for older women aged 55 to 64 than for men. For women of this age group, participation declined only in Australia, reflect ing a large drop in employment which was not offset by a small rise in unemployment. In West Germany, a slight increase in participation reflected small increases in employ ment and unemployment. In Sweden, the United States, and Japan, increased participation was almost entirely brought about by rises in employment. The main feature of these comparisons is that substantial declines in the labor force participation rates of older men have occurred in all countries, yet those trends have not been replicated for older women. In Australia the declines that occurred for women were much smaller than those for men, and in West Germany, Canada, Sweden, Japan, and the United States, an increase in participation was actually observed. In 1984, the between-country ranking of labor force par ticipation rates for men aged 65 and over was similar. The rate was markedly higher in Japan than in the United States, Canada, Sweden, Australia, and West Germany. The labor force participation rates of women aged 65 and over in 1984 ranged widely between countries, from 16.3 percent in Japan to 2.5 percent in Australia. The Australian rate was also considerably lower than that of the United States. Only in West Germany did the rate approach that in Australia. The Australian rates have, however, always been low relative to other countries. In the last decade the partic ipation rate in Australia has gradually declined from around 4 percent to 2.5 percent. Declines in the labor force partic ipation rates of women aged 65 and over in other countries have been marginal in the last 10 years. Conclusions A comparison of the change in labor force participation 9 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1986 • International Labor Force Participation rates, decomposed into changes in the employment and unemployment-population ratios, shows a large disparity in job creation capability between the United States and many other advanced nations. The contrasts between the two ex tremes— the United States, on one hand, and Australia and Germany, on the other, are illustrative. Australian and West German participation rates, adjusted for change in the de mographic composition of the labor force, fell between 1975 and 1984. Underlying these behaviorally induced de clines in labor force participation were large declines in employment relative to population growth and hefty in creases in the unemployment-population ratio. By contrast, the United States experienced a large behaviorally induced increase in the participation rate, accompanied by strong growth in the employment ratio and a small decline in the unemployment-population ratio. Comparisons of labor force participation rates for demo graphic groups also confirm Australia’s and Germany’s poor performance relative to the rest, and to the United States in particular. In both, large withdrawals from the labor force, especially among older men, and small in creases in female participation rates occurred. Modest falls in male participation rates and enormous increases in female rates occurred in the United States and to a lesser extent in the other countries. These changes suggest substantial in creases in unemployment, both recorded and hidden, in Australia and Germany, and estimates suggest a jobless rate of almost double the official rate in Australia and one and a half times it in Germany.13 □ -FOOTNOTESa c k n o w l e d g m e n t : Chris Robinson of the Australian Department of Em ployment and Industrial Relations contributed greatly towards the work which formed the basis of this article. Also, many helpful comments and advice came from Constance Sorrentino, Patricia Capdevielle, Joyanna Moy, and Arthur N eef o f the Bureau o f Labor Statistics. 1 Details about labor force concepts definitions and data collection meth ods in each country are given in the appendix and in: Australian Bureau of Statistics, The Labour Force, August 1984, Catalogue No. 6203, Canberra, 1984 (and previous issues) for Australia, Statistics Canada, The Labour Force, December 1984, Catalogue No. 71-001, Ottawa, 1984 (and previ ous issues) for Canada; Statistics Bureau, Annual Report of the Labour Force Survey 1984, Prime Ministers O ffice, Tokyo, 1984 (and previous issues) for Japan; Statistiska Centralbyran, Arbetskraftsundersokningen, Series AKU-Arsmedeltal, Stockholm, 1984 (and previous issues) for Swe den; Bureau o f Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, January 1985, U .S. Department o f Labor, Washington, DC, 1985 and Labor Force Statis tics Derived From the Current Population Survey, A Data Book Vols. I & II for the United States; and Statistches Bundesmamt, Stund und Entwick lung der Ewerbstatigkeit, Reiche 4.1.1 Fascherie 1 - Bevölkerung und Ewerbstatigkeit Wiesbaden, 1983 (and previous issues) for West Germany. 4 In the United States and Sweden, the young age groups refer to men and women aged 16 to 24, and in Sweden, the older age groups refer to men and women aged 55 to 74. 5 Measurement differences may complicate the interpretation o f these figures. For instance, in Sweden, unlike in other countries, all full-time teenage students who are looking for work are automatically not counted as unemployed. However, this should make a minor contribution to the difference observed. The differences in the age definitions of teenagers also affects the figures. Teenagers are defined as persons aged 15 to 19 in Australia, Canada, Japan, and West Germany, and as 16 to 19 years o f age in Sweden and the United States. Comparisons of specific cohorts within the teenage group are possible between Australia and Canada and Australia and the United States but when this is done it becomes apparent that the bulk o f the difference in teenage labor force participation between countries is primarily due to differences in participation behavior rather than to differences in the age distribution or measurement of the teenage popula tion. 6 Between 1975 and 1981 male teenage partipation rates in Australia increased to 62.0 percent and female rates declined marginally to 57.0 percent. 2 The published Swedish participation rate is even higher (71.9 percent in 1984). Part o f the explanation of why the published Swedish rate is so high is that the labor force is expressed as a proportion of the population aged 16 to 74. In other countries no maximum age is used to restrict the numbers in the working age population. The b ls has estimated that the inclusion o f the population aged 75 and over would reduce the participation in 1984 by around 5 percentage points. The bls estimates are used here. 7 It should be noted, however, that a large teenage unemployment prob lem already existed in 1975 which was not evident in most of the other countries. 3 These components o f the labor force participation rate are convention ally referred to as ratios. Strictly speaking, however, they are rates as the ratios are expressed in percentage terms. For instance, the employmentpopulation ratio is calculated as the ratio of the number employed to the number in the working age population multiplied by 100. The unemploy ment-population ratio is similarly calculated. It is also important to stress than an examination o f labor force participation rate changes in terms of the relative contributions o f the employment-population and unemploymentpopulation ratios does not imply anything about the underlying casual factors which have led to participation changes. For instance, if participa tion rate changes were largely because o f changes in the employmentpopulation ratio, it does not necessarily mean that the change was demanddetermined. Similarly, participation rate changes that were mainly caused by changes in the unemployment-population ratio are not necessarily supply-determined. Finally some comments on the use of the unemploy ment-population rather than a conventional unemployment rate are needed. The unemployment-population ratio is used for convenience because it completes the identity. If the reader feels more comfortable with an unem ployment rate this can easily be calculated by dividing the unemploymentpopulation ratio by the participation rate. 9 By the same argument, differences in the rate of change will also reflect differences in fertility and education, as well as labor force factors identi fied here. 10 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 8 It was not possible to analyze the effects of changing age composition among young adults because none of the countries published data for subcomponents. 10 For a discussion of these influences, see Constance Sorrentino, “International comparisons o f labor force participation, 1 9 6 0 -8 1 ,” Monthly Labor Review, February 1983, pp. 2 3 -3 6 . Also see G. Eliasson, B. Holmlund and F. Stafford (eds.), Studies in Labor Market Behavior: Sweden and the United States (Industrial Institute of Economic and Social Research, Stockholm, 1981). "C onstance Sorrentino, “International comparisons,” and see also Japan Institute of Labour, The Japanese Employment System, Japanese Industrial Relations Series No. 6, Tokyo 1980; and Japan Institute of Labour, The Problems of Working Women, Japanese Industrial Relations Series No. 8, Tokyo 1981. 12 For further explanation see Constance Sorrentino, “International com parisons.” 13 See Who’s in the Labour Force: A Study of Labour Force Participa tion, Research Report No. 7 (Bureau of Labour Market Research, 1985). APPENDIX: International differences in measuring the labor force Scope, coverage, and method of labor force surveys The approach to regular monthly labor force measure ment in Australia, Canada, Japan, Sweden, and the United States is the “labor force” or “activity” approach in accord ance with the standard International Labor Organization (ilo) guidelines for the definition and measurement of labor market concepts. In West Germany, an annual microcensus of the population is also taken, from which measures of the labor force are made according to the activity approach and this is used in the article. Similar multistage sampling methods are used in Aus tralia, Canada, Japan, and the United States. Households are selected according to geographical location, and persons within these households are interviewed. In contrast, sam ples of persons which represent the population are selected in Sweden and West Germany. There is no reason to expect that differences in sample selection methods will lead to any significant bias in the result obtained for each country. Some bias could result from differences in sample rota tion and from differences in data collection methods. Households remain in the Australian survey for 8 months and in the Canadian survey for 6 months. In Japan, house holds are surveyed for 2 consecutive months in 1 year, leave the survey, and rejoin it again for the same 2 consecutive months in the following year. The U.S. system is identical except that households are surveyed for the same 4 consec utive months in each of the 2 years. In the Swedish survey, persons are interviewed once every 3 months over a 2-year period, whereas, in West Germany, a new sample is se lected for each annual microcensus. However, the nature and direction of any rotation group bias that may exist in surveys has not been determined. Differences in definitions and major concepts The working age population is defined as those persons aged 15 and over in Australia, Canada, Japan, and West Germany. It is defined as those aged 16 and over in the United States and as those aged 16 to 74 in Sweden. In addition, the working age population refers to the civilian noninstitutionalized population in Canada and the United States; to the civilian population in Australia and West Ger many; and to the total resident population in Japan and Sweden. The importance of differences between countries in defin ing the working age populations to include or exclude non civilians and institutionalized persons is difficult to deter mine in the absence of relevant data for all countries. Differences in the minimum age of the working age popula tion are likely to be more important, particularly with re spect to comparisons of teenage labor markets. Similarly, the maximum age of 74 in Sweden will have some effect on both older worker and aggregate labor force participation https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis rate comparisons between Sweden and the other countries, but adjustments are made in the tables to include persons 75 years of age and older. The major concept underlying the employment definition is that of work for payment during the survey week. In Australia, Japan, Sweden, and West Germany, employment refers to at least 1 hour for payment. In Canada and the United States, it is any work at all for payment. The classi fication of persons who worked without pay in a family business as employed persons, also differs between coun tries. Unpaid family workers are counted as being employed if they work at least 15 hours in the survey week in Aus tralia, Sweden, and the United States. This same group are counted as being employed if they only worked at least 1 hour in the survey week in Japan or in West Germany, and if they did any work at all during the survey week in Canada. The other dimension of the employment definition is that of persons who had a job but were not at work during the survey week. Here the differences between countries are minor. It is unlikely that any of these differences in the definitions of employment will have any more than a mar ginal effect on labor force comparisons between countries. Differences in the various definitions of unemployment appear to be greater than those for either the working age population or employment. Persons who did not have a job in the survey week but had actively looked for work and were available for work are classified as unemployed. How ever, the available for work criterion is not used in West Germany. The main difference in unemployment definitions between countries is the time period specified as that in which active job search was carried out in order to be clas sified as unemployed. In Australia, Canada, and the United States this period is the 4 weeks up to the end of the survey week. In Sweden it is 60 days up to the end of the survey week. This will lead to higher estimates of unemployment in Sweden, than is the case for other countries. In contrast, in Japan and West Germany no period is actually specified. Constance Sorrentino has shown that, in Japan at least, this may well result in a tendency of job search activities to be counted only if they occurred in the survey week, thereby leading to consistently lower estimates of unemployment. On the other hand, Sorrentino has also shown that a large number of those counted as unemployed in Japan did not seek work during the month. This would be those people who have applied for employment over a month ago but who have not received a reply from their employer. This would lead to an overestimate of the unemployed. On balance, the Japanese unemployment rate is slightly understated. The position for West Germany, however, is unknown. Two other dimensions of the unemployment definition are important. First, temporary unemployment which did not involve active job search, such as waiting to return to a 11 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1986 • International Labor Force Participation job from a temporary absence (not including illness or vaca tion) or waiting to start a new job in the near future, is counted as unemployment in all countries except Japan, where such persons are classified as not in the labor force. Second, in all countries except Sweden, full-time students are classified as being employed if they had a job or as being unemployed if they were actively looking for work. In Swe den, full-time students are counted as being outside the labor force during school terms even if they are actively looking for work. These factors mean that estimates of unemploy ment in Japan and Sweden will be lower than in other countries. In each country the labor force is defined as all those who were counted as employed or unemployed during the survey week. The residual of the working age populations are clas sified as inactive or not in the labor force. Published and adjusted labor force data Only those countries for which data were available and measured according to the standard ilo guidelines (that is, 12 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis via the activity approach) were considered for selection in the international comparisons made in this article. Other countries were not considered because their regularly pub lished labor force statistics are measured in a very different way and are not directly comparable with those derived from the activity approach. Hence, the approach adopted here has been to use the published labor force data from those coun tries for which comparable activity data were available. An alternative approach to making international labor force comparisons would be to use data from various coun tries that have been adjusted to U.S. labor force concepts and definitions. Adjusted data exists for the broad aggre gates and are published by the bls . The ways in which the data are adjusted are outlined in Constance Sorrentino, In ternational Comparisons o f Unemployment, bls Bulletin 1979, Washington, dc , 1978; and Constance Sorrentino, “International comparisons of labor force participation, 1960-81,” Monthly Labor Review , February 1983, pp. 2 3 36. Adjustment of data to U.S. concepts and definitions has not been made for the detailed age groups examined here. A note on communications The Monthly Labor Review welcomes communications that supplement, challenge, or expand on research published in its pages. To be considered for publication, communications should be factual and analytical, not po lemical in tone. Communications should be addressed to the Editor-inChief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20212. Trends of labor productivity in metal stamping industries Overall growth in the annual rate of output per employee hour was sluggish from 1963 to 1983, but performance was stronger during 1972-83 for producers of automotive stampings, while it weakened in the nonautomotive stampings industry H orst B r a n d a n d C ly d e H uffstutler Labor productivity, or output per employee hour, in the metal stamping industry rose at an average annual rate of 1 percent over the two decades, 1963 -8 3 .1 Output rose at about the same rate, while employee hours remained on balance unchanged over the period. Between 1963 and 1973, productivity advanced more rapidly (1.2 percent a year) than over the following decade (0.7 percent). The earlier annual improvement was associated with fairly strong output and employment gains, while the subsequent advance resulted from a declining trend in output being exceeded by a declining trend in employment. The longer term productivity performance in terms of average annual rates of change was much lower than for all manufacturing. 1963-83 .................... 1963-73 .................... 1973-83 .................... Metal stampings All manufacturing 1.0 1.2 0.7 2.4 2.6 1.9 The productivity trend for the 20-year period examined here was marked by much volatility. In almost half of the 20 Horst Brand and Clyde Huffstutler are economists in the Division of Indus try Productivity and Technology Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Nor man D. Bennett aided in research for this report. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis years, productivity declined, although by small magnitudes. These declines were almost invariably associated with larger drops in output than in employee hours— a pattern fre quently encountered in durables manufacturing industries during business slumps. In only 7 years of the period did productivity rise because output gains topped employee hour increases. All these years occurred during an expan sionary phase of the business cycle (table 1). Year-to-year fluctuations in productivity ranged from a fall of 4.0 percent (in 1964) to a rise of 8.6 percent (in 1971), with the more typical movements running between plus or minus 3 percent. However, underlying these move ments were often large swings in output and employee hours. For example, the productivity increase of 4 percent in 1976 was linked with output and employee hour rises of 22 and 17 percent. Both of these variables had plummeted by 19 and 16 percent the preceding year— with productivity receding by only 3 percent. Component industries Data for metal stampings industry establishments were treated as one industry until 1972. The industry was then reclassified into three separate industries, for two of which 13 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1986 • Productivity in Metal Stamping Industries separate measures for productivity and related variables are published and discussed here— automotive and nonautomotive metal stampings.2 The productivity trends for these two industries diverged considerably over the 1972-83 span, rising at an average annual rate of 1.8 percent for the former, and declining 0.7 percent a year for the latter. These movements reflect much stronger average annual growth for automotive metal stampings after 1977, and a much sharper decline for nonautomotive stampings. Automotive 1972-83 .................................... 1972-77 .................................... 1977-83 .................................... 1.8 0.7 2.5 Nonautomotive -0 7 -0 4 -2 2 The productivity improvement in the automotive metal stamping industry reflected a long-term decline in output of 1.5 percent annually, accompanied by a 3 .2-percent-a-year drop in employee hours. The downward trend in nonauto motive metal stampings, on the other hand, resulted from moderately rising output (0.7 percent a year), and a some what higher employee hour rate (1.3 percent). The high productivity growth after 1977 for automotive metal stamp ings was associated with sharply declining output and even more pronounced decreases in employee hours. The produc tivity drop in nonautomotive metal stampings was also asso ciated with falling output, but employee hours fell less. Output and demand The automotive metal stampings industry manufactures fenders, roofs, exhaust systems, brake shoes, trim, and other motor vehicle stamping components. These larger stampings are usually made in establishments operated by automobile companies. The industry also manufactures such products as brackets, valves, and other smaller items. These products are usually made by smaller, independent suppli ers. Nonautomotive stampings consist of a vast array of job stampings often made in comparatively small batches; kitchen, household, and other utensils; pressed metal for such uses as storefronts, curtain walls, and refrigerators; and enclosures for electronic or electrical apparatus. Nonauto motive metal stampings are made mostly by smaller firms. (See below.) Output of the combined metal stamping industries rose at an average annual rate of 0.9 percent over the 1963-83 span, but its rise during the first decade, 2.3 percent a year, was replaced by a drop during the second ( - 0 . 7 percent annually). This slowdown in the industries’ output typified the output pattern of all durable manufactures over the pe riod. for these, the annual rate of growth averaged 5 percent for 1963-73, but only 0.7 percent for 1973-83. Demand for metal stampings stems mostly from other hard goods industries.3 Thus, while the number of domesti cally made motor vehicles rose 1.8 percent a year during the 1963-73 period, it dropped 3.4 percent annually there after— these trends being closely matched, first, by a 4.114 FRASER Digitized for https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis percent-a-year rise, then by a 1.4-percent-a-year fall in the output of automotive metal stampings. (The larger output rates of automotive metal stampings stem from the demand for replacement stampings in addition to original equipment stampings.) Output of automotive metal stampings was probably also slowed by imports of motor vehicles during the 1970’s and early 1980’s. As a proportion of new supplies of motor vehicles, imports rose from 13.6 percent in 1972 to 23.8 percent in 1981. Import penetration of parts of motor vehi cles, which often embody metal stampings, rose from 7.7 to 9.1 percent. The import penetration of automotive metal stampings as such rose but slightly, barely exceeding 1 percent in 1981. However, imports classified as metal stampings are likely to have been dwarfed by imports of automotive products, of which metal stampings are an inte gral component. Hard goods industries other than motor vehicles, and for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics has computed mea sures, likewise experienced slower growth (or declines) dur ing the 1973-83 decade, as compared with 1963-73__a development that accounts for the parallel output trend pat tern of nonautomotive metal stampings (a 2.3-percent-ayear rise followed by a 2.1-percent-a-year drop). Included in such hard goods industries are construction machinery, agricultural equipment, pumps and compressors, internal combustion engines, and refrigeration and heating equip ment.4 All these industries purchase job stampings, which accounted for nearly one-half of the total value of nonauto- Table 1. Indexes of output per employee hour, output, and em ployee hours in metal stamping industries, 1963-83 [1977= 100 O u tp u t p e r e m p lo y e e h o u r Y ea r All e m p lo y e es P ro d u c N o n p ro tio n d u c tio n w o rke rs w o rke rs E m p lo y e e h o u rs O u tp u t All P ro d u c e m p lo y e es tion du c tio n w o rke rs w o rk e rs N o n p ro 1 9 6 3 .... 1964___ 1 9 6 5 .... 1 9 6 6 .... 1967___ 87.5 84.0 88.8 87.1 87.7 87.5 83.1 88.2 85.6 87.8 87.8 89.1 92.4 96.3 87.0 67.5 68.6 79.1 82.6 81.0 77.1 81.7 89.1 94.8 92.4 77.1 82.6 89.7 96.5 92.3 76.9 77.0 85.6 85.8 93.1 1 9 6 8 .... 1 9 6 9 .... 1970___ 1 9 7 1 .... 1972___ 91.0 89.4 86.4 93.8 97.6 90.0 89.2 88.4 95.2 97.6 96.6 90.5 77.6 86.9 97.5 89.1 88.9 76.9 79.7 89.7 97.9 99.4 89.0 85.0 91.9 99.0 99.7 87.0 83.7 91.9 92 2 98.2 99.1 91.7 92.0 1 9 7 3 .... 1974___ 197 5... . 1976___ 1977___ 97.1 96.3 93.2 97.2 100.0 96.5 97.7 96.3 98.0 100.0 100.6 90.0 79.6 93.2 100.0 98.7 89.1 72.3 88.0 100.0 101.6 92.5 77.6 90.5 100.0 102.3 91.2 75.1 89.8 100.0 98 1 99.0 908 94 4 100.0 197 8... . 1979___ 1980___ 1981___ 1 9 8 2 .... 1983___ 101.3 102.3 99.9 101.4 98.1 104.0 100.8 102.4 102.3 103.5 103.5 106.9 103.5 101.4 88.6 91.4 76.7 91.1 102.5 99.6 85.4 85.5 76.2 88.3 101.2 97.4 85.5 84.3 77.7 84.9 101.7 97.3 83.5 82.6 73.6 82.6 99.0 98.2 96.4 93.5 99.4 96.9 A v e r a g e a n n u a l ra te s o f c h a n g e (p e r c e n t ) 1963-83. 1979-83. 1.0 0.1 1.1 1.0 0.0 -3.5 0.9 -3 .5 0.0 -3 .6 -0.2 -4.4 09 0.0 Table 2. Indexes of output per employee hour, output, and employee hours in the automotive stamping industry, 1972-83 [1977 = 100] E m p lo ye e ho u rs O u tp u t p er e m p lo y e e h o u r Y ea r A ll e m p lo y e e s P ro d u c N o n p ro tio n d u c tio n w o rke rs w o rke rs O utp u t P ro d u c All N o n p ro tio n ductio n w o rke rs w o rke rs e m p lo y e es 1 9 7 2 .... 1 9 7 3 .... 1 9 7 4 .... 1 9 7 5 .... 1 9 7 6 .... 95.9 94.8 94.9 94.1 96.4 97.3 95.5 97.3 96.9 97.3 88.6 90.5 81.9 79.5 90.5 89.3 97.9 83.0 70.8 87.8 93.1 103.3 87.5 75.2 91.1 91.8 102.5 85.3 73.1 90.2 100.8 108.2 101.4 89.1 97.0 1 9 7 7 .... 1978.. .. 1 9 7 9 .... 1980.. .. 1 9 8 1 .... 100.0 101.9 102.9 101.6 105.0 100.0 102.0 104.1 105.9 108.5 100.0 101.3 96.1 80.7 100.0 102.1 91.4 69.7 86.5 69.3 100.0 100.2 88.8 68.6 66.0 100.0 100.1 87.8 65.8 63.9 100.0 100.8 95.1 86.4 80.1 1 9 8 2 .... 1 9 8 3 .... 106.7 111.3 122.7 84.5 114.5 68.2 89.2 63.9 73.4 61.3 72.7 80.7 77.9 -3 .4 -4.4 -2 .5 -4 .6 121.5 A v e r a g e a n n u a l r a te s o f c h a n g e (p e r c e n t ) 1972-83. 1979-83. 1.8 3.9 1.9 3.9 1.0 4.0 -1.5 -0.7 -3 .2 -4.4 motive metal stampings shipped in 1982, according to the Census of Manufactures. The output slowdown in metal stampings noted for the 1972-83 period occurred largely between 1977 and 1983 (average annual rates in percent): 1972-83 All hard goods...................... Automotive metal stampings . Number of domestic motor vehicles.............. Nonautomotive metal stampings.......................... 1972-77 1977-83 1.7 -1 .5 1.7 0.2 -0 .5 -5 .0 -3 .4 0.5 -8 .8 0.7 -0 .4 -2 .8 Employment and hours In 1983, the metal stamping industries employed close to 194,000 persons. Levels of employment ran 13 percent higher than in 1963, but they had receded 18 percent from their peak in 1978. Much of the rise in total 1963-83 em ployment, and little of the drop that occurred in recent years, took place among nonproduction workers. Production worker employment ran 10 percent higher in 1983 than in 1963, but in 1983 it still stood 20 percent below 1978. On balance, however, the long-term trend in employment and hours in the metal stamping industries was flat. Employee hours rose at an average annual rate of 1.3 per cent over the first decade of the review period, then dropped by a like magnitude over the second. Employment increased slightly faster in 1963-73 (1.9 percent a year) than employee hours, and declined a bit slower in 1973-83 (1.1 percent annually). Employment and hours in hard goods manufacturing generally paralleled these trends.5 The long-term trend in production jobs did not increase https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis significantly over the 20-year span, while nonproduction employment rose at a 1-percent-a-year rate. Whereas a gain in production jobs during the 1963-73 decade was reversed thereafter, the increase in nonproduction workers merely leveled off. The following illustrates the evolution of employee hours during the 1970’s in both metal stampings industries (aver age annual rates of change, in percent): 1972-83 .................................... 1972-77 .................................... 1977-83 .................................... Automotive Nonautomotive -3 .0 -0 .5 -7 .3 3.3 0.0 -0 .6 Production worker hours declined somewhat more than nonproduction worker hours in automotive metal stampings. But in nonautomotive metal stampings their decline con trasted with a considerable and sustained increase in nonpro duction worker hours. By the end of the period, the propor tion of nonproduction workers in nonautomotive metal stampings had expanded to 29 percent of total employment from 20 percent in 1972— a pattern similar to all durable manufacturing, in which the proportion of nonproduction workers had grown to 34 percent from 27 percent in 1972. In automotive metal stampings, nonproduction workers ac counted for 15 percent of all employment, not much differ ent from 11 years earlier. The employment of women pro gressed in relative terms— from 10 to 15 percent of the total in automotive metal stampings, and from 26 to 29 percent in nonautomotive stampings. (In all of durable manufactur ing, women’s employment grew from 21 to 26 percent over the 1972-83 period.) Attesting the highly cyclical nature of the demand for automotive metal stampings, and evidently also manage ment policies that linked output (or demand) fluctuations with employment practice, labor turnover rates in the indus try ran well above the manufacturing average from 1972 to 19816— as well as above the average for nonautomotive stampings. High labor turnover tends to dilute the levels of skill and experience of the work force. Such dilution (or loss) was made up to an extent by high overtime schedules in automotive metal stampings that averaged 35 percent above manufacturing for the 11 years examined here. In nonautomotive stampings, overtime ran 7 percent below.7 Automotive Nonautomotive (Manufacturing = 100) Accessions................................ Separations................................ Layoffs...................................... 119 124 264 108 111 118 The occupational composition of the two metal stamping industries is more heavily weighted toward production workers than manufacturing as a whole. In 1982, profes sional, technical, and managerial personnel accounted for 4 percent of total employment in industry group SIC 346 15 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW Productivity in Metal Stamping Industries May 1986 • Table 3. Indexes of output per employee hour, output, and employee hours in the nonautomotive metal stamping industry, 1972-83 [1 9 7 7 = 100] E m p lo ye e h o u rs O u tp u t p e r e m p lo y e e h our Year All P ro d u c- N o n p ro - tion d uction w o rke rs w o rke rs e m p lo y e e s O u tp u t All P ro d u c- N o n p ro - tion d uction w o rke rs w o rke rs e m p lo y e es 1 9 7 2 .... 1 9 7 3 .... 1974.. . . 1975.. .. 1976.. . . 100.0 99.8 98.4 91.7 98.0 98.2 97.1 98.0 95.2 98.8 107.7 113.0 100.2 79.5 94.9 89.3 99.7 96.6 72.6 87.1 89.3 99.9 98.2 79.2 88.9 90.9 102.7 98.6 76.3 88.2 82.9 88.2 96.4 91.3 91.8 1977.. . . 197 8... . 1 9 7 9 .... 1980.. . . 1981.. . . 100.0 100.2 101.5 98.1 98.0 100.0 98.8 99.6 97.6 97.4 100.0 106.7 109.9 100.7 100.5 100.0 103.4 111.3 106.1 106.4 100.0 103.2 109.7 108.1 108.6 100.0 104.7 111.8 108.7 109.2 100.0 96.9 101.3 105.4 105.9 1 9 8 2 .... 198 3... . 89.3 88.6 94.4 91.8 73.0 77.3 85.7 88.6 96.0 100.0 90.8 96.5 117.4 114.6 1.0 -4 .6 2.8 3.6 A v e ra g e an n u al ra tes o f c h an g e (p e rc en t) 1972-83. 1979-83. -0 .7 -3 .6 -0.3 -1.9 -2 .0 -9 .7 0.7 -6.5 1.3 -3.0 (metal forgings and stampings).8 The corresponding per centage for manufacturing as a whole was 10 percent. Craft and related workers represented 27 percent of the group’s employment, compared with 19 percent for all manufactur ing. The differences stemmed in part from the two indus tries’ high proportion of tool and die makers (6 percent versus 1 percent). Forty-four percent of the industry group’s workers were operatives (versus 41 percent in manfacturing)— with machine tool and punch press operators making up the bulk of the employees in this category (35 percent versus 6 percent for manufacturing). The level of, as well as the trend in, relative hourly wages was not quite so favorable in nonautomotive stampings as in automotive stampings. In 1983, these amounted to 87 per cent of the durables manufacturing average, down from 94 percent in 1972. In automotive stampings, by contrast, the wage relative stood at 130 in 1983, not much different from its 1972 level. Technological change Both metal stamping industries discussed here convert steel mill products of varying thicknesses into a vast range of components used in capital goods and consumer dur ables.9 Examples have been noted. The basic apparatus used in both industries consists o f production presses. Such presses are considered to be metalforming machine tools, although unlike metalcutting machine tools they cannot re produce themselves. Production presses have been defined as being essentially power-operated clamps that close one or more dies at a proper speed and pressure.10 The die or dies with which a press is equipped shear, bend, or otherwise “distort” the sheet or strip fed to it, forming the desired shape. The metal is generally worked cold. Presses vary widely in size and in the amount of power— 16 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis usually expressed in terms of tonnage of pressure— they bring to bear. The die may be single purpose, as when a workpiece is simply cut out or shaped, or it may be a “progressive” or a transfer die, imparting complex shapes to the workpiece. Progressive dies, which may consist of as many as nine work stations, subject the workpiece to several sequential strokes or punches. In such operations, the steel is usually fed automatically from coils through the several work stations as a continuous ribbon of material up to the last station of the die, where the part is sheared off. Manual feeding of strip steel remains widely prevalent.11 According to the most recent American Machinist inven tory of metalworking machinery, 30 percent of the metalcut ting and 20 percent of the metalforming machine tools in stalled in the industry sector to which the two metal stamping industries belong were less than 10 years old in 1983— a somewhat lower proportion of such relatively uplo-date equipment than had been reported in the American Machinist’s 1973 inventory.12 About one-third of the two industries’ stock of machine tools was between 10 and 20 years old in 1983, also a lower proportion than a decade earlier. Close to two-fifths of metalcutting and nearly onehalf of metalforming machine tools were 20 or more years old in 1983, considerably higher than in 1973.13 There has thus occurred a degree of aging in the two industries’ basic equipment. However, industry sources believe that such aging may have been partially offset by rebuilding and retrofitting of the older machine tools with updated compo nents. The importance of rebuilding and retrofitting may be inferred from the rise in machine tool manufacturers’ ship ments of parts of metalforming machine tools, from 19 to 24 percent of total shipments between 1967 and 1972, and to around 29 percent in recent years.14 Also confirming the importance of retrofitting is the fact that about one-third of all metalcutting machine tools and one-fourth of all metal forming machine tools in the two metal stamping industries feature numerical controls. The production capabilities of machine tools so equipped are generally higher than those without numerical controls. (See below.) The advent of numerical controls, first applied in metal forming in the punching of flat metal in the 1950’s, stimu lated new press designs. It probably also contributed to a shift of some metalworking from metalcutting to metalform ing machine tools, inasmuch as it helped in improving the precision of the latter. Thus, metal stampings made for automotive castings and forgings, which formerly were fin ished by metalcutting, came to be completed in one opera tion by means of metalforming. Filter system components, brake and wheel components, gasoline engine mufflers, oil filter caps, engine mounts and brackets, some kinds of gear, as well as metal cabinets for computers and other electronic devices have come to be made by stamping presses.15 The shift evidently improved productivity significantly, for perunit costs were reportedly reduced by as much as one-half.16 Numerical controls, in addition to enhancing the preci- sion of production presses, have also made higher produc tion speeds possible. For turret punch machines (a type of power press), setup time has been virtually eliminated, as numerical controls can automatically change punch configu rations. Unit costs of short production runs have been dras tically reduced as manual setups have been replaced by taped programs fed to the mechanism that controls the punch magazine.17 Numerical controls have also facilitated rapid alternation of punching movements between the x and y or other coordinates of a workpiece. The introduction of com puter numerical controls in the early 1970’s, where in stalled, has done away with the coordinate calculation re quired by numerical controls.18 There exist tens of thousands of smaller punch presses operated manually or by foot, and equipped with an auxil iary electrical motor. Technological advances have evi dently been minor here, particularly where little power is needed and production runs are short, as, for example, in crimping or embossing. Mechanical feeding devices, how ever, do raise the speeds of hand- or foot-operated punch presses somewhat (such presses average 15 to 20 stampings per minute).19 Where the use of coil stock is feasible, automated feeding of the press has been widely introduced. With continued improvement in the physical stability and accuracy of presses, as many as 1,800 strokes per minute are attained in some jobs. Automatic ejection of parts, as well as automatic chopping and removal of scrap, becomes necessary at such speeds.20 Partly because of the shift of some metal fabrication from metalcutting to metalforming machine tools, partly because of the needs of such industries as computers, robotics, and instrumentation, and also because of international competi tion, the quality control requirements of the metal stamping industries became increasingly stringent during the review period. Hence, presses had to be designed to accommodate closer tolerances. For example, some 50-ton punch presses have had to operate within 5/1000 of an inch of accuracy, without sacrificing speed, hence, productivity.21 Quality control devices, such as coordinate measuring instruments, have come to be linked directly to computers, which correct developing inaccuracies by way of feedback systems. Such installations have tended not only to economize on the labor inputs of quality control personnel, they have also tended to reduce rejects, and have made product improvements possi ble— for example, the removal of burrs on small metal parts.22 Notwithstanding the advances sketched here, and the competitive pressures to which both metal stamping indus tries are subject, both retain an expensive investment in older, at times outdated equipment (as the American Ma chinist inventory data cited also indicate). Thus, the gener ally lower capabilities of automotive metal stamping presses in the United States than in Japan are linked largely to the enormous inventories here of older dies which must be https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis bolted into the press, and which are transported by cranes or forklift trucks. The Japanese, who built much of their metal stamping plant in the 1970’s, clamp dies hydraulically, and move them to the press by means of tracked cars. Dies are removed from the press by being pushed from their trolleys into one of these cars, while a new die is loaded from the opposite side. American press dies cannot be retrofitted to accommodate this labor-saving setup. This is but one reason for the difficulty of adopting— or adapting— updated metal stamping technologies here in the near term.23 Capital investment In terms of constant dollars,24 automotive metal stamping establishments raised their capital expeditures at an average annual rate of about 9 percent, more than triple the rate for nonautomotive stamping establishments. Trends in the real value of capital investment in machinery and equipment also differed considerably between the two industries: Total Automotive metal stamping................ Nonautomotive metal stam ping.............. All manufacturing . . . Machinery and equipment Structures and buildings 9.2 11.8 -4 .0 2.6 4.5 4.7 -3 .3 A breakdown of capital expenditure data for all manufac turing is available only for 1972-81. Constant-dollar expen ditures for machinery and equipment over that period rose by 7 percent a year, and a comparison with the rates for the two metal stamping industries suggests that the captial in tensity of automotive metal stamping establishments in creased at an above-average rate, while the reverse was true of nonautomotive metal stamping firms. As regards struc tures and buildings, while the rates for the two metal stamp ing industries declined, the rate for all manufacturing, at least for the 1972-81 period, rose 0.7 percent a year. The relative increase indicated in the capital intensity of automo tive metal stamping shops is documented by the rise in their fixed assets per employee, from 134 to 153 of the manufac turing average (=100) over the 1972-82 span. In nonauto motive metal stamping firms, assets per worker declined slightly, from 68 to 66. The long-term rates shown obscure the exceedingly large year-to-year fluctuations in the constant-dollar capital spending of both metal stamping industries. For example, capital spending by automotive metal stamping firms ranged from a rise of 69 percent (in 1977) to a drop of 48 percent in 1982. Gyrations in outlays for structures and buildings were even more pronounced. Comparable movements for all of manufacturing were much more moderate. It should be noted that nearly all of the decline in the two industries’ spending rates for structures and buildings stems from cut backs after 1978. 17 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1986 • Productivity in Metal Stamping Industries Structure of the metal stamping industries The number of establishments in the two metal stamping industries together rose 25 percent between 1972 and 1982. All of the increase occurred among smaller firms with up to 49 employees, while a decline took place among firms with 100 workers or more. In automotive metal stampings, estab lishments with up to 49 employees accounted for 65 percent of the total in 1982, as against 46 percent in 1972; for nonautomotive shops, the comparable proportions read 82 percent versus 80 percent. However, the percentage of total employment in the smaller firms, while also higher in 1982 than a decade earlier, remained modest. It rose from 5 to 9 percent in automotive metal stampings, and from 27 to 34 percent in nonautomotive stampings. Larger metal stamping establishments continued to ac count for a predominant share of employment in automotive stamping shops, and for close to one-half of it in the nonau tomotive stamping industry. In the former, establishments with 100 workers or more represented 82 percent of the work force in 1982, in the latter 47 percent. Automotive stamping firms have, for the most part, been large employ ers, but nonautomotive stamping firms have been typically of modest size, with firms employing 500 workers or more accounting for but 12 percent of this industry’s workers. Automotive metal stamping averaged 135 employees per establishment in 1982, nonautomotive stamping shops, 37. The great differences in both employment size distribution as well as in average number of workers per establishment reflect in part the difference between fixed assets per worker, hence, the extent of business opportunities for per sons knowledgeable in the trade. The figure was $23,773 for nonautomotive metal stampings, and $55,265 for automo tive metal stampings in 1982 (for all manufacturing the figure read $36,146). Investment per worker in structures also was much lower in the former industry (around $5,400) than in the latter (about $10,800). (Here, the manufacturing average was $8,700.) Outlook Industry analysts generally foresee advances in stamping press technology which would raise operating time owing to such factors as improved ease of maintenance, and greater precision without loss of press speed. Robotic transfer and assembly too is likely to be introduced more widely. In turn, output per unit of labor input would be expected to rise. Among anticipated improvements, as well as improvements already on stream but not as yet broadly diffused are devices (such as die cushions) that slow the downward speed of the press. Downward speed accelerates after the punch has pen etrated the upper portion of a given workpiece and resistance to the punch’s force weakens. Unless the speed is inhibited, the press destabilizes, and this can lead to severe mainte nance problems. Also, overload protection, which is de signed into the clutch or hydraulic system controlling the 18 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis press stroke, will likely be adopted by more metal stamping shops.25 Wider diffusion of solid state press controls is also ex pected. Such controls, which have no moving parts, usually eliminate the maintenance chores and problems associated with electromechanical controls. Diagnostic and self-check circuits are more easily incorporated in such controls, and at lower cost than in their electromechanical counterparts.26 Continuous-operating presses, equipped with progressive (or transfer) dies, and fed by automatic coil feed systems, are also seen to be more widely adopted. Such presses, with their high production capabilities, require but a single oper ator who monitors them. They completely fabricate a part with each stroke; that is, they permit the elimination of all secondary operations and multiple handling.27 The reduc tion of die changing time from hours to a few minutes is also likely to become more widely prevalent. As noted, how ever, this requires the scrapping of existing presses, and large investments in technically more advanced ones, fea turing quick die changing mechanisms. In addition, new die transportation systems would have to be installed.28 The obsolescence of older presses and their dies, together with the force of international cost competition, may in time compel these investments.29 Precision requirements for metal stampings (as for other types of metalworking products) are expected to become more exacting in the years ahead, and small-batch produc tion more frequent.30 These developments spell increasing reliance of metal stamping establishments upon automated and computerized metalforming systems, as well as on die technologies that minimize setup changes. Electronic con trols and digital readouts in the shearing, bending, and punching of blanks are also likely to be adopted by more shops. The pace of diffusion depends in some measure upon prospects of production cost savings, which, to be sure, in the two metal stamping industries tend to be clouded by demand cyclicality. Marrying metal stamping to assembly processes for the thousands of fabrications the two industries produce (or will produce) remains a test of the innovativeness of the design ers and builders of presses and their accessories.31 The trend toward eliminating manual assembly, and of integrating the metalforming with the assembly process seems likely to become more pronounced.32 This tends to do away with transfer operations. Thus, when two or more parts of a given workpiece are to be joined to make up a given fabrication, this can often already be done without loss of press stroke speed.33 Nevertheless, robotics as transfer devices are bound to continue to replace human labor in metal stamping— both automotive and nonautomotive. Where the size and com plexity of some workpieces necessitate multistation press production lines, that is, where progressive dies are not feasible, transfer of the workpiece from one press to the next is increasingly likely to be done by robots.34 Of course, short-run stamping operations will remain routine in many metal stamping operations, and these, so industry observers hold, will not soon become susceptible to robotics. Cur rently, 4,000 to 5,000 stampings of the same configuration are required to yield a reasonable payoff on any investment in robotizing feeding or tailing the press.35 Where longer runs justify the introduction of robots, they are believed likely also to make a broader program of punch press au tomation economical.36 For the 1984-95 period, BLS has projected a rise of be tween 5 and 15 percent in the wage and salary employment of the industry group to which the two metal stamping industries belong. The occupational mix of the industry group is expected to shift somewhat toward more highly skilled workers. The proportion of operatives, such as punch press and assembly workers, has been projected to decline from 44 to 42 percent of the industry group’s total employment, while that of craft and related workers rises from 27 to 29 percent. The projections presuppose that the technological advances anticipated in metalforming will not be significantly labor-displacing, or obviate the need for skilled personnel in the years ahead. Q -FOOTNOTES 1 The metal stamping industries discussed in this article include automo tive metal stampings, designated by the Office of Management and Budget as SIC 3465 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1972 ; and metal stampings, not elsewhere classified (nonautomotive metal stamp ings), as sic 3469. In addition to sic 3465 and SIC 3469, the measures presented with this article also include crowns and closures (sic 3466). Automotive stampings consist of such products as hubs, trim, and other parts o f motor vehicles. Nonautomotive stampings include job stampings, household appliance housings and parts, and other porcelain enameled products; and cooking and other kitchen utensils. Crowns and closures include bottle caps made of stamped metal, and jar crowns, similarly made. Average annual rates shown in the text and tables are based on the linear least square trend o f the logarithms of the index numbers. The indexes for productivity and related variables will be updated annually, and published in the annual b ls bulletin, Productivity Measures for Selected Industries. 6 Data for years after 1981 are not available. See John Duke and Horst Brand, “Cyclical behavior of productivity in the machine tool industry,” Monthly Labor Review , November 1981, p. 30. 7 Overtime in automotive and nonautomotive metal stamping (all manu facturing = 100): Automotive Nonautomotive 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 .................................................... .................................................... .................................................... .................................................... .................................................... .................................................... 128 136 126 104 163 162 103 100 97 81 100 84 2 Prior to 1972, establishments manufacturing all categories of metal stampings were designated as sic 3461 by the Office of Management and Budget. Beginning in 1972, metal stamping products were regrouped in accordance with the classifications described in footnote 1. Crowns and closures, for which no separate measure has been published here, account for about 3 percent o f the employment of the three industries together. 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 .................................................... .................................................... .................................................... .................................................... .................................................... .................................................... .................................................... 145 114 107 136 123 183 169 92 100 100 86 82 93 97 3 See The Detailed Input-Output Structure of the U.S. Economy, 1977 (U .S. Department o f Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1984). See also the tables pertaining to sic 346. The pertinent industry chapter of the 1982 Census of Manufactures, table 6a-1, also yields relevant informa tion. 8 b ls employment by industry and occupation matrix, 1982 and 1995 alternatives. Automotive and nonautomotive metal stampings account for 80 to 82 percent of the employment of the industry group (sic 346) to which they belong. 4 Major industrial consumers of metal stampings where average annual rates in output declined between 1963-73 and 1973-83 include: 9 According to the Bureau of the Census, nonferrous metals and plastics represent a very small proportion of the materials consumed by the two metal stamping industries. 10Modern Machine Tools, p. 197. 1963-73 Internal-combustion e n g in e s ........................................ 6.2* Farm and garden m a ch in ery........................................ 3.2 Construction machinery ............................................... 4.1 Machine tools ........................................................... - 1 .6 Pumps and compressors ......................................... 3.7 Refrigeration and heating equipment ........................ 12.3* Transformers .................................................................... 7.5 Motors and generators.................................................... 1.7 Major household appliances ........................................ 4 .0 Radio and TV receiving sets ...................................... 3.3 Motor vehicles and equipment .................................... 4.6 1973-83 —0.7 —3.6 —4.6 —4.2 1.1 - 0 .2 —0.7 —0.9 0.7 1.8 - 5 .1 11 Industry information. 12 “ 13th American Machinist Inventory of Metalworking Equipment,” American Machinist, November 1983, various pagings. 13 “ 11th American Machinist Inventory of Metalworking Equipment,” American Machinist, November 1977. 14 National Machine Tool Builders Association. Data on parts shipments from the Bureau of the Census, Census of Manufactures. 15 Metal Stamping, August 1969, pp. 18-19; and industry information. 16Ibid. 17 Industry information. *1967-73. 18 American Machinist, April 1977, p. 5 Trends in employment and hours in durable goods manufacturing (av erage annual rates in percent): 1963-83 ................................................ 1963-73 ................................................ 1973-83 ................................................ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Employment Employee hours 0.6 2.1 - 0 .9 0.5 2.2 - 1 .2 S R -6 . 19 Ibid., p. s r - 7 . Also, information from J. Winship, Wordsmith Enter prises, Allendale, n j . 20 Metal Stamping, May 1970, p. 14. Also, American Machinist, Janu ary 1983, p. 117. 21 American Machinist, April 1 9 7 7 , p. s r - 1 3 ff. The Minster Machine Co. recently advertised a press capable of meeting tolerances o f as low as 19 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1986 • Productivity in Metal Stamping Industries ±.005" with impacts o f 20 and 30 tons. The press is required to run up to 537,000 strokes per shift. See Metal Stamping, January 1985, back flap. 22 Industry information. 23Japanese Automotive Stamping : Observations, Conclusions, and Rec ommendations of the American Metal Stamping Association Study Team and a Report to Members (Cleveland, O H , American Metal Stamping Asso ciation, 1981). 24 Capital expenditures were deflated by the implicit price deflators published in The Annual Report o f the Council of Economic Advisers, February 1985, table B-3, p. 236. See Economic Report of the President, transmitted to the Congress, February 1985. 25 Leo R. Rakowski, “Press advances spur stamping productivity gains,” Machine Tool Blue Book, November 1979, pp. 177-83. See also Donald J. Hennelgam and Charles Gregorovich, “Stamping Systems Automation,” a paper presented at the Biennial International Machine Tool Technical Conference, Chicago, Sept. 5 -1 3 , 1984. See Donald F. Wilhelm, “New Developments in Press Force Monitoring,” a paper presented at the Bi ennial International Machine Tool Technical Conference, Chicago, Sept. 5 -1 3 , 1984. 26 Rakowski, “Press advances spur productivity gains.” APPENDIX: 30 Metal Stamping , September 1985, p. 3. 31 See, for example, Robert Rice, “Manufacturing with the use o f trans fer systems,” The Fabricator, November-December 1984; and John T. Winship, “Form compression heads in one pass,” American Machinist, May 1980, reprint. See also the advertising brochure of Willett Transfer Systems, published by M. S. Willett, Cockeysville, m d . 32 Metal Stamping, July 1985, p. 13. 33 Ibid. 34 Metal Stamping, November 1984, pp. 8 -1 1 . 35 Hennelgam and Gregorovich, Stamping Systems Automation, pp. 1 2 106. 36 James R. Hunter, “New Punch Press Technologies,” a paper presented at the Biennial International Machine Tool Technical Conference, Chicago, Sept. 5 -1 3 , 1984. Measurement techniques and limitations Indexes of output per employee hour measure changes in the relation between the output of an industry and employee hours expended on that output. An index of output per employee hour is derived by dividing an 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 that require more labor time to produce are given more impor tance in the index. In the absence of adequate physical quantity data, the output indexes for the industries discussed here were devel oped using a deflated value technique. The value of ship ments of the various product classes was adjusted for price Digitized for 20 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 27Ibid. 28Ibid. See also Japanese Automotive Stamping. 29Japanese Automotive Stamping and industry information. changes by appropriate Producer Price Indexes and Industry Sector Price Indexes to derive real output measures. These, in turn, were combined with employee hour weights to derive overall output measures. The result is a final output index conceptually close to the preferred output measure. Employment and employee hours indexes were derived from data published by the Bureau of the Census. Em ployees and employee hours are each considered homoge neous 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 do not measure any specific contributions, such as that of labor or capital. Rather, they reflect the joint effect of such factors as changes in technology, capital investment, capacity utiliza tion, plant design and layout, skill and effort of the work force, managerial ability, and labor-management relations. Foreign housing voucher systems: evolution and strategies European governments have historically used housing allowance concepts with various strategies depending on the given definition of “most needy;” models include those with priority given to large families, the elderly, and the handicapped, and a model based on labor mobility E . Ja y H o w e n s t i n e The “housing voucher” or “housing allowance” concept is emerging as the principal tool in U.S. housing subsidy pol icy. In Europe, governments have effectively operated na tional housing allowance systems for several decades with a wide variety of strategies. This report examines foreign experience.1 Two fundamental judgments underlie all housing al lowance2 systems: (1) there are large numbers of families that cannot obtain minimum standard housing by paying a reasonable portion of their income, and (2) the most needy households should be given first priority in the payment of housing subsidies. However, there have been notable differ ences among housing allowance systems in their approach to the most needy households. There have been different definitions of “most needy,” and the principle of priority for the most needy has often been blended with other important economic and social purposes. The strategic role of the housing allowance concept as it has developed in other countries can be best understood by delineating eight models of the concept: large family hard ship model; elderly hardship model; rent harmonization model; excessive shelter-to-income model; tandem-new construction model; social stability model; labor mobility model; and family crisis model. (See exhibit 1.) E. Jay Howenstine, an independent consultant, formerly was International Research Coordinator, Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department o f Housing and Urban Development. The views expressed are those o f the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Large family hardship model The pre-World War II European perception was that wages of the working classes were more or less fixed over time. Other things being equal, therefore, an additional child in the family— and families tended to be big— led to a worsening of life in two major ways: a smaller portion of family income was available for the consumption of each individual; and each person had less physical space within the household. In other industrialized nations, social concern for the wel fare of children in large working class families found polit ical expression in two ways rather different from the Amer ican experience, that is, in the establishment of family allowance systems (sometimes called children’s allow ances) and in social housing programs. Family allowance systems, spearheaded by the International Labour Office created under the League of Nations in 1919, were adopted in most of the highly industrialized countries providing fi nancial assistance for each additional child in the family to avoid a lowering of standards of living.3 And social housing (more or less the European equivalent of U.S. public hous ing) programs were promoted to help eliminate slums. Because slums could only be avoided or eliminated by constructing more housing, it was logical that financial as sistance should be in the form of producer subsidies to the builder, that is, mainly public and nonprofit agencies acting on behalf of the poor. The new social housing was then normally allotted on the basis of a point system to the most 21 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW E xhibit 1. May 1986 • Foreign Housing Voucher Systems M u ltip le uses o f h ousing a llo w a n c e s tra te g ie s by fo re ig n g o v e rn m e n ts Model 1. Large family hardship 2. Elderly hardship 3. Rent harmonization Countries and approximate date of adoption Sweden, 1930’s France, 1948 Finland, 1962 Switzerland, Basle Canton, 1963 City of Zurich, 1963 Denmark, 1964 France, 1948 Sweden, 1950’s Denmark, 1959 Switzerland, Basle Canton, 1963 Belgium, 1950’s Australia, 1969 Finland, 1970 Canadian provincial systems, 1970’s France, 1948 Federal Republic of Germany, 1955 Denmark, 1967 Netherlands, 1967 Ireland, 1967 Austria, 1970’s Norway, 1973 needy, which tended to be the largest families. As children grow up and leave, large families become small families. But under the housing regulations of most countries, families were not required to vacate subsidized housing as their level of need changed, for example, as the size of family shrank or as the level of income rose; rather they continued to occupy old units, even passing them on to the next generation. In this milieu, after World War II, the International Union of Family Organizations became one of the leading protagonists for a housing allowance system based primarily on the large family rationale. It had an important influence in many countries, especially Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia.4 In the view of the International Union of Family Organi zations, the key to providing adequate succor to the most needy was the development of “individual compensation for housing expenses . . . as closely adapted as possible to the circumstances of the household with children.”5 Such a sys tem would ensure a much more effective use of the existing housing stock on the basis of need. As large families shrank and thereby received a smaller housing allowance, they would have an incentive to move to smaller space and to liberate large dwelling units for growing families.6 An important corollary was that housing allowances should operate in a national rental housing market organized on the basis of economic rents rather than in a rent con trolled market with many different rent levels for equivalent accommodation based on differences in past construction 22 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Model 4. Excessive shelter-toincome ratio Countries and approximate date of adoption Austria Federal Republic of Germany Finland Netherlands 5. Tandem-new construction Norway, 1967 Sweden, 1960’s France Netherlands 6. Social stability Applied generally 7. Labor mobility Sweden, 1957 France, 1960’s Federal Republic of Germany, 1960’s Austria, 1960’s Denmark, 1966 Netherlands, 1970’s Norway, 1972 8. Family crisis Australia, Victoria, 1981 costs and producer subsidy systems. This was essential for two reasons. First, it avoided the misuse and waste of hous ing subsidies on space for families that had low priority needs or had ceased to be in a needy position, and it encour aged households to move within the market as their housing needs increased or decreased. Second, it stimulated an in crease in the supply of rental housing. With the assurance of economic rents, private rental housing investors would not have to compete with low, subsidized rents, and thus would be encouraged to construct new housing.7 The original large family hardship model contained two other concepts, which, although more or less lost in the passage of time, are worth noting. One concerned the for mula for calculating the housing allowance. Because the family allowance had become a well-established fixture in national social policy in many countries, it was maintained that the ratio of the family allowance to nonhousing items in the worker’s budget provided a ready-made measure of need, which could be applied equally well to housing costs in the family budget. Thus, if the family allowance equaled 20 percent of the nonhousing items in the family budget, the housing allowance should equal 20 percent of the housing cost item in the budget.8 In countries without such legisla tion, the International Union of Family Organizations pro posed that housing allowances should cover the amount of the rent in excess of a reasonable percentage of the family income, that is, between 6 and 12 percent of income de pending on the size of the family and its income.9 The other interesting concept was that housing space should be measured in terms of its capacity to accommodate people rather than in square meters of floor space or number of rooms. Accordingly, at its 1954 session, the International Union of Family Organizations adopted the concept of a “housing capacity index” based on two criteria, the number of bedrooms and the total number of occupants of these bedrooms. Thus, a dwelling unit with an index of A 4/6 was an apartment of four bedrooms for six persons.10 This index was believed to be in the best possible measure of the hous ing stock’s capacity to meet social need. Concern for the housing needs of large poor families was prominent in the early evolution of housing allowances. Sweden introduced a housing subsidy for families with many children in the 1930’s and has continued to expand the coverage until approximately one-half of all families with children now receive a housing allowance. Finland adopted its first housing allowance system for large families in 1941, the system expanding by 1961 to include about 2,000 families.11 France adopted a housing allowance in 1948 that was payable only to large families which received a family allowance. The Canton of Basle and the city of Zurich in Switzerland launched large family housing allowances in 1963, while Denmark introduced its system for large families and single persons with children in f9 6 4 .12 Elderly hardship model A second major category of “most needy” households competing for housing subsidies has been the elderly and the physically handicapped. The old age pension has long been a part of European social security systems; in fact, Chancel lor Otto Von Bismark made it a part of the German social insurance system in the 1870’s. But while fairly comprehen sive in coverage, after World War II European systems were generally deficient in two respects. Pensions were relatively small, and there was little provision for automatically in creasing (that is, indexing) pensions to compensate for in creases in the cost of living. The systems had been estab lished in an era of price stability, when there was no problem of creeping inflation. As a consequence, a large proportion of the elderly increasingly found themselves in a financial squeeze. Although continued rent controls im posed a brake on the rate of increase in shelter costs, peri odic relaxation of rent ceilings clearly intensified rent bur dens. The housing allowance concept offered a cogent solution to this problem. It was a simple subsidy for a well-defined, very needy group. Moreover, because the elderly poor were a rather easily identifiable part of the total poverty problem, governments could provide them with financial relief with out opening the floodgate for massive consumer housing subsidies for all the poor. In the early development of housing allowance systems, the elderly poor often played a central role. In 1948, France established a rent subsidy system for the aged and the dis https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis abled living in old apartments. This subsidy was necessary for persons living on fixed incomes, such as pensioners, to offset rent increases which the government began to intro duce gradually in the rent ceilings on the old housing stock. After several amendments, this program was completely overhauled in 1971. Since then, it has remained a separate system for the elderly, the physically handicapped, and cer tain young workers. In Sweden, where there are three separate housing al lowance systems, municipalities provide a special housing allowance supplementing the national retirement pension when the pension is insufficient to provide an adequate dwelling. In 1958, the principles governing the subsidy and its financing became the responsibility of municipalities. As a result, differences in levels of payment prevailed. How ever, means test rules for determining eligibility now have been established by the National Government. Beginning in 1982, the Government agreed to cover 25 percent of the costs and to coordinate housing allowances for the elderly more closely with the other two more general systems. Among other things, this has involved the imposition of rent ceilings. In 1980, slightly more than one-half of all retired persons received housing allowances under this system. In 1959, Denmark adopted a rent subsidy plan specifi cally for those elderly and disabled persons receiving na tional pensions that were too small to enable them to obtain adequate unsubsidized accommodation. Eligible persons were required to rent subsidized housing owned by the municipality or a nonprofit or charitable housing associa tion. The housing allowance was paid to the owner, not the renter. Two-thirds of total costs were financed by the munic ipality and one-third by the National Government. The Can ton of Basle (Switzerland) launched a similar program for the elderly in 1963. The Belgian housing allowance system is mainly for the elderly. In Australia, the Supplementary Assistance Plan for rental housing for the aged, sole parents, and invalid pensioners was introduced in 1969. Weekly assistance in 1982 was equal to one-half the amount by which rent exceeded $10, with maximum assistance of $10 a week. In December 1982, 86 percent of total pensioners received assistance from this plan.13 Finland introduced a housing allowance system for the elderly in 1970 to cover housing costs that were above average. The allowance is paid as a part of the national pension system. The number of recipients rose from 50,000 in 1970 to 179,000 in 1983, accounting for about 50 percent of all housing allowance participants in the latter year. The elderly hardship model was adopted by five Canadian provinces— British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Quebec— in the 1970’s and 1980’s. The aim was to assist the elderly in keeping their existing hous ing rather than to rehouse them in new projects. The policy reflected the belief that housing occupied by the elderly generally met acceptable standards and that the problem was one of excessive rent burden. 23 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1986 • Foreign Housing Voucher Systems Elderly recipients appear to predominate in most national housing allowance plans. In France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, they histori cally have constituted from two-thirds to three-quarters of all participants. In other words, it may be said that housing allowance systems have tended to become a major auxiliary support to old-age pension systems. European experience demonstrates that initially restrict ing eligibility to senior citizens (and perhaps handicapped persons) offers an effective political strategy for introducing a housing allowance system. It clearly targets the system to a widely recognized high priority category. From a social point of view, the elderly are probably the most highly disciplined sector of the population; thus the risks of abuses and problems of administration are minimized. Because el derly demographics are generally well known, it is possible to set the lower eligibility age limit at a level that corre sponds to financial resources that the government is ready to make available for such a program. In other words, this approach offers a method for a fine tuning of demand to the current limits of fiscal capacity. Then, if experience demon strates the practicability of the system, if fiscal capacity grows, and it is believed appropriate, the age limit can be progressively lowered to embrace a steadily larger part of the population. Rent harmonization model World War II seriously disrupted the European housing market in many ways, including the rental housing sector. In the face of wartime inflationary pressures, strict rent controls were applied. After the war, governments were slow to decontrol rents, mainly because of the political risks involved. Consequently, major inequities and distortions arose.14 First, rent controls created inequities among renters. On the one side, were the longstanding tenants who paid low rents and, on the other side, young couples and war veter ans, who paid high rents as recent entrants into the housing market. Second, controls led to inequalities between renters and landlords. Often rents neither covered operating costs, nor yielded a fair return on capital invested. Third, rent controls led to widespread physical deterioration in existing housing. Finally, they were a negative influence on the supply of housing. They were not only an incentive to con vert rental housing to owner-occupancy or commercial use and in certain circumstances to demolish the building and sell the land, but also a disincentive for new investment in private rental housing.15 Although the aim of European governments generally was the eventual abolition of rent controls, it had become apparent by the 1960’s that piecemeal liberalization would not succeed alone. Consequently, a new concept of “rent harmonization” or “rent equalization” emerged, in which housing allowances had a strategic role to play. The objec tive was to move systematically toward a single unified 24 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis rental housing market operating as nearly as possible on an economic cost basis. It was believed that, as a result of rising individual incomes associated with postwar national economic growth and inflation, a majority of tenants could afford to pay higher rents. To avoid hardship for those who lived on more or less fixed incomes, a housing allowance or rent rebate would be granted. This melding of policies was felicitous. It offered a polit ically acceptable package by eliminating threatened hard ship. It introduced an incentive for families to seek housing space in terms of household requirements rather than be cause of artificially low rents, promoting a more economic use of the existing housing stock. And it offered promise of a fair return on capital to landlords, and thus the capacity and incentive to keep the rental housing stock in a good state of repair. France appears to have been the first country to link consumer housing subsidies with relaxation of rent controls as an instrument of national policy. In 1948, a modest hous ing allowance system was introduced to ease the hardship created for persons on fixed incomes who were not able to cope with rent increases. In 1955, the Federal Republic of Germany adopted its first housing allowance for similar reasons. The allowance was based on the principle that housing expenditures should be kept below 10 percent of the budget for families with very low incomes, rising to 20 percent for those with in comes just under the eligibility limits. Denmark in 1967 and the Netherlands in 1970 adopted a much more systematic approach. Denmark envisaged the progressive phasing out of rent control over an 8-year pe riod; the Netherlands, over a 10-year period. The assump tion was that, during the previous decade, the incomes of most persons had increased sufficiently that they could af ford to pay higher rents without exceeding a fair shelter-toincome ratio— in the case of Denmark, 20 percent, the Netherlands, between 13 and 17 percent for families. The housing allowance was an integral part of rent decontrol policy aimed at aiding households with fixed incomes. Ireland also followed the principle in 1967 with a differ ential rent policy that adjusted actual rents to the tenant’s income and family circumstances, as rents generally were allowed to rise toward a level more in line with the free market. In the early 1970’s, both France and Austria introduced housing allowances to relieve the hardship imposed by in creased rents. The French legislation covered only the el derly and the handicapped. The Austrian 1974 law, apply ing to low-income families generally, also provided that rent increases should be used to cover proper maintenance and, in certain cases, improvement costs. In 1973, the Norwe gian Government increased its housing allowance substan tially to mitigate individual burdens that might accompany the relaxation of rent controls and the raising of interest rates on existing mortages. Excessive shelter-to-income model The European working class has historically not been able to afford decent housing. Workers’ pre-World War I expec tations regarding a home and a living environment were therefore generally low, except through the help of the government. After World II, however, several factors com bined to alter expectations. European economies spurted ahead with rapid technological change, high economic growth rates, and rising individual incomes. During the late 1940’s, the 1950’s, and 1960’s, great strides were made in rebuilding destroyed cities, and in slum clearance. By the mid-1970’s, most countries were succeeding in overcoming the global housing shortage and the age of affluence was bringing hope to the common man. As a result, two issues began to receive increasingly greater attention in housing, that is, improving the quality of the housing stock, and relieving the excessive shelter-to-income burden on lowincome families. The housing allowance is an ideal tool for eliminating excessive rent burdens on poor households. Public policy need but do two things: (1) determine shelter-to-incomeratios that various size families can afford, and (2) provide an allowance to cover the difference (or a suitable part of the difference) between actual rents and the maximum percent age of income that families can afford to pay. This rationale has pervaded several European housing allowance systems, most notably those of Austria, Finland, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Netherlands. The central principle in the Dutch system is that the tenant should not have to pay more than a reasonable part of his income for rent. In 1978, the standard shelter-to-income ratio for the minimum wage earner, that is, the percentage of income which the tenant was deemed capable of paying for rent, was fixed at 11.2 percent. The Finnish system is similar to the Dutch. In 1983, a three-member household at the minimum wage level was expected to pay 14.5 percent of gross income in rent. The German housing allowance system, covering 1.7 million households or 1 in 16 families in 1978, had as a major objective the reduction of the burden of housing costs on lower-income households. Similarly, in Austria, the Housing Promotion Act of 1968 set up a hous ing allowance system which focused on the financial bur dens which lower income households could reasonably be expected to bear. Tandem-new construction model During the 1960’s and early 1970’s, the increasingly high cost of new construction16 led inevitably to a growing gap between rents for newly built housing and rents of the older housing stock for roughly equivalent accommodations. One of the dire consequences of this gap was that, in spite of persistent housing need, by 1974 and 1975, a large number of dwellings, especially in Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland, were remaining vacant for well over a year because rents https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis were too high.17 In this situation, another housing allowance rationale emerged, which will be called the tandem-new construction model, that is, a housing assistance policy which works as a complementary arm with the national policy on new hous ing construction. In essence, the housing allowance became a tool to facilitate the renting of new, modem, high-cost apartments to a clientele who could not otherwise afford them. Norway was a pioneer. In 1967, a National Commission was appointed to design a more comprehensive subsidy system. One of its central recommendations was that subsi dies should be paid only to households living in recently built dwellings; these were the most expensive because of high building costs, interest rates, and land costs. But the Commission also recommended that subsidies be paid only for the first 10 years after completion (compared to the then existing 15-year period) and that during that period subsi dies should be gradually reduced. The Commission’s ration ale relating to new construction was generally accepted in the 1972 housing reform. An interesting variation of this model has been developed in Sweden. In 1966, 43 percent of families with children were living in overcrowded conditions, as legislatively de fined, that is, more than two occupants per room excluding kitchen and living room. Sweden undertook a huge effort to upgrade the quality of housing, using the housing allowance as a means of helping large, low-income families to obtain “modem and sufficiently large dwellings.” The new system provided an incentive to occupy new, expensive, large dwelling units by offering a higher percent of rent subsidy for the more expensive units, that is, 40 percent, than for the less expensive units, which received a housing allowance of only 30 percent of the rent. The tandem-new construction rationale also became an important element in the housing allowance systems of France and the Netherlands. Social stability model European societies have traditionally put emphasis on social stability. In part, this derives from the class structure inherited from the past, which tended to be threatened by the instabilities associated with social change. In part, the sta bility has its roots in the strong family, neighborhood, and religious orientation of European urban systems. It may also be partly attributable to the old perception that the size of the national economic pie was more or less fixed and that, consequently, there were fairly well-defined constraints on one’s economic well-being. (Such beliefs were common until the unprecedented economic growth following World War II began to belie them.) In this setting, the eviction of a household because of inability to pay rent is regarded as a serious threat to social stability. It is disruptive to family life and a loss to the neighborhood. To diminish this threat, most European 25 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1986 • Foreign Housing Voucher Systems countries have built into the law considerable tenure rights for renters. To reduce still further the risk of eviction, a logical next step was to bolster the ability to pay of economically weak households by providing a housing allowance. The elderly have perhaps been among the most vulnerable to circum stances beyond their control. The rent-paying capacity of persons on fixed incomes is rapidly eroded by inflation. Most of the animus of early housing allowance plans for the elderly, noted previously, appears to have been rooted in the concern for social stability. The financial crunch was forc ing elderly persons to give up their homes and this was regarded as highly inimical not only to the welfare of those displaced but also to the very core of society itself. There is in this respect, therefore, an overlap between the social stability model and the elderly hardship model. Similarly, low-income families, already suffering hard ship from their economic status, are highly vulnerable to forces beyond their control, such as unemployment and depression. To a considerable degree, therefore, housing allowances in a number of countries have been designed not to improve housing conditions in situ, nor to enable house holds to shop around for alternative accommodation, but merely to strengthen the ability of financially weak house holds to keep the housing they have. Labor mobility model The motif of the labor mobility model is in contrast with that of the social stability model. It is the response of a housing market long under the heavy hand of rent controls. As noted earlier, there is a strong incentive for households to continue occupying large, low-rent, centrally located apartments long after their housing requirements— as deter mined by the size of family— have changed, because most alternative smaller units are recently built and, therefore, have much higher rents. Socially, this condition is a gross misallocation of housing space. Economically, it constitutes a serious brake on the rate of national economic growth by preventing the labor force from moving easily as economic growth and job markets beckon. The housing allowance has helped remedy this situation to some extent. The simplest way to use housing allowances as an instru ment for promoting labor mobility is to restrict participation to households living in the most recently built apartments, which by definition were more costly to build and are thus let at the highest rents. All countries have encountered in creasingly difficult problems in finding tenants, particularly among low- and moderate-income households, to contract for these high-rent dwelling units. Going back to its early experience, Sweden limited its housing allowance system established in 1947 to dwellings that were erected or con verted after December 1947. Norway restricted its 1972 housing allowance plan to housing built after 1962. The Dutch housing allowance system before 1975 was available only to households living in rental accommodation built 26 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis after 1960. Two Austrian provinces (Tryol and Vorarlberg) and the country of Denmark have likewise provided that households would be eligible only if their accommodation was built after a specified date. In 1966, the housing problem became a central issue in Denmark. In a celebrated Housing Pact worked out by the major Danish political parties, one of the major objectives agreed upon was to encourage greater mobility within the housing stock by means of rent harmonization and the intro duction of housing allowances for tenants. Similar consider ations have also been prominent in French and German housing allowance policy. Another, perhaps more indirect, way that governments have applied the labor mobility model is by establishing high standards of physical construction and housing ameni ties as a condition for coverage by the housing allowance system. In many countries, only postwar or even more re cent construction— and thus the most expensive rental dwelling units— can meet such requirements. Again the rationale is similar. Rent controls and the basing of rents on postwar construction costs have created large rent differentials that may not be representative of real differences in housing habitability. Much of this new post war construction has been in réponse to economic growth needs, but rent differentials have had the unfortunate result of discouraging mobility in the labor market. Encountering difficulties in letting such high quality, high-rent housing units, governments have developed housing allowance sys tems as a means of reducing the rent burden and providing an incentive for greater labor mobility. A number of governments, including those of Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden, have gone further and used other types of housing assistance to promote labor mobility. For example, in 1975, the Netherlands adopted a rent readjustment grant to assist households that were capable and desirous of living in better accommodations, but who were intimidated by the sudden increase in rent and the burden of moving costs. Three types of tenants were eligible: those leaving an older, cheaper unit for a newly built, higher rent unit (the “movingup process”); those leaving a slum dwelling for a higher rent unit (“slum clearance”); and those whose rents had been increased because their current accommodations had been modernized (“housing improvement”). Providing the difference in monthly rent was at least $11.86, the Dutch rent readjustment grant covered 75 per cent of the difference the first year, 50 percent the second year, and 25 percent the third year. In 1982, the grant was lowered to 60 percent the first year and to 40 percent the second year. However, certain ceilings were set. The ten ant’s annual 1975 taxable income could not exceed $11,860 and the monthly rent of the vacated dwelling could not be more than $98. In addition, a special grant of up to $1,383 was made available to help cover removal and refurnishing costs for households experiencing major housing improve- ments or slum clearance and for elderly people moving from low-rent dwellings to smaller, more expensive units or to nonself-contained accommodation. Family crisis model Frequently low- and moderate-income families are con fronted with temporary household crises, such as loss of job or ill health of the breadwinner(s), or desertion of the family by the husband or wife. If the family must move because of nonpayment of rent, this imposes a heavy burden on the household and the community, for example, in the loss of local friends and support services and disruption in chil dren’s schooling, in addition to the costs of moving. In contrast, if temporary assistance can be provided, the family is generally able to cope. Probably in most countries this kind of crisis tends to be dealt with through some form of public assistance. But in 1981, Victoria Province in Australia embarked on an inter esting pilot rental subsidy program.18 The objective is to provide emergency financial support to enable families to remain in their existing situation. The subsidy is temporary and is paid out for a maximum period of 12 months. This rationale could be considered as a subset of the social stabil ity model, but because it is sufficiently imaginative in its social and psychological design it is included as a separate model. 1 This is an excerpt from a forthcoming report, Housing Vouchers: An International Analysis, to be published by Rutgers University Press. 2 The term “housing voucher” is rarely used in foreign countries. 3 Introduction to Social Security, 3d. ed. (Geneva, International Labour O ffice, 1984), Chapter 11; International Survey of Social Security: Com parative Analysis and Summary of National Laws (Geneva, International Labour O ffice, 1950), Studies and Reports, New Series No. 23, pp. 2 1 -2 3 , 3 0 -3 2 , 107-09; see also Convention 102 adopted by the International Labour Organisation in 1952, Minimum Standards of Social Security, Part 7, “Family Benefits,” International Labour Organisation, International Labour Conventions and Recommendations, 1919-1981 (Geneva, Interna tional Labour O ffice, 1982), pp. 533-53. 4 Etudes sur le Financement du Logement Familial (Brussels, Union Internationale des Organismes Familiaux, 1953), pp. 6 -2 6 . 5 D. Ceccaldi, “Compensation o f Family Housing Expenses,” in Etudes sur le Logement Familial (Brussels, Union Internationale des Organismes Familiaux, 1955), p. 25. 6 The International Union of Family Organizations placed great stress on the development o f systems to promote interchange of dwelling units within the housing stock. See also La Mutation des Occupants de Loge ments dans les Quartiers d’Habitations Sociales (Brussels, Union Interna tionale des Organismes Familiaux, 1962). 7 Lucien Wynen, Le Financement du Logement Social (Brussels, Union Internationale des Organismes Familiaux, 1962), pp. 2 -5 . 8 Coût du Logement et Integration du Loyer dans le Budget (Brussels, Union Internationale des Organismes Familiaux, 1962), 8th sess. p. 2; Compte-Rendu, 8th Session Pleniere (Brussels, Union Internationale des Organismes Familiaux, 1962). 9 Coût du Logement et Integration, pp. 7 -8 . 10 Etudes sur le Logement Familial, pp. 94-95; Minimum Habitable https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis A related program, the Mortgage and Rent Relief Scheme, was adopted by the Australian Federal Govern ment in 1982 to provide assistance to “crisis” cases of peo ple in rental difficulties. The Commonwealth provided the States with $20 million (Australian) per annum on a match ing basis for 3 years with the intent of providing short-term assistance (about 12 months) until either the crisis was re solved or a longer-term solution was found. Relief was provided in advance as quickly as possible, the first payment being made within 2 weeks after registration.19 f o r e i g n e x p e r i e n c e , the housing allowance has proved to be a highly flexible and versatile tool of national policy. Not only has it been an effective means for directly reducing excessive rent burdens on low-income families, especially the elderly, the physically handicapped, and large families, but it has also provided powerful support in implementing other important national social and economic objectives. It has been an instrument for harmonizing rents and in devel oping unified rental housing markets. It has complemented producer housing subsidy programs in helping to maintain markets for new housing, and has strengthened social stabil ity by assisting financially weak households to keep their housing. Finally, it has been a useful means of stimulating labor mobility needed for national economic growth and the development of new job markets. □ In Surfaces: Increase in Size and Cost of Dwelling in Relation to the Size of Family (Brussels, Union Internationale des Organismes Familiaux, 1957). 11 Ossi Paukku, The Subsidies of the Housing Sector in Finland in 1956-75 (Helsinki, National Housing Board, 1978), published only in Finnish. Information provided by Keijo Tanner, National Housing Board, Helsinki, Jan. 17, 1985. 12 Gunter Schwertz, Systems and Significance of Individual Subsidiza tion of Accommodation Costs in European Countries (Bonn, DomusVerlag, 1966), pp. 9, 19, 43, 51, and 59. 13 Tim Field, “Pensioners Who Rent: Problems and Alternatives,” Social Security Journal (Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service, June 1983), pp. 25-26; Annual Report, 1981-82 (Canberra, Australia, Department of Social Security, 1982), p. 62. 14 The distortions were so evident that socialists and trade unionists recognized them. See for example, D. L. Munby, The Rent Problem (London, Fabian Publications, 1952), pp. 4 -5 ; Heinz Umrath, “Rent Pol icy in Western Europe,” International Labour Review, September 1953, pp. 213-15. 15 E. Jay Howenstine, “European experience with rent controls,” Monthly Labor Review, June 1977, pp. 2 1-28. 16 E. Jay Howenstine, Housing Costs in the United States and Other Industrialized Countries, 1970-1977 (Washington, Department o f Hous ing and Urban Development, 1980). 17 A. Andrzejewski and M. Lujanen, Major Trends in Housing Policy in ECE Countries (New York, United Nations, 1980), p. 22. 18 Rental Subsidy Scheme for Families in Crisis (Melbourne, Australia, Victoria, Ministry of Housing, 1981), p. 8. 19 The Rent Relief Scheme in South Australia: The First Twelve Months (South Australian Housing Trust, 1984), pp. 2 -3 . 27 Conference Papers The following excerpts, closely related to the work of b l s , are adapted from papers presented at the Thirty-Eighth An nual Meeting of the Industrial Relations Research Associa tion, December 1985, in New York. The full text o f the papers appears in the copyrighted ir r a publication, Proceedings o f the Thirty-Eighth Annual Meet ings, available from i r r a , University of Wisconsin, Social Science Building, Madison, wi 53706. Short-time compensation: assessing the issues Frank W. S c h if f Since 1978, 10 States have adopted legislation to permit the voluntary use of short-time compensation— that is, work sharing as an alternative to layoffs, combined with the pay ment of partial unemployment insurance benefits to help compensate employees for their lost work time. The avail able surveys all indicate that where these programs have actually been used, they have generally been well received by both employers and employees. At the same time, overall usage of short-time compensation has thus far been quite limited, particularly among larger firms. How short-time compensation will fare in the future will no doubt depend importantly on how actual experience with short-time compensation is evaluated. This paper examines some of the key questions that need to be addressed in assessing the impact of short-time compensation; reviews to what extent they have been answered by recent evaluation studies; and discusses the relevance of this information for the future. I shall draw particularly on two studies that have just become available: the large scale Evaluation o f ShortTime Compensation Programs prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. for the U .S. Labor Department1 and the case study prepared by Bennett Burgoon and Robert D. St. Louis for Motorola2— the firm which has been the largest single user of short-time compensation so far— that Frank W. Schiff is vice president and chief economist, Committee for Economic Development. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of his organization. The title of his full ir r a paper is “Issues in Assessing Worksharing.” https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis assesses the use of short-time compensation in Motorola’s Arizona operation during 1982-83. Work sharing versus layoffs My first issue is whether short-time compensation use in cyclical situations implies higher costs for the unemploy ment insurance system than outright layoffs. This was the central focus of the Mathematica study. One aspect of this question relates to administrative costs. Mathematica found that these costs were greater under short-time compensation than under regular layoffs. But this finding reflected early experience with the program in only one State. The Mathematica study notes that with more experience, administrative costs under short-time compen sation may well be significantly reduced, including having employers file claims for short-time compensation users en masse . If one also considers that there will be savings for the Employment Service because it does not have to provide job search assistance and other services associated with regular layoffs, then there is a possibility that net administrative costs with short-time compensation might prove less than with regular layoffs. A far more important issue is whether the total number of unemployment insurance-compensated hours of unemploy ment— and the associated unemployment insurance benefit costs— are likely to be greater with short-time compensation programs than with outright layoffs. Surveys of both em ployers and employees conducted in 1982 by the California Employment Development Department suggested that total work time losses under short-time compensation were sig nificantly less than under layoffs. On the other hand, various simulation studies prepared by the Department produced exactly opposite results.3 However, both types of assess ment suffered from important methodological shortcom ings. The Mathematica study, which covered work sharing experience in California, Arizona, and Oregon from mid1982 to mid-1983 and used sophisticated econometric tech niques, sought to avoid such shortcomings primarily by relating the experience of firms using short-time compensa tion (often side-by-side with direct layoffs) to that of a comparison group of firms that presumably faced similar economic circumstances. Mathematica’s principal finding was that for firms using short-time compensation, total hours of compensated unem ployment (including both regular unemployment insurance and short-time compensation benefits) were larger than for firms relying solely on direct layoffs— on average approxi mately 11 percent. However, in Oregon, total hours of com pensated unemployment were almost identical for the two groups. In California, total compensated unemployment for firms using short-time compensation was said to exceed those of the comparison group by 29 percent, while the differential in Arizona came to 12 percent. Another way to describe the Mathematica results is in terms of marginal effects. Thus, the study showed that in Oregon, each hour of compensated unemployment under short-time compensa tion substituted for an hour of regular layoffs. For Califor nia, on the other hand, the study produced the extraordinary result that there had been virtually no substitution. The substitution rate for Arizona was about 50 percent. On the basis of simulations that used these various results as inputs, the study also concluded that unemployment in surance benefit charges for firms using short-time compen sation can be expected to be higher than those for similar employers who do not and that this is likely to impose a net drain on the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund in the short run. However, these negative impacts were expected to be significantly reduced over time by more complete experience-rating of short-time compensation benefits and by revenues gained from special short-time compensation surtaxes. There is a major question in these studies as to whether users of short-time compensation and non-user comparison employers actually faced similar economic circumstances. Only three primary characteristics were used in selecting comparison group firms: industry classification (according to three-digit Standard Industrial Classification codes); em ployment size; and the unemployment insurance tax rate. The unemployment insurance tax rate has little relevance to current economic conditions. The relatively broad industry classifications used did not automatically assure that firms in the comparison groups were subject to the same degree of economic stress as those which used short-time compensa tion. One specific indication of such stress would have been evidence that these firms were laying off people. In fact, however, a significant number of comparison group firms showed no layoffs. If there were conclusive evidence from other sources that the two sets of firms faced similar eco nomic conditions, the exclusion of firms with no layoffs from the comparison group might be justified, but this was clearly not the case in this instance. When one excludes firms that made no layoffs from the comparison group, the excess in total hours of compensated unemployment for firms using short-time compensation over those in the com parison group falls from 11 percent to 7 percent. Moreover, when the figures are adjusted to take account of delayed impacts of work sharing in the first two quarters after the year covered by the study, the differential almost disap pears. Even with these adjustments, the Mathematica study still https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis suggests that total hours of compensated unemployment were larger for short-time compensation firms than for the comparison group firms. But this qualitative result, too, is open to question when other aspects of the Mathematica study are considered. Thus, there are other indications that short-time compensation participants may in fact have faced more severe economic conditions than comparison group employers. The report indicates, for example, that shorttime compensation firms were significantly more likely to have had financial losses in fiscal year 1982 than compari son group firms. Also, in California, short-time compensa tion employers were more heavily concentrated in durable manufacturing than comparison group employers. Moreover, the basic finding for California— that use of short-time compensation essentially did not substitute for layoffs at all — strikes me as totally implausible. Since short-time compensation firms had to submit affidavits indi cating that short-time compensation represented an alterna tive to layoffs, one would have to believe that all of these affidavits were 100 percent inaccurate. Even less credible is the implication that the unions involved would go along with a program that involved wage losses for all their members without any compensating gain in terms of reduced layoffs. An additional problem is posed by the fact that the Ari zona part of the study excluded Motorola’s operations, which accounted for approximately 40 percent of the em ployees covered by short-time compensation in that State. This was done on the ground that a comparison group em ployer of equivalent size could not be found. It raises a major question, however, whether the overall finding for Arizona— namely, that short-time compensation firms used more hours of compensated unemployment than comparison firms— would have held if Motorola had been included in the study. This is a particularly pertinent question because Motorola’s study of its experience with short-time compen sation indicated that when the units surveyed went on a 4-day week, a significant number of employees did not draw unemployment insurance for the fifth day. Hence, overall unemployment insurance costs, at least under this firm’s work sharing program, may well have been less than if regular layoffs had been utilized. What does all this add up to? My overall assessment is that while the Mathematica study has provided useful in sights into the measurement problems in this area, its find ings with respect to the likely impact of short-time compen sation programs on the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund are beset by so many uncertainties that they can by no means be regarded as conclusive. In my view, this applies even to Mathematica’s qualitative conclusion that shorttime compensation programs are likely to entail greater use of compensated hours of unemployment than outright layoffs. Structural adjustments and net costs A second issue relates to the need to distinguish between 29 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1986 • Conference Papers short-time compensation in cyclical situations and as part of structural adjustments— that is, as a device to ease the tran sition toward permanent layoffs. Mathematica found that the firms it studied used the program only to deal with temporary declines in demands for labor. These findings, however, relate to a period of unusually severe cyclical downturn. More recently, problems of structural unemploy ment and permanent dislocation of workers have gained in relative importance, particularly as a result of sharply rising competition from imports. Hence, the possible use of shorttime compensation in such structural situations will bear close watching. A third area for further investigation involves the impact of short-time compensation on the net costs of employers. The Mathematica study provides some useful perspectives on this issue through the use of employer surveys and some simulations. Another way to approach this subject is through case studies. In this connection, I find the case study just issued by Motorola (the firm which has been the strongest advocate of short-time compensation) of special interest. Motorola utilized work sharing in its Arizona non defense semiconductor products operations during 1982 and early 1983. The total number of employees participating in these short-time compensation plans came to more than 9,000. On the basis of a detailed examination of costs and benefits of work sharing in six representative departments, the study concluded that short-time compensation had re sulted in a sizable net saving for the firm, compared with layoffs. Motorola also concluded that future use of shorttime compensation is likely to result in significant net sav ings for the company over periods of up to 6 months and would, in most cases, probably produce net savings for at least 1 year. The savings cited in the report were based on costs and benefits that could be directly quantified. The company indicates that the savings from work sharing would be larger if one considered factors that are harder to quantify, such as higher morale in the absence of layoffs, the avoidance of “bumping” and other disruptions of established production processes, and the competitive advantage the firm gained by being able to respond quickly to pickups in demand during the recovery phase with an established, fully trained work force. These results, of course, are unique to Motorola’s specific situation and may not necessarily hold in other cases. The study is nevertheless very valuable and a useful model for similar efforts because of the precise way in which it pinpoints specific elements of costs and benefits from the use of short-time compensation. Affirmative action results A fourth issue is whether short-time compensation has had favorable “affirmative action” results. A major argu ment for using work sharing as an alternative to layoffs has been that it would preserve the jobs of minority group mem 30 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis bers, women, and younger workers who are typically viewed as among the “last-hired” and the “first-fired.” With short-time compensation, employees in these categories do not have to be laid off and potential conflicts between senior ity rules and affirmative action requirements are avoided. Surprisingly, the Mathematica study did not find that these groups cited fared better under short-time compensa tion than with direct layoffs. This, incidentally, was also the finding of the California study. As Mathematica has sug gested, a more detailed look at the available data seems desirable to help determine how this counter-intuitive result can best be explained. One possibility is that firms using short-time compensation have been particularly progressive in their labor relations and that the groups cited were not disproportionately represented among the “last hired” by these firms. A contrasting explanation would be that mem bers of such groups had been selectively dismissed prior to the adoption of short-time compensation by the firms. Math ematica did not find evidence for this in its study, but future studies should be alert to this possibility. If it should turn out that short-time compensation pro grams do have positive affirmative action results, questions might be raised about the desirable length of such programs. At present, the time period for which particular employees can stay on the program usually does not exceed 26 weeks. If there is a severe recession that lasts longer than this, should the period of eligibility be extended to include the full period of the recession? If the program ends in the middle of a recession, the “last-hired” would still be the “first-fired.” One way to deal with this problem would be to permit longer-than-normal periods of short-time compensa tion use if national or local area unemployment rates, or both, remain unusually high for prolonged periods. As more information about the issues raised here becomes available, the case for adopting additional administra tive requirements under the short-time compensation program may also becom e stronger— for example, to in crease the likelihood that short-time compensation w ill, in fact, be used as an alternative to layoffs; to allow clearer distinctions between cyclical and structural adjustments; or to permit more extended use o f work sharing in prolonged recessions. ---------- FOOTNOTES ---------1 Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. An Evaluation of Short-Time Com pensation Programs: Summary Report; December 1985. 2 Bennett Burgoon and Robert D. St. Louis, The Impact of Work Sharing On Selected Motorola Units, Technical Report # 8 4 - 1 2 (Arizona State University, October 1984). 3 Shared Work Unemployment Insurance Evaluation Report (Employ ment Development Department, Sacramento, California, May 1982). For further analysis of the Californian experience, see Fred Best, Reducing Work Weeks to Prevent Layoffs: The Economic and Social Impacts of Unemployment Insurance Supported Work Sharing (forthcoming). Work sharing programs: an evaluation of their use S tuart K erachsky, W alter N icholson, E dward C avin , and A lan H ershey Among the most innovative changes to basic unemployment insurance since its inception is short-time compensation. The programs allow workers to receive partial unemploy ment benefits in the event that they suffer even moderate reductions in their work hours, as long as those reductions are expected to be temporary. Employees who have their work time reduced by, say, 1 day per week might be eligible for one-fifth of their weekly unemployment insurance bene fit amount. This policy differs from previous unemployment insurance regulations, under which such workers would typ ically be ineligible for any benefits. It is generally believed that broadening the conditions under which unemployment insurance benefits may be paid will help reduce the “pro layoff” bias of unemployment insurance and, instead, en courage employers to adopt reduced-hours strategies during periods that necessitate reducing employment levels. This report is based on research on short-time compensa tion programs undertaken in response to Section 194 of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. Through the Act, Congress recognized the growing number of States that have adopted short-time compensation programs as part of their overall unemployment insurance systems, and raised many important questions in response to those State efforts.1 The short-time compensation experience we will refer to occurred from mid-1982 to mid-1984 in the three States that have operated programs for the longest period of time: Cali fornia, Arizona, and Oregon. The study focused primarily on the behavior of employers, although some issues that pertain more directly to employees were addressed with employee data aggregated on a per-employer basis.2 Before results of the study are discussed, three important limitations of its overall design should be stressed. The first is that the study involved only three States, each of which exhibited very low levels of short-time compensation use. The implication is that it is extremely difficult to generalize from the experiences of these States to other States that are using short-time compensation or that might use it in the future. The second is that the study did not collect data directly from employees. Thus, many issues that pertain to the attitudes and overall well-being of workers could not be addressed directly. However, evidence on some of these issues was available from information provided by employ ers and through unemployment insurance records. The third Stuart Kerachsky is a senior economist, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Princeton, n j ; Walter Nicholson is a professor of economics at Amherst College, Amherst, m a , and a senior fellow at Mathematica; and Edward Cavin is a senior economist and Alan Hershey, a senior policy analyst, both at Mathematica. The title of their full ir r a paper is “An Evaluation o f Short-Time Compensation Programs.” https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis is that the use of a comparison-group methodology may be problematic. Both the operational status and the limited use of the work sharing programs in the study’s States precluded an experimental design that would have assigned firms ran domly to short-time compensation and control groups. Hence, it is possible that uncontrolled-for differences in characteristics among firms that used short-term compensa tion, and those that did not, may have contributed to some of the observed differences in outcomes. Work sharing versus layoff As noted, the primary purpose of short-time compensa tion is to provide firms with an alternative to layoffs during temporary downturns in their demand for labor. Many of the potential social benefits from work sharing (such as reduced labor turnover costs or increased work force productivity) derive from the ability of the program to encourage firms to substitute hours reductions for layoffs. To examine this sub stitution, we chose to focus on the hours spent on regular unemployment insurance and on short-time compensation by workers in our sample firms. These data were normalized by total hours employed in the fiscal 1982 base period, so as to create measures of the percentage of work time spent in these two forms of compensated unemployment. Al though measuring layoffs and hours reductions with data on compensated unemployment poses some conceptual disad vantages, we believe that they are largely outweighed by the enhanced accuracy of data on compensated unemployment (because the data come from administrative records) and by the relevance of compensated unemployment to various is sues of unemployment insurance financing. These data were used to examine differences in the percentage of work hours spent on compensated unemployment between firms that were short-time compensation users and those that did not participate in the program. Although the findings exhibited fairly large State-byState differences, three major patterns were apparent. First, participation rate in short-time compensation was very low: generally less than 1 percent of all employers in the sample States participated at any point in time, and less than 1 percent of unemployment insurance benefit claims were for short-time compensation. Second, the average firm in the short-time compensation sample appears to have contin ued using layoffs as the primary method of work force reduction. In no State did work sharing represent more than 25 percent of total hours on compensated unemployment among firms that used the program. Third, although evi dence clearly suggests that short-time compensation did re duce layoffs (as measured by the reduced receipt of regular unemployment insurance), this substitution does not seem to have been on an hour-for-hour basis. In all of the States, firms that used short-time compensation experienced some net addition to total hours of compensated unemployment (both regular unemployment insurance and short-time com pensation), although this addition was quite small in Ore31 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1986 • Conference Papers gon. Hence, the empirical results suggest that the actual work force-adjustment strategies adopted by firms under short-time compensation might be quite varied and complex. The large State-by-State differences in the apparent re sponse to short-time compensation use posed a number of questions that could not be answered satisfactorily. Whether they represented differences caused by how the program is administered, unmeasured differences among the types of firms in the various State samples, or some undiscovered methodological problem in these comparisons could not be determined conclusively given the small number of States involved and the limitations inherent in a comparison-group methodology. However, broadly similar results were ob tained through a wide variety of econometric methods. A number of other topics pertaining to layoffs and shorttime compensation use are investigated in the technical re port.3 Perhaps the most interesting finding from these addi tional investigations is that work sharing appears to have had no discernible effect on the demographic composition of layoffs undertaken by participants. That is, contrary to what has been hypothesized about the program, short-time com pensation did not seem to have major “affirmative action” advantages for newly hired minority and female workers. Unemployment insurance trust fund Concern that widespread use of short-time compensation might have a negative impact on unemployment insurance trust funds has made many States cautious in adopting such programs and has prompted them to include in their laws special surtax provisions for firms that use the program. This concern appears to have arisen from two sources. The first is the possibility that workers who are placed on shorttime compensation may have somewhat higher wages and, hence, higher weekly unemployment insurance benefit amounts than do workers who may have been laid off. Second, if short-time compensation encourages more com pensated unemployment than would have occurred under a layoff-only strategy (as our results suggest), benefit pay ments to workers in firms that use short-time compensation may also increase. The study results tended to support these presumptions. In all of the States, mean per-employee benefit charges (for regular unemployment insurance and short-time compensa tion) were significantly higher in the samples of firms that used short-time compensation. About half of the differences appear to be related to the higher unemployment insurance benefit levels for which short-time compensation recipients are eligible, and the other half can be attributed to additional amounts of compensated unemployment. However, we also found that firms which participated in work sharing tended to have greater increases in their unem ployment insurance tax rates over the study period than did otherwise similar firms who did not use the program. Al though developing a precise model of how these extra tax collections should be netted against the additional benefit 32 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis amounts paid was beyond the scope of the project, it was possible to provide a rough, qualitative assessment. In the short run, it is likely that short-time compensation imposed some drain on the unemployment insurance trust fund. Lags in the operations of the States’ experience-rating formulas make it unlikely that the extra benefits payable under shorttime compensation can be recouped in 1 or 2 tax years. Over the longer term, however, the picture is quite different. Because short-time compensation benefit charges under most of the States’ current surtax provisions are more effec tively experience-rated than are regular unemployment in surance benefit charges, it seems likely that any extra bene fit charges would be fully recouped in the long run. Hence, concerns about the fiscal impact of work sharing might properly be focused on ensuring trust fund adequacy during temporary downturns, because the longer term solvency of the system would not seem to be imperiled by short-time compensation programs if surtax provisions are included in State laws. Administration of the program In adopting short-time compensation amendments to their basic unemployment insurance laws, all States attempted to restrict the concept’s use to its intended purpose of substitut ing for layoffs during temporary downturns. In our study, we catalogued a wide variety of these provisions, and at tempted to establish their effectiveness. The following gen eral picture emerged: programs experience some startup problems but, on the whole, seem susceptible to careful monitoring and direction. We did find that some of the specific provisions of State laws do not appear to effectively ensure adherence to the basic goals of short-time compensa tion. (For example, constraints on minimum required work reductions do not seem to restrict minimum hours reductions to at least one averted layoff.) But these shortcomings seem relatively minor, and, in any case, the small number of States in the analysis precluded any quantitative assessment of the impacts of variations in such provisions. In terms of unemployment insurance administrative costs, work sharing has both advantages and disadvantages rela tive to an equivalent work force reduction that involves only layoffs with the associated unemployment insurance collec tions. Initial claims-filing costs are lower under work sharing (because eligibility determination is simpler), and cost associated with unemployment insurance “work test” monitoring do not arise. However, relative to an equivalent level of layoffs, short-time compensation entails processing a much greater number of weekly benefit claims. Our anal ysis (which was constrained by a relatively meager amount of administrative cost data) suggested that, under current circumstances, the costs associated with the greater volume of claims tended to dominate the lower per-claim costs. However, in interpreting this conclusion, it is important to keep in mind the relative newness of short-time compensa tion programs. It is quite possible that the administrative cost disadvantages of them may decline over time as experi ence with the programs accumulates. --------- FOOTNOTES--------1 The questions focused on the effects of short-time compensation on contemporaneous and subsequent layoffs, unemployment insurance tax rates, the integrity o f the unemployment insurance trust funds, and the net benefits to the various affected parties. 2 The analysis was based on survey and unemployment insurance records data covering 1,050 firms spread across the three States. Approximately half o f the sample had used short-time compensation during the study period, and the other half did not. Nonusing firms were carefully matched to the program sample on many observable dimensions, and the actual analysis was based on regression techniques that controlled statistically for possible remaining sample differences. 3 Stuart Kerachsky and others, “An Evaluation of Short-Time Compen sation Programs: Technical Report” (Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Princeton, n j , December 1985), prepared for the Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. Short-time compensation: the AFL-CIO perspective Jo h n Z a l u s k y In 1975, the proposal that shorter workweeks be financed through the unemployment trust funds was cautiously but favorably received by AFL-CIO President George Meany, who wrote to Lillian Poses that the Federation’s “ . . . general view is in favor of the plan as long as it remains voluntary and safeguards are included in state legislation to protect all parties.” As high unemployment continued, States began cutting unemployment benefits and it became clear that using trust funds to pay for a reduced workweek would mean worse hardship to those totally unemployed. And because benefits had lagged far behind wages, it looked as though senior workers in higher wage classifications would lose a higher share of their incomes, and not just for a few weeks, but for months or years. Blindness to these threats to well-paid workers with se cure jobs on the part of those who continued to promote work sharing as a “win-win” solution to layoffs eroded support among labor leaders. Repeated citations of the great success of German and Canadian experiments with work sharing turned out to be overstated, if not misrepresented. Both the German and Canadian counterparts of the AFL-CIO , the Deutscher Gewerkschafts bund Bundesvorstand (DG B) and the Canadian Labour Congress (C LC ), reported prob lems and shortcomings that made it clear that foreign expe riences were irrelevant and nontransferable to the American scene. The AFL-CIO then set about formulating its own con cept of how short-time compensation could be made to work John Zalusky is an economist in the A F L - C I O , Washington, D C . The title of his full ir r a paper is, “Labor’s Interest and Concerns with Short Time Compensation.” https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis in the United States. While discussions were going on within the AFL-CIO and jointly with the Department of Labor, the California legisla ture adopted the experimental short-time compensation law which has been extended three times since 1978 and will run through 1986. Although the California AFL-CIO neither sup ported nor opposed the Shared Work Unemployment Com pensation bill, the plan proved more positive than might have been expected in that time and place, and a number of labor leaders strongly supported its passage and extension. Many workers gained from the bill under existing con tracts— about 20 percent of the agreements allowed employ ers to reduce the workweek before resorting to layoffs. Previously, when employers exercised this option, consider able numbers of workers lost income without being able to qualify for unemployment compensation. In meeting this need, California’s shared work bill opened the way for fur ther development and experimentation and helped lay the foundation for the executive council’s resolution of Au gust 5, 1981, endorsing the concept of short-time compen sation and outlining the conditions needed to make the con cept’s promise a reality. First, the council said that short-time compensation must not be viewed as an alternative to active government pro grams to stimulate employment opportunities and the econ omy. This is vital because work sharing redefines employ ment while creating no new employment opportunities. This tends to hide a large part of the unemployment problem by inflating the statistic, “Working part-time for economic rea sons.” In 1985, there were 5.4 million workers in this cate gory, and although it is better than being unemployed, it reflects the failure of our economy to provide full employ ment. This general concern is strongly shared by the Ger man and Canadian labor movements. Secondly, the needs of those completely unemployed must be given the highest priority. If short-time compensa tion increases costs to the unemployment insurance fund, as it certainly may, legislators face the options of either reduc ing benefits to the unemployed in one way or another or of increasing revenue. And in today’s political climate, it is nearly impossible to raise revenue for social needs. This approach— of looking at the costs to the fund— regards un employment insurance and short-time compensation as a closed system. The meaningful cost-benefit analysis would fit work sharing into the total cost of unemployment to society. Although the benefits of short-time compensation warrant increasing the funds available for this purpose, wellmeaning supporters want to sell it to the employer as a cost-free benefit. This is unrealistic. Work sharing is in the best interest of the States and local governments, most workers, and many farsighted employers. But to do the job well will require additional funding. A fair-cost analysis that looks at all of the costs to State? and local governments for unemployment, including lost taxes, the cost of support 33 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1986 • Conference Papers systems, and the wasted worker’s skills, will demonstrate the value of a strong, well-funded program. Overall, the AFL-CIO supported the short-time compensa tion concept as a tool in dealing with the multiple conse quences of unemployment, but not as a no-cost or even low-cost, “win-win” solution. The problem is that too few employers support it or use it at all, as long as they can get most of the benefits of work sharing costs by just transfer ring the burden to workers. Workers should be entitled to short-time compensation, through unemployment insurance or some other funding, any time the workweek is reduced due to a lack of work. Absent this, work sharing will only be used by few forward-looking employers, willing to sign up for the program and then after they have laid off the more easily replaced workers. As the executive council resolution stressed, the afl -CIO wants assurance that firms that use the concept do not lay off the recently hired and less-costly-to-recruit workers first, that is, women and minority group members. This issue has been the hardest to deal with, and yet it would seem to be a fairly easy one on which to get support. In discussing this issue prior to passage of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, the AFL-CIO sought a provision in the act requiring that employer progress to ward Equal Employment Opportunity goals would not be reduced by layoffs prior to application for short-time com pensation. Employers objected strongly on the grounds that it would encourage “EEOC fishing expeditions.” And, sur prisingly, the civil rights groups which the AFL-CIO gener ally works with were willing to drop the issue on assurance that short-time compensation by its nature would be “helpful.” The result was the present language in Section 194(d)(3) of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, which suggests to States that their laws limit participation to employers who have not reduced their work force 10 percent by layoff in the previous 4 months. At the time, it seemed that this language would protect the newly hired youth, minorities, and women. This does not seem to be the case. Rather, it seems to have limited employer participation with little or no help for the newly hired. The AFL-CIO and other supporters of short-time compen sation often complain that employers fail to adopt the con cept. Some feel that the low usage is due to employers’ lack of knowledge. The Federation is sure this is not the case. The basic options to the employer are not work sharing versus layoff— they are layoffs with unemployment in surance, work sharing without unemployment insurance for their workers, and short-time compensation with unemploy ment insurance for their workers, or a combination of these options. The evidence that too few employers use the short-time compensation concept is no surprise. The least cost options to many employers are to reduce the workweek, resort to rotating crews, simply shut down for a week, or require 34 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis employees to use earned vacation time— all of which avoid adverse unemployment insurance experience ratings and in creased costs— and then layoff the most easily replaced workers. From March 1980 to March 1985, private-sector costs for unemployment insurance increased 15 percent. All other factors remaining equal, there has been a growing incentive for employers to avoid unemployment insurance increases and short-time compensation, just as they have avoided other labor costs. Therefore, if work sharing is to be useful to protect employment opportunities, it should be elective to employees, not employers. And this leads to the final two points in the AFL-CIO Executive Council Resolution, that workers participate voluntarily and that the income replace ment be two-thirds of their individual gross pay for each day lost. Most workers would be willing to share their employ ment with others with lesser entitlements if the hardship is not too great in amount or in time. Economic need can be just as great among individual workers with longer years of service as to those new to the work relationship. Some senior workers are paying college tuition. About 12 percent have pensions based on their last few years of work. Others have their homes paid for, their children have finished school, and they may well relish preretirement time off. Elective work sharing is far more acceptable and a lot less devisable than any unilateral decision by the employer or even by a majority of workers in a local union. Thus, rather than force short-time compensation on senior workers, the far better solution is to attract them to it by a respectable income replacement level and maintenance of benefits. The two-thirds replacement rate of individual gross income is also somewhat less than that for the Steelworkers and Au toworkers Supplemental Unemployment Benefit. But the supplemental plan showed that senior workers volunteered for layoff when the income replacement rate was over 80 percent and benefits continued. The short-time compensa tion replacement rate could be lower, because these higher paid workers will still be working a good share of the week. California, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Florida, Maryland, and New York have adopted short-time compen sation, and Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Wis consin, and New Jersey have considered the concept. The AFL-CIO supports the concept, but delivery on a no-cost, low usage and low benefit basis has been far short of the promise of full employment made by this Nation. The workers and their unions that have had experience with short-time compensation are pleased with the program and support its improvement as a part of the unemployment insurance concept. But if the full value of the concept is to be achieved for the community, the State, and the Nation, workers must be entitled to short-time compensation when the workweek is reduced, and the funds must be available to maintain benefits and wages while providing decent benefits for those who are totally unemployed. A new leading indicator: workers recently laid off G eoffrey H. M oore and John P. C ullity Layoff rates have long been used as leading indicators in business cycle analysis. The layoff rate in manufacturing was initially selected as a leading indicator of business cy cles in I960.1 In 1961, it became 1 of 12 leading indicators published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in Business Conditions Digest. The rate was derived from the labor turnover survey of manufacturing establishments, con ducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and discontinued at the end of 1981. bea subsequently replaced layoffs with initial claims for unemployment insurance. Prior to 1967, the Current Population Survey collected data on laid-off workers on a very limited basis and only indirectly. This group included only those persons who were neither working nor looking for work, but responded that they had a job from which they were temporarily laid off and expected recall within 30 days. Since 1967, nonworking survey respondents have been asked directly whether they were on layoff. These workers are counted as unemployed regardless of their job search activity and form a subgroup of the job losers category. Further, workers on layoff are classified by the number of weeks since they were laid off. At the Center for International Business Cycle Research, we used the number of all job losers on layoff, together with temporary layoffs prior to 1967, as a component of our leading employment index. Recently, we observed that a better leading indicator could be obtained from data on recent “job losers on layoff,” rather than all workers on layoff. The recent jobless consist of those who were laid off within the last 5 weeks and are still unemployed at the time of the household survey. This group would seem to correspond closely to those included in the reports by employers on the number of workers laid off during the past month. The category can be converted to a layoff rate by dividing by total civilian employment. The result is a new leading indicator available currently. The new indicator’s lead-lag record during the business cycle from 1969 to 1982 is shown in table 1, together with the records of the related series. The layoff series, which we Geoffrey H. Moore is a director o f the Center for International Business Cycle Research, Columbia University, and John P. Cullity is professor of economics at Rutgers University. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis have seasonally adjusted, and the unemployment claims measure performed identically at all four troughs. The new series led at all four peaks, while initial claims led at three of the four. Compared with the total layoff rate, the new indicator has longer leads at several turns, as would be expected because the new series reflects recent actions, whereas total layoffs include many who were laid off months earlier. Relative to the manufacturing layoff rate during the overlapping period of 1969-81, the new indicator shows longer leads at three of the four peaks, and about the same timing at the troughs. The manufacturing layoff rate, in turn, has a somewhat better leading record than temporary layoffs before 1969. Therefore, it seems reasonable to join the manufacturing layoff rate before 1969 to the new rate after 1969 to form a longer series with one break in coverage. It leads at 14 of the 16 business cycle turns from 1948 to 1982, with coincident timing in the other two turns and an overall average lead time of 6 months. The combined series is a more consistent leader than initial claims for unemployment insurance, which has coincident timing four times and lags twice dur ing the same period. So far as other important indicator characteristics are con cerned, such as prompt availability and freedom from extra cycles and erratic movements, the new layoff rate stands up reasonably well to its competitors. Because it is a product of the household employment survey, the figures for a previ ous month are normally available on the first Friday of the following month. These figures are subject to revision annu ally, when seasonal factors are changed. Initial claims are available weekly, with a 2-week delay, which puts them on a par with the new layoff rate, although the monthly average is not available until the middle of the following month. Erratic movements in the new layoff rate are relatively large, however, as the following measures show:2 New layoff rate, under 5 weeks, 1969-85 ........................................ Manufacturing layoff rate, 1948-75 . Initial claims, unemployment insurance, 1948-82 ...................... Ratio of irregular to cyclical change Months for cyclical dominance 2.51 2.08 3 3 2.00 3 In all three series, it takes a span of 3 months for the average cyclical change to exceed the average irregular change. The layoff rate and initial claims series tend to lead at business cycle peaks by much longer intervals than at 35 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW Table 1. Communications May 1986 • Leads and lags of layoff rates at business cycle turns, 1948-82 [Lead ( - ) or lag (+) in months] L a yo ff rate, B u s in es s c ycle T e m p o rary L a yo ff rate, L a yo ff rate, L a yo ff rate, la y o ff rate m a n u fa ctu rin g u n d e r 5 w ee k s total m a n u fa ctu rin g , Initial c laim s, to 1968; layoff u n e m p lo ym e n t rate under Insu ranc e 5 w ee k s, 1969 ff. Peak T ro u g h T ro u g h Peak November 1948 Peak T ro u g h -4 October 1949 July 1953 -1 -1 -1 1948-61 Peak and trough -8 -1 - “ -7 -1 -5 +1 -1 0 - -7 -1 - 4 6 -1 0 -2 -1 0 - 25 1948-61 Peak and trough 100 -9 - 6 “ 6 0 -1 3 6 100 75 62 -1 - 6 1948-82 Peak and trough Percent of timing comparisons that are leads: -2 7 -1 1969-81 Peak and trough -2 0 -8 -2 -1 2 -2 5 -2 0 -2 -1 6 -1 9 -2 0 -8 (1) 0 -1 9 -2 0 -9 -2 0 +3 -11 -1 -1 -1 9 -2 July 1981 -1 2 -11 -9 -1 0 January 1980 Average lead (months): 0 -2 -9 November 1982 0 0 -9 -9 -8 July 1980 -2 3 -11 0 -1 March 1975 -10 +4 -11 November 1973 -2 2 -21 0 November 1970 T ro u g h -8 -4 December 1969 Peak +1 -8 -1 2 0 T ro u g h -21 -1 0 April 1960 Peak -6 -4 -1 4 February 1961 T ro u g h -5 -4 -4 August 1957 April 1958 Peak -5 0 May 1954 T ro u g h Peak -6 88 75 100 1969-81 Peak and trough 66 0 100 86 86 75 66 100 75 1948-82 Peak and trough 66 75 86 43 71 100 88 38 62 88 No t e : Business cycle turning points are designated by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., Cambridge, m a . All series are adjusted for seasonal variation. 1 Not available. Table 2. Leads and lags of layoff rates at turns in employment and unemployment, 1948-82 [Lead ( - ) or lag (+) in months] L a yo ff rate, m a n u fa ctu rin g , L a yo ff rate, m a n u fa ctu rin g , U n e m p lo y m e n t rate N o n farm e m p lo y m e n t to 1968; la y o ff rate, to 1 968; lay o ff rate, u n d e r 5 w ee k s, 1969 ff. u n d e r 5 w ee k s, 1969 ff. P ea k T ro u g h T ro u g h P eak October 1949 -5 December 1982 Average lead (months): Percent of timing comparisons that are leads: -5 1948-82 Peak and trough 100 -7 -3 -2 -6 -1 2 -7 88 94 No t e : Business cycle turning points are designated by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., Cambridge, m a . All series are adjusted for seasonal variation. 36 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -8 July 1981 December 1982 -3 1948-82 Peak and trough -2 July 1980 -8 July 1981 -21 March 1980 -1 3 -2 July 1980 -1 3 -1 April 1975 -2 -1 2 -1 October 1974 -1 October 1973 July 1979 -11 0 March 1970 November 1970 -1 0 May 1975 -2 February 1961 -2 May 1969 August 1971 -1 6 April 1960 -9 -3 May 1961 -7 -7 May 1958 -4 February 1960 -4 March 1957 -1 7 April 1957 July 1958 T ro u g h -5 August 1954 -8 Peak July 1953 -7 June 1953 September 1954 Peak September 1948 +4 January 1948 October 1949 T ro u g h 88 100 94 troughs. In this respect, they are similar to the total unem ployment rate, which leads at peaks but usually lags at troughs. The primary reason for this asymmetry is that busi ness cycle dates are based upon data that reflect the long-run growth of the economy, whereas layoff and unemployment rates are relatively “trendless.” A trendless series tends to reach earlier peaks and later troughs than a series with a rising trend. When the turns in the layoff rates are matched with those in the total unemployment rate, rather than the business cycle, the leads are more nearly symmetrical. (See table 2.) The new layoff rate series leads the downturns in unemployment by an average of 5 months and the upturns by 7 months, for an overall average lead of 6 months. Compared with employment, the new layoff rate again leads at both peaks and troughs, but by much longer inter vals at peaks. This is to be expected, because nonfarm employment is virtually coincident with the business cycle, and reflects the growth trend of the economy. In view of the record of the new layoff rate as a leading indicator, the Center for International Business Cycle Re search has revised its leading employment index to include the new layoff rate since 1969 and the manufacturing layoff rate prior to 1969. At some future date, the new indicator might be considered a candidate for the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ composite leading index, replacing initial claims for unemployment insurance. □ ---------- FOOTNOTES ---------ACKNOWLEDGMENT: We are indebted to Chantal Dublin and Marcus Yumane for the statistical work on this report, and to John Stinson of the Bureau o f Labor Statistics for providing the new data on layoffs. 1 Geoffrey H. Moore, Business Cycle Indicators (Princeton University Press for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Princeton, n j , 1961), p. 64. 2 For an explanation o f the ratio of irregular to cyclical change and months for cyclical dominance, see the Handbook of Cyclical Indicators, Bureau o f Economic Analysis, 1984, pp. 167-68. Union response to changes in printing technology: another view D avid J. E isen In the July 1985 issue of the Review, Michael Wallace presents a three-nation comparison of union response to the massive technological changes in the newspaper printing industry over the last two decades.1 Professor Wallace con tends that the historical craft orientation of U.S. printing unions and the resulting fragmentation of the labor move ment in the industry have seriously impaired workers’ abil- David J. Eisen is Director of Research and Information, The Newspaper Guild. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ity to deal on an equal footing with management concerning the changes. He asserts, moreover, that a belated wave of mergers between the unions over the last 10 years has done little to give labor the appearance of a united front on the technology issue, citing in particular what he describes as a continuing jurisdictional struggle between The Newspaper Guild (reporters and other nonmechanical workers) and the International Typographical Union (typesetters) over the computerized setting of type. He concludes by describing labor relations patterns in the British and West German newspaper industries where, he claims, more farsighted unions took the decision at much earlier stages to consoli date or cooperate, and thus maintain their traditional control over the allocation of work. The Newspaper Guild takes issue with Wallace on issues of both fact and interpretation: Composition o f the Guild. Wallace states that The News paper Guild is composed of “reporters, editors, and a few other white-collar workers.” As a matter of fact, close to half the Guild’s members are “other white-collar workers.” The union has included advertising, circulation, business office, and other noneditorial employees since 1937 and actively seeks to represent them. On the other hand, Britain’s National Union of Journalists ( n u j ) , which Wal lace says “more than its U.S. counterpart, the Guild, seeks a broad-based membership of all white-collar workers in the industry,” is, in fact, entirely limited to reporters and edi tors. Of course, in view of Wallace’s mistaken conception of the Guild, his further statement that each of the three U.S. newspaper unions, including the Guild, “continues to be organized along occupational lines,” is also incorrect. The Guild is an industrial union, and the Graphic Communica tions International Union ( g c i u ) is approaching that status. Merger efforts. With regard to merger activity, Wallace states that the International Typographical Union ( i t u ) “was twice unsuccessful in completing merger negotiations with the Guild.” Aside from the fact that there was only one such attempt, extending over several years, the statement seems to suggest that the Guild was the unwilling party. As a matter of fact, the Guild sought energetically to bring about a merger and had approved it by convention in June 1983; the plan fell apart when the it u Convention unexpectedly refused to do likewise 2 months later. There are other, less consequential errors in Wallace’s discussion of merger efforts: the incumbent president, Joe Bingel, was “voted down” in the i t u ’ s 1983 election but the Teamsters merger proposal was not on the ballot, except inferentially. And it was not the National Labor Relations Board but the Labor Department that stepped in to void the election; the n l r b has no such authority. Guild-iw conflict. More disturbing is Wallace’s notion that “differences among journalists and composing room 37 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1986 • Communications workers over jurisdiction of cold-type technology remain a point of friction between the Guild and the itu .” There have been such differences in a few shops, where the issue has gone to arbitration, but they have not had any effect on relations between the two unions on the international level and played no role whatsoever in the breakdown of merger efforts. This questionable evaluation carries over into Wallace’s analysis of the impetus for merger negotiations. He states: “The printing unions, particularly the itu , were slow to react to the changes wrought by the new technology and, as a result, turned to mergers out of desperation after questions of jurisdiction over the new technology had already been decided by publishers on a plant-by-plant basis.” As a mat ter of fact, the itu for many years made extraordinary efforts to prepare its members for new technology, setting up a training center at its headquarters to school members in the new equipment. These efforts broke down only when com puterization set the stage for the complete elimination of typesetting and thus the printers’ jobs. Local exceptions aside, the Typographical Union recognized that assertion of jurisdiction over work that now originated almost entirely in the newsroom was not a viable position and that the only practicable choice was a rearguard action to preserve the maximum number of jobs while obtaining the best possible compensation for printers displaced by the new equipment. The itu ’s turn to merger was to a great extent motivated by the resulting swath this cut through its membership, to be sure, but it was not the primary force fueling the merger engine. That force was— and is— the compelling need for unity felt by all three unions in the face of the vastly strengthened bargaining position the new technology has given the publishers. The case o f Great Britain. Wallace’s analysis also is poor ly founded when it moves to Britain. He states: The nga (National Graphical Association) and the nuj (National Union of Journalists) have established joint committees dealing with technology issues. In general, the journalists have sup ported the nga’s contention that composing room workers should maintain jurisdiction over direct input of newspaper ma terial into video display terminals (vdt’s). 38 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis And later: Essentially, composing room workers have retained the right to control input of all materials into vdt’s, which is critical in the leverage they have with publishers . . . . In contrast to their U.S. counterparts, the British trade unions have displayed consider able farsightedness in anticipating the impact of technological changes in their industry and responding accordingly. This is an inaccurate picture. The British unions suc ceeded in fending off the impact of new technology for so long because of their strength. Now, however, the publish ers are insisting, like their U.S. counterparts, on “capturing the original keystroke,” and the jurisdictional question has arisen explosively between the two unions. The Journalists Union by no means concedes that the nga should retain jurisdiction over input under these circumstances, because it would put the Graphical Association in the newsroom. The issue has been posed sharply in at least one shop, and the ultimate outcome is still unclear. One can hope that the two unions will avert a head-on clash and that the nga will be able to protect its members’ interests without invading the nuj ’s territory. But already the nga and the nuj are more sharply at odds over management plans for the new tech nology than the Guild and the Typographers ever were. Wallace has written an epilogue to a story that has yet to unfold. Postscript: The foregoing comments were written in Octo ber 1985. In early February of this year, publisher Rupert Murdoch moved his British newspaper operations to a new, high-technology plant outside of London, and indicated that he would no longer bargain with the Graphical Association. Unfortunately, most of Murdoch’s journalists are crossing the nga ’s picket lines, despite a directive by the Journalists Union to respect them. The significance of these develop ments for the argument speaks for itself. ---------- FOOTNOTE ---------1 Michael Wallace, “Technological changes in printing: union response in three countries,” Monthly Labor Review, July 1985, pp. 4 1 -4 3 . Technical Note Computer-aided telephone interviewing used in the Hours at Work Survey Function 4. Used to scan the data base for reports that have failed edit criteria. Function 5. G u y A . T o sc a n o The Hours at Work Survey, a new component of U.S. productivity measures, represents the first use of Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing ( c a t i ) at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.1 c a t i refers to the use of interactive com puter systems by interviewers during telephone contacts with survey respondents.2 This relatively new process is in contrast to the traditional “batch” survey procedure, in which interviewing, data entry, data verification, and error correction constitute separate functions. This report de scribes the c a t i process and presents the results of using the technique in the Hours at Work Survey. An overview of the system The Hours at Work c a t i is an interactive system in which multiple users can access a mainframe computer data base using ib m 3270 terminals, c a t i software is written in m a n t i s , an application development system produced by c i n c o m . Inc., and files are managed using v s a m (Virtual Storage Access Method), an ib m file management system. Communication with the data base is controlled by cics (Customer Information Control System), also an ib m soft ware package. When a user logs onto the system and is properly identi fied, c a t i displays a menu screen which contains six func tions. By keying in the appropriate code, the user may select one of the following functions: Function 1. Used to interview the survey respondent or to reconcile data failing edit criteria. Function 2. Used to display the names of all respondents within the same primary company. Function 3. Used to display previous year’s data for a recurring respondent. Guy A. Toscano is an economist in the Office of Survey Processing, Bureau o f Labor Statistics. The Hours at Work Survey c a t i system was developed by Kevin C. Tidemann, a computer systems analyst in the same office. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Used to scan the data base by interviewer identification code or by the date scheduled for contacting particular respondents. Function 6. Used to print paper copies of status reports. The following are the major features of the cati system: • Form script. A facsimile of the report form is displayed on the screen for the interviewer, along with reported data and notations on edit failures. • Cursor control. The interviewer has complete cursor control and can move the cursor to any field on the fac simile report form to enter or change data. • Full screen editing. While still on the telephone with a respondent, the interviewer can enter data into the main frame data base and be immediately informed of entries that fail the system’s edit criteria. After telephone contact is established with a respondent, the interviewer simply follows the edit prompts displayed by the c a t i system. If the interviewer is unable to resolve an edit failure during the initial contact, c a t i provides for entry of a date on which the respondent should be recontacted for clarification. This information is stored in the data base and the file can be searched later based on the scheduled contact date. If the respondent provides an explanation or a correc tion, the interviewer moves the cursor to the entry in ques tion, and keys a correction or enters an explanation code beside the entry. The system instantaneously edits the record based on the new entry and displays appropriate messages if further clarification is necessary. With c a t i , the interviewer no longer uses a pencil, paper error listing, calculator, and correction form. The editreconciliation process is reduced to one task— namely, using a terminal and telephone to interact with a data base containing reported data. The phasing-in of cati The first Hours at Work Survey was conducted in 1982 in order to collect data for the 1981 reference year. The survey collects quarterly and annual data for hours paid (including vacations, holidays, and so forth) and hours actually spent 39 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1986 • Technical Notes at work for production or nonsupervisory employees at busi ness establishments in all nonagricultural sectors of the economy. The survey is based on a probability design to produce ratios of “hours at work” to “hours paid” for each 2-digit Standard Industrial Classification in manufacturing and 1-digit Standard Industrial Classification in nonmanu facturing. The ratios are then used in computing productiv ity measures for the major economic sectors. The first annual survey was conducted entirely by mail. It was not until 1983, the second survey year, that c a t i was used. Because it was not known how c a t i would affect the survey response, the new system was implemented in stages over a period of several years. 1982: basic operations. The first-year operation consisted of an initial mailing of 1-page questionnaires to approxi mately 4,200 sample units in March, with two mail follow ups to nonrespondents between April and June. Upon re ceipt, the completed reports were checked in and batched for key entry. The reported data were machine edited for valid ity, and data failing the edit criteria were printed on error listings for review. A report failing the edit was first checked for key entry errors, and then the respondent was contacted by mail or telephone to verify any remaining questionable entries. The resulting corrections were manu ally transcribed to yet another form which was sent to key entry for processing. Once again, data records with correc tions would either pass or fail computer editing. If a record failed, it would go through the verification procedures again. This reiterative process continued until all data passed the prescribed edit criteria. The data processing was labor-intensive and timeconsuming. Approximately one-third of the respondents (1,200 sample units) had to be contacted for data verifica tion. Many of these were contacted by telephone. This led the Bureau to conclude that telephone contact to clarify information previously supplied by mail was feasible and cost-effective. Although 76 percent of the initial sample units returned the survey form, the response rate— the pro portion of sample units providing usable data— was only 50.4 percent.3 The difference between the two rates oc curred primarily because some reported data did not meet the survey definition of “hours at work,” rendering the re port unusable. A response is considered usable when a re porting unit provides acceptable data for at least one quarter of the reference year. 1983: the second year. In 1983, the survey operation was modified to incorporate c a t i into the edit-reconciliation function. The questionnaires were mailed to the sample units, returned reports were batched, and data were keyed and computer edited as in the previous year. Additionally, the name and telephone number of the respondent were entered into the data base. Using the edit-reconciliation function, interviewers searched the data base for records 40 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 1. Response rates for the b l s Hours at Work Survey over the c a t i phase-in period, 1982-85 Item 19821 19832 19843 19854 Total response rate (percent) .......................... 50.4 80.1 78.2 85.2 Initial mailing ............................................................ First follow-up (mail) ............................................... Second follow-up: Mail ....................................................................... 24.0 15.0 40.1 23.0 35.0 21.0 32.0 23.6 CATI .............................................................................. 11.4 — 17.0 — 13.2 9.0 12.5 17.1 Designated sample ................................................. Eligible sam ple...................................................... 4,170 3,773 4,584 4,242 4,582 4,095 4,565 4,054 1 No use of c ati . used for edit-reconciliation only. cati used for edit-reconciliation and follow-up of nonresponse. 4 Augmented c ati. 2 3 cati with error codes. No paper error listings were produced, however. Instead, data failing one or more edits were dis played on a terminal video screen. The respondent was then contacted by telephone and requested to verify the reported information. c a t i produced excellent results. A completion rate (sam ple units reporting data) of 90 percent yielded a total re sponse rate of 80.1 percent, despite a 75-percent staff turnover from the previous year. Staff productivity was clearly enhanced through use of the new system. Although the improvement in the response rate was not entirely at tributable to the implementation of c a t i , it was apparent that the system enabled the staff to be more efficient in the edit-reconciliation process. 1984: initial solicitation o f nonrespondents. In the third year, a prompting feature was added to c a t i for use in conducting initial solicitation. The prompts display ques tions designed to guide the interviewer through the process of initiating solicitation by telephone. However, it was de cided to use this new feature only after all efforts to obtain the data by mail had failed. This decision was based on the following considerations: • While data being requested are generally available from the payroll records of employers, the respondent probably would not be able to provide the information by telephone without some type of prenotification. Mail solicitation gives the respondent more time to research and prepare these data. • Before the Bureau could initiate a contact by telephone, time and resources would be needed to obtain the name and telephone number of the appropriate person to con tact within each sample unit. Telephone numbers for sample units were accessible, but reaching an individual in the establishment who could provide the information was more difficult and time consuming. After efforts to obtain data by mail ended, the c a t i solic itation function was used to conduct follow-ups of the 1,079 nonrespondents. The sample units were equally and ran- domly assigned to each o f five interviewers, who were given 10 workdays to complete the contacts and to obtain data using the cati system. Completion rates, measured as usable responses divided by eligible assigned units,4 varied by interviewer from a low of 21.5 percent to a high of 78.6 percent. The interviewer with the highest completion rate had a rate that was 24.7 percent higher than the second most successful inter viewer, who had a rate of 53.9 percent. The average com pletion rate for all interviewers using cati was 34 percent. Both clerical employees and junior level professionals were used in the cati data collection procedure. All inter viewers received training on the ibm 3270 terminal. In addi tion, recommended interviewing techniques were demon strated using mock interviews. Although there was a standard script for introducing oneself to the respondent, interviewers were given approval to develop their own in troductory statements using established guidelines. A thorough review of the cati solicitation procedures used by each interviewer was conducted in order to identify any cause for the large differences in the completion rates. The review revealed that certain personal characteristics of the interviewers, such as a professional demeanor and a good grasp of the subject matter, contributed significantly to effectiveness on the telephone. The results of the review were documented and used in staff selection and in training interviewers. Collecting “hard data” by telephone generally required several telephone calls to a sample unit: first, to establish a contact who could provide the data or schedule a date when the data would be available, and later, to actually collect the data. The final survey results were comparable to those in the previous year. The response rate was 78.2 percent, of which 9 percent was obtained using cati solicitation. 1985: monitoring continues. As in previous years, the initial survey contact was done by mail. A certified follow up mailing was used to contact the nonrespondents. The signature on the certified return receipt was entered into the cati data base and used to establish an initial contact person within the nonresponding unit. For program analysis, cati was modified to keep a record of each call, including the duration of the call. The initial response rate by mail was 32 percent. The response rates for two mail follow-ups were 23.6 percent https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and 12.5 percent. After mail solicitation ended, there were 1,413 sample units with eligibility not determined, of which 1,120 were contacted using the cati system. Data were collected from two-thirds of the eligible sample units. An average of 2.1 telephone calls was made to each sample unit, and the average time spent on each telephone contact was 5 .9 minutes, cati solicitation contributed 17.1 percent to the total response rate, which was 85.2 percent for the year. Summary on using cati The bls experience with using cati to improve survey response has been positive. We started the first year with a response rate of 50.4 percent, and three surveys later, at tained a response rate of 85.2 percent. This improvement was not wholly attributable to cati but, rather to a combina tion of cati and a more experienced staff. Even so, evidence of the benefits of cati has been so persuasive that plans have been developed for modifying the Hours at Work Survey cati to run on a microcomputer. Switching the system from a mainframe computer to a microcomputer will significantly reduce system operating costs and improve online computer response time. The use of cati is also being tested for other bls survey programs, in hopes of similarly cutting data collection time and operating costs, boosting response rates, and improving data quality. □ -------- FOOTNOTES-------1 See Kent Kunze, “A new b l s survey measures the ratio of hours worked to hours paid,” Monthly Labor Review , June 1984, pp. 3 -7 , for a description of the Hours at Work Survey. 2 Robert M. Groves and Nancy A. Mathiowetz, “Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing: Effects on Interviewers and Respondents,” Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring 1984, pp. 356—69; J. Merrill Shanks, “The Current Status of Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing: Recent Pro gress and Future Prospects,” Sociological Methods and Research, Novem ber 1983, pp. 119-42; and The Role of Telephone Data Collection in Federal Statistics, Statistical Policy Working Paper 12, Prepared by Sub committee on the Role of Telephone, Mail, and Personal Interviews in Federal Statistics, Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology, Statisti cal Policy Office (Washington, Office of Management and Budget, 1984). 3 Response rate = Number of units providing usable reports/(Number of eligible sample units + Number of sample units with eligibility not deter mined). 4 A sample unit is deemed “ineligible” if, by the nature of its activity, it does not meet the definitions established for the Hours at Work Survey or the unit is out of business and no longer exists. 41 Research Summaries Work-related deaths in 1984: b l s survey findings D iane M. C otter The number of occupational fatalities in private sector estab lishments with 11 employees or more was 3,740 in 1984, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses. (See table 1.) The corresponding fatality rate was 6.4 per 100,000 full-time workers. About 3,300 of all deaths were related to injuries. Among industry divisions, fatality rates ranged from 41.4 per 100,000 full-time workers in mining to 1.9 in finance, insurance, and real estate. (See table 2.) A high of 800 lives were lost in manufacturing and a low of 80, in finance, insurance, and real estate. The fatality data are based on reports received from a sample of employers selected randomly. Participating em ployers provided a brief description of the object or event most directly responsible for the death. Although the sample for this survey is large (280,000 units), reported fatalities (3,740) are relatively rare events which make it tenuous to compare year-to-year changes precisely. The fatalities are classified into broad causal categories, and estimates of the percentages of fatalities are based on the total number of reported cases for the 1983 and 1984 surveys. t the 8 industry divisions. Cars and trucks were responsible for the largest percentage of fatalities in the industries of agriculture, forestry, and fishing; manufacturing; trans portation and public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services. About 30 percent of these over-the-road fatalities occurred in the transportation and public utilities industry, which had only 7 percent of total employment. (See table 4.) Some of these deaths were the result of employees being run over at the worksite, overturning vehicles, and collisions. Industrial vehicles or equipment, such as tractors and high-lift trucks, were involved in nearly 11 percent of all fatalities. The construction and manufacturing industries each accounted for about one-fourth of these fatalities. These industries accounted for about 5 and 28 percent of total employment. Approximately 11 percent of all fatalities involved falls, particularly from higher levels. More than 2 of every 5 of these deaths occurred in construction industries. Electrocutions were the cause of roughly 10 percent of all fatalities. Almost three-tenths occurred in construction in dustries, and nearly one-fourth were in manufacturing in dustries. Some electrocutions resulted from workers receiv- Table 1. Number and rate of fatalities for employers with 11 employees or more, private sector, 1974 through 1984 Analysis by cause and industry The majority of deaths from occupational accidents in the private sector were grouped into four causal categories: highway vehicles, industrial vehicles or equipment, falls, and electrocutions. (See table 3.) Cars and trucks were in volved in more than one-fourth of the work-related deaths; heart attacks caused about one-eighth; and industrial vehi cles or equipment, falls, and electrocutions each contributed roughly one-tenth. The remaining deaths were related to assaults, entrapments, explosions, aircraft crashes, gas in halation, plant machinery operations, fires, objects other than vehicles or equipment, and other causes. Highway vehicles were the leading cause of death in 6 of Diane M. Cotter is an economist in the Office of Occupational Safety and Health Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 42 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Y ea r 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 ...................................................... ..................................................... ..................................................... ...................................................... ...................................................... ...................................................... ..................................................... ...................................................... ..................................................... ..................................................... ..................................................... A n n u a l ave rag e Num ber In c id e n c e rate e m p lo y m e n t1 of p e r 1 00 ,00 0 (th o u sa n d s ) fa ta litie s w o rk e rs 2 54,272 52,693 53,693 56,333 59,297 61,660 61,677 62,895 61,646 63,981 68,008 4,970 4,570 3,940 4,760 4,590 4,950 4,400 4,370 4,090 3,100 3,740 9.8 9.4 7.9 9.1 8.2 8.6 7.7 7.6 7.4 5.6 6.4 1 Employment is expressed as an annual average and is derived primarily from the BLS-State Current Employment Statistics program. Employment estimates have been adjusted based on data provided by the Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses to exclude establish ments with fewer than 11 employees. 2 The incidence rates represent the number of fatalities per 100,000 full-time workers and were calculated as: (N/EH) x 200,000,000, where: N = number of fatalities EH = total hours worked by all employees during calendar year 200,000,000 = base for 100,000 full-time equivalent workers (working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). ing a severe shock after coming in contact with electrical wires. Table 2. Number and rate of occupational fatalities for employers with 11 employees or more, by industry division, 1983-1984 Agriculture, forestry, and fishing. Highway vehicles ac 198 4 1983 counted for the plurality of the fatalities, followed by indus trial vehicles or equipment, and then heart attacks. In d u s try divis io n F atalities In cid e n c e ra te 1 F atalities In c id e n c e ra te 1 Mining— oil and gas extraction only. 1 Accidents involving Private s e c to r............................ 3,100 5.6 3,740 6.4 industrial vehicles or equipment, highway vehicles, and falling objects— other than vehicles or equipment— were the primary causes of death. Agriculture, forestry, and fishing . . . . M ining............................................... Construction .................................... Manufacturing .................................. Transportation and public utilities . . . Wholesale and retail tra d e ............... Finance, insurance, and real estate . Services ........................................... 80 240 670 730 570 440 70 310 12.7 27.6 26.3 4.3 13.3 3.3 1.7 110 16.3 41.4 Construction. Deaths which occurred as the result of an employee falling were the most common, followed by acci dents involving highway vehicles, and industrial vehicles or equipment. Manufacturing. Highway vehicles were the primary cause of death; industrial vehicles or equipment, heart attacks, and electrocutions were also leading causes. 2.2 370 660 800 770 440 80 510 22.8 4.4 16.9 3.1 1.9 3.9 1 The incidence rates represent the number of fatalities per 100,000 full-time workers and were calculated as: (N/EH) x 200,000,000, where: N = number of fatalities EH = total hours worked by all employees during calendar year 2,000,000,000 = base for 100,000 full-time equivalent workers (working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). No t e : Because of rounding, components may not add to totals. Background of the survey Transportation and public utilities. Highway vehicles were the main cause of death; heart attacks and industrial vehicles or equipment were also important causes. Wholesale and retail trade. Primary causes of death in volved highway vehicles, industrial vehicles or equipment, and assaults. Finance, insurance, and real estate. Highway vehicles caused the majority of the fatalities, and heart attacks ac counted for another large portion. Services. Highway vehicles were the major cause of death; heart attacks and electrocutions were other chief causes. Table 3. The 1984 Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, authorized by the Occupational Safety and Health Act, surveyed all employers except the self-employed, farmers with fewer than 11 employees, private households, Federal, State, and local government agencies, employers with fewer than 11 employees in low-risk industries, and those establishments in which working conditions are cov ered by other Federal safety and health laws. Since 1977, the published data on occupational fatalities reflect only those deaths in establishments with 11 em ployees or more. The 1983 report on the survey of occupa tional fatalities entitled, “Work-related deaths dropped sharply during 1983, bls survey finds,” was published in the Distribution of fatalities by cause for employers with 11 employees or more, private sector, 1983 and 19841 [In percent] Cause2 Total—all causes ................................................... Highway vehicles............................................................ Heart a ttacks.................................................................. Industrial vehicles or equipment.................................... Falls ............................................................................... Electrocutions ................................................................ Assaults ......................................................................... Struck by objects other than vehicles or equipment. . . . Caught in, under, or between objects other than vehicles or equipment................................................. Explosions....................................................................... Aircraft crashes.............................................................. Gas inhalation................................................................ Plant machinery operations ........................................... Fires ............................................................................... All other6 ......................................................................... M in in g - Total A g ric u ltu re, private fo re s try, s e c to r3 a n d fis h in g 100 100 100 27 30 13 19 18 9 19 8 8 12 11 11 10 oil a nd gas e xtra c tio n 100 20 12 W h o le s ale and p ublic and retail u tilities 4 tra d e 100 100 100 100 19 42 38 11 12 8 10 8 8 51 25 5 7 4 4 7 3 15 23 14 1 6 0 1 2 5 7 3 15 3 7 2 3 2 3 7 3 9 2 1 1 8 2 4 3 4 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 (5) 2 6 2 4 5 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 sampling errors are large at the industry division level. Therefore, the results are for both years rather than a comparison between them. 2 Cause is defined as the object or event associated with the fatality. 3 Excludes coal, metal and nonmetal mining, and railroads, for which data are not available. 2 8 0 3 5 Finance, T ra n s p o rta tio n M a n u fa c tu rin g on ly 1 1t is difficult to estimate year-to-year changes for the causal categories precisely because https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis C o n s tru c tio n 9 8 1 (5) 5 13 9 7 10 2 insu ra n c e, and S erv ic e s real e state 100 23 20 2 9 16 0 12 1 3 4 3 0 0 2 1 3 5 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 (5) (5) 9 1 4 Excludes railroads. 5 Less than 1 percent. 6 The “All other” category includes, for example, contact with carcinogenic or toxic sub stances, drowning, train accidents, and various occupational illnesses. Note: Because of rounding, percentages may not add to 100. 43 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW Table 4. Research Summaries May 1986 • Distribution of fatalities by industry division for employers with 11 employees or more, private sector, 1983 and 19841 [In percent] C ause2 Total A g ric u ltu re, priva te fo re s try, s ec to r3 and fis h in g Total—all causes ................................................... Highway vehicles............................................................ Heart attacks................................................................... Industrial vehicles or equipment.................................... Falls ............................................................................... Electrocutions ................................................................ Assaults ......................................................................... Struck by objects other than vehicles or equipment. . . . Caught in, under, or between objects other than vehicles or equipment................................................. Explosions.............................................................. Aircraft c rashes.............................................................. Gas inhalation................................................................ Plant machinery operations ........................................... F ire s ............................................................................... All other6 ......................................................................... 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 M in in g o il a n d gas e xtra c tio n 3 3 3 5 5 4 4 9 3 2 2 1 2 0 20 5 3 2 2 1 1 3 4 20 20 28 44 29 4 14 18 0 12 6 3 25 18 Excludes coal, metal and nonmetal mining, and railroads, for which data are not available. Monthly Labor Review, September 1985, pp. 4 1-44. The 1984 survey was comprised of a sample of 280,000 units. The relative standard errors, which are a measure of the sampling error in the estimates, are given in the follow ing tabulation in percent and are to be used only in conjunc tion with the numbers of fatalities or the incidence rate for 1984 shown in tables 1 and 2: Industry Relative standard error Private secto r.................................................... Agriculture, forestry, and fishing............................ Mining........................................................................ Construction.............................................................. Manufacturing............................................................ Transportation and public utilities............................ Wholesale and retail trade........................................ Finance, insurance, and real estate.......................... Services...................................................................... 8 26 13 12 6 13 58 39 21 -------- FOOTNOTE-------1 The Mine Safety and Health Administration o f the U .S. Department of Labor and the Federal Railroad Administration o f the U .S. Department of Transportation provided data for the number o f deaths in coal, metal, and nonmetal mining and railroads but not for the objects or events involved in the cases. Union membership of employed wage and salary workers, 1985 The number of employed wage and salary workers who were members of unions or employee associations declined from 20.1 to 17.0 million between 1980 and 1985. During the same period, the number of employed wage and salary workers rose from 87.5 to 94.5 million. Thus, the propor 25 17 24 27 17 23 15 3 13 4 15 2 Cause is defined as the object or event associated with the fatality. 44 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M a n u fa c tu rin g o n ly 1 1t is difficult to estimate year-to-year changes for the causal categories precisely because sampling errors are large at the industry division level. Therefore, the results are for both years rather than a comparison between them. 3 C o n s tru c tio n 10 5 6 T ra n sp o rtatio n W h o le s ale a nd pu b lic and retail u tilities 4 tra d e 19 29 16 13 14 19 9 16 10 12 12 14 14 9 33 41 11 6 45 51 27 23 74 48 19 16 9 27 53 7 3 25 10 F inance, in su ran ce, and S erv ice s real e state 1 13 3 3 11 21 2 11 21 1 1 1 1 0 35 3 0 12 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 3 19 3 3 3 (5) 25 13 15 2 4 Excludes railroads, 5 Less than , Dercent ^ 6 The “All other” category includes, for example, contact with carcinogenic or toxic substances, drowning, train accidents, and various occupational illnesses. No t e : Because of rounding, percentages may not add to 100. tion of workers who were union members fell from 23.0 to 18.0 percent over the 5-year period. The number and pro portion of workers represented by unions— that is, union members as well as nonmembers covered by collective bar gaining agreements— also declined, from 22.5 to 19.4 mil lion or from 25.7 to 20.5 percent of employed wage and salary workers. Data on union employment were obtained from the Cur rent Population Survey ( c p s ) , conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The c p s col lected data on workers identified by their membership in unions or by their representation at work by a union, whether or not they were members. It should be noted that the c p s union membership data covered only employed wage and salary workers, not union members who were self-employed, unemployed, retired, laid off, or who, for other reasons, were not wage and salary employees. Industry. Among the major industry groups, the trans portation, communications, and public utilities industry had the highest union membership proportion— 37 percent, or 2.1 million members out of 5.7 million workers. Three other major industry groups had union membership proportions greater than the national average of 18.0 percent: the public sector— Federal, State, and local government (35.8 per cent); manufacturing (24.8 percent); and construction (22.3 percent). In mining, 17.3 percent of the workers were union members, just below the national average. Among the other industry groups (wholesale and retail trade; services; and finance, insurance, and real estate), union membership rates were no higher than 7.2 percent. (See table 1.) Union membership was disproportionately concentrated in three major industry groups. The public sector accounted for 33.8 percent of all employed union members; manufac- Table 1. Employed wage and salary workers affiliated with a union, by selected characteristics, 1985 annual average [Numbers in thousands] C h a ra c te ris tic M e m b e rs of R ep resen ted u n io n s 1 by u n io n s 2 Total e m p lo y e d Total Total, 16 years and over.. M e n .............................. Women.......................... White3............................ Men............................ W omen..................... Black3............................ Men............................ W omen..................... Full-time workers4 ......... Part-time workers4......... Occupation: Managerial and professional specialty . Technical, sales, and administrative support. Service occupations . . . Precision production, craft, and repair........... Operators, fabricators, and laborers............... Farming, forestry, and fishing.......................... Industry: Agricultural wage and salary workers............. Private nonagricultural wage and salary workers........................ Mining........................ Construction............. Manufacturing........... Transportation and public utilities........... Wholesale and retail tra d e ........................ Finance, insurance, and real estate......... Services................... Government workers. . . P erc en t of e m p lo y e d Total P ercen t of em p lo y e d 94,521 51,015 43,506 81,862 44,680 37,182 10,073 4,967 5,106 77,002 17,518 16,996 11,264 5,732 14,124 9,623 4,501 2,445 1,387 1,058 15,717 1,280 18.0 22.1 13.2 17.3 21.5 12.1 24.3 27.9 20.7 20.4 7.3 19,358 12,448 6,910 16,083 10,625 5,458 2,775 1,530 1,245 17,816 1,542 20.5 24.4 15.9 19.6 23.8 14.7 27.6 30.8 24.4 23.1 8.8 21,688 3,307 15.2 4,166 19.2 10.8 14.4 3,928 2,162 13.1 16.2 Demographic characteristics. 30,082 13,325 3,243 1,922 11,482 3,272 28.5 3,543 30.9 16,207 5,157 31.8 5,453 33.6 While a larger proportion of male workers than of female workers belonged to unions (22.1 versus 13.2 percent), the pattern of change in union membership proportions across age brackets was similar for both sexes. The proportion of workers belonging to unions was smallest for workers age 16 to 24 for both men and women. (See table 1.) As workers’ age rose, so did the percentage of those who belonged to unions. The highest unionization rate reported was for workers in the 45- to 64-year old bracket. This relationship held for both men and women. 1,736 95 5.5 107 6.1 A higher proportion of black than of white employees 1,427 30 2.1 32 2.3 77,044 881 4,716 20,120 11,227 153 1,051 4,996 14.6 17.3 22.3 24.8 12,409 167 1,114 5,422 16.1 19.0 23.6 26.9 5,725 2,118 37.0 2,275 39.7 19,402 1,400 7.2 1,552 8.0 6,032 20,167 16,050 177 1,331 5,740 2.9 6.6 35.8 244 1,636 6,917 4.0 8.1 43.1 1 Members of a labor union or an employee association similar to a union. 2 Members of a labor union or an employee association similar to a union, as well as workers who report no union affiliation but whose jobs are covered by a union or employee association contract. 3 Detail for the race groups will not add to total because separate data are not presented for "other races" and Hispanic groups. 4 The distinction between full- and part-time workers is based on hours usually worked. N o t e : Data refer to the sole or principal job of full- and part-time workers. Excluded are self-employed workers whose businesses are incorporated, although they technically qualify as wage and salary workers. turing for 29.4 percent; and transportation, communica tions, and public utilities for 12.5 percent. Although these three groups accounted for three-fourths of union member ship, they employed only 44 percent of the Nation’s wage and salary workers. Occupation. The two most heavily unionized major occu pational groups were operators, fabricators, and laborers, with 31.8 percent membership, and precision production, craft, and repair workers, with 28.5 percent membership. Although membership rates were less than 16 percent among the other occupational groups, two subgroups had https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis comparatively high rates of unionization. About three-tenths of all union members were in the oper ators, fabricators, and laborers occupational group. Almost 60 percent were about equally distributed among three other major occupational groups: managerial and professional specialty; precision production, craft, and repair; and tech nical, sales, and administrative. The service occupations accounted for about one-tenth of the workers who were union members. Table 2. Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers affiliated with a union, by selected charac teristics, 1985 annual average Characteristic Total, 16 years and over.............................. M e n .......................................................... Women..................................................... White2........................................................ Men.................................................. W omen................................................. Black2....................................................... Men........................................................ W omen................................................. Occupation: Managerial and professional specialty . . . Technical sales and administrative support................................................... Service..................................................... Precision production, craft, and repair. . . Operators, fabricators, and laborers......... Farming, forestry, and fishing................... Industry: Agricultural wage and salary workers----Private nonagricultural wage and salary workers................................................... Mining................................................... Construction......................................... Manufacturing...................................... Transportation and public utilities......... Wholesale and retail trad e................... Finance, insurance, and real estate . . . Services............................................... Government workers................................ Total Represented by a union Not represented by a union $343 406 277 355 417 281 277 304 252 $419 463 347 433 475 356 352 381 316 $315 383 262 323 395 267 246 266 228 488 481 490 307 216 397 295 212 380 322 495 395 334 297 195 349 249 206 211 (3) 210 332 501 369 368 458 270 334 298 394 418 507 556 401 492 373 340 327 420 312 499 315 347 414 262 333 294 360 1 1 Members of a labor union or an employee association similar to a union, as well as workers who report no union affiliation but whose jobs are covered by a union or an employee associa tion contract. 2 Detail for the race groups will not add to total because data for “other races” and Hispanic groups are not presented. 3 Data not shown where base Is less than 50,000. N o t e : Data refer to the sole or principal job of full- and part-time workers. Excluded are self-employed workers whose businesses are Incorporated although they technically qualify as wage and salary workers. Data on median weekly earnings are derived using $50 centered intervals, rather than the $10 Intervals previously used. 45 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1986 • Research Summaries belonged to unions, 24.3 and 17.3 percent. This relationship held for both men and women. Earnings. Full-time unionized workers had substantially higher median usual weekly earnings than those who were not represented by a union. (See table 2.) This relationship held for six of the eight major industry groups (exceptions were mining and finance, insurance, and real estate) and among the occupational groups, except for managerial and professional specialty workers. Similarly, among black and white workers of both sexes, those covered by a collective bargaining agreement had weekly earnings substantially higher than their nonrepresented counterparts. More detailed data appear in Larry T. Adams, “Union Membership of Employed Wage and Salary Workers,” Cur rent Wage Developments, March 1985, pp. 45-50. □ Making work more human Where work is badly organized, the morale of the workers is almost certainly going to be low, and the working atmosphere depressed. Monotonous jobs, requiring little skill, can be extremely tiring and even degrading. An authoritarian style of management can add to the burden. If a worker has only one duty and that is to be obedient; if he is given only simple tasks, to be repeated from morning till night; if the pace of work allows him no time to relax for a moment; in all these conditions, he is gradually forced into the position of a draught animal who only works, eats, and sleeps. Fortunately, it is now increasingly acknowledged that— what ever purely economic considerations might dictate— this is not good enough. Everyone is now familiar with the demand for “the humanization of work.” — International L abor O rganization Working Conditions and Environment: A Worker’s Education Manual (Washington, International Labor Organization, 1983), pp. 27-28. 46 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 collected by the Bureau’s Office of Wages and Industrial Relations. The list includes agreements covering 1,000 workers or more. Private industry is arranged in order of Standard Industrial Classification. Employer and location Industry or activity Labor organization1 Number of workers Mining ...................................... Mining ...................................... Mining ...................................... Construction............................... Steelworkers ............................... Steelworkers ............................... Various unions............................. Carpenters ................................... 4,600 2,800 1,000 20,000 Construction............................... Laborers...................................... 15,000 Construction............................... Laborers...................................... 4,000 Construction............................... Construction............................... Operating Engineers ..................... Laborers...................................... 6,300 15,000 Construction............................... Plasterers and Cement Masons....... 4,000 Construction............................... Carpenters ................................... 16,000 Construction............................... Carpenters ................................... 13,000 Construction............................... Construction............................... Construction............................... Carpenters ................................... Operating Engineers ..................... Carpenters ................................... 12,000 6,500 15,000 Construction............................... Operating Engineers ..................... 12,000 Construction............................... Teamsters (Ind.) .......................... 2,400 Construction............................... Plasterers and Cement Masons....... 4,100 Construction............................... Construction............................... Construction............................... Carpenters ................................... Electrical Workers (ibew) .............. Laborers...................................... 5,500 10,000 2,000 Construction............................... Construction............................... Plumbers .................................... Sheet Metal Workers..................... 11,000 2,400 Construction............................... Construction............................... Construction............................... Printing and publishing................ Chemicals ................................. Primary Metals .......................... Fabricated metal products............ Fabricated metal products............ Fabricated metal products............ Fabricated metal products............ Machinery ................................. Machinery ................................. Machinery ................................. Machinery ................................. Iron Workers ............................... Plumbers .................................... Painters ...................................... Newspaper Guild.......................... Clothing Workers ........................ Various unions............................. Standard Allied Trades Council . . . . Auto Workers ............................. Iron Workers ............................... Auto Workers ............................. Auto Workers ............................. Auto Workers ............................. Machinists ................................... Machinists ................................... 10,000 2,000 2,500 1,000 4,000 3,000 1,250 1,000 1,000 1,100 20,400 18,000 1,000 2,300 Private Kennecott Copper Corp. (Interstate) ............................................... Magma Copper Co. (Superior, az) ................................................. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. (Arizona) ............................... Associated General Contractors of California, Inc., and 2 others (California) Associated General Contractors of California, Inc., and 2 others (California) Associated General Contractors, San Diego Chapter and 1 other (California) Associated General Contractors (Alaska).......................................... Associated General Contractors and others, Northern California (California) Associated General Contractors of California, Inc., Northern California (California) Building Industry Association and 2 others, Northern California (California) Associated General Contractors and 2 others, Southern California (California) Residential Contractors Employers Council (Chicago, IL)................... Michigan Road Builders Association (Michigan) ............................. Associated General Contractors of California, Inc., 46 Northern California counties (California) Associated General Contractors of California, Inc., Northern California (California) Associated General Contractors of California, Inc., Northern California (California) Associated General Contractors, Southern California Chapter (California) Highway Contractors Inc. (Kentucky) ............................................. New York Electrical Contractors Association (New York, NY).......... California Conference of Mason Contractors Association, bricktenders (California) Plumbing and Piping Industry Council (Los Angeles, CA)................. Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors and 1 other, Los Angeles Chapter (California) Associated General Contractors and others (California and Nevada) ... Mechanical Contractors Council of Central California (California) .. . . Painting and Decorating Contractors Association (Seattle, wa) .......... San Francisco Newspaper Publishers Association (California)............ Celanese Corp. of America, Fibers division (Virginia) ..................... Asarco, Inc. (Interstate) ................................................................ American Standard Inc. (Louisville, KY).......................................... Master Lock Co. (Milwaukee, wi).................................................. Western Steel Council (San Francisco, CA)...................................... Aluminum Co. of America (Cleveland, oh) .................................... Caterpillar Tractor Co. (Interstate).................................................. Deere and Co. (Interstate) ............................................................. Tecumseh Products Co., Lauson Engine division (Wisconsin) .......... Brunswick Corp., Mercury Marine division (Fond Du Lac, wi) ......... See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 47 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1986 • Major Agreements Expiring Next Month Continued—Major Agreements Expiring Next Month Employer and location Industry or activity Labor organization1 Number of workers Manufacturers of Illumination Products, Inc. (New York, NY) .......... Magnavox Consumer Electronics Co. (Greenville, TN) ..................... Avco Corp., Aerostructures division (Tennessee)............................. Teledyne Continental Motors (Interstate).......................................... Motor Wheel Corp. (Lansing, mi) .................................................. mtl, Inc. (Hawaii) ....................................................................... Northwest Airlines, pilots (Interstate)2 ........................................... Connecticut Light and Power Co. (Connecticut)............................... Consolidated Edison Company of New York (New York)................. Gulf States Utilities Co. (Interstate)................................................ Electrical products...................... Electrical products...................... Transportation equipment............ Transportation equipment ............ Transportation equipment ............ Transit ...................................... Air transportation ...................... Utilities .................................... Utilities .................................... Utilities .................................... Electrical Workers (ibew) .............. Electrical Workers (IUE) ................ Machinists ................................... Auto Workers ............................. Industrial Workers........................ Teamsters (Ind.) .......................... Air Line Pilots............................. Electrical Workers (ibew) .............. Utility Workers ............................ Electrical Workers (ibew) .............. 1,000 2,600 2,100 3,400 2,500 1,200 1,600 1,800 16,000 3,000 Illinois Power Co. (Illinois) ........................................................... Acme Markets, Inc. (Pennsylvania)................................................. Safeway Stores Inc. (Interstate) ...................................................... Star Markets (Rhode Island and Massachusetts) ............................... Eastern Motor Car Dealers, Inc. (California) ................................... Save-On Drug Stores (California) .................................................. Blue Cross of California (California)............................................... Maintenance Contractors agreement (Los Angeles, ca) ..................... Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, Inc. (Interstate) . League of New York Theatres Inc. (Interstate)................................. League of Voluntary Hospitals and Homes of New York (New York, NY) Rush Presbyterian-St. Lukes Medical Center (Chicago, il) ................ Kaiser Permanente (Los Angeles, ca) ............................................. Utilities .................................... Retail trade ............................... Retail trade ............................... Retail trade ............................... Retail trade ............................... Retail trade ............................... Insurance ................................... Services .................................... Amusements ............................. Amusements ............................. Hospitals ................................... 1,150 2,200 2,600 1,200 1,200 2,500 1,200 1,800 4,300 1,300 50,000 Washington Hospital Center, nurses (Washington, DC) ..................... Community Hospital and Health Care Systems, Inc., Prince Georges County (Maryland) Hospitals ................................... Hospitals ................................... Electrical Workers (ibew) .............. Food and Commercial Workers . . . . Teamsters (Ind.) .......................... Food and Commercial Workers .. . . Various unions............................. Food and Commercial Workers .. . . Office and Professional Employees . Service Employees ...................... Screen Actors Guild ..................... Actors’ Equity Association............ Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Various unions............................. United Nurses Association of California Nurses’ Association (Ind.) ............ Firemen and Oilers ...................... State, County and Municipal Employees State, County and Municipal Employees Police Associations (Ind.).............. Education Association (Ind.) ......... Education Association (Ind.) ......... Education Association (Ind.) ......... Education Association (Ind.) ......... Education Association (Ind.) ......... State Employees Association ......... United Public Employees union (Ind.) Long Beach City Employees Association (Ind.) Transit Union............................... Education Association (Ind.) ......... 1,800 Hospitals ................................... Hospitals ................................... Public Arizona: Phoenix general unit, clerical ........................................... Genera] government ................... Phoenix general unit, blue collar ...................................... General government ................... Phoenix Police Department, nonsupervisory ....................... Phoenix teachers ............................................................. Tucson Board of Education, teachers................................. California: Chula Vista Board of Education, teachers ...................... Compton Board of Education, teachers............................ Fremont Board of Education, teachers ............................ Fremont Board of Education, clerical ............................. Freemont Board of Education, classified ........................ Law enforcement........................ Education................................... Education................................... Education................................... Education................................... Education................................... Education................................... Education................................... Long Beach office and technical nonsupervisory unit ....... General government ................... Alameda County Contra Costa Transit Authority.............. Sacramento Board of Education, teachers........................ Transit ...................................... Education................................... Monterey County general unit ........................................ General government ................... San Diego general unit, blue collar................................. General government ................... San Diego Board of Education, operational support ......... San Diego County multi-unit.......................................... San Diego County sheriffs............................................. Education................................... General government ................... Law enforcement........................ San Jose Board of Education, teachers ............................ San Juan Board of Education, teachers............................ Connecticut: Bridgeport teachers .................................................... State Department of Mental Retardation, nonprofessional Hartford Board of Education, teachers.......................... University of Connecticut, faculty ............................... Florida: Broward County Board of Education, clerical ..................... Duval County School District, teachers............................... Leon County Board of Education, teachers.......................... Hillsborough County, paraprofessionals ............................. Education................................... Education................................... Education................................... Social services............................. Education................................... Education................................... Education................................... Education................................... Education................................... Education ................................. Iowa: Davenport Board of Education, teachers................................. Illinois: Department of Corrections multi-unit................................... Education................................... Prisons ...................................... Paraprofessionals unit RC28............................................... General government ................... Clerical unit..................................................................... General government ................... See footnotes at end of table. 48 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monterey County Employees Association ............................. State, County and Municipal Employees Service Employees ...................... Various unions............................. San Diego County Sheriffs Association Education Association (Ind.) ......... Education Association, (Ind.)......... Education Association (Ind.) ......... Various unions............................. Teachers...................................... University Professors (Ind.) .......... Education Association (Ind.) ......... Teachers...................................... Education Association (Ind.) ......... Hillsborough Classroom Teachers Association Education Association (Ind.) ......... State, County and Municipal Employees State, County and Municipal Employees State, County and Municipal Employees 1,000 2,200 1,000 1,100 2,400 1,400 1,100 2,900 1,100 1,300 1,100 1,500 1,000 1,300 1,800 3,000 3,000 1,600 1,700 2,000 7,200 1,000 1,400 2,350 1,100 6,000 1,600 1,600 1,000 5,700 1,400 1,600 1,300 4,300 2,000 10,200 Continued—Major Agreements Expiring Next Month Industry or activity Labor organization1 Number of workers Mental health workers........................................................ Social services............................ 8,400 Protective and regulatory unit RC29 ................................... Nurses unit RC23 ............................................................. Indiana: Indiana University, maintenance unit ................................. Law enforcement........................ Health services .......................... Education................................... Kansas: Shawnee Mission, teachers................................................ Wichita Board of Education, noninstructional...................... Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts, service, clerical, security Massachusetts State College, faculty ........................ Commonwealth administrative and clerical ................ Commonwealth administrative professionals .............. Commonwealth trades and crafts ............................. Commonwealth engineers and scientists ................... Education................................... Education.................................. Education................................... Education................................... General government ................... General government ................... General government ................... General government ................... Springfield Board of Education, teachers................... Worcester general unit............................................. Maryland: Anne Arundel County Board of Education, bus drivers, custodians, maintenance, cafeteria employees Technical, clerical, instructional aides............................. Baltimore classified white collar .................................... Education................................... General government ................... Education................................... Education................................... General government ................... Baltimore blue collar...................................................... General government ................... Baltimore Fire Department............................................. Baltimore Board of School Commissioners, teachers, paraprofessionals, 2 agreements Hartford County Board of Education, teachers ................. Frederick County Board of Education, teachers ................ Howard County Board of Education, teachers ................. Prince Georges County Board of Education, classified .. . . Fire protection ............................ Education................................... State, County and Municipal Employees State Employees Association ......... Nurses Association (Ind.) .............. State, County and Municipal Employees Education Association (Ind.) ......... Service Employees ...................... Various unions............................. Education Association (Ind.) ......... Service Employees ...................... Service Employees ...................... Service Employees ...................... Massachusetts Organization of State Engineers and Scientists ............ Education Association (Ind.) ........ Service Employees ...................... State, County and Municipal Employees Secretaries and Aides Association .. State, County and Municipal Employees State, County and Municipal Employees Fire Fighters ............................... Teachers...................................... Education................................... Education................................... Education................................... Education.................................. Maine: State employees ................................................................ Michigan: Detroit city employees .................................................. General government ................... General government ................... Detroit Police Department............................................... Detroit Fire Department ................................................ University of Michigan, service and maintenance.............. Law enforcement........................ Fire protection ............................ Education................................... Missouri: St. Louis Board of Education, teachers ............................ New Jersey: State administrative and clerical ................................... State professional unit ................................................ State blue collar unit .................................................. Education................................... General government ................... General government ................... General government ................... State Health, Care and Rehabilitation Services .............. Health services .......................... Nevada: Clark County public employees unit ................................... Las Vegas general unit...................................................... General government ................... General government ................... Washoe County Board of Education, teachers ..................... New York: Buffalo Fire Department ............................................... Oklahoma: Oklahoma City Board of Education, teachers ................. Tulsa Board of Education, teachers ............................... Education................................... Fire protection ........................... Education................................... Education................................... Oregon: Eugene Board of Education, teachers ................................. Multnomah County School District, teachers ...................... Education................................... Education................................... Portland Board of Education, teachers ............................... Education................................... Pennsylvania: Philadelphia Fire Department .................................... Philadelphia Police Department ................................. Philadelphia city employees ...................................... Fire protection ............................ Law enforcement........................ General government ................... Rhode Island: State employees....................................................... General government ................... Tennessee: Hamilton County Board of Education, teachers................ Memphis general unit .................................................. Education................................... General government ................... Memphis Fire Department............................................. Utah: Davis County Board of Education, noninstructional................. Teachers.............................................................................. Salt Lake City Board of Education, teachers .......................... Fire protection ............................ Education................................... Education................................... Education................................... Vermont: State nonmanagement unit............................................... General government ................... Employer and location Education Association (Ind.) ......... Education Association (Ind.) ......... Education Association (Ind.) ......... State, County and Municipal Employees State Employees Association ......... State, County and Municipal Employees Police Officers Association (Ind.) .. Fire Fighters ............................... State, County and Municipal Employees Education Association (Ind.) ......... State Employees Association ........ State Employees Association ......... State, County and Municipal Employees State, County and Municipal Employees Public Employees Association (Ind.) Las Vegas Employees Association (Ind.) Education Association (Ind.) ......... Fire Fighters ............................... Teachers...................................... Classroom Teachers Association (Ind.) Education Association (Ind.) ......... Portland Association of Teachers (Ind.) Education Association (Ind.) ......... Fire Fighters ............................... Police ......................................... State, County and Municipal Employees State, County and Municipal Employees Education Association (Ind.) ......... State, County and Municipal Employees Fire Fighters ............................... State Employees Association ........ Education Association (Ind.) ......... Salt Lake City Teachers Association (Ind.) State Employees Association ......... 1,300 1,200 1,500 2,000 1,150 4,000 1,500 9,000 3,500 1,500 2,800 1,600 1,400 1,450 1,000 5,000 7,200 1,700 7,600 1,600 1,450 1,600 3,000 10,000 7,000 4,400 1,200 2,100 3,800 12,400 11,200 8,000 10,000 2,100 1,500 1,700 1,000 2,300 1,100 1,200 3,000 2,500 2,700 7,200 13,000 10,500 1,100 1,900 1,250 1,600 1,750 1,200 4 ,5 0 0 1Affiliated with A F L -C IO except where noted as independent (Ind.). 2 Information is from newspaper reports. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 49 Developments in Industrial Relations Container contracts call for two-tier pay system A 16-day strike ended when four container manufacturers and the Steelworkers agreed on 3-year contracts for 13,300 employees. The first settlement was with National Can Corp., followed hours later by agreements on similar terms at Continental Can Co., American Can Co., and Crown Cork & Seal Co. This company-by-company bargaining was a departure from the employers’ practice of bargaining as a unit, but the union was able to maintain similar terms at all of the companies. The contracts do not provide for specified wage in creases, but the workers will receive an immediate $400 lump-sum payment and $300 payments in the second and third years. They will also continue to be eligible for annual cost-of-living pay adjustments. In a change that will save money for the companies, the union agreed to a temporary two-tier pay system under which new workers will be paid 20 percent less than the regular rate for the job during their first 2 years of employ ment. Leon Lynch, the union’s chief negotiator for the in dustry, explained, “our members are some of the highest paid workers in the industrial sector, and workers who come in off the street don’t always have the highest skills.” At the time of the settlements, pay rates ranged from $12.55 to $15.93 an hour, according to the union. The new contracts, which expire February 19, 1989, also provide for: • • • • A $3 increase in the monthly pension rate for each year of credited service. A health care cost containment program including pre admission reviews of non-emergency surgery, second opinion requirements, 20 percent co-payments for em ployees who do not follow the requirements of the pro gram (one “learning experience” is permitted in the first year); establishment of a mail order generic drug pro gram; and a medical expense audit program under which employees can recover up to $500. A voluntary product promotion program financed through payroll deductions. A joint committee, financed 85 percent by the company and 15 percent by the union, to determine if “special “Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by George Ruben o f the Division o f Developments in Labor-Management Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is largely based on information from secondary sources. 50 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis treatment” is necessary to preserve plants that continue to manufacture three-piece cans. Volkswagen pay catches ‘Big Three’ automakers Volkswagen of America and the United Auto Workers negotiated new contracts for plants in New Stanton, p a , and South Charleston, wv. The 3-year New Stanton accord, covering 2,200 employees, brought wage and benefit levels up to parity with General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., and Chrysler Corp. The immediate pay increase ranged from 3 cents to $1.69 an hour. For assemblers, the most heavily populated job category, the increase was 13 cents an hour, bringing the rate to $13.46. In April 1987, the em ployees will receive a lump-sum payment equal to 3 percent of their earnings during the preceding 12 months. Their April 1988 pay increase will match the initial increase re sulting from the union’s 1987 bargaining with Ford and General Motors. Other provisions included a $6 increase in the pension calculation rate over the term, bringing the range to $18.75$19,50 a month for each year of credited service; a 6-cent per hour increase in Volkswagen’s financing of Supplemen tal Unemployment Benefits; and increased sickness and ac cident benefits. The company also agreed to place the Auto Workers’ logo on vehicles assembled at the plant, and to give the union 60 days’ notice of planned subcontracting of work that will eliminate five or more jobs. The agreement for the South Charleston stamping plant runs to June 30, 1987, the date the facility is scheduled to close if a buyer is not found. Provisions to aid the 750 employees include: • a new income maintenance program financed by a com pany payment of 51.3 cents per hour— 1.5 times the amount necessary to attain parity with the “Big Three” auto companies; • a plan for converting Supplemental Unemployment Bene fits to a separation pay fund, paying displaced workers amounts equivalent to 50 hours of pay for those with 2 years of service up to 570 hours for those with 13 or more years of service; • an early retirement provision giving employees age 50 with 10 years of service lifetime benefits calculated at $12.75 to $13.50 a month for each year of service, plus supplemental benefits until age 62, calculated at $11 a month for each year of service; and • continuation of health insurance and job search assistance for 6 months after layoff. The South Charleston employees will receive a lump-sum payment in April 1987 equal to 2.25 percent of their earn ings during the preceding 12 months. They will also receive automatic quarterly cost-of-living pay adjustments during the contract’s term. uaw to intensify organizing efforts at Honda The United Auto Workers’ plan to organize foreignowned vehicle and parts plants opening in the United States suffered a blow when the union was forced to drop its bid for a representation election at the Honda of America Man ufacturing Corp.’s plant in Marysville, o h . The union said the withdrawal of its petition to the National Labor Relations Board was a temporary action. It attributed the setback to confusion resulting from unfair labor practices charges it had filed against Honda (which were rejected by the Board), “misinformation” being spread by anti-UAW workers, and an influx of new employees. The uaw said the withdrawal of the election petition was not a defeat and that the drive to organize the Honda operations will be intensified. In the charges filed with the Board late last year, the uaw contended that Honda had attempted ,to influence the elec tion outcome by illegally questioning plant workers about their attitude toward unions, allowing anti-union material to be distributed on company time, and improving employees benefits during the organizing drive. The Board dismissed the complaint, citing “insufficient evidence.” So far, the uaw has not been successful in organizing any of the Japanese-owned automobile plants that have resisted the union’s efforts, uaw does represent workers at the Gen eral Motors-Toyota joint venture in Fremont, c a , and will represent workers at the Mazda plant being built in Flat Rock, mi, and has represented workers at the Volkswagen plant in New Stanton, p a , since 1978. Court contract allows drug testing Drug testing and treatment provisions were adopted in a settlement between New York State’s Office of Court Ad ministration and three unions representing 3,000 court offi cers and clerks in State courts in New York City. Howard Rubenstein, director of employee relations for the Office of Court Administration, said the agency was committed to adopting similar provisions for the rest of the State court system when labor contracts expire in 1988. Both the Office of Court Administration and the three unions indicated that the drug control provisions were a preventive measure rather than a reaction to an existing problem. Rubenstein said, “We think it’s an issue whose time has come. These are people who carry guns, and I think we have a duty to assure the public.” A union official indi cated that the unions were not pleased with the program but had accepted it because the workers’ sensitive duties re https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis quired them to be above suspicion. Under the provisions, the deputy chief administrative judge in the area will determine if there is “reasonable cause” to test a particular employee. If so, and the test is positive, the employee will be given the option of entering a rehabilitation program rather than facing disciplinary ac tion. After completing the program, which will vary in scope and duration according to the employee’s needs, the employee will be subject to periodic retesting and disci plinary action if drug abuse is again detected. Other contract terms included wage increases of 5 percent retroactive to June 13, 1985, 5.5 percent on April 1, 1986, and 6 percent on April 1, 1987. The unions, comprising a joint bargaining council sponsored by the International Longshoremen’s Association, are the Court Officers Assocation, the New York State Supreme Court Officers Associ ation, and the Court Clerks Associations. New rules on drug, alcohol use by rail workers After years of controversy, the Department of Transporta tion issued regulations banning railroad workers from re porting to work under the influence of alcohol or drugs or consuming them on the job. The rules had been scheduled to go into effect on November 1, 1985, but were delayed by legal challenges by railroad unions. Implementation of the rules became possible when the Supreme Court favored the Government’s position. The new rules also authorize testing of employees follow ing major accidents; when there are indications of possible impairment; and as a routine part of the hiring procedure. The regulations also require railroads to establish incentives for addicted employees to seek help voluntarily, but also permit employers to dismiss workers who violate the drug and alcohol rules. One of the first calls for adoption of the rules came from the National Transportation Safety Board in 1974. There have been 48 train accidents since 1975 attributed to em ployees impaired by alcohol or drugs, resulting in 37 deaths and $34 million in property damage. Displaced airline workers given rehire rights In the airline transportation industry, the Department of Labor issued rules providing rehiring rights for employees who lost their jobs as a result of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, which opened the industry to intense competition. Under the rules, all airlines must list their job vacancies on a central register and airlines that were in existence when the law took effect must give preference to applicants with rehiring rights. Preferential hiring is limited to persons who were employed by an airline for at least 4 years prior to 1978. The hiring preference rule, authorized by the deregulation act, was originally expected to continue for 10 years, but because of delays resulting from legal challenges by the airlines, will now extend for fewer than 3 years. □ 51 Book Reviews A neoclassical perspective Labor Market Economics. By Saul D. Hoffman. Englewood Cliffs, n j, nomics is an excellent choice for the introductory college course and for those interested in the subject. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1986. 354 pp. $28.95. The first interesting thing about this book appears on its cover— the title. Although the author may assume that his readership would pay no particular attention to the word “market,” that is precisely the word that piques the interest of the classical economist. Has a modem text finally been written which begins with the premise that labor is, among other things, a commodity which is bought and sold? Yes, and Saul D. Hoffman is its author. Indeed, a major strength of this book is its sound eco nomic analysis, which is based on the understanding that labor is not magically exempt from the economic laws and pressures which operate in a market economy. (Anticipating the objections of those who would say that today’s economy is too far removed from the free-market ideal to justify such an approach, Hoffman has included a convincing defense.) The use of the traditional economic tools of analysis, avoid ing the need to reinvent the wheel in order to examine the subject, contributes to the effectiveness of this text, which uses a “neoclassical” perspective. This comprehensive study is well written and well orga nized. There are separate chapters on demand for labor, labor supply, human capital, discrimination, unions, in come, and unemployment, as well as one on “further top ics.” “Applications sections” are employed, many of which delve into real-world cases. Much of the author’s analysis is quite enlightening, while imprécisions are mostly minimal. The exception is the statement: “. . . it should be obvious that the wage income of all workers is exactly equal to the labor costs of all firms.” The author should have added a section on benefits as an aspect of compensation, or in cluded a disclaimer stating that the term “wages” is used synonymously with “compensation.” Also, because the idea of labor cost is not useful without considering productivity, it cannot be considered in such absolute terms. In a lesser violation, Puerto Rico is listed as one of the “countries” (sic) which has minimum wage legislation. Although some equations and graphs merely quantify the obvious, most are helpful. Hoffman makes good use of new ideas and research. Divergent opinions are presented in a balanced, unbiased manner. Overall, Labor Market Eco 52 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis — M ichael W einert Chicago Regional Office Bureau of Labor Statistics Pruning the executive branch Servants o f the People: The Uncertain Future o f the Federal Civil Service. By Howard Rosen. Salt Lake City, UT, Olympus Publishing Co., 1985. 188 pp. $12.95, paper. Howard Rosen has presented a frank, well-written book concerning the Federal Government’s personnel system. This is more than just a good textbook about the personnel system, although any professor who chose this as a text would be doing students a favor. It is also a frank assess ment of the follies and foibles of the system which the government has saddled itself for many years. Rosen speaks with the authority of a man who under stands the system. If there is a dimension missing from Rosen’s perceptions, it stems from the fact that this book represents a personnel view of the system rather than that of a line manager. When he poses the question, “Who Man ages the Workforce?” he is eloquent in explaining how the system is weak and outmoded as a management tool, but he never states clearly that it is the managers who are supposed to be using the tool, because they are in charge of the work force and are its most critical element. Thus, managers are let off Rosen’s hook. The author also deals inadequately with the current topic of contracting out work formerly done by civil servants. The chapter entitled, “The Contracting-Out Industry: An Exten sion of the Federal Labor Force?” treats the issue of govern ment contracting on far too narrow a base, ignoring decades of broader government-industry contract relationships in major program arenas such as military weapons system manufacture, NASA’s large scale R&D contracts, and exten sive grant-based programs for highways, water treatment, and other public infrastructure. Finally, Rosen seems reluctant to deal with a difficult question: what happens when, for reasonable and legitimate reasons, the Federal work force must be cut back? He sug gests that cutbacks are made solely for short term and ques tionable reasons. But managers in the private sector and in State and local government have faced numerous situations where cutting back the work force was a correct decision and had to be done. We need to stop denying that this reality cannot and should not occur in the Federal Government. Instead, we need to deal with the necessary political and systemic changes in order to consider this possibility realis tically and, where justified, handle cutbacks sensibly and humanely. If there is a threat to the civil service system, it is, as Rosen states, that the American public will lose the recogni tion that this enormously talented body of employees are indeed the servants of the people. This ethic is a great strength for government. The most corrosive thing that the political leadership can do is to believe that this talent is irrelevant and unneeded in the conduct of the public’s busi ness, and that government can be run on a combination of a deeper, thicker layer of political appointees, and a mass of clerks. Rosen attempts to emphasize that this is bad judg ment on the part of politicians. I suggest the American public knows better. — C harles F. B ingman Visiting Professor, School of Government and Business Administration George Washington University Publications received Agriculture and natural resources Edmondson, Brad, “The Education of Children,” American Demo graphics, February 1986, beginning on p. 26. Geweke, John, “The Supemeutrality of Money in the United States; An Interpretation of the Evidence,” Econometrica, January 1986, pp. 1-21. Internal Revenue Service, Individual Income Tax Returns, 1983: Tables Emphasizing Returns Filed, Sources of Income, Ex emptions, Itemized Deductions, and Tax Computations. Washington, Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income Division, 1985, 115 pp. Newitt, Jane, “In Search of the Bloated Bureaucracy,” American Demographics, March 1986, beginning on p. 26. Oates, Wallace E., On the Measurement of Congestion in the Provision of Local Public Goods. College Park, MD, Univer sity of Maryland, Department of Economics and Bureau of Business and Economic Research, 1985, 13 pp. (Working Paper 85-11.) Precious, Mark, “Demand Constraints, Rational Expectation and Investment Theory,” Oxford Economic Papers, December 1985, pp. 576-605. Rosen, Sherin, “Implicit Contracts: A Survey,” Journal of Eco nomic Literature, September 1985, pp. 1144-75. Ryscavage, Paul, “Income: Who Gets What from Where,” Amer ican Demographics, February 1986, beginning on p. 22. Sah, Raaj Kumar and Joseph E. Stiglitz, The Invariance o f R & D to the Number o f Firms in the Industry. Cambridge, MA, Na tional Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1986, 21 pp. (nber Working Paper Series, 1798.) Scheinkman, Jose A. and Laurence Weiss, “Borrowing Con straints and Aggregate Economic Activity,” Econometrica, January 1986, pp. 23-45. Sippl, Roger, “Why a Standard Database Language Would Boost Productivity,” Government Data Systems, OctoberNovember 1985, p. 46. Slater, Courtenay, “Don’t Knock Immigration,” American Demo graphics, March 1986, beginning on p. 4. Yamada, Tadashi, Tetsuji Yamada, Frank Chaloupka, A Multi- nominal Logistic Approach to the Labor Force Behavior of Japanese Married Women. Cambridge, , National Bureau m a Drabenstott, Mark and Kim Norris, “Competing in the World Marketplace: The Challenge for American Agriculture,” Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, February 1986, pp. 3-14. ---------“U.S. Agriculture: The Difficult Adjustment Continues,” Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, December 1985, pp. 35-49. Sawhill, John C. and Richard Cotton, eds., Energy Conservation: Successes and Failures. Washington , The Brookings Institu tion, 1986, 270 pp. $28.95, cloth; $10.95, paper. Uhler, Russell S. with the collaboration of Peter C. Eglington, The Potential Supply of Crude Oil and Natural Gas Reserves in the Alberta Basin. Ottawa, Ontario, Economic Council of Canada, 1986, 90 pp., bibliography. $7.95 (paper) in Canada; $9.55, other countries. Economic and social statistics Arrufat, J. L. and A. Zabalza, “Female Labor Supply With Taxa tion, Random Preferences, and Optimization Errors,” Econo metrica, January 1986, pp. 47-63. Buffie, Edward F., “Price-Output Dynamics, Capital Inflows and Real Appreciation,” Oxford Economic Papers, December 1985, pp. 529-51. Dunn, William, “Where the Beer Industry Is Heading,” American Demographics, February 1986, pp. 36-39. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis of Economic Research, Inc., 1985, 14 pp. (nber Working Paper Series, 1783.) $2, paper. Economic growth and development Benson, Virginia O., “The Rise of the Independent Sector in Urban Land Development,” Growth and Change, July 1985, pp. 25-39. Cacy, J. A., Glenn H. Miller, Jr., Dan H. Hoxworth, “The U.S. Economy in 1985 and 1986,” Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, December 1985, pp. 3-17. Connaughton, John E. and Ronald A. Madsen, “State and Re gional Impact of the 1981-82 Recession,” Growth and Change, July 1985, pp. 1-10. Cromley, Robert G. and Milford B. Green, “Joint Venture Activity Patterns of U.S. Firms, 1972-1979,” Growth and Change, July 1985, pp. 40-53. Economic Report of the President Transmitted to the Congress, February 1986, together with The Annual Report of the Council of Economic Advisers. Washington, 1986, 378 pp. $8.50, paper, Superintendent of Documents, Washington 20402. Griffin, Keith and John Gurley, “Radical Analyses of Imperialism, The Third World, and the Transition to Socialism: A Survey Article,” Journal of Economic Literature, September 1985, pp. 1089-1143. 53 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1986 • Book Reviews Heiner, Ronald A., “Rational Expectations When Agents Imper fectly Use Information,” Journal of Post Keynesian Econom ics, Winter 1985-86, pp. 201-7. Hudson, William E., “The Feasibility of a Comprehensive U.S. Industrial Policy,” Political Science Quarterly, Fall 1985, pp. 461-78. Jaffee, David, “Export Dependence and Economic Growth: A Reformulation and Respecification,” Social Forces, Septem ber 1985, pp. 102-18. McCombie, John S. L., “Why Cutting Real Wages Will Not Nec essarily Reduce Unemployment—Keynes and the ‘Postulates of the Classical Economics’,” Journal of Post Keynesian Eco nomics, Winter 1985-86, pp. 233-48. Poats, Rutherford M., “Development: Lessons Learned,” The O E C D Observer, November 1985, pp. 3-9. Salant, Walter S., “Keynes and the Modem World: A Review Article,” Journal of Economic Literature, September 1985, pp. 1176-85. Waters, William R., ed., New Dimensions of Social Economics: “The Circular Flow of Exchange Value and the Linear Throughput of Matter-Energy—A Case of Misplaced Con creteness,” by Herman E. Daly; “Problems of Corporate Bu reaucracy and the Producer Cooperative as an Alternative,” by Douglas E. Booth; “Evolutionary Theory and Economic Theory: Some Methodological Issues,” by John M. Gowdy; “On Reconstructing the Foundations of Policy Toward the Unemployed,” by Edward J. O’Boyle; “What Makes Mondragon Work?” by Charles W. Sperry; “The Transborder Data Flow in the New World Information Order: Privacy or Control?” by Demetri Tsanacas, Review of Social Economy, December 1985, pp. 279-370. Education Canada, Education Relations Commission, Teacher Placement. Toronto, Ontario, Education Relations Commission, Re search Services, 1985, 160 pp. ---------Tenth Annual Report of the Education Relations Commis sion, Sept. 1, 1984 to Aug. 31, 1985. Toronto, Ontario, Education Relations Commission, 1985, 56 pp. Health and safety Jensen, Joyce, “Health Care Alternatives,” American Demograph ics, March 1986, pp. 36-38. Levit, Katharine R. and others, “National Health Expenditures, 1984,” Health Care Financing Review, Fall 1985, pp. 1-35. Schieber, George J., “Health Spending: Its Growth and Control,” The O E C D Observer, November 1985, pp. 13-17. Gaskill, Jean C., “1985 flsa Amendments Modify Law for Public Sector,” California Public Employee Relations, December 1985, pp. 2-9. Gregory, Mary, Peter Lobban, Andrew Thomson, “Wage Settle ments in Manufacturing, 1979-84: Evidence from the cbi Pay Databank,” British Journal of Industrial Relations, Novem ber 1985, pp. 339-57. Ichniowski, Casey, Public Sector Recognition Strikes: Illegal and Ill-Fated. Cambridge, ma, National Bureau of Economic Re search, Inc., 1986, 22 pp. (nber Working Paper Series 1808.) $2, paper. Jenson, Linda and Margaret Oldendorf, “Legality of Mandatory Retirement for Public Safety Employees,” California Public Employee Relations, December 1985, pp. 10-19. Juris, Harvey, Mark Thompson, Wilbur Daniels, eds., Industrial Relations in a Decade of Economic Change. Madison, Uni versity of Wisconsin, Industrial Relations Research Associa tion, 1985, 407 pp. $15, paper. Koven, Adolph M. and Susan L. Smith, Just Cause: The Seven Tests. San Francisco, ca, Coloracre Publications, Inc., 1985, 399 pp. $39.95. Lipsky, David B., ed., Advances in Industrial and Labor Rela tions: A Research Annual, Vol. II. Greenwich, CT, JAI Press, Inc., 1985, 363 pp. $49.50. McGuiness, Jeffrey C ., Guard Unions and the Problem of Divided Loyalties. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, The Wharton School, Industrial Research Unit, 1986, 60 pp. (Labor Relations and Public Policy Series, 3a.) $10, paper. Reynolds, Lloyd G., Stanley H. Masters, Colletta H. Moser, Labor Economics and Labor Relations. 9th ed. Englewood Cliffs, nj, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1986, 635 pp. $29.95. Roberts, Harold S., Roberts’ Dictionary of Industrial Relations. 3d ed., Washington, The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1986, 834 pp. $65. Sulzner, George T., Public Sector Labor Relations: Agent of Change in American Industrial Relations ? Reprinted from the Review of Public Personnel Administration, Spring 1985, pp. 70-78. Amherst, University of Massachusetts, Labor Re lations and Research Center, 1985. (Reprint Series, 78.) Thieblot, Armand J ., Jr., Prevailing Wage Legislation: The Davis- Bacon Act, State ‘‘Little Davis-Bacon” Acts, The WalshHealey Act, and The Service Contract Act. Philadelphia, Uni Industrial relations versity of Pennsylvania, The Wharton School, Industrial Research Unit, 1986, 279 pp. (Labor Relations and Public Policy Series, 27.) $27.50, paper. Wolk, Stuart R. and William J. Luddy, Jr. Legal Aspects of Com puter Use. Englewood Cliffs, nj, Prentice Hall, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1986, 192 pp. Berry, Robert C. and Glenn M. Wong, Law and Business of the Industry and government organization Sports Industries: Vol. I, Professional Sports Leagues: Vol. II, Common Issues in Amateur and Professional Sports. Dover, ma, Auburn House Publishing Co., 1986, 569 and 581 pp. $45 each. Coates, Kathryn M., “The Education for All Handicapped Chil dren Act Since 1975,” Marquette Law Review, Fall 1985, pp. 51-81. Craypo, Charles, The Economics of Collective Bargaining: Case Studies in the Private Sector. Washington, The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1986, 274 pp. $20, cloth; $16, paper. Edwards, Richard, Paolo Garonna, Franz Todtling, Unions in Cri sis and Beyond: Perspectives from Six Countries. Dover, MA, Auburn House Publishing Co., 1986, 340 pp. $35. 54 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Patton, Spiro G., “Tourism and Local Economic Development: Factory Outlets and the Reading smsa,” Growth and Change, July 1985, pp. 64-73. Powell, Michael J., “Developments in the Regulation of Lawyers: Competing Segments and Market, Client, and Government Controls,” Social Forces, December 1985, pp. 281-305. Primeaux, Walter J., Jr., Direct Electric Utility Competition: The Natural Monopoly Myth. New York, Praeger Publishers, 1986, 297 pp. $37.95, Praeger Publishers Division of Green wood Press, Inc., Westport, CT. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1986 U.S. Industrial Outlook: Prospects for Over 350 Industries. 27th ed. Washington, U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Adminis- tration, 1986, 616 pp. $21. Available from Superintendent of Documents, Washington 20402. International economics Aizenman, Joshua, “Tariff Liberalization Policy and Financial Re strictions,” Journal of International Economics, November 1985, pp. 241-55. Dei, Fumio, “Voluntary Export Restraints and Foreign Invest ment,” Journal of International Economics, November 1985, pp. 305-12. Diewert, W. E., Microeconomic Approaches to the Theory of International Comparisons. Cambridge, MA, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1986, 84 pp. (nber Technical Working Papers, 53.) $2, paper. Driskill, Robert and Stephen McCafferty, “Exchange Rate Dy namics with Wealth Effects: Some Theoretical Ambiguities,” Journal of International Economics, November 1985, pp. 329-40. Fairlamb, David, “Betting Billions on North Sea Oil,” Dun’s Busi ness Month, February 1986, pp. 36-37. Feldman, David H. and Edward Tower, “The Welfare Economics of an Unstable Real Exchange Rate,” Southern Economic Journal, January 1986, pp. 607-16. Grossman, Gene M. and Assaf Razin, “Direct Foreign Investment and the Choice of Technique Under Uncertainty,” Oxford Economic Papers, December 1985, pp. 606-20. Guangzhao, Yue, “Employment, Wages and Social Security in China,” International Labour Review, July-August 1985, pp. 411-22. Hathaway, Dale E., “The Challenge in Building Demand for U.S. Farm Exports,” Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, February 1986, pp. 15-27. Kimbrough, Kent P., “Tariffs, Quotas and Welfare in a Monetary Economy,” Journal of International Economics, November 1985, pp. 257-77. Lieberman, Sima, Labor Movements and Labor Thought: Spain, France, Germany, and the United States. New York, Praeger Publishers, 1986, 295 pp. $38.95. Neary, J. Peter, “Two-By-Two International Trade Theory with Many Goods and Factors,” Econometrica, September 1985, pp. 1233-47. Rojot, Jacques, “The 1984 Revision of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises,” British Journal of Industrial Rela tions, November 1985, pp. 379-97. Rosen, Howard, ed., Comparative Labor Market Policies of Japan, West Germany, United Kingdom, France, Australia: Conference Proceedings of the National Council on Employ ment Policy, Apr. 25, 1985. Washington, National Council on Employment Policy, 1986, 134 pp. Labor and economic history Barber, William J ., From New Era to New Deal: Herbert Hoover, the Economists, and American Economic Policy, 1921— 1933. New York, Cambridge University Press, 1985, 237 pp., bibliography. Form, William, Divided We Stand: Working-Class Stratification in America. Champaign, IL, University of Illinois Press, 1986, 306 pp., bibliography. $29.95. Hanagan, Michael and Charles Stephenson, Proletarians and Protest: The Roots of Class Formation in an Industrializing World. Westport, CT, Greenwood Press, 1986, 250 pp. (Con tributions in Labor History, 17.) $45. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Kraus, Henry, The Many and the Few: A Chronicle of the Dynamic Auto Workers. 2d ed. Champaign, IL, University of Illinois Press, 1985, 293 pp. $9.95, paper. “The Soviet Union, 1985,” Current History, October 1985, pp. 305-37. Labor force Abraham, Katherine G. and Henry S. Farber, Job Duration, Se niority, and Earnings. Cambridge, ma, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1986, 63 pp. (nber Working Paper Series, 1819.) $2, paper. Altonji, Joseph G. and John C. Ham, Variation in Employment Growth in Canada: The Role of External, National, Regional and Industrial Factors. Cambridge, MA, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1986, 71 pp. (nber Working Paper Series, 1816.) $2, paper. Ashton, D. N., Unemployment Under Capitalism: The Sociology of British and American Labour Markets. Cambridge, MA, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1986, 225 pp., bibliography. $27.50. Einhom, Eric, Employment Policies in Scandinavia. Amherst, University of Massachusetts, Labor Relations and Research Center, 1985. (Reprint Series, 77.) Reprinted from Scandina vian Review, Winter 1984, pp. 75-83. George, K. D. and John Shorey, “Manual Workers, Good Jobs and Structured Internal Labour Markets,” British Journal of In dustrial Relations, November 1985, pp. 425-47. Great Britain, Department of Employment, “Ethnic Origin and Economic Status,” by Ann Barber, Employment Gazette, De cember 1985, pp. 467-77. -------- Graduate Shortages in Science and Engineering: A Survey of Employers in 1983 and 1984. By Jason Tarsh. London, Department of Employment, 1986, 24 pp. (Research Paper, 50.) Ichniowski, Casey, The Economic Performance of Survivors After Layoffs: A Plant-Level Study. Cambridge, ma, National Bu reau of Economic Research, Inc., 1986, 19 pp. (nber Work ing Paper Series, 1807.) $2, paper. Japan Institute of Labour, Problems of Working Women. Tokyo, The Japan Institute of Labour, 1986, 26 pp. Katz, Lawrence, Layoffs, Recall and the Duration of Unemploy ment. Cambridge, ma, National Bureau of Economic Re search, Inc., 1986, 47 pp. (nber Working Paper Series, 1825.) $2, paper. Levitan, Sar A., ed., The Feds in the Workplace: Conference Proceedings of the National Council on Employment Policy, Oct. 3, 1985. Washington, National Council on Employment Policy, 1985, 93 pp. Shah, Anup, “Are Wage Incentives and Unionism Important De terminants of Job Tenure?” Oxford Economic Papers, De cember 1985, pp. 643-58. Management and organization theory Drucker, Peter F., “How to Make People Decisions,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 1985, beginning on p. 22. Hall, Kenneth and Lawson K. Savery, “Tight Rein, More Stress,” Harvard Business Review, January-February 1986, pp. 16064. McFarland, Dalton E., The Managerial Imperative: The Age of Macromanagement. Cambridge, MA, Ballinger Publishing Co., 1986, 369 pp. $29.95. Ritzer, George and David Walczak, Working: Conflict and Change. 3d ed. Englewood Cliffs, nj, Prentice-Hall, A Divi55 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1986 • Book Reviews sion of Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1986, 451 pp. $30.95. Reed, Michael, Redirections in Organizational Analysis. New York, Tavistock Publications in association with Methuen, Inc., 1985, 234 pp. (Social Science Paperbacks, 293.) $17.95. Monetary and fiscal policy Cacy, J. A., “Recent Ml Growth and Its Implications,” Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, December 1985, pp. 18-23. Levinson, Marc, “High Cost of Keeping the Dollar Down,” Dun’s Business Month, February 1986, pp. 24-25. Prices and living conditions Great Britain, Department of Employment, “Pattern of Household Spending in 1984,” Employment Gazette, December 1985, pp. 485-93. Linden, Fabian, “Value of the Dolls,” Across The Board, Decem ber 1985, pp. 54-60. Martin, Robert E., “On Judging Quality by Price: Price Dependent Expectations, Not Price Dependent Preferences,” Southern Economic Journal, January 1986, pp. 665-72. Wages and compensation Brown, Charles, Standard-Rate Wage Setting, Labor Quality, and Unions. Cambridge, MA, National Bureau of Economic Re search, Inc., 1985, 20 pp. (nber Working Paper Series, 1717.) $2, paper. Emans, Jeff S. and William W. Seithel, “Remedying Salary In equities: Cleaning Up Your Act Systematically,” Compensa tion and Benefits Review, July-August 1985, pp. 14-23. Lewis, H. Gregg, Union Relative Wage Effects: A Survey. Chicago, il, The University of Chicago Press, 1986, 227 pp. $37.50. Marsden, David, “Youth Pay in Britain Compared with France, and FR Germany since 1966,” British Journal of Industrial Relations, November 1985, pp. 399-414. McGavin, P. A., “The Introduction of Wage Indexation under the Whitlam Government,” The Journal of Industrial Relations, March 1985, pp. 17-37. Mulvey, Charles, “Wage Policy and Wage Determination in 1984,” The Journal of Industrial Relations, March 1985, pp. 68-75. Shannon, Russell and Myles S. Wallace, “Wages and Inflation: An Investigation into Causality,” Journal of Post Keynesian Eco nomics, Winter 1985-86, pp. 182-91. Tane, Lance D., “Guidelines to Successful Flex Plans: Four Com panies’ Experiences,” Compensation and Benefits Review, July-August 1985, pp. 38-45. 56 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Welfare programs and social insurance Brown, Charles and Wallace E. Oates, Assistance to the Poor in a Federal System. Cambridge, MA, National Bureau of Eco nomic Research, Inc., 1985, 39 pp. (nber Working Paper Series, 1715.) $2, paper. Safety Nets and Welfare Ceilings: “The Evolving Welfare Sys tem,” by Sar A. Levitan; “Some Things Are Wrong With the System,” by Blanche Bernstein; “The Real Crisis,” by Lawrence M. Mead; “Believing What We Cannot Prove,” by John Pencavel; “Levitan on Leviathan,” by Morgan O. Reynolds; “The Enemy of Society,” by Simon Rottenberg; “Private Charity, Public Aid,” by Gordon Tullock; “Work, Wealth, and Welfare,” by Walter E. Williams; “An Affirma tion of Faith,” by Sar A. Levitan, Society, January-February 1986, pp. 4-27. Worker training and development Betsey, Charles L., Robinson G. Hollister, Jr., Mary R. Papageorgiou, eds., Youth Employment and Training Programs: The y e d p a Years. Washington, National Academy Press, 1985, 495 pp. $24.95, U.S., Canada, and Mexico; $30, export. Bullock, Paul, Youth Training and Employment: From New Deal to New Federalism. Los Angeles, University of California, Institute of Industrial Relations, 1985, 359 pp. (Monograph and Research Series, 43.) Camevale, Anthony Patrick, “The Learning Enterprise,” Training and Development Journal, January 1986, pp. 18-26. Great Britain, Department of Employment, “Employment Rehabil itation: Assessing Needs,” Employment Gazette, December 1985, pp. 478-80. ---------“Graduate Wastage—A Changing Picture?” by David Par sons, Employment Gazette, December 1985, pp. 481-84. Kanawaty, George, “Training for a Changing World: Some Gen eral Reflections,” International Labour Review, July-August 1985, pp. 401-09. Kello, John E., “Developing Training Step-by-Step,” Training and Development Journal, January 1986, pp. 50-52. “Local Initiatives to Create Jobs: A New Feature of the oecd Economic Scene,” The O E C D Observer, November 1985, pp. 22-24. Phan-Thuy, N., “Employment and Training Schemes for Rural Youth: Learning from Experience,” International Labour Re view, July-August 1985, pp. 435-46. Polaroid/Inner City, Inc., Review of Job Placements, 1982-1984. Roxbury, ma, Polaroid/Inner City, Inc., 1986, 24 pp. Wegmann, Robert, Robert Chapman, Miriam Johnson, Looking for Work in the New Economy. Salt Lake City, UT, Olympus Publishing Co., 1986, 356 pp. $19.95. □ Current Labor Statistics Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series................................................................................. 58 Notes on Current Labor Statistics..................................................................................................................... 59 Comparative indicators 1. Labor market in d ica to rs............................................................................................................................................................................................. 68 2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in wages, prices, and p r o d u c tiv ity ................................................................................................. 69 3. Alternative measures o f wage and com pensation changes .............................................................................................................................. 69 Labor force data 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Em ploym ent status o f the total population, data seasonally a d ju sted .......................................................................................................... Em ploym ent status o f the civilian population, data seasonally adjusted ................................................................................................... Selected em ploym ent indicators, data seasonally a d ju ste d .............................................................................................................................. Selected unem ploym ent indicators, data seasonally a d ju sted .......................................................................................................................... Unem ploym ent rates by sex and age, data seasonally adjusted ..................................................................................................................... U nem ployed persons by reason for unem ploym ent, data seasonally a d ju ste d .......................................................................................... Duration o f unem ploym ent, data seasonally adjusted ..................................................................................................................................... U nem ploym ent rates o f civilian workers, by S ta te .............................................................................................................................................. Em ploym ent o f workers by S ta te .............................................................................................................................................................................. Em ploym ent o f workers by industry, data seasonally a d ju s te d ..................................................................................................................... Average weekly hours by industry, data seasonally a d ju s te d .......................................................................................................................... Average hourly earnings by in d u stry ....................................................................................................................................................................... Average weekly earnings by in d ustry....................................................................................................................................................................... H ourly Earnings Index by in d u s tr y ......................................................................................................................................................................... Indexes o f diffusion: proportion o f industries in which em ploym ent increased, seasonally a d ju s te d ............................................... Annual data: Em ploym ent status o f the noninstitutional p o p u la tio n .......................................................................................................... A nnual data: Em ploym ent levels by in d u stry....................................................................................................................................................... Annual data: Average hours and earnings levels by, in d u str y .......................................................................................................................... 70 71 72 73 74 74 74 75 75 76 77 78 79 79 80 80 80 81 Labor compensation and collective bargaining data 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Em ploym ent C ost Index, com pensation, by occupation and industry g r o u p ............................................................................................ Em ploym ent C ost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry g r o u p ....................................................................... Em ploym ent C ost Index, private nonfarm workers,"by bargaining status, region, and area siz e ........................................................ Specified com pensation and wage adjustm ents from contract settlem ents, and effective wage adjustm ents, situations covering 1,000 workers or m o r e .......................................................................................................................................................... Average specified com pensation and wage adjustm ents, bargaining situation covering 1,000 workers or m o r e ........................... Average effective wage adjustm ents, bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or m o r e ............................................................... Specified com pensation and wage adjustm ents, State and local governm ent bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or m o r e .......................................................................................................................................................... W ork stoppages involving 1,000 workers or m o r e ............................................................................................................................................. 82 83 84 85 85 86 86 86 Price data 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. Consum er Price Index: U .S . City average, by expenditure category and com m odity and service g r o u p s...................................... Consum er Price Index: U .S . City average and local data,all ite m s ............................................................................................................... Annual data: Consum er Price Index, all items and m ajor g r o u p s ................................................................................................................. Producer Price Indexes by stage o f p rocessin g..................................................................................................................................................... Producer Price Indexes, by durability o f p r o d u c t .............................................................................................................................................. Annual data: Producer Price Indexes by stage o f p r o cessin g .......................................................................................................................... U .S . export price indexes by Standard International Trade C la ssific a tio n ................................................................................................. U .S . import price indexes by Standard International Trade C lassification ................................................................................................. U .S . export price indexes by end use c a t e g o r y .................................................................................................................................................... U .S . import price indexes by end use c a te g o r y ..................................................................................................................................................... U .S . export price indexes by Standard Industrial Classification ................................................................................................................... U .S . im port price indexes by Standard Industrial C la ssific a tio n ................................................................................................................... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 89 90 91 92 93 93 94 95 96 96 96 97 57 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1986 Current Labor Statistics Contents—Continued Productivity data 42. Indexes o f productivity, hourly com pensation, unit costs, data seasonally a d ju sted ............................................................................. 98 43. Annual indexes o f m ultifactor p ro d u ctiv ity ........................................................................................................................................................ 99 44. Annual indexes o f productivity, hourly com pensation, unit costs, and p r ic e s ........................................................................................ 99 International comparisons 45. Unem ploym ent rates in nine countries, data seasonally ad ju sted ............................................................................................................... 100 46. Annual data: Em ploym ent status o f civilian working-age population, ten countries ......................................................................... 101 47. Annual indexes o f productivity and related measures, twelve c o u n tr ie s.................................................................................................. 102 Injury and illness data 48. Annual data: occupational injury illness incidence ra tes............................................................................................................................... 103 Schedule of release dates for BLS statistical series U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes . . . Employment situation ............................... Producer Price In d e x ................................. Consumer Price In d e x ............................... Real earnings.............................................. Productivity and costs: R e le a s e P e rio 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 ta b le d a te c o v e rd d a te c o v e re d d a te c o v e re d num ber May 1 May 2 May 1Ç May 21 May 21 1st quarter April April April April June 6 June 13 June 20 June 20 May May May May May 29 1st quarter July July July July July 31 3 11 23 23 2nd quarter June June June June 2; 36-41 1; 4-21 2; 33-35 2; 30-32 14-17 2; 42-44 Nonfarm business and July 30 2nd quarter July 28 July 29 1st 6 months 2nd quarter 2; 42-44 Major collective bargaining Employment Cost In d e x ............................. 58 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 3; 25-28 1-3; 22-24 NOTES ON CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS This section o f the Review presents the principal statistical series collected and calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics: series on labor force, employment, unemployment, collective bargaining settlements, consumer, producer, and international prices, productivity, international comparisons, and injury and illness statistics. In the notes that follow, the data in each group o f tables is briefly described, key definitions are given, notes on the data are set forth, and sources o f additional information are cited. Adjustments for price changes. Some data— such as the Hourly Earnings Index in table 17— are adjusted to eliminate the effect o f changes in price. These adjustments are made by dividing current dollar values by the Consumer Price Index or the appropriate component of the index, then multiplying by 100. For example, given a current hourly wage rate o f $3 and a current price index number of 150, where 1967 = 100, the hourly rate expressed in 1967 dollars is $2 ($3/150 x 100 = $2). The $2 (or any other resulting values) are described as “real,” “constant,” or “ 1967” dollars. General notes Additional information The following notes apply to several tables in this section: Seasonal adjustment. Certain monthly and quarterly data are adjusted to eliminate the effect on the data of such factors as climatic conditions, industry production schedules, opening and closing of schools, holiday buying periods, and vacation practices, which might prevent short-term evaluation o f the statistical series. Tables containing data that have been adjusted are identified as “seasonally adjusted.” (All other data are not seasonally adjusted.) Seasonal effects are estimated on the basis of past experience. When new seasonal factors are computed each year, revisions may affect seasonally adjusted data for several preceding years. (Season ally adjusted data appear in tables 1 -3 , 4 -1 0 , 13, 14, and 18.) Beginning in January 1980, the BLS introduced two major modifications in the sea sonal adjustment methodology for labor force data. First, the data are being seasonally adjusted with a new procedure called x - n arima, which was developed at Statistics Canada as an extension of the standard x - n method previously used by bls. A detailed description o f the procedure appears in The X -n arima Seasonal Adjustment Method by Estla Bee Dagum (Statis tics Canada, Catalogue No. 12-564E , January 1983). The second change is that seasonal factors are now being calculated for use during the first 6 months o f the year, rather than for the entire year, and then are calculated at mid-year for the July-December period. However, revisions of historical data continue to be made only at the end of each calendar year. Seasonally adjusted labor force data in tables 1 and 4 - 1 0 were revised in the February 1986 issue of the Review, to reflect experience through 1985. Annual revisions o f the seasonally adjusted payroll data shown in tables 13, 14, and 18 were made in July 1985 using the X-n arima seasonal adjustment methodology. New seasonal factors for productivity data in table 42 are usually introduced in the September issue. Seasonally adjusted indexes and percent changes from month to month and from quarter to quarter are published for numerous Consumer and Producer Price Index series. However, seasonally adjusted indexes are not published for the U .S. average All Items cpi. Only seasonally adjusted percent changes are avail able for this series. Data that supplement the tables in this section are published by the Bureau in a variety of sources. Press releases provide the latest statistical information published by the Bureau; the major recurring releases are published according to the schedule preceding these general notes. More information about labor force, employment, and unemployment data and the household and establishment surveys underlying the data are available in Employment and Earnings, a monthly publication o f the Bureau. More data from the household survey is published in the two-volume data book— Labor Force Statistics Derived From the Current Population Survey, Bul letin 2096. More data from the establishment survey appears in two data books— Employment, Hours, and Earnings, United States, and Employ ment, Hours, and Earnings, States and Areas, and the annual supplements to these data books. More detailed information on employee compensation and collective bargaining settlements is published in the monthly periodi cal, Current Wage Developments. More detailed data on consumer and producer prices are published in the monthly periodicals, The cpi Detailed Report, and Producer Prices and Price Indexes. Detailed data on all o f the series in this section are provided in the Handbook of Labor Statistics, which is published biennally by the Bureau, bls bulletins are issued cover ing productivity, injury and illness, and other data in this section. Finally, the Monthly Labor Review carries analytical articles on annual and longer term developments in labor force, employment and unemployment; em ployee compensation and collective bargaining; prices; productivity; inter national comparisons; and injury and illness data. Symbols p = preliminary. To increase the timeliness o f some series, prelim inary figures are issued based on representative but incom plete returns. r = revised. Generally, this revision reflects the availability o f later data but may also reflect other adjustments, n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified, n .e.s. = not elsewhere specified. COMPARATIVE INDICATORS (Tables 1-3) Comparative indicators tables provide an overview and comparison of major bls statistical series. Consequently, although many of the included series are available monthly, all measures in these comparative tables are presented quarterly and annually. Labor market indicators include employment measures from two ma jor surveys and information on rates of change in compensation provided by the Employment Cost Index ( e c i ) program. The labor force participation rate, the employment-to-population ratio, and unemployment rates for major demographic groups based on the Current Population (“household ”) Survey are presented, while measures of employment and average weekly https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis hours by major industry sector are given using nonagricultural payroll data. The Employment Cost Index (compensation), by major sector and by bargaining status, is chosen from a variety of bls compensation and wage measures because it provides a comprehensive measure of employer costs for hiring labor, not just outlays for wages, and it is not affected by employment shifts among occupations and industries. Data on changes in compensation, prices, and productivity are pre sented in table 2. Measures of rates o f change o f compensation and wages from the Employment Cost Index program are provided for all civilian 59 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1986 • Current Labor Statistics nonfarm workers (excluding Federal and household workers) and for all private nonfarm workers. Measures of changes in: consumer prices for all urban consumers; producer prices by stage of processing; and the overall export and import price indexes are given. Measures of productivity (output per hour o f all persons) are provided for major sectors. Alternative measures of wage and compensation rates of change, which reflect the overall trend in labor costs, are summarized in table 3. Differences in concepts and scope, related to the specific purposes of the series, contribute to the variation in changes among the individual mea sures. Notes on the data Definitions o f each series and notes on the data are contained in later sections o f these notes describing each set o f data. For detailed descriptions of each data series, see bls Handbook of Methods, Volumes I and II, Bulletins 2134-1 and 2 1 3 4 -2 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982 and 1984, respectively), as well as the additional bulletins, articles, and other publi cations noted in the separate sections of the Review's “Current Labor Statistics Notes.” Historical data for many series are provided in the Hand book of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). Users may also wish to consult Major Programs, Bureau of Labor Statis tics, Report 718 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). EMPLOYMENT DATA (Tables 1; 4-21) Household survey data Description of the series employment data in this section are obtained from the Current Population Survey, a program o f personal interviews conducted monthly by the Bureau o f 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 o f age and older. Households are interviewed on a rotating basis, so that three-fourths o f the sample is the same for any 2 consecutive months. Definitions Employed persons include (1) all civilians who worked for pay any time during the week which includes the 12th day o f the month or who worked unpaid for 15 hours or more in a family-operated enterprise and (2) those who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs because of illness, vacation, industrial dispute, or similar reasons. Members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States are also included in the employed total. A person working at more than one job is counted only in the job at which he or she worked the greatest number o f hours. Unemployed persons are those who did not work during the survey week, but were available for work except for temporary illness and had looked for jobs within the preceding 4 weeks. Persons who did not look for work because they were on layoff or waiting to start new jobs within the next 30 days are also counted among the unemployed. The overall unem ployment rate represents the number unemployed as a percent of the labor force, including the resident Armed Forces. The civilian unemployment rate represents the number unemployed as a percent o f the civilian labor force. The labor force consists of 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 house work, those not working while attending school, those unable to work because o f long-term illness, those discouraged from seeking work because o f personal or job market factors, and those who are voluntarily idle. The noninstitutional population comprises all persons 16 years of age and older who are not inmates of penal or mental institutions, sanitariums, or homes for the aged, infirm, or needy, and members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. The labor force participation rate is the proportion o f the noninstitutional populaton that is in the labor force. The employment-population ratio is total employment (including the resident Armed Forces) as a percent o f the noninstitutional population. Notes on the data From time to time, and especially after a decennial census, adjustments 60 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis are made in the Current Population Survey figures to correct for estimating errors during the preceding years. These adjustments affect the comparabil ity of historical data. A description o f these adjustments and their effect on the various data series appear in the Explanatory Notes of Employment and Earnings. Data in tables 4 - 1 0 are seasonally adjusted, based on the seasonal experience through December 1984. Additional sources of information For detailed explanations of the data, see bls Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 1, and for additional data, Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). A detailed description of the Current Population Survey as well as additional data are available in the monthly Bureau of Labor Statistics periodical, Employment and Earnings. Historical data from 1948 to 1982 are available in Labor Force Statistics Derived from the Current Population Survey: A Databook, Vols. I and II, Bulletin 2096 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1982). A comprehensive discussion of the differences between household and establishment data on employment appears in Gloria P. Green, “Comparing employment estimates from household and payroll surveys,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1969, pp. 9 -2 0 . Establishment survey data Description of the series E mployment, hours, and earnings data in this section are compiled from payroll records reported monthly on a voluntary basis to the Bureau o f Labor Statistics and its cooperating State agencies by more than 200,000 establishments representing all industries except agriculture. In most indus tries, the sampling probabilities are based on the size o f the establishment; most large establishments are therefore in the sample. (An establishment is not necessarily a firm; it may be a branch plant, for example, or ware house.) Self-employed persons and others not on a regular civilian payroll are outside the scope of the survey because they are excluded from estab lishment records. This largely accounts for the difference in employment figures between the household and establishment surveys. Definitions An establishment is an economic unit which produces goods or services (such as a factory or store) at a single location and is engaged in one type of economic activity. Employed persons are all persons who received pay (including holiday and sick pay) for any part of the payroll period including the 12th of the month. Persons holding more than one job (about 5 percent of all persons in the labor force) are counted in each establishment which reports them. Production workers in manufacturing include blue-collar worker super visors and all nonsupervisory workers closely associated with production operations. Those workers mentioned in tables 12-16 include production workers in manufacturing and mining; construction workers in construc tion; and nonsupervisory workers in the following industries: transportation and public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services. These groups account for about four-fifths of the total employment on private nonagricutural payrolls. Earnings are the payments production or nonsupervisory workers re ceive during the survey period, including premium pay for overtime or late-shift work but excluding irregular bonuses and other special payments. Real earnings are earnings adjusted to reflect the effects of changes in consumer prices. The deflator for this series is derived from the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earner and Clerical Workers (cpi- w). The Hourly Earnings Index is calculated from average hourly earnings data adjusted to exclude the effects of two types of changes that are unrelated to underlying wage-rate developments: fluctuations in overtime premiums in manufacturing (the only sector for which overtime data are available) and the effects o f changes and seasonal factors in the proportion of workers in high-wage and low-wage industries. Hours represent the average weekly hours of production or nonsupervi sory workers for which pay was received and are different from standard or scheduled hours. Overtime hours represent the portion of gross average weekly hours which were in excess of regular hours and for which overtime premiums were paid. The Diffusion Index, introduced in the May 1983 Review , represents the percent o f 185 nonagricultural industries in which employment was rising over the indicated period. One-half of the industries with unchanged employment are counted as rising. In line with Bureau practice, data for the 1-, 3-, and 6-month spans are seasonally adjusted, while those for the 12-month span are unadjusted. The diffusion index is useful for measur ing the dispersion o f economic gains or losses and is also an economic indicator. Notes on the data Establishment data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are peri odically adjusted to com prehensive counts o f em ploym ent (called “benchmarks”). The latest complete adjustment was made with the release o f May 1985 data, published in the July 1985 issue of the Review. Conse quently, data published in the Review prior to that issue are not necessarily comparable to current data. Unadjusted data have been revised back to April 1983; seasonally adjusted data have been revised back to January 1980. These revisions were published in the Supplement to Employment and Earnings (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1985). Unadjusted data from April 1984 forward, and seasonally adjusted data from January 1981 for ward are subject to revision in future benchmarks. Additional sources of information Detailed data from the establishment survey are published monthly in the Employment and Earnings. Earlier comparable unadjusted and seasonally adjusted data are published in Employment, Hours, and Earnings, United States, 1909-84, Bulletin 1312-12 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1985) and its annual supplement. For a detailed discussion o f the methodology o f the survey, see bls Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 2. For additional data, see Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). 'A comprehensive discussion of the differences between household and establishment data on employment appears in Gloria P. Green, “Comparing employment estimates from household and payroll surveys,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1969, pp. 9 -2 0 . bls periodical, Unemployment data by State Description of the series Data presented in this section are obtained from two major sources— the Current Population Survey (cps) and the Local Area Unemployment Statis tics (laus) program, which is conducted in cooperation with State employ ment security agencies. Monthly estimates of the labor force, employment, and unemployment for States and sub-State areas are a key indicator o f local economic condi tions and form the basis for determining the eligibility of an area for benefits under Federal economic assistance programs such as the Job Train ing Partnership Act and the Public Works and Economic Development Act. Insofar as possible, the concepts and definitions underlying these data are those used in the national estimates obtained from the cps . Notes on the data Data refer to State of residence. Monthly data for 11 States— California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas— are obtained directly from the cps , because the size of the sample is large enough to meet bls standards o f reliability. Data for the remaining 39 States and the District o f Columbia are derived using standardized procedures established by bls. Once a year, estimates for the 11 States are revised to new population controls. For the remaining States and the District of Columbia, data are benchmarked to annual average cps levels. Additional sources of information Information on the concepts, definitions, and technical procedures used to develop labor force data for States and sub-State areas as well as addi tional data on sub-States are provided in the monthly Bureau o f Labor Statistics periodical, Employment and Earnings, and the annual report, Geographic Profile of Employment and Unemployment (Bureau o f Labor Statistics). See also bls Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 4. COMPENSATION AND WAGE DATA (Tables 1 -3; 22-29) C ompensation and wage data are gathered by the Bureau from business establishments, State and local governments, labor unions, collective bar gaining agreements on file with the Bureau, and secondary sources. Employment Cost Index Description of the series The Employment Cost Index (eci) is a quarterly measure of the rate of change in compensation per hour worked and includes wages, salaries, and employer costs o f employee benefits. It uses a fixed market basket of https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis labor— similar in concept to the Consumer Price Index’s fixed market basket of goods and services— to measure change over time in employer costs of employing labor. The index is not seasonally adjusted. Statistical series on total compensation costs and on wages and salaries are available for private nonfarm workers excluding proprietors, the selfemployed, and household workers. Both series are also available for State and local government workers and for the civilian nonfarm economy, which consists of private industry and State and local government workers combined. Federal workers are excluded. The Employment Cost Index probability sample consists of about 2,200 private nonfarm establishments providing about 12,000 occupational ob servations and 700 State and local government establishments providing 61 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1986 • Current Labor Statistics 3,500 occupational observations selected to represent total employment in each sector. On average, each reporting unit provides wage and compensa tion information on five well-specified occupations. Data are collected each quarter for the pay period including the 12th day of March, June, Septem ber, and December. Fixed employment weights from the 1970 Census o f Population are used each quarter to calculate the indexes for civilian, private, and State and local governments. These fixed weights, also used to derive all of the industry and occupation series indexes, ensure that changes in these in dexes reflect only changes in compensation, not employment shifts among industries or occupations with different levels o f wages and compensation. For the bargaining status, region, and metropolitan/nonmetropolitan area series, however, employment data by industry and occupation are not available from the census. Instead, the 1970 employment weights are reallocated within these series each quarter based on the current sample. Therefore, these indexes are not strictly comparable to those for the aggre gate, industry, and occupation series. Definitions Total compensation costs include wages, salaries, and the employer costs for employee benefits. Wages and salaries consist of earnings before payroll deductions, in cluding production bonuses, incentive earnings, commissions, and cost-ofliving adjustments. Benefits include the cost to employers for paid leave, supplemental pay (including nonproduction bonuses), insurance, retirement and savings plans, and legally required benefits (such as social security, workers’ compensation, and unemployment insurance). Excluded from wages and salaries and employee benefits are such items as payment-in-kind, free room and board, and tips. 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, when combined with the wages and salaries series, a measure o f the percent change in employer costs for employee total compensation. State and local government units were added to the eci coverage in 1981, providing a measure of total compensation change in the civilian nonfarm economy (excluding Federal employees). Historical in dexes (June 1981 = 100) of the quarterly rates of change are presented in the May issue o f the bls monthly periodical, Current Wage Developments. Additional sources of information For a more detailed discussion of the Employment Cost Index, see Chapter 11, “The Employment Cost Index,” in the Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 11, and the following 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 Em ployment Cost In d ex,” January 1978; “Estimation procedures for the Employment Cost Index,” May 1982; and “Introducing new weights for the Employment Cost Index,” June 1985. Data on the eci are also available in bls quarterly press releases issued in the month following the reference months of March, June, September, and December; and from the Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1985). Collective bargaining settlements (wages and benefits costs) and wages alone, quarterly for private industry and semiannually for State and local government. Compensation measures cover all collective bargaining situations involving 5,000 workers or more and wage measures cover all situations involving 1,000 workers or more. These data, covering private nonagricultural industries and State and local governments, are calculated using information obtained from bargaining agreements on file with the Bureau, parties to the agreements, and second ary sources, such as newspaper accounts. The data are not seasonally adjusted. Settlement data are measured in terms of future specified adjustments: those that will occur within 12 months after contract ratification— first year— and all adjustments that will occur over the life of the contract expressed as an average annual rate. Adjustments are worker weighted. Both first-year and over-the-life measures exclude wage changes that may occur under cost-of-living clauses that are triggered by future movements in the Consumer Price Index. Effective wage adjustments measure all adjustments occurring in the reference period, regardless of the settlement date. Included are changes from settlements reached during the period, changes deferred from con tracts negotiated in earlier periods, and changes under cost-of-living adjust ment clauses. Each wage change is worker weighted. The changes are prorated over all workers under agreements during the reference period yielding the average adjustment. Definitions Wage rate changes are calculated by dividing newly negotiated wages by the average hourly earnings, excluding overtime, at the time the agree ment is reached. Compensation changes are calculated by dividing the change in the value of the newly negotiated wage and benefit package by existing average hourly compensation, which includes the cost o f previ ously negotiated benefits, legally required social insurance programs, and average hourly earnings. Compensation changes are calculated by placing a value on the benefit portion of the settlements at the time they are reached. The cost estimates are based on the assumption that conditions existing at the time o f settle ment (for example, methods of financing pensions or composition o f labor force) will remain constant. The data, therefore, are measures of negotiated changes and not of total changes in employer cost. Contract duration runs from the effective date of the agreement to the expiration date or first wage reopening date, if applicable. Average annual percent changes over the contract term take account of the compounding o f successive changes. Notes on the data Care should be exercised in comparing the size and nature o f the settle ments in State and local government with those in the private sector because o f differences in bargaining practices and settlement characteristics. A principal difference is the incidence of cost-of-living adjustment (cola) clauses which cover only about 2 percent of workers under a few local government settlements, but cover 50 percent o f workers under private sector settlements. Agreements without cola’s tend to provide larger speci fied wage increases than those with cola’s . Another difference is that State and local government bargaining frequently excludes pension benefits which are often prescribed by law. In the private sector, in contrast, pensions are typically a bargaining issue. Additional sources of information Description of the series For a more detailed discussion on the series, see of the bls Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 10. Collective bargaining settlements data provide statistical measures of negotiated adjustments (increases, decreases, and freezes) in compensation Comprehensive data &re published in press releases issued quarterly (in January, April, July, and October) for private industry, and semi- 62 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis annually (in February and August) for State and local government. Histor ical data and additional detailed tabulations for the prior calendar year appear in the April issue of the bls monthly periodical, Current Wage monthly periodical, Current Wage Developments. Historical data appear in the bls Handbook of Labor Statistics. Developments. Other compensation data Work stoppages Other bls data on pay and benefits, not included in the Current Labor Statistics section of the Monthly Labor Review , appear in and consist o f the following: Description of the series Data on work stoppages measure the number and duration of major strikes or lockouts (involving 1,000 workers or more) occurring during the month (or year), the number o f workers involved, and the amount of time lost because o f stoppage. Data are largely from newspaper accounts and cover only establishments directly involved in a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or second ary effect o f stoppages on other establishments whose employees are idle owing to material shortages or lack o f service. Definitions Number of stoppages: The number of strikes and lockouts involving 1,000 workers or more and lasting a full shift or longer. Workers involved: The number of workers directly involved in the stoppage. Number of days idle: The aggregate number o f work days lost by workers involved in the stoppages. Days of idleness as a percent of estimated working time: Aggregate work days lost as a percent of the aggregate number of standard work days in the period multiplied by total employment in the period. Notes on the data This series is not comparable with the one terminated in 1981 that covered strikes involving six workers or more. Additional sources of information Data for each calendar year are reported in a bls press release issued in the first quarter o f the following year. Monthly data appear in the bls Industry Wage Surveys provide data for specific occupations selected to represent an industry’s wage structure and the types o f activities performed by its workers. The Bureau collects information on weekly work schedules, shift operations and pay differentials, paid holiday and vacation practices, and information on incidence of health, insurance, and retirement plans. Reports are issued throughout the year as the surveys are completed. Summaries of the data and special analyses also appear in the Monthly Labor Review. Area Wage Surveys annually provide data for selected office, clerical, professional, technical, maintenance, toolroom, powerplant, material movement, and custodial occupations common to a wide variety o f indus tries in the areas (labor markets) surveyed. Reports are issued throughout the year as the surveys are completed. Summaries o f the data and special analyses also appear in the Review. The National Survey of Professional, Administrative, Technical, and Clerical Pay provides detailed information annually on salary levels and distributions for the types o f jobs mentioned in the survey’s title in private employment. Although the definitions of the jobs surveyed reflect the duties and responsibilities in private industry, they are designed to match specific pay grades of Federal white-collar employees under the General Schedule pay system. Accordingly, this survey provides the legally re quired information for comparing the pay of salaried employees in the Federal civil service with pay in private industry. (See Federal Pay Com parability Act o f 1970, 5 u.s.c. 5305.) Data are published in a bls news release issued in the summer and in a bulletin each fall; summaries and analytical articles also appear in the Review. Employee Benefits Survey provides nationwide information on the inci dence and characteristics o f employee benefit plans in medium and large establishments in the United States, excluding Alaska and Hawaii. Data are published in an annual bls news release and bulletin, as well as in special articles appearing in the Review. PRICE DATA (Tables 2; 30-41) PRICE DATA are gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from retail and primary markets in the United States. Price indexes are given in relation to a base period (1967 = 100, unless otherwise noted). Consumer Price Indexes Description of the series The Consumer Price Index (cpi) is a measure of the average change in the prices paid by urban consumers for a fixed market basket o f goods and services. The cpi is calculated monthly for two population groups, one consisting only o f urban households whose primary source of income is derived from the employment o f wage earners and clerical workers, and the other consisting o f all urban households. The wage earner index (cpi- w) is a continuation o f the historic index that was introduced well over a halfcentury ago for use in wage negotiations. As new uses were developed for the cpi in recent years, the need for a broader and more representative index became apparent. The all urban consumer index (cpi- u) introduced in 1978 is representative o f the 1972-73 buying habits o f about 80 percent o f the noninstitutional population o f the United States at that time, compared with 40 percent represented in the cpi- w . In addition to wage earners and clerical https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis workers, the cpi- u covers professional, managerial, and technical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the unemployed, retirees, and oth ers not in the labor force. The cpi is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, fuel, drugs, trans portation fares, doctors’ and dentists’ fees, and other goods and services that people buy for day-to-day living. The quantity and quality o f these items are kept essentially unchanged between major revisions so that only price changes will be measured. All taxes directly associated with the purchase and use of items are included in the index. Data collected from more than 24,000 retail establishments and 24,000 tenants in 85 urban areas across the country are used to develop the “U .S. city average.” Separate estimates for 28 major urban centers are presented in table 31. The areas listed are as indicated in footnote 1 to the table. The area indexes measure only the average change in prices for each area since the base period, and do not indicate differences in the level of prices among cities. Notes on the data In January 1983, the Bureau changed the way in which homeownership costs are measured for the C P l-u . A rental equivalence method replaced the 63 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1986 • Current Labor Statistics asset-price approach to homeownership costs for that series. In January 1985, the same change was made in the cpi- w . The central purpose of the change was to separate shelter costs from the investment component of homeownership so that the index would reflect only the cost o f shelter services provided by owner-occupied homes. Additional sources of information For a discussion o f the general method for computing the cpi, see bls Handbook of Methods, Volume II, The Consumer Price Index, Bulletin 2 1 3 4 -2 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1984). The recent change in the mea surement o f homeownership costs is discussed in Robert Gillingham and Walter Lane, “Changing the treatment of shelter costs for homeowners in the cpi,” Monthly Labor Review, June 1982, pp. 9 -1 4 . Additional detailed cpi data and regular analyses of consumer price changes are provided in the cpi Detailed Report, a monthly publication of the Bureau. Historical data for the overall cpi and for selected groupings may be found in the Handbook o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1985). manufacturing sectors; a shift from a commodity to an industry orientation; the exclusion o f imports from, and the inclusion of exports in, the survey universe; and the respecification of commodities priced to conform to Bureau of the Census definitions. These and other changes have been phased in gradually since 1978. The result is a system of indexes that is easier to use in conjunction with data on wages, productivity, and employ ment and other series that are organized in terms of the Standard Industrial Classification and the Census product class designations. Additional sources of information For a discussion o f the methodology for computing Producer Price In dexes, see bls Handbook of Methods , Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 7. Additional detailed data and analyses of price changes are provided monthly in Producer Price Indexes. Selected historical data may be found in the Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1985). International price indexes Producer price indexes Description of the series Description of the series Producer Price Indexes (ppi) measure average changes in prices re ceived in primary markets of the United States by producers o f commodi ties in all stages o f processing. The sample used for calculating these indexes currently contains about 3,200 commodities and about 60,000 quotations per month selected to represent the movement of prices o f all commodities produced in the manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, gas and electricity, and public utilities sectors. The stage of proc essing structure o f Producer Price Indexes organizes products by class of buyer and degree o f fabrication (that is, finished goods, intermediate goods, and crude materials). The traditional commodity structure of ppi organizes products by similarity of end-use or material composition. To the extent possible, prices used in calculating Producer Price Indexes apply to the first significant commercial transaction in the United States from the production or central marketing point. Price data are generally collected monthly, primarily by mail questionnaire. Most prices are ob tained directly from producing companies on a voluntary and confidential basis. Prices generally are reported for the Tuesday of the week containing the 13th day o f the month. Since January 1976, price changes for the various commodities have been averaged together with implicit quantity weights representing their importance in the total net selling value of all commodities as o f 1972. The detailed data are aggregated to obtain indexes for stage-of-processing groupings, commodity groupings, durability-of-product groupings, and a number o f special composite groups. All Producer Price Index data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication. Notes on the data Beginning with the January 1986 issue, the Review is no longer present ing tables o f Producer Price Indexes for commodity groupings, special composite groups, or sic industries. However, these data will continue to be presented in the Bureau’s monthly publication Producer Price Indexes. Series on the net output of major mining and manufacturing industry groups will appear in the Review starting with data for July 1986. The Bureau has completed the first major stage of its comprehensive overhaul o f the theory, methods, and procedures used to construct the Producer Price Indexes. Changes include the replacement of judgment sampling with probability sampling techniques; expansion to systematic coverage o f the net output of virtually all industries in the mining and 64 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The bls International Price Program produces quarterly export and import price indexes for nonmilitary goods traded between the United States and the rest o f the world. The export price index provides a measure of price change for all products sold by U .S. residents to foreign buyers. (“Residents” is defined as in the national income accounts: it includes corporations, businesses, and individuals but does not require the organiza tions to be U .S. owned nor the individuals to have U .S. citizenship.) The import price index provides a measure of price change for goods purchased from other countries by U .S. residents. With publication of an all-import index in February 1983 and an all-export index in February 1984, all U .S. merchandise imports and exports now are represented in these indexes. The reference period for the indexes is 1977 = 100, unless otherwise indicated. The product universe for both the import and export indexes includes raw materials, agricultural products, semifinished manufactures, and finished manufactures, including both capital and consumer goods. Price data for these items are collected quarterly by mail questionnaire. In nearly all cases, the data are collected directly from the exporter or importer, al though in a few cases, prices are obtained from other sources. To the extent possible, the data gathered refer to prices at the U .S. border for exports and at either the foreign border or the U .S. border for imports. For nearly all products, the prices refer to transactions completed during the first 2 weeks of the third month of each calendar quarter— March, June, September, and December. Survey respondents are asked to indicate all discounts, allowances, and rebates applicable to the reported prices, so that the price used in the calculation of the indexes is the actual price for which the product was bought or sold. In addition to general indexes of prices for U .S. exports and imports, indexes are also published for detailed product categories of exports and imports. These categories are defined by the 4- and 5-digit level o f detail of the Standard Industrial Trade Classification System (srrc). The calcula tion of indexes by srrc category facilitates the comparison of U .S. price trends and sector production with similar data for other countries. Detailed indexes are also computed and published on a Standard Industrial Classifi cation (sic-based) basis, as well as by end-use class. Notes on the data The export and import price indexes are weighted indexes o f the Laspeyeres type. Price relatives are assigned equal importance within each weight category and are then aggregated to the srrc level. The values assigned to each weight category are based on trade value figures compiled by the Bureau o f the Census. The trade weights currently used to compute both indexes relate to 1980. Because a price index depends on the same items being priced from period to period, it is necessary to recognize when a product’s specifica tions or terms o f transaction have been modified. For this reason, the Bureau’s quarterly questionnaire requests detailed descriptions of the phys ical and functional characteristics o f the products being priced, as well as information on the number of units bought or sold, discounts, credit terms, packaging, class o f buyer or seller, and so forth. When there are changes in either the specifications or terms of transaction of a product, the dollar value o f each change is deleted from the total price change to obtain the “pure” change. Once this value is determined, a linking procedure is employed which allows for the continued repricing of the item. For the export price indexes, the preferred pricing basis is f.a.s. (free alongside ship) U .S. port of exportation. When firms report export prices f.o.b. (free on board), production point information is collected which enables the Bureau to calculate a shipment cost to the port of exportation. An attempt is made to collect two prices for imports. The first is the import price f.o.b. at the foreign port of exportation, which is consistent with the basis for valuation of imports in the national accounts. The second is the import price c.i.f. (cost, insurance, and freight) at the U .S. port o f impor tation, which also includes the other costs associated with bringing the product to the U .S. border. It does not, however, include duty charges. Additional sources of information For a discussion of the general method of computing International Price Indexes, see bls Handbook of Methods , Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 8. Additional detailed data and analyses of international price develop ments are presented in the Bureau’s quarterly publication U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes and in occasional Monthly Labor Review articles prepared by bls analysts. Selected historical data may be found in the Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1985). PRODUCTIVITY DATA (Tables 2; 42-44) U. S. productivity and related data Description of the series The productivity measures relate real physical output to real input. As such, they encompass a family of measures which include single factor input measures, such as output per unit of labor input (output per hour) or output per unit o f capital input, as well as measures of multifactor produc tivity (output per unit o f labor and capital inputs combined). The Bureau indexes show the change in output relative to changes in the various inputs. The measures cover the business, nonfarm business, manufacturing, and nonfinancial corporate sectors. Corresponding indexes o f hourly compensation, unit labor costs, unit nonlabor payments, and prices are also provided. Unit profits include corporate profits and the value of inventory adjust ments per unit of output. Hours of all persons are the total hours paid of payroll workers, selfemployed persons, and unpaid family workers. Capital services is the flow of services from the capital stock used in production. It is developed from measures of the net stock of physical assets— equipment, structures, land, and inventories— weighted by rental prices for each type of asset. Labor and capital inputs combined are derived by combining changes in labor and capital inputs with weights which represent each component’s share of total output. The indexes for capital services and combined units of labor and capital are based on changing weights which are averages of the shares in the current and preceding year (the Tomquist index-number formula). Notes on the data Definitions Output per hour of all persons (labor productivity) is the value of goods and services in constant prices produced per hour of labor input. Output per unit of capital services (capital productivity) is the value of goods and services in constant dollars produced per unit o f capital services input. Multifactor productivity is the ratio output per unit of labor and capital inputs combined. Changes in this measure reflect changes in a number of factors which affect the production process such as changes in technology, shifts in the composition of the labor force, changes in capacity utilization, research and development, skill and efforts of the work force, manage ment, and so forth. Changes in the output per hour measures reflect the impact o f these factors as well as the substitution of capital for labor. Compensation per hour is the wages and salaries o f employees plus employers'! contributions for social insurance and private benefit plans, and the wages, salaries, and supplementary payments for the self-employed (except for nonfinancial corporations in which there are no selfemployed)—4he.sum.divided by hours paid for. Real compensation per hour is compensation per hour deflated by the change in the Consumer Price lndex for All Urban Consumers. ' ------Unit labor costs is the labor compensation costs expended in the produc tion o f a unit o f output and is derived by dividing compensation by output. Unit nonlabor payments include profits, depreciation, interest, and indi rect taxes per unit o f output. They are computed by subtracting compensa tion o f all persons from current dollar value of output and dividing by output. Unit nonlabor costs contain all the components of unit nonlabor payments except unit profits. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Output measures for the business sector and the nonfarm businesss sector exclude the constant dollar value of owner-occupied housing, rest of world, households and institutions, and general government output from the con stant dollar value o f gross national product. The measures are derived from data supplied by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U .S. Department of Commerce, and the Federal Reserve Board. Quarterly manufacturing out put indexes are adjusted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to annual esti mates of output (gross product originating) from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Compensation and hours data are developed from data o f the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The productivity and associated cost measures in tables 4 2 -4 4 describe the relationship between output in real terms and the labor time and capital services involved in its production. They show the changes from period to period in the amount of goods and services produced per unit o f input. Although these measures relate output to hours and capital services, they do not measure the contributions of labor, capital, or any other specific factor of production. Rather, they reflect the joint effect of many influ ences, including changes in technology; capital investment; level o f output; utilization of capacity, energy, and materials; the organization o f produc tion; managerial skill; and the characteristics and efforts of the work force. Additional sources of information Descriptions of methodology underlying the measurement of output per hour and multifactor productivity are found in the bls Handbook of Meth ods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 13. His torical data for selected industries are provided in the Bureau’s Handbook of Labor Statistics , 1985, Bulletin 2217. 65 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1986 • Current Labor Statistics INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS (Tables 45-47) Labor force and unemployment Manufacturing productivity and labor costs Description of the series Description of the series Tables 45 and 46 present comparative measures o f the labor force, employment, and unemployment— approximating U .S. concepts— for the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, and six European countries. The unemployment statistics (and, to a lesser extent, employment statistics) published by other industrial countries are not, in most cases, comparable to U .S. unemployment statistics. Therefore, the Bureau adjusts the figures for selected countries, where necessary, for all known major definitional differences. Although precise comparability may not be achieved, these adjusted figures provide a better basis for international comparisons than the figures regularly published by each country. Table 47 presents comparative measures o f manufacturing labor produc tivity, hourly compensation costs, and unit labor costs for the United States, Canada, Japan, and nine European countries. These measures are limited to trend comparisons— that is, intercountry series o f changes over time— rather than level comparisons because reliable international com parisons of the levels of manufacturing output are unavailable. Definitions For the principal U .S. definitions of the labor force, employment, and unemployment, see the Notes section on EMPLOYMENT DATA: House hold Survey Data. Notes on the data The adjusted statistics have been adapted to the age at which compulsory schooling ends in each country, rather than to the U .S. standard of 16 years o f age and over. Therefore, the adjusted statistics relate to the population age 16 and over in France, Sweden, and from 1973 onward, Great Britain; 15 and over in Canada, Australia, Japan, Germany, the Netherlands, and prior to 1973, Great Britain; and 14 and over in Italy. The institutional population is included in the denominator of the labor force participation rates and employment-population ratios for Japan and Germany; it is ex cluded for the United States and the other countries. In the U .S. labor force survey, persons on layoff who are awaiting recall to their job are classified as unemployed. European and Japanese layoff practices are quite different in nature from those in the United States; therefore, strict application of the U .S. definition has not been made on this point. For further information, see Monthly Labor Review, December 1981, pp. 8 -1 1 . The figures for one or more recent years for France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, and the Netherlands are calculated using adjustment factors based on labor force surveys for earlier years and are considered prelimi nary. The recent-year measures for these countries are, therefore, subject to revision whenever data from more current labor force surveys become available. Definitions Output is constant value output (value added), generally taken from the national accounts o f each country. While the national accounting methods for measuring real output differ considerably among the 12 countries, the use of different procedures does not, in itself, connote lack of comparabil ity— rather, it reflects differences among countries in the availability and reliability of underlying data series. Hours refer to all employed persons including the self-employed in the United States and Canada; to all wage and salary employees in the other countries. The U .S. hours measure is hours paid; the hours measures for the other countries are hours worked. Compensation (labor cost) includes all payments in cash or kind made directly to employees plus employer expenditures for legally required in surance programs and contractual and private benefit plans. In addition, for some countries, compensation is adjusted for other significant taxes on payrolls or employment (or reduced to reflect subsidies), even if they are not for the direct benefit of workers, because such taxes are regarded as labor costs. However, compensation does not include all items o f labor cost. The costs of recruitment, employee training, and plant facilities and services— such as cafeterias and medical clinics— are not covered because data are not available for most countries. Self-employed workers are in cluded in the U .S. and Canadian compensation figures by assuming that their hourly compensation is equal to the average for wage and salary employees. Notes on the data For most of the countries, the measures refer to total manufacturing as defined by the International Standard Industrial Classification. However, the measures for France (beginning 1959), Italy (beginning 1970), and the United Kingdom (beginning 1976), refer to manufacturing and mining less energy-related products and the figures for the Netherlands exclude petroleum refining from 1969 to 1976. For all countries, manufacturing includes the activities of government enterprises. The figures for one or more recent years are generally based on current indicators o f manufacturing output, employment, hours, and hourly com pensation and are considered preliminary until the national accounts and other statistics used for the long-term measures become available. Additional sources of information Additional sources of information For further information, see International Comparisons of Unemploy ment, Bulletin 1979 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1978), Appendix B and unpublished Supplements to Appendix B available on request. The statis tics are also analyzed periodically in the Monthly Labor Review. Additional historical data, generally beginning with 1959, are published in the Hand book of Labor Statistics and are available in unpublished statistical supple ments to Bulletin 1979. 66 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis For additional information, see the bls Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2134, Vol. 1, Chapter 16 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982) and periodic Monthly Labor Review articles. Historical data are provided in the Bureau’s Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217, 1985. The statistics are issued twice per year— in a news release (generally in May) and in a Monthly Labor Review article (generally in December). OCCUPATIONAL INJURY AND ILLNESS DATA (Table 48) Description of the series The Annual Survey o f Occupational Injuries and Illnesses is designed to collect data on injuries and illnesses based on records which employers in the following industries maintain under the Occupational Safety and Health Act o f 1970: agriculture, forestry, and fishing; oil and gas extraction; construction; manufacturing; transportation and public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services. Excluded from the survey are self-employed individuals, farmers with fewer than 11 employees, employers regulated by other Federal safety and health laws, and Federal, State, and local government agencies. Because the survey is a Federal-State cooperative program and the data must meet the needs o f participating State agencies, an independent sam ple is selected for each State. The sample is selected to represent all pri vate industries in the States and territories. The sample size for the survey is dependent upon (1) the characteristics for which estimates are needed; (2) the industries for which estimates are desired; (3) the charac teristics o f the population being sampled; (4) the target reliability of the estimates; and (5) the survey design employed. While there are many characteristics upon which the sample design could be based, the total recorded case incidence rate is used because it is one of the most important characteristics and the least variable; therefore, it re quires the smallest sample size. The survey is based on stratified random sampling with a Neyman allocation and a ratio estimator. The characteristics used to stratify the establishments are the Standard Industrial Classification (sic) code and size o f employment. Definitions Recordable occupational injuries and illnesses are: (1) occupational deaths, regardless o f the time between injury and death, or the length of the illness; or (2) nonfatal occupational illnesses; or (3) nonfatal occupational injuries which involve one or more of the following: loss of consciousness, restriction o f work or motion, transfer to another job, or medical treatment (other than first aid). Occupational injury is any injury such as a cut, fracture, sprain, ampu tation, and so forth, which results from a work accident or from exposure involving a single incident in the work environment. Occupational illness is an abnormal condition or disorder, other than one resulting from an occupational injury, caused by exposure to environ mental factors associated with employment. It includes acute and chronic illnesses or disease which may be caused by inhalation, absorption, inges tion, or direct contact. Lost workday cases are cases which involve days away from work, or days o f restricted work activity, or both. Lost workday cases involving restricted work activity are those cases which result in restricted work activity only. Lost workdays away from work are the number o f workdays (consec utive or not) on which the employee would have worked but could not because o f occupational injury or illness. Lost workdays— restricted work activity are the number of workdays (consecutive or not) on which, because of injury or illness: (1) the em ployee was assigned to another job on a temporary basis; or (2) the em https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ployee worked at a permanent job less than full time; or (3) the employee worked at a permanently assigned job but could not perform all duties normally connected with it. The number of days away from work or days of restricted work activity does not include the day of injury or onset of illness or any days on which the employee would not have worked even though able to work. Incidence rates represent the number of injuries and/or illnesses or lost workdays per 100 full-time workers. Notes on the data Estimates are made for industries and employment-size classes and for severity classification: fatalities, lost workday cases, and nonfatal cases without lost workdays. Lost workday cases are separated into those where the employee would have worked but could not and those in which work activity was restricted. Estimates of the number of cases and the number of days lost are made for both categories. Most of the estimates are in the form of incidence rates, defined as the number of injuries and illnesses, or lost workdays, per 100 full-time em ployees. For this purpose, 200,000 employee hours represent 100 em ployee years (2,000 hours per employee). Only a few of the available measures are included in the Handbook of Labor Statistics . Full detail is presented in the annual bulletin, Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in the United States, by Industry. Comparable data for individual States are available from the bls Office of Occupational Safety and Health Statistics. Mining and railroad data are furnished to bls by the Mine Safety and Health Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration, respec tively. Data from these organizations are included in bls and State publica tions. Federal employee experience is compiled and published by the Occu pational Safety and Health Administration. Data on State and local government employees are collected by about half of the States and territo ries; these data are not compiled nationally. Additional sources of information The Supplementary Data System provides detailed information describ ing various factors associated with work-related injuries and illnesses. These data are obtained from information reported by employers to State workers’ compensation agencies. The Work Injury Report program exam ines selected types of accidents through an employee survey which focuses on the circumstances surrounding the injury. These data are not included in the Handbook of Labor Statistics but are available from the bls Office of Occupational Safety and Health Statistics. The definitions of occupational injuries and illnesses and lost workdays are from Recordkeeping Requirements under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 . For additional data, see Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in the United States, by Industry, annual Bureau of Labor Statistics bulletin; bls Handbook of Methods , Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 17; Handbook of Labor Statistics , Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985), pp. 411-14; annual reports in the Monthly Labor Review, and annual U .S. Department of Labor press releases. 67 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 1. Current Labor Statistics: May 1986 • Comparative Indicators Labor market indicators 1985 1984 Selected indicators 1984 1985 I II III IV I IV III II E m p lo y m e n t d a ta Employment status of the civilian noninstitutionalized population (household survey)1 Labor force participation r a te ............................................................. Employment-population r a tio ............................................................... Unemployment rate .............................................................................. Men ....................................................................................................... 16 to 24 years ................................................................................. 25 years and o v e r ........................................................................... Women ................................................................................................. 16 to 24 years ................................................................................. 25 years and o v e r ........................................................................... Unemployment rate, 15 weeks and o v e r ....................................... 64.4 59.5 7.5 7.4 14.4 5.7 7.6 13.3 6.0 2.4 64.8 60.1 7.2 7.0 14.1 5.3 7.4 13.0 5.9 2.0 64.1 59.0 7.9 7.9 15.0 6.1 7.9 13.9 6.1 2.7 64.5 59.6 7.5 7.4 14.3 5.7 7.6 13.5 5.9 2.5 64.4 59.7 7.4 7.3 14.5 5.5 7.6 13.1 6.0 2.3 64.5 59.8 7.2 7.1 13.8 5.4 7.5 12.9 5.9 2.1 64.8 60.1 7.3 7.1 14.1 5.4 7.6 13.1 6.0 2.0 64.7 60.0 7.3 7.1 14.2 5.4 7.5 13.0 6.0 2.0 64.7 60.1 7.2 7.0 14.0 5.3 7.4 12.7 5.9 2.0 64.9 60.4 7.0 6.9 14.0 5.2 7.2 13.1 5.5 1.9 Total ........................................................................................................... Private sector ......................................................................................... G oods-producing................................................................................... Manufacturing ..................................................................................... Service-producing ................................................................................. 94,461 78,477 24,730 19,412 69,731 97,699 81,404 25,057 19,426 72,643 93,035 77,153 24,402 19,182 68,633 94,013 78,082 24,680 19,394 69,333 94,915 78,898 24,861 19,509 70,055 95,849 79,745 24,973 19,564 70,876 96,640 80,522 25,077 19,564 71,563 97,338 81,143 25,055 19,430 72,283 97,967 81,588 24,986 19,331 72,981 98,815 82,321 25,098 19,384 73,717 Average hours: Private sector ......................................................................................... Manufacturing .................................................................................. O vertim e........................................................................................... 35.3 40.7 3.4 35.1 40.5 3.3 35.3 40.9 3.5 35.3 40.8 3.5 35.3 40.5 3.3 35.2 40.5 3.4 35.1 40.4 3.3 35.1 40.3 3.2 35.1 40.5 3.3 35.1 40.8 3.5 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.9 1.6 .8 .9 .9 1.0 .4 1.3 .8 .9 .7 3.5 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.0 1.2 .7 .8 .7 1.0 .2 1.6 1.3 .6 1.8 3.4 .6 .6 .6 .5 .7 1.5 1.8 .9 1.0 .7 .9 1.1 1.3 .7 1.6 .6 1.0 .8 1.4 .5 .6 Employment, nonagricultural (payroll data):1, 2 E m p lo y m e n t C o s t In d e x Percent change in the ECI, compensation:3 All workers (excluding farm, household, and Federal workers) ...... Private industry workers ..................................................................... Goods-producing4 ............................................................................ Servicing-producing4 ....................................................................... State and local government w o rk e rs ............................................... Workers by bargaining status (private industry) U n io n ...................................................................................................... Nonunion ............................................................................................... - - - - - - - - 1 Quarterly data seasonally adjusted. 2 Data for 1985 and 4th quarter 1985 are preliminary. 3 Annual changes are December-to-December change. Quarterly changes calculated using the last month of each quarter. 68 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4 Goods-producing industries include mining, construction, and manufacturing. Serviceproducing industries include all other private sector industries. - Data not available. 2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in compensation, prices, and productivity 1985 1984 Selected measures 1984 1985 I III II IV III II I IV Compensation data: 1, 2 Employment Cost Index-Compensation (wages, salaries, benefits) Civilian nonfarm .......................................................................... Private nonfarm ......................................................................... Employment Cost Index-W ages and Salaries Civilian nonfarm .......................................................................... Private nonfarm ......................................................................... - - - - 1.7 1.7 0.8 .9 1.3 .8 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 0.7 .8 1.6 1.3 0.6 .6 1.2 1.2 .8 .9 1.3 .8 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 .9 1.1 1.7 1.3 .6 .6 - - - - Consumer Price'Index (All urban consumers): All ite m s ...... 4.0 3.8 1.3 1.1 1.2 .3 1.0 1.1 .7 .9 Producer Price Index Finished g o o d s ............................................................................ Finished consumer g o o d s ........................................................ Capital equipment ..................................................................... Intermediate materials, supplies, components ...................... Crude m ate rials........................................................................... 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.3 -1.2 1.8 1.5 2.7 -.3 -6.4 1.5 1.7 .7 1.3 5.4 -.2 -.3 .5 .6 -3.6 -.5 -.5 -.5 -.4 -2.9 .9 .8 1.1 -.1 .1 .0 -.3 1.3 -.4 -4.0 .7 .7 .4 .2 -3.8 -1.4 -1.4 -1.4 -.5 -7.8 2.5 2.5 2.4 .3 9.9 - - - - - - - - Price data1 U.S. Export Price In d e x ............................................................... U.S. Import Price In d e x ............................................................... - - Productivity data1 Output per hour of all persons: Business s e c to r......................................................................... Nonfarm business sector ......................................................... Nonfinancial corporations 3 ..................................................... 4.0 3.0 4.2 .2 -.6 -.4 1.0 .0 -.5 -.5 -.8 -.3 1.3 1.1 -.2 -4.0 -4.7 -2.3 2.1 .7 .5 -.2 -1.1 3.2 2 Excludes Federal and private household workers. 3 Output per hour of all employees. - Data not available. 1 Annual changes are December-to-December change. Quarterly changes are calculated using the last month of each quarter. Compensation and Price data are not seasonally adjusted and the price data are not compounded. Productivity data are seasonally adjusted. 3. 4.5 3.9 5.0 7 .7 6.2 8.2 Alternative measures of wage and compensation changes Four quarters ended in - Quarterly average 1984 Components III Average hourly compensation:1 All persons, business s e c to r........................................................................ All employees, nonfarm business s e c to r.................................................. Hourly earnings Index:2 All private non farm ......................................................................................... Employment Cost Index-compensation: Civilian nonfarm 3 ........................................................................................... Private nonfarm ........................................................................................... U n io n .......................................................................................................... N onunion.................................................................................................... State and local governm ents.................................................................... Employment Cost Index-wages and salaries: Civilian nonfarm3 ............................................................................................ Private nonfarm ........................................................................................... Union .......................................................................................................... N onunion.................................................................................................... State and local gove rnm ents..................................................................... Total effective wage adjustments4 ..................................................................... From current settlem ents............................................................................. From prior s e ttle m e n ts................................................................................. From cost-of-living provision........................................................................ Negotiated wage adjustments from settlements4 First-year adjustments .................................................................................. Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t................................................................. Negotiated wage and benefit adjustments from settlements:5 First-year adjustment ..................................................................................... Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t................................................................. 1 2 3 4 II III IV III IV I II III IV - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.3 .8 .7 .9 3.5 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.2 .7 1.6 1.2 0.7 .8 .6 1.0 .2 1.6 1.3 .8 1.4 3.4 0.6 .6 .5 .6 .7 5.1 4.8 4.1 5.2 6.6 5.2 4.9 4.3 5.2 6.6 4.8 4.4 3.5 4.9 6.3 4.6 4.2 3.1 4.9 6.1 4.9 4.7 3.2 5.4 6.0 4.3 3.9 2.6 4.6 5.7 1.3 .8 .7 .8 3.4 1.2 .2 .7 .3 1.2 1.2 .9 1.3 .8 .7 .3 .2 .2 1.2 1.2 .7 1.4 1.0 .8 .1 .6 .1 .9 1.1 1.1 1.1 .2 .8 .2 .5 .1 1.7 1.3 .9 1.5 3.5 1.2 .2 .6 .4 .6 .6 .5 .6 .8 .5 .2 .2 .1 4.3 4.1 3.3 4.5 5.8 4.2 1.0 2.1 1.2 4.5 4.1 3.4 4.5 5.9 3.7 .8 2.0 .9 4.4 4.1 3.0 4.6 5.6 3.6 .7 2.2 .7 4.5 4.3 3.4 4.8 5.5 3.5 .9 1.9 .7 5.0 4.8 3.6 5.4 5.6 3.5 .9 1.8 .8 4.4 4.1 3.1 4.6 5.6 3.3 .7 1.8 .8 2.1 2.6 2.3 1.5 3.3 3.2 2.5 2.8 2.0 3.1 2.1 1.9 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.7 3.1 3.7 2.0 3.6 2.7 3.5 3.4 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.4 4.2 3.2 3.6 2.8 3.4 2.6 3.5 2.7 3.1 2.7 2.8 Seasonally adjusted. Production or nonsupervisory workers. Excludes Federal and household workers. Limited to major collective bargaining units of 1,000 workers or more. The https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis I 1985 1984 1985 IV most recent data are preliminary. 5 Limited to major collective bargaining units of 5,000 workers or more. The most recent data are preliminary. - Data not available. 69 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 4. May 1986 • Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data Employment status of the total population, by sex, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Number in thousands) Annual average 1985 1986 Employment status 1984 1985 Mar. Apr. 178,080 115,241 64.7 106,702 179,912 117,167 65.1 108,856 179,368 117,036 65.2 108,652 179,501 116,958 65.2 108,574 179,649 117,044 65.2 108,644 179,798 116,726 64.9 108,303 179,967 116,976 65.0 108,575 180,131 117,069 65.0 108,936 180,304 117,522 65.2 109,251 180,470 117,814 65.3 109,513 180,642 117,832 65.2 109,671 180,810 117,927 65.2 109,904 181,361 118,477 65.3 110,646 181,512 118,779 65.4 110,252 181,678 118,900 65.4 110,481 59.9 1,697 105,005 3,321 101,685 8,539 7.4 62,839 60.5 1,706 107,150 3,179 103,971 8,312 7.1 62,744 60.6 1,701 106,951 3,314 103,637 8,384 7.2 62,332 60.5 1,702 106,872 3,353 103,519 8,384 7.2 62,543 60.5 1,705 106,939 3,284 103,655 8,400 7.2 62,605 60.2 1,702 106,601 3,140 103,461 8,423 7.2 63,072 60.3 1,704 106,871 3,120 103,751 8,401 7.2 62,991 60.5 1,726 107,210 3,095 104,115 8,133 6.9 63,062 60.6 1,732 107,519 3,017 104,502 8,271 7.0 62,782 60.7 1,700 107,813 3,058 104,755 8,301 7.0 62,656 60.7 1,702 107,969 3,070 104,899 8,161 6.9 62,810 60.8 1,698 108,206 3,151 105,055 8,023 6.8 62,883 61.0 1,691 108,955 3,299 105,655 7,831 6.6 62,885 60.7 1,691 108,561 3,096 105,465 8,527 7.2 62,733 60.8 1,693 108,788 3,285 105,503 8,419 7.1 62,778 85,156 65,386 76.8 60,642 86,025 65,967 76.7 61,447 85,764 65,898 76.8 61,381 85,827 65,929 76.8 61,373 85,898 66,012 76.8 61,498 85,970 65,808 76.5 61,175 86,052 65,884 76.6 61,273 86,132 65,945 76.6 61,510 86,217 66,074 76.6 61,629 86,293 66,227 76.7 61,656 86,374 66,176 76.6 61,731 86,459 66,139 76.5 61,793 86,882 66,679 76.7 62,458 86,954 66,838 76.9 62,243 87,035 66,864 76.8 62,288 71.2 1,551 59,091 4,744 7.3 71.4 1,556 59,891 4,521 6.9 71.6 1,553 59,828 4,517 6.9 71.5 1,553 59,820 4,556 6.9 71.6 1,556 59,942 4,514 6.8 71.2 1,552 59,623 4,633 7.0 71.2 1,554 59,719 4,611 7.0 71.4 1,574 59,936 4,435 6.7 71.5 1,580 60,049 4,445 6.7 71.4 1,551 60,105 4,571 6.9 71.5 1,552 60,179 4,445 6.7 71.5 1,549 60,244 4,346 6.6 71.9 1,539 60,919 4,221 6.3 71.6 1,539 60,704 4,595 6.9 71.6 1,540 60,748 4,577 6.8 92,924 49,855 53.7 46,061 93,886 51,200 54.5 47,409 93,603 51,138 54.6 47,271 93,674 51,029 54.5 47,201 93,751 51,032 54.4 47,146 93,828 50,918 54.3 47,128 93,915 51,092 54.4 47,302 93,999 51,124 54.4 47,426 94,087 51,448 54.7 47,622 94,177 51,587 54.8 47,857 94,266 51,655 54.8 47,939 94,351 51,788 54.9 48,111 94,479 51,797 54.8 48,187 94,558 51,941 54.9 48,009 94,643 52,036 55.0 48,194 49.6 146 45,915 3,794 7.6 50.5 150 47,259 3,791 7.4 50.5 148 47,123 3,867 7.6 50.4 149 47,052 3,828 7.5 50.3 149 46,997 3,886 7.6 50.2 150 46,978 3,790 7.4 50.4 150 47,152 3,790 7.4 50.5 152 47,274 3,698 7.2 50.6 152 47,470 3,826 7.4 50.8 149 47,708 3,730 7.2 50.9 149 47,790 3,716 7.2 51.0 149 47,962 3,677 7.1 51.0 152 48,035 3,610 7.0 50.8 152 47,857 3,932 7.6 50.9 153 48,041 3,842 7.4 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. TOTAL Noninstitutional population \ 2 ....... Labor force2 ..................................... Participation rate 3 .................. Total employed 2 .......................... Employment-population ratio 4 ...................................... Resident Armed Forces 1 ....... Civilian employed ...................... Agriculture ............................... Nonagricultural in dustries..... Unem ployed.................................. Unemployment rate 5 ............ Not in labor force ........................... Men, 16 years and over Noninstitutional population \ 2 ....... Labor force2 ..................................... Participation rate 3 ................. Total employed 2 .......................... Employment-population ratio 4 ...................................... Resident Armed Forces 1 ....... Civilian employed ...................... Unem ployed.................................. Unemployment rate 5 ............ Women, 16 years and over Noninstitutional population \ 2 ....... Labor force2 ..................................... Participation rate 3 ................. Total employed2 ........................... Employment-population ratio 4 ...................................... Resident Armed Forces 1 ....... Civilian employed ...................... Unem ployed.................................. Unemployment rate 5 ............ The population and Armed Forces figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation. Includes members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. Labor force as a percent of the noninstitutional population. 70 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4 Total employed as a percent of the noninstitutional population. 5 Unemployment as a percent of the labor force (including Forces). the resident Armed 5. Employment status of the civilian population, by sex, age, race and Hispanic origin, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Numbers in thousands) Annual average 1985 1986 Employment status 1984 1985 Mar. 176,383 113,544 64.4 105,005 178,206 115,461 64.8 107,150 177,667 115,335 64.9 106,951 177,799 115,256 64.8 106,872 177,944 115,339 64.8 106,939 178,096 115,024 64.6 106,601 178,263 115,272 64.7 106,871 178,405 115,343 64.7 107,210 178,572 115,790 64.8 107,519 59.5 8,539 7.5 62,839 60.1 8,312 7.2 62,744 60.2 8,384 7.3 62,332 60.1 8,384 7.3 62,543 60.1 8,400 7.3 62,605 59.9 8,423 7.3 63,072 60.0 8,401 7.3 62,991 60.1 8,133 7.1 63,062 76,219 59,701 78.3 55,769 77,195 60,277 78.1 56,562 76,904 60,154 78.2 56,411 76,988 60,165 78.1 56,390 77,068 60,240 78.2 56,544 77,135 60,246 78.1 56,384 77,243 60,158 77.9 56,403 73.2 2,418 53,351 3,932 6.6 73.3 2,278 54,284 3,715 6.2 73.4 2,329 54,082 3,743 6.2 73.2 2,358 54,032 3,775 6.3 73.4 2,352 54,192 3,696 6.1 73.1 2,260 54,124 3,862 6.4 85,429 45,900 53.7 42,793 86,506 47,283 54.7 44,154 86,181 47,095 54.6 43,927 86,274 47,103 54.6 43,925 86,380 47,082 54.5 43,883 50.1 595 42,198 3,107 6.8 51.0 596 43,558 3,129 6.6 51.0 630 43,297 3,168 6.7 50.9 633 43,292 3,178 6.7 14,735 7,943 53.9 6,444 14,506 7,901 54.5 6,434 14,582 8,086 55.5 6,613 43.7 309 6,135 1,499 18.9 44.4 305 6,129 1,468 18.6 152,347 98,492 64.6 92,120 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 178,770 116,114 65.0 107,813 178,940 116,130 64.9 107,969 179,112 116,229 64.9 108,206 60.2 8,271 7.1 62,782 60.3 8,301 7.1 62,656 60.3 8,161 7.0 62,810 77,306 60,269 78.0 56,636 77,389 60,407 78.1 56,751 77,498 60,526 78.1 56,849 73.0 2,230 54,173 3,755 6.2 73.3 2,231 54,405 3,633 6.0 73.3 2,171 54,580 3,656 6.1 86,477 47,185 54.6 44,033 86,575 47,190 54.5 44,070 86,652 47,340 54.6 44,197 50.8 600 43,283 3,199 6.8 50.9 572 43,461 3,152 6.7 50.9 596 43,474 3,120 6.6 14,538 7,988 54.9 6,557 14,496 8,017 55.3 6,512 14,483 7,593 52.4 6,184 45.4 355 6,258 1,473 18.2 45.1 362 6,195 1,431 17.9 44.9 332 6,180 1,505 18.8 153,679 99,926 65.0 93,736 153,296 99,862 65.1 93,617 153,388 99,718 65.0 93,470 60.5 6,372 6.5 61.0 6,191 6.2 61.1 6,245 6.3 19,348 12,033 62.2 10,119 19,664 12,364 62.9 10,501 52.3 1,914 15.9 53.4 1,864 15.1 Jan. Feb. Mar. 179,670 116,786 65.0 108,955 179,821 117,088 65.1 108,561 179,985 117,207 65.1 108,788 60.4 8,023 6.9 62,883 60.6 7,831 6.7 62,885 60.4 8,527 7.3 62,733 60.4 8,419 7.2 62,778 77,566 60,553 78.1 56,897 77,651 60,548 78.0 56,982 78,101 61,212 78.4 57,706 78,171 61,183 78.3 57,384 78,236 61,268 78.3 57,459 73.4 2,188 54,661 3,677 6.1 73.4 2,210 54,687 3,656 6.0 73.4 2,278 54,704 3,566 5.9 73.9 2,349 55,356 3,507 5.7 73.4 2,258 55,127 3,799 6.2 73.4 2,411 55,048 3,809 6.2 86,727 47,558 54.8 44,363 86,810 47,663 54.9 44,609 86,901 47,713 54.9 44,656 86,988 47,870 55.0 44,882 87,112 47,895 55.0 44,980 87,185 47,921 55.0 44,710 87,263 47,952 55.0 44,797 51.0 581 43,616 3,143 6.6 51.2 557 43,806 3,195 6.7 51.4 609 44,000 3,054 6.4 51.4 591 44,065 3,057 6.4 51.6 597 44,285 2,988 6.2 51.6 696 44,284 2,915 6.1 51.3 593 44,117 3,211 6.7 51.3 598 44,199 3,155 6.6 14,445 7,924 54.9 6,398 14,448 7,734 53.5 6,377 14,456 7,825 54.1 6,405 14,463 7,925 54.8 6,355 14,472 7,864 54.3 6,416 14,474 7,811 54.0 6,342 14,458 7,678 53.1 6,269 14,465 7,984 55.2 6,467 14,485 7,987 55.1 6,532 42.7 308 5,876 1,409 18.6 44.3 294 6,104 1,526 19.3 44.1 283 6,094 1,357 17.5 44.3 289 6,116 1,420 18.1 43.9 261 6,094 1,570 19.8 44.3 269 6,147 1,448 18.4 43.8 276 6,066 1,469 18.8 43.4 254 6,015 1,409 18.4 44.7 246 6,221 1,517 19.0 45.1 276 6,256 1,455 18.2 153,489 99,771 65.0 93,574 153,597 99,527 64.8 93,132 153,717 99,705 64.9 93,378 153,819 99,817 64.9 93,684 153,938 100,179 65.1 94,055 154,082 100,533 65.2 94,369 154,203 100,478 65.2 94,507 154,327 100,533 65.1 94,585 154,784 100,961 65.2 95,165 154,889 101,232 65.4 94,803 155,005 101,248 65.3 94,958 60.9 6,248 6.3 61.0 6,197 6.2 60.6 6,395 6.4 60.7 6,327 6.3 60.9 6,133 6.1 61.1 6,124 6.1 61.2 6,164 6.1 61.3 5,971 5.9 61.3 5,948 5.9 61.5 5,796 5.7 61.2 6,429 6.4 61.3 6,290 6.2 19,569 12,294 62.8 10,422 19,594 12,364 63.1 10,489 19,620 12,372 63.1 10,466 19,646 12,317 62.7 10,538 19,675 12,354 62.8 10,499 19,700 12,289 62.4 10,560 19,728 12,378 62.7 10,500 19,761 12,412 62.8 10,566 19,790 12,457 62.9 10,518 19,819 12,522 63.2 10,657 19,837 12,548 63.3 10,737 19,863 12,545 63.2 10,690 19,889 12,656 63.6 10,791 53.3 1,872 15.2 53.5 1,875 15.2 53.3 1,906 15.4 53.6 1,779 14.4 53.4 1,855 15.0 53.6 1,729 14.1 53.2 1,878 15.2 53.5 1,846 14.9 53.1 1,939 15.6 53.8 1,865 14.9 54.1 1,810 14.4 53.8 1,855 14.8 54.3 1,865 14.7 TOTAL Civilian noninstitutional population1 ....................................... Civilian labor fo rc e .......................... Participation rate .................... Employed ...................................... Employment-population ratio2 ....................................... Unem ployed.................................. Unemployment r a te ............... Not in labor force ........................... Men, 20 years and over Civilian noninstitutional p o p u la tio n '....................................... Civilian labor fo rc e .......................... Participation rate .................... E m ployed...................................... Employment-population ratio2 ....................................... A g riculture.................................. Nonagricultural industries........ Unem ployed.................................. Unemployment r a te ............... Women, 20 years ond over Civilian noninstitutional population1 ....................................... Civilian labor fo rc e .......................... Participation rate .................... E m ployed ...................................... Employment-population ratio2 ....................................... A g riculture.................................. Nonagricultural industries........ Unem ployed.................................. Unemployment r a te ............... B oth sexes, 16 to 19 years Civilian noninstitutional population1 ....................................... Civilian labor fo rc e .......................... Participation rate .................... Employed ...................................... Employment-population ratio2 ....................................... A g riculture.................................. Nonagricultural industries ......... Unem ployed.................................. Unemployment r a te ............... White Civilian noninstitutional population1 ....................................... Civilian labor fo rc e .......................... Participation rate .................... E m ployed...................................... Employment-population ratio2 ....................................... Unem ployed.................................. Unemployment r a te ............... Black Civilian noninstitutional population1 ....................................... Civilian labor fo rc e .......................... Participation rate .................... Employed ...................................... Employment-population ratio2 ....................................... Unem ployed.................................. Unemployment ra te ............... See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 71 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW Current Labor Statistics: May 1986 • Employment Data 5. Continued— Employment status of the civilian population, by sex, age, race and Hispanic origin, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Numbers in thousands) Annual average 1985 1986 Employment status 1984 1985 Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 11,478 7,451 64.9 6,651 11,915 7,698 64.6 6,888 11,789 7,621 64.6 6,838 11,826 7,607 64.3 6,814 11,862 7,616 64.2 6,806 11,897 7,669 64.5 6,856 11,933 7,713 64.6 6,870 11,969 7,781 65.0 6,973 12,004 7,844 65.3 7,026 12,040 7,854 65.2 6,982 12,075 7,782 64.4 6,953 12,111 7,772 64.2 6,962 12,148 7,787 64.1 6,998 12,184 7,943 65.2 6,969 12,219 7,920 64.8 7,105 57.9 800 10.7 57.8 811 10.5 58.0 783 10.3 57.6 793 10.4 57.4 810 10.6 57.6 813 10.6 57.6 843 10.9 58.3 808 10.4 58.5 818 10.4 58.0 872 11.1 57.6 829 10.7 57.5 810 10.4 57.6 789 10.1 57.2 974 12.3 58.2 815 10.3 Hispanic origin Civilian noninstitutional population1 ....................................... Civilian labor fo rc e .......................... Participation rate .................... Employed ...................................... Employment-population ratio2 ....................................... Unem ployed.................................. Unemployment r a te ............... 1 The population figures are not seasonally adjusted. 2 Civilian employment as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population. NOTE: Detail for the above race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum to totals 6. because data for the “ other races” groups are not presented and Híspanles are included in both the white and black population groups. Selected employment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted (In thousands) Annual average 1985 1986 Selected categories 1984 1985 Mar. Apr. May 105,005 59,091 45,915 39,056 107,150 59,891 47,259 39,248 106,951 59,828 47,123 39,467 106,872 59,820 47,052 39,362 106,939 59,942 46,997 39,260 106,601 59,623 46,978 38,966 106,871 59,719 47,152 39,096 107,210 50,936 47,274 39,142 107,519 60,049 47,470 39,103 25,636 5,465 26,336 5,597 26,163 5,600 26,087 5,603 26,036 5,626 26,174 5,643 26,316 5,607 26,392 5,627 1,555 1,553 213 1,535 1,458 185 1,596 1,502 223 1,653 1,493 219 1,582 1,498 196 1,530 1,451 159 1,479 1,474 170 93,565 15,770 77,794 1,238 76,556 7,785 335 95,871 16,031 79,841 1,249 78,592 7,811 289 95,606 15,969 79,637 1,225 78,412 7,764 321 95,493 15,955 79,538 1,218 78,320 7,717 305 95,660 15,936 79,724 1,255 78,469 7,711 290 95,391 16,000 79,391 1,228 78,163 7,728 292 5,744 2,430 2,948 13,169 5,590 2,430 2,819 13,489 5,682 2,585 2,763 13,517 5,690 2,567 2,767 13,356 5,876 2,607 2,871 13,078 5,512 2,291 2,866 12,704 5,334 2,273 2,730 13,038 5,421 2,397 2,670 13,016 5,402 2,380 2,679 12,926 5,550 2,418 2,785 12,612 June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 107,813 60,105 47,708 39,272 107,969 60,179 47,790 39,314 108,206 60,244 47,962 39,278 26,531 5,556 26,702 5,514 26,721 5,605 1,456 1,444 176 1,438 1,414 179 1,465 1,436 172 95,523 15,949 79,574 1,251 78,323 7,724 277 95,791 16,075 79,716 1,295 78,421 7,874 303 96,546 16,145 80,401 1,266 79,135 7,846 266 5,544 2,524 2,751 13,439 5,596 2,414 2,766 13,634 5,680 2,480 2,835 13,622 5,278 2,334 2,675 12,995 5,328 2,251 2,686 13,235 5,413 2,319 2,740 13,179 Jan. Feb. Mar. 108,955 60,919 48,035 39,615 108,561 60,704 47,857 39,382 108,788 60,748 48,041 39,365 26,804 5,693 26,958 5,702 26,593 5,733 26,656 5,771 1,537 1,361 158 1,572 1,409 164 1,673 1,492 163 1,519 1,444 156 1,689 1,453 172 96,530 16,213 80,317 1,271 79,046 7,991 248 96,676 16,157 80,519 1,197 79,322 8,013 249 96,921 16,194 80,727 1,131 79,596 7,903 250 97,911 16,418 81,494 1,256 80,238 7,655 273 97,516 16,104 81,412 1,197 80,216 7,669 270 97,698 16,095 81,604 1,213 80,390 7,644 240 5,554 2,433 2,815 13,496 5,475 2,251 2,897 13,713 5,498 2,306 2,883 13,645 5,494 2,303 2,864 13,556 5,543 2,364 2,883 13,958 5,377 2,369 2,703 13,817 5,538 2,330 2,953 13,754 5,299 2,292 2,730 13,053 5,241 2,115 2,801 13,277 5,295 2,196 2,784 13,194 5,294 2,195 2,760 13,122 5,275 2,208 2,776 13,441 5,158 2,224 2,636 13,369 5,301 2,159 2,861 13,285 CHARACTERISTIC Civilian employed, 16 years and o v e r................................................. M e n .............................................. Women ........................................ Married men, spouse present .. Married women, spouse p re s e n t....................................... Women who maintain families . MAJOR INDUSTRY AND CLASS OF WORKER Agriculture: Wage and salary workers ........ Self-employed w o rke rs ............. Unpaid family w o rk e rs .............. Nonagricultural industries: Wage and salary workers ........ Government ............................. Private in dustries..................... Private households.............. O th e r ...................................... Self-employed w o rke rs............. Unpaid family w o rk e rs .............. PERSONS AT WORK PART TIME1 All industries: Part time for economic reasons . Slack work .................................. Could only find part-time work Voluntary part time ....................... Nonagricultural industries: Part time for economic reasons . Slack work .................................. Could only find part-time work Voluntary part time ....................... 1 Excludes persons “ with a job but not at work” during the survey period for such 72 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis reasons as vacation, illness, or industrial disputes. 7. Selected unemployment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Unemployment rates) 1986 1985 Annual average Selected categories 1984 1985 Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Total, all civilian w o rke rs............................................. Both sexes, 16 to 19 y e a rs ................................... Men, 20 years and over ........................................ Women, 20 years and o v e r................................... 7.5 18.9 6.6 6.8 7.2 18.6 6.2 6.6 7.3 18.2 6.2 6.7 7.3 17.9 6.3 6.7 7.3 18.8 6.1 6.8 7.3 18.6 6.4 6.7 7.3 19.3 6.2 6.6 7.1 17.5 6.0 6.6 7.1 18.1 6.1 6.7 7.1 19.8 6.1 6.4 7.0 18.4 6.0 6.4 6.9 18.8 5.9 6.2 6.7 18.4 5.7 6.1 7.3 19.0 6.2 6.7 7.2 18.2 6.2 6.6 White, total ............................................................... Both sexes, 16 to 19 y e a rs ................................ Men, 16 to 19 years ...................................... Women, 16 to 19 y e a rs................................. Men, 20 years and over ..................................... Women, 20 years and o v e r................................ 6.5 16.0 16.8 15.2 5.7 5.8 6.2 15.7 16.5 14.8 5.4 5.7 6.3 15.1 15.6 14.7 5.4 5.9 6.3 15.2 15.7 14.5 5.4 5.8 6.2 16.0 16.7 15.1 5.2 5.8 6.4 16.0 16.7 15.2 5.7 5.8 6.3 16.1 17.1 15.0 5.6 5.7 6.1 15.2 17.2 13.0 5.3 5.7 6.1 15.3 16.2 14.4 5.2 5.7 6.1 17.0 18.5 15.3 5.2 5.5 5.9 15.5 15.8 15.1 5.2 5.4 5.9 15.9 16.2 15.5 5.1 5.4 5.7 14.9 14.7 15.1 5.0 5.3 6.4 16.2 16.5 15.8 5.4 5.9 6.2 14.5 15.3 13.7 5.5 5.8 Black, total ............................................................... Both sexes, 16 to 19 y e a rs ................................ Men, 16 to 19 years ...................................... Women, 16 to 19 y e a rs ................................. Men, 20 years and over ..................................... Women, 20 years and o v e r................................ 15.9 42.7 42.7 42.6 14.3 13.5 15.1 40.2 41.0 39.2 13.2 13.1 15.2 41.5 41.1 41.9 13.3 13.0 15.2 39.3 39.4 39.3 13.3 13.2 15.4 40.4 39.3 41.5 13.4 13.5 14.4 39.5 41.0 37.8 12.5 12.7 15.0 41.2 43.1 39.0 12.8 13.1 14.1 35.3 34.9 35.9 11.9 13.1 15.2 38.8 41.1 36.1 13.3 13.5 14.9 39.7 41.0 38.2 13.7 12.1 15.6 40.8 45.2 36.0 13.7 13.6 14.9 41.6 41.0 42.3 13.1 12.6 14.4 41.9 41.3 42.4 12.7 12.0 14.8 39.1 38.7 39.5 13.3 12.5 14.7 43.7 44.1 43.4 12.6 12.2 Hispanic origin, to ta l............................................... 10.7 10.5 10.3 10.4 10.6 10.6 10.9 10.4 10.4 11.1 10.7 10.4 10.1 12.3 10.3 Married men, spouse p re s e n t............................... Married women, spouse p re s e n t.......................... Women who maintain fa m ilie s.............................. Full-time workers ..................................................... Part-time workers ................................................... Unemployed 15 weeks and o v e r.......................... Labor force time lost1 ............................................ 4.6 5.7 10.3 7.2 9.3 2.4 8.6 4.3 5.6 10.4 6.8 9.3 2.0 8.1 4.3 5.8 10.3 6.9 9.5 2.1 8.2 4.3 5.8 10.7 6.9 9.7 2.1 8.2 4.0 5.7 10.8 6.9 10.0 2.0 8.3 4.6 5.8 9.9 6.9 9.5 2.0 8.2 4.4 5.7 10.3 7.0 9.4 2.0 8.2 4.1 5.4 10.8 6.8 9.0 2.0 8.1 4.3 5.6 11.3 6.8 9.3 2.0 8.1 4.2 5.3 10.4 6.8 9.6 2.0 7.9 4.3 5.5 10.0 6.7 8.8 1.9 7.9 4.3 5.3 9.4 6.6 9.0 1.9 7.8 4.3 5.1 9.9 6.4 8.4 1.8 7.6 4.5 5.5 9.9 6.9 9.4 2.0 8.1 4.5 5.6 10.1 6.9 9.1 1.9 8.1 7.4 10.0 14.3 7.5 7.2 7.8 5.5 8.0 5.9 4.5 13.5 7.2 9.5 13.1 7.7 7.6 7.8 5.1 7.6 5.6 3.9 13.2 7.2 10.9 13.3 7.7 7.5 8.1 4.7 7.5 5.7 4.0 12.5 7.3 10.6 13.3 7.9 7.7 8.2 5.4 7.4 5.7 3.9 13.2 7.2 7.5 11.0 7.8 7.8 7.8 5.2 7.8 6.1 3.9 11.9 7.3 10.9 13.5 7.7 7.9 7.5 5.3 7.7 5.7 3.9 12.5 7.3 9.9 13.4 7.9 7.9 7.9 5.7 7.6 5.6 4.0 14.0 7.1 8.6 13.1 7.8 7.9 7.6 4.5 7.7 5.5 3.9 14.0 7.2 8.9 13.6 7.7 7.7 7.8 5.3 7.8 5.5 3.8 13.3 7.1 7.7 13.5 7.5 7.3 7.8 5.1 7.7 5.4 3.9 12.9 7.0 7.3 13.4 7.7 7.6 7.8 5.1 7.5 5.4 3.6 12.5 6.9 10.3 12.6 7.3 7.3 7.3 5.0 7.6 5.3 3.8 10.6 6.7 10.9 12.9 7.0 7.0 7.1 4.3 7.2 5.2 3.4 10.9 7.2 9.2 13.2 7.2 7.4 7.0 5.3 7.8 5.9 3.8 14.3 7.2 10.4 13.0 7.2 6.8 7.7 6.1 7.6 5.7 4.0 11.9 CHARACTERISTIC INDUSTRY Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers .... M ining........................................................................ C o nstruction............................................................. Manufacturing .......................................................... Durable g o o d s ...................................................... Nondurable goods ............................................... Transportation and public utilities ........................ Wholesale and retail tra d e .................................... Finance and service in dustries............................. Government workers ................................................... Agricultural wage and salary workers ....................... 1 Aggregate hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis reasons as a percent of potentially available labor force hours. 73 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 8. Current Labor Statistics: May 1986 • Employment Data Unemployment rates by sex and age, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Civilian workers) Annual average Sex and age 1984 1986 1985 1985 Mar. Apr. June May Aug. July Sept. Nov. Oct. Jan. Dec. Mar. Feb. Total, 16 years and over ........................................................................ 16 to 24 y e a rs ........................................................................................ 16 to 19 y e a rs ..................................................................................... 16 to 17 years ................................................................................. 18 to 19 years ................................................................................. 20 to 24 y e a rs ..................................................................................... 25 years and o v e r................................................................................. 25 to 54 years .................................................................................. 55 years and o v e r ........................................................................... 7.5 13.9 18.9 21.2 17.4 11.5 5.8 6.1 4.5 7.2 13.6 18.6 21.0 17.0 11.1 5.6 5.8 4.1 7.3 13.5 18.2 20.6 16.5 11.1 5.6 6.0 4.0 7.3 13.4 17.9 20.8 16.3 11.1 5.7 6.1 4.1 7.3 14.0 18.8 21.2 17.1 11.6 5.5 5.8 4.3 7.3 13.6 18.6 21.6 16.4 11.2 5.8 6.0 4.3 7.3 13.9 19.3 21.7 17.3 11.2 5.6 5.9 4.4 7.1 13.0 17.5 19.1 16.8 10.8 5.5 5.8 4.1 7.1 13.3 18.1 20.3 16.7 10.9 5.6 5.8 4.1 7.1 13.9 19.8 22.7 17.8 10.9 5.4 5.7 3.9 7.0 13.5 18.4 21.4 16.9 11.0 5.4 5.6 3.8 6.9 13.3 18.8 21.1 17.5 10.6 5.3 5.5 3.9 6.7 13.0 18.4 20.9 16.4 10.4 5.1 5.4 3.9 7.3 13.6 19.0 21.8 17.2 10.8 5.7 5.9 4.4 7.2 13.2 18.2 19.4 17.1 10.6 5.7 5.9 4.3 Men, 16 years and o v e r .................................................................... 16 to 24 years ................................................................................. 16 to 19 y e a rs ............................................................................... 16 to 17 y e a rs ............................................................................ 18 to 19 y e a rs ............................................................................ 20 to 24 y e a rs ............................................................................... 25 years and o v e r ........................................................................... 25 to 54 y e a rs ............................................................................ 55 years and o v e r...................................................................... 7.4 14.4 19.6 21.9 18.3 11.9 5.7 5.9 4.6 7.0 14.1 19.5 21.9 17.9 11.4 5.3 5.6 4.1 7.0 13.9 18.5 21.7 16.1 11.7 5.3 5.6 3.9 7.1 13.8 18.5 21.4 16.8 11.4 5.5 5.8 4.0 7.0 14.7 19.4 22.2 17.6 12.3 5.1 5.3 4.1 7.2 14.2 19.2 23.2 16.4 11.7 5.6 5.8 4.4 7.2 14.6 20.5 22.1 18.7 11.6 5.4 5.6 4.6 6.9 13.8 19.6 21.9 18.1 10.9 5.3 5.6 3.8 6.9 13.8 19.3 20.7 18.3 11.0 5.3 5.5 4.0 7.1 14.6 21.5 24.0 19.9 11.1 5.3 5.5 4.1 6.9 13.9 19.4 20.9 18.7 11.2 5.2 5.4 4.0 6.7 13.5 19.3 21.6 18.0 10.6 5.1 5.4 3.9 6.5 12.8 18.2 20.9 16.2 10.3 5.0 5.3 3.9 7.0 13.6 19.3 23.2 16.6 10.7 5.5 5.7 4.4 7.0 13.6 18.9 20.0 17.8 11.0 5.5 5.7 4.3 Women, 16 years and o v e r ............................................................. 16 to 24 y e a rs ................................................................................. 16 to 19 years ............................................................................. 16 to 17 years .......................................................................... 18 to 19 years .......................................................................... 20 to 24 years ............................................................................. 25 years and o v e r.......................................................................... 25 to 54 years .......................................................................... 55 years and o v e r .................................................................... 7.6 13.3 18.0 20.4 16.6 10.9 6.0 6.3 4.2 7.4 13.0 17.6 20.0 16.0 10.7 5.9 6.2 4.1 7.6 13.1 17.9 19.3 16.9 10.5 6.0 6.4 4.2 7.5 12.9 17.2 20.0 15.7 10.7 6.0 6.3 4.2 7.6 13.3 18.1 20.1 16.5 10.8 6.1 6.4 4.4 7.5 12.9 17.8 19.9 16.4 10.6 6.0 6.3 4.1 7.4 13.1 17.9 21.2 15.7 10.7 5.9 6.2 4.2 7.3 12.2 15.3 15.8 15.3 10.7 5.8 6.1 4.5 7.5 12.9 16.9 19.8 14.9 10.9 6.0 6.2 4.2 7.3 13.1 17.9 21.2 15.5 10.7 5.6 5.9 3.7 7.2 13.1 17.4 22.0 15.1 10.8 5.6 5.9 3.6 7.1 13.2 18.3 20.6 16.9 10.6 5.4 5.7 3.9 7.0 13.2 18.5 20.8 16.5 10.5 5.3 5.6 3.8 7.6 13.6 18.6 20.2 17.7 11.0 5.9 6.2 4.4 7.4 12.7 17.5 18.7 16.3 10.1 5.9 6.3 4.4 9. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Numbers in thousands) 1986 1985 Annual average Reason for unemployment Job losers ...................................................................... On la y o ff...................................................................... Other job lo s e rs .......................................................... Job leavers .................................................................... Reentrants ..................................................................... New entrants ................................................................. Mar. July Nov. Oct. Sept. Jan. Dec. Mar. Feb. May 4,139 1,157 2,982 877 2,256 1,039 4,177 1,155 3,022 861 2,301 1,074 4,229 1,182 3,047 852 2,283 1,051 3,994 1,068 2,926 870 2,378 1,142 4,167 1,135 3,032 983 2,233 1,018 4,206 1,134 3,072 894 2,184 1,098 4,144 1,112 3,032 875 2,191 941 4,142 1,167 2,975 852 2,335 918 4,040 1,161 2,879 911 2,237 1,045 4,081 1,175 2,906 808 2,226 1,055 3,933 1,132 2,801 876 2,225 1,033 3,776 1,163 2,613 996 2,066 1,025 4,162 1,152 3,010 1,001 2,292 1,097 4,246 1,164 3,082 1,002 2,197 1,000 51.8 13.7 38.1 9.6 25.6 13.0 49.8 13.9 35.9 10.6 27.1 12.5 49.6 13.7 35.9 10.2 27.4 12.8 50.3 14.0 36.2 10.1 27.1 12.5 47.6 12.7 34.9 10.4 28.4 13.6 49.6 13.5 36.1 11.7 26.6 12.1 50.2 13.5 36.6 10.7 26.1 13.1 50.8 13.6 37.2 10.7 26.9 11.5 50.2 14.2 36.1 10.3 28.3 11.1 49.1 14.1 35.0 11.1 27.2 12.7 50.0 14.4 35.6 9.9 27.2 12.9 48.8 14.0 34.7 10.9 27.6 12.8 48.0 14.8 33.2 12.7 26.3 13.0 48.7 13.5 35.2 11.7 26.8 12.8 50.3 13.8 36.5 11.9 26.0 11.8 3.9 .7 1.9 1.0 3.6 .8 2.0 .9 3.6 .7 2.0 .9 3.7 .7 2.0 .9 3.5 .8 2.1 1.0 3.6 .9 1.9 .9 3.6 .8 1.9 1.0 3.6 .8 1.9 .8 3.6 .7 2.0 .8 3.5 .8 1.9 .9 3.5 .7 1.9 .9 3.4 .8 1.9 .9 3.2 .9 1.8 .9 3.6 .9 2.0 .9 3.6 .9 1.9 .9 1985 June Aug. Apr. 4,421 1,171 3,250 823 2,184 1,110 1984 PERCENT OF UNEMPLOYED Job lo s e rs .................................................................... On la y o ff................................................................... Other job lo s e rs ....................................................... Job le avers.................................................................. R eentrants................................................................... New entrants .............................................................. PERCENT OF CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE Job losers ...................................................................... Job leavers .................................................................... Reentrants ..................................................................... New entrants ................................................................. 10. Duration of unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Numbers in thousands) 1986 1985 Annual average Weeks of unemployment 1984 1985 Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Less than 5 weeks ............................................... 5 to 14 weeks ........................................................ 15 weeks and o v e r ............................................... 15 to 26 weeks ................................................... 27 weeks and over ............................................ 3,350 2,451 2,737 1,104 1,634 3,498 2,509 2,305 1,025 1,280 3,556 2,487 2,400 1,061 1,339 3,528 2,516 2,374 1,031 1,343 3,607 2,594 2,274 1,063 1,211 3,466 2,536 2,328 1,033 1,295 3,525 2,514 2,329 1,078 1,251 3,422 2,508 2,274 1,047 1,227 3,484 2,505 2,307 1,035 1,272 3,430 2,536 2,277 1,057 1,220 3,465 2,448 2,205 894 1,311 3,374 2,460 2,188 973 1,215 3,311 2,441 2,056 969 1,087 3,562 2,622 2,340 1,149 1,191 3,589 2,640 2,258 1,099 1,159 Mean duration in w e e k s ....................................... Median duration in w e e k s .................................... 18.2 7.9 15.6 6.8 15.9 7.0 16.1 6.8 15.0 6.7 15.5 6.8 15.5 7.1 15.5 7.2 15.5 6.9 15.4 7.0 15.7 6.9 15.4 6.9 14.9 6.8 15.3 6.9 14.4 6.8 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 11. Unemployment rates of civilian workers by State, data not seasonally adjusted Feb. 1985 Feb.p 1986 C a lifornia............................................................ 10.3 11.3 6.1 10.6 7.4 9.1 11.5 6.5 9.5 7.7 Florida ................................................................ 6.5 5.6 7.2 8.8 5.8 .0 4.3 6.7 7.2 5.4 H aw aii................................................................. Idaho .................................................................. Illinois ................................................................. Indiana ............................................................... 6.8 5.5 9.2 9.4 9.9 5.7 5.7 10.2 10.1 7.5 K a n s a s ....................................... ....................... K e n tu c k y ............................................................ Louisiana............................................................ M a in e .................................................................. 9.9 5.9 11.9 11.5 6.8 9.0 6.5 12.5 13.2 6.6 5.5 4.4 10.2 7.4 11.6 8.1 5.1 4.3 9.3 7.6 11.2 7.0 State State Feb. 1985 9.3 6.1 8.7 4.6 9.5 7.0 8.2 3.8 New Jersey ...................................................... 6.6 9.1 7.1 6.7 74 6.4 9.2 7.3 5.7 7.9 Ohio .................................................................. 9.3 7.8 10.3 9.3 6.0 9.1 7.8 9.7 8.2 5.3 7.5 6.1 9.6 7.1 7.1 7.6 5.5 8.7 8.8 6.2 5.8 6.2 10.0 17.0 93 5.1 6.0 8.6 13.1 88 8.1 10.3 O re g o n .............................................................. Pennsylvania................................................... Rhode Island................................................... South C a rolina................................................ Tennessee ....................................................... Texas ................................................................ Utah .................................................................. V e rm o n t............................................................ M assachusetts................................................. M ichigan............................................................. M ississippi.......................................................... NOTE: Some data in this table may differ from data published elsewhere because of the continued updating of the 12. Feb.p 1986 Washington ...................................................... West V irg inia................................................... database, p _ preliminary Employment of workers on nonagricultural payrolls by State, data not seasonally adjusted (In thousands) State Alaska ................................................................ Arizona ............................................................... Arkansas ............................................................ Feb., 1985 Jan., 1986 Feb., 1986p 1,395.9 215.3 1,248.1 773.2 10,745.8 1,428.6 217.1 1,304.5 803.9 11,051.3 1,432.7 218.4 1,320.7 809.9 11,072.5 1,402.5 1'529.7 280.7 617.3 4,381.0 1,426.0 1'571.1 291.5 629.6 4,517.9 1,430.3 1'568.5 287.6 632.1 4,536.6 State Nevada ............................................................. New Hampshire .............................................. New Mexico ..................................................... Connecticut ....................................................... District of C o lum bia......................................... North Carolina ................................................ O kla h o m a ......................................................... H aw aii................................................................. Illinois ................................................................. K e n tu cky............................................................ Louisiana............................................................ M ain e .................................................................. M inn e so ta .......................................................... M ississippi.......................................................... 2,490.9 421.6 325.6 4,688.0 2,102.2 2,595.6 425.1 332.7 4,685.2 2,186.3 1,048.5 952.0 1,208.0 1,582.3 438.9 1,062.9 959.5 1,249.1 1,575.3 452.5 1,815.3 2,859.9 3,415.7 1,813.5 818.6 2,025.2 269.7 1,870.9 2,911.7 3,513.4 1,840.5 841.9 2,086.5 271.8 2,596.2 427.9 331.4 4,692.7 2,183.9 South D a k o ta ................................................... 1,063.2 967.9 1,247.8 Utah .................................................................. 1,570.7 455.9 V e rm o n t............................................................ V irg in ia .............................................................. 1,870.3 2,917.9 3,521.4 1,844.5 842.4 W yom ing........................................................... 2,085.9 270.8 p = preliminary NOTE: Some data in this table may differ from data published elsewhere https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Pennsylvania................................................... Feb., 1985 Jan., 1986 Feb., 1986P 637.2 430.0 444.1 642.1 447.2 473.5 642.0 448.9 471.8 3,312.8 507.5 7,583.1 2^594.1 244.6 3,405.2 518.9 7,720.9 2 , 669.2 243.7 3,407.0 519.2 7,747.1 2^674.3 243.7 4,238.9 1,168.6 998.3 4,610.0 416.3 4,393.4 1,161.3 1,022.1 4,708.7 420.7 4,387.1 1,158.3 1,024.4 4,706.9 421.0 1,261.7 241.2 1,800.4 6,582.9 608.7 1,306.3 241.2 1,877.9 6,704.2 628.6 1,313.8 242.0 1,878.9 6,709.0 629.4 219.1 2,361.8 1,649.4 575.5 1,914.4 229.6 2,484.8 1,710.2 590.2 1,953.4 229.8 2,478.8 1,715.8 583.8 1,958.9 194.5 695.6 37.1 196.2 689.3 36.4 194.9 696.7 37.2 because of the continued updating of the database. 75 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 13. Current Labor Statistics: May 1986 • Employment Data Employment of workers on nonagricultural payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted (In thousands) 1986 1985 Annual average Industry 1984 1985 Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.P Mar.» 99,086 82,573 99,496 82,992 99,649 83,101 99,841 83,292 TOTAL ................................... PRIVATE SECTOR .................... 94,461 78,477 97,699 81,404 96,910 80,767 97,120 80,962 97,421 81,208 97,473 81,260 97,707 81,366 97,977 81,634 98,217 81,765 98,559 82,073 98,801 82,317 GOODS PRODUCING .................. 24,730 974 613 25,057 969 616 25,056 977 618 25,090 982 623 25,066 982 624 25,010 974 619 24,980 969 619 25,015 965 615 24,962 962 615 25,051 960 610 25,089 954 605 25,155 952 603 25,300 947 598 25,237 928 580 25,158 899 556 4,345 1,158 4,662 1,240 4,553 1,223 4,641 1,233 4,658 1,234 4,638 1,223 4,660 1,228 4,688 1,242 4,721 1,252 4,753 1,262 4,754 1,269 4,770 1,274 4,906 1,329 4,875 1,320 4,867 1,300 19,412 13,310 19,426 13,214 19,526 13,309 19,467 13,249 19,426 13,203 19,398 13,169 19,351 13,137 19,362 13,145 19,279 13,087 19,338 13,140 19,381 13,169 19,433 13,219 19,447 13,222 19,434 13,216 19,392 13,191 11,522 7,749 11,566 7,692 11,651 7,776 11,608 7,730 11,586 7,704 11,560 7,671 11,509 7,630 11,519 7,638 11,449 7,586 11,493 7,627 11,512 7,636 11,534 7,651 11,541 7,650 11,523 7,631 11,483 7,602 707 487 595 858 703 497 600 816 701 499 601 832 694 497 600 823 697 493 599 819 694 494 598 815 697 494 599 806 700 499 601 798 701 494 598 795 708 496 600 799 712 497 601 804 715 499 604 810 720 499 607 804 719 498 610 800 717 498 607 790 334 1,464 303 1,472 311 1,480 306 1,479 305 1,477 304 1,472 302 1,467 289 1,467 291 1,462 292 1,465 299 1,466 303 1,463 300 1,462 299 1,457 291 1,455 2,197 2,181 2,220 2,207 2,203 2,191 2,175 2,167 2,143 2,143 2,137 2,133 2,137 2,128 2,118 2,190 1,985 868 724 2,194 1,995 868 725 2,175 1,986 861 722 2,179 2,008 872 722 2,180 2,017 868 723 2,186 2,025 875 725 2,188 2,023 868 725 2,186 2,021 861 725 2,183 2,011 850 728 372 373 373 373 375 374 376 379 376 7,911 5,585 7,909 5,589 Oil and gas extraction ................. Construction ............................. General building contractors....... M anufacturing........................... Production workers ....................... Durable g o o d s .......................... Production workers ....................... Lumber and wood p ro d u c ts ......... Furniture and fix tu re s ..................... Stone, clay, and glass products ... Primary metal industries ............... Blast furnaces and basic steel Fabricàted metal products............ Machinery, except electrica l......... Electrical and electronic equipm ent....................................... Transportation equipm ent............. Motor vehicles and equipment .... Instruments and related products Miscellaneous manufacturing in du strie s ........................................ Production w o rke rs......................... Food and kindred p ro d u cts.......... Tobacco m anufactures.................. Textile mill p ro d u c ts ....................... Apparel and other textile products.......................................... Paper and allied products ............ Chemicals and allied products..... Petroleum and coal p roducts....... Rubber and mise, plastics products.......................................... Leather and leather products ...... SERVICE-PRODUCING ............... Transportation and public T ransportation................................. Communication and public u tilitie s ............................................. Durable g o o d s ................................. Nondurable g o o d s .......................... Food stores ..................................... Automotive dealers and service Eating and drinking p la c e s .......... 2,208 1,906 860 714 2,208 1,990 872 724 2,243 1,969 867 727 2,223 1,982 876 726 2,216 1,981 873 723 2,205 1,990 875 725 384 376 379 377 378 376 7,890 5,561 7,860 5,523 7,875 5,533 7,859 5,519 7,840 5,499 7,838 5,498 7,842 5,507 7,843 5,507 7,830 5,501 7,845 5,513 7,869 5,533 7,899 5,568 7,906 5,572 1,619 65 746 1,637 65 703 1,638 66 706 1,630 66 707 1,634 66 701 1,644 66 699 1,630 65 696 1,638 64 697 1,633 65 695 1,636 64 698 1,638 65 700 1,655 64 700 1,652 64 701 1,666 64 704 1,664 65 705 1,197 681 1,162 683 1,167 682 1,164 681 1,153 682 1,142 684 1,160 684 1,152 683 1,155 681 1,158 682 1,160 688 1,171 686 1,173 687 1,159 688 1,154 689 1,372 1,048 189 1,422 1,042 177 1,407 1,052 183 1,411 1,049 182 1,414 1,044 181 1,419 1,042 180 1,426 1,040 178 1,429 1,038 176 1,427 1,040 170 1,431 1,036 170 1,442 1,033 169 1,442 1,033 169 1,447 1,032 168 1,453 1,030 167 1,455 1,030 167 782 192 795 175 798 176 795 174 791 174 789 173 787 176 792 174 790 174 795 175 800 174 804 175 810 172 809 171 810 170 69,731 72,643 71,854 72,030 72,355 72,463 72,727 72,962 73,255 73,508 73,712 73,931 74,196 74,412 74,683 5,171 2,929 5,300 3,059 5,269 3,028 5,278 3,037 5,301 3,057 5,295 3,052 5,302 3,060 5,282 3,038 5,317 3,078 5,327 3,087 5,342 3,106 5,350 3,115 5,357 3,123 5,342 3,109 5,352 3,120 2,242 2,241 2,241 2,241 2,244 2,243 2,242 2,244 2,239 2,240 2,236 2,235 2,234 2,233 2,232 5,550 3,272 2,278 5,769 3,417 2,352 5,714 3,377 2,337 5,733 3,388 2,345 5,748 3,402 2,346 5,768 3,414 2,354 5,773 3,426 2,347 5,791 3,434 2,357 5,805 3,442 2,363 5,830 3,454 2,376 5,833 3,464 2,369 5,848 3,473 2,375 5,872 3,487 2,385 5,887 3,501 2,386 5,900 3,513 2,387 16,584 2,278 2,655 17,425 2,354 2,827 17,249 2,349 2,790 17,280 2,348 2,794 17,392 2,371 2,823. 17,425 2,361 2,831 17,453 2,344 2,842 17,514 2,354 2,849 17,539 2,356 2,852 17,610 2,365 2,869 17,640 2,367 2,865 17,702 2,353 2,882 17,825 2,359 2,920 17,905 2,378 2,923 17,982 2,377 2,944 1,802 5,403 1,892 5,692 1,873 5,615 1,884 5,642 1,890 5,660 1,895 5,692 1,895 5,728 1,902 5,725 1,906 5,740 1,912 5,758 1,914 5,774 1,916 5,803 1,930 5,821 1,936 5,855 1,942 5,889 5,682 2,855 1,753 1,074 5,924 2,978 1,816 1,130 5,835 2,933 1,792 1,110 5,858 2,941 1,799 1,118 5,888 2,956 1,808 1,124 5,906 2,968 1,814 1,124 5,932 2,984 1,817 1,131 5,959 2,998 1,827 1,134 5,987 3,011 1,831 1,145 6,011 3,023 1,837 1,151 6,048 3,038 1,850 1,160 6,068 3,054 1,852 1,162 6,098 3,068 1,863 1,167 6,130 3,085 1,873 1,172 6,151 3,093 1,882 1,176 20,761 4,076 6,104 21,930 4,453 6,267 21,644 4,377 6,204 21,723 4,402 6,218 21,813 4,424 6,240 21,856 4,441 6,243 21,926 4,446 6,260 22,073 4,489 6,291 22,155 4,504 6,308 22,244 4,539 6,333 22,365 4,571 6,363 22,450 4,607 6,389 22,540 4,625 6,409 22,600 4,646 6,436 22,749 4,688 6,459 15,984 2,807 3,712 9,465 16,295 2,875 3,780 9,640 16,143 2,850 3,744 9,549 16,158 2,859 3,749 9,550 16,213 2,873 3,759 9,581 16,213 2,872 3,765 9,576 16,341 2,878 3,788 9,675 16,343 2,886 3,789 9,668 16,452 2,904 3,818 9,730 16,486 2,892 3,827 9,767 16,484 2,904 3,833 9,747 16,513 2,914 3,827 9,772 16,504 2,918 3,844 9,742 16,548 2,914 3,854 9,780 16,549 2,917 3,867 9,765 Finance, insurance, and real L o c a l................................................. = preliminary NOTE: See notes on the data for a description of the most recent benchmark p 76 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis revision. 14. Average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted Industry Annual average 1984 1985 1986 1985 Mar. Apr. June May July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.P Mar.p PRIVATE SECTOR ....................................... 35.3 35.1 35.2 35.0 35.1 35.1 35.0 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.0 35.1 35.2 34.9 35.0 CONSTRUCTION.............................................. 37.7 37.7 38.1 38.0 37.6 37.2 37.6 37.5 37.9 37.9 37.4 37.1 38.5 36.3 36.8 M ANUFACTURING............................................ 40.7 3.4 40.5 3.3 40.4 3.2 40.2 3.4 40.4 3.1 40.4 3.2 40.3 3.2 40.6 3.3 40.7 3.3 40.7 3.4 40.7 3.4 41.0 3.6 41.0 3.6 40.6 3.4 40.7 3.5 Overtime h o u rs .................................................... Lumber and wood p ro d u c ts ................................... Furniture and fix tu re s .............................................. Stone, clay, and glass p ro d u c ts............................ Primary metal in d u strie s......................................... Blast furnaces and basic steel p ro d u c ts .......... Fabricated metal products ..................................... 41.4 3.6 39.9 39.7 42.0 41.7 40.6 41.4 41.2 3.5 39.8 39.4 41.9 41.5 41.1 41.3 41.1 3.5 39.6 39.5 42.0 41.1 40.5 41.1 40.9 3.6 39.5 39.3 42.0 41.0 40.2 41.1 41.1 3.2 39.8 38.9 42.1 41.2 40.7 41.1 41.2 3.3 40.1 38.9 41.9 41.6 41.2 41.3 41.0 3.3 39.7 38.8 42.0 41.4 41.2 41.3 41.3 3.4 40.0 39.2 42.0 41.7 41.8 41.4 41.3 3.5 40.1 39.4 42.0 41.5 41.0 41.6 41.3 3.5 40.3 39.4 42.1 41.8 41.7 41.5 41.3 3.6 39.9 39.4 41.6 41.8 42.0 41.4 41.7 3.8 40.2 40.1 41.7 42.2 41.9 41.6 41.7 3.7 40.4 40.4 42.8 41.8 41.6 41.6 41.3 3.5 39.9 39.8 41.9 42.1 41.9 41.5 41.3 3.6 40.3 39.7 41.7 42.1 42.0 41.3 Machinery except electrical ................................... Electrical and electronic equipm ent...................... Transportation equipm ent....................................... Motor vehicles and equipm ent............................ Instruments and related products ......................... Miscellaneous m anufacturing................................. 41.9 41.0 42.7 43.8 41.3 39.4 41.5 40.6 42.7 43.5 41.0 39.4 41.6 40.7 42.5 43.2 41.0 39.1 41.2 40.2 42.3 43.3 40.7 39.0 41.4 40.4 42.6 43.5 40.9 39.3 41.6 40.6 42.3 42.7 41.1 39.4 41.3 40.3 42.5 43.3 40.7 39.0 41.6 40.7 42.9 43.8 40.7 39.3 41.6 40.5 42.9 43.8 40.9 39.8 41.6 40.6 42.8 43.8 40.8 39.9 41.6 41.0 42.6 43.7 41.1 39.7 41.8 41.4 43.2 44.2 41.9 40.0 41.7 41.2 43.0 43.6 41.2 40.4 41.5 40.8 42.6 43.5 41.1 39.8 41.4 40.8 42.4 43.4 41.4 39.8 Nondurable g o o d s .......................................... Overtime h o u rs .................................................... Food and kindred pro d u c ts.................................... Tobacco m anufactures........................................... Textile mill p ro d u c ts ................................................ Apparel and other textile products........................ Paper and allied p ro d u c ts ...................................... 39.6 3.1 39.8 38.9 39.9 36.4 43.1 39.5 3.1 40.0 37.2 39.7 36.3 43.1 39.4 2.9 39.8 38.9 39.1 36.1 42.9 39.1 3.0 39.6 35.4 38.8 35.6 43.0 39.4 2.9 40.1 37.0 38.9 36.2 43.0 39.4 3.0 39.6 36.6 39.4 36.3 42.9 39.4 3.0 40.0 34.6 39.1 36.3 42.7 39.6 3.1 39.9 36.8 40.0 36.4 43.0 39.8 3.1 40.2 36.9 40.7 36.5 43.1 39.9 3.2 40.3 38.2 40.7 36.6 43.3 39.8 3.2 39.9 35.2 41.0 36.8 43.3 40.1 3.4 40.3 38.0 41.3 37.0 43.6 40.0 3.4 40.2 38.7 40.9 37.0 43.7 39.6 3.2 39.7 38.0 40.4 36.1 43.6 39.8 3.4 39.7 38.8 40.6 36.4 43.7 Printing and publishing............................................ Chemicals and allied products............................... Petroleum and coal p roducts................................. Leather and leather products ................................ 37.9 41.9 43.7 36.8 37.7 41.9 43.0 37.3 37.6 42.1 43.3 37.1 37.6 41.9 42.0 37.0 37.4 41.9 41.7 37.1 37.5 42.0 42.6 37.0 37.5 41.8 42.9 37.0 37.9 41.8 43.3 37.3 38.0 41.6 43.4 37.8 37.9 41.7 44.3 37.9 37.8 41.9 43.1 37.7 38.2 42.0 43.7 37.8 38.0 41.9 43.6 37.6 37.9 41.9 43.3 36.9 38.1 42.2 44.0 37.3 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES... 39.4 39.4 39.5 39.4 39.5 39.5 39.2 39.6 39.5 39.5 39.4 39.5 39.4 39.3 39.2 W HOLESALE T R A D E ....................................... 38.6 38.7 38.7 38.6 38.7 38.8 38.6 38.6 38.7 38.6 38.7 38.7 38.8 38.7 38.7 29.4 29.4 32.8 32.9 Overtime h o u rs .................................................... Durable g o o d s ................................................ RETAIL TRADE ................................................ 30.0 29.7 29.8 29.7 29.9 29.9 29.7 29.6 29.6 29.5 29.5 29.3 29.5 SERVICES ........................................................ 32.8 32.8 32.8 32.7 32.8 32.8 32.7 32.8 32.8 32.9 32.8 32.8 32.9 p —: preliminary benchmark adjustment. NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 77 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1986 • Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data 15. Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry Industry PRIVATE S E C T O R ........................... Annual average 1985 1986 1984 1985 Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.p Mar.p $8.33 $8.58 $8.52 8.52 $8.54 8.54 $8.53 8.55 $8.56 8.59 $8.54 8.57 $8.54 8.60 $8.68 8.65 $8.65 8.64 $8.68 8.67 $8.73 8.74 $8.73 8.67 $8.74 8.71 $8.74 8.74 Seasonally adjusted ........................... MINING................................. 11.63 11.95 11.91 11.93 11.86 11.99 11.88 11.95 12.00 11.95 12.02 12.22 12.18 12.26 12.24 CONSTRUCTION................................... 12.12 12.26 12.22 12.21 12.19 12.12 12.16 12.22 12.40 12.36 12.22 12.42 12.29 12.30 12.20 MANUFACTURING.............................. 9.18 9.52 9.45 9.48 9.48 9.50 9.53 9.48 9.55 9.54 9.61 9.72 9.68 9.68 9.71 9.74 8.03 6.85 9.57 11.47 12.99 9.38 10.09 8.20 7.19 9.83 11.68 13.35 9.66 10.01 8.06 7.07 9.71 11.66 13.27 9.62 10.03 8.04 7.08 9.80 11.64 13.32 9.64 10.04 8.12 7.11 9.80 11.64 13.31 9.63 10.08 8.24 7.18 9.84 11.65 13.29 9.65 10.10 8.20 7.22 9.89 11.78 13.51 9.66 10.05 8.26 7.22 9.87 11.63 13.37 9.61 10.15 8.31 7.29 9.90 11.69 13.45 9.70 10.14 8.29 7.31 9.86 11.61 13.34 9.68 10.21 8.28 7.34 9.90 11.76 13.44 9.73 10.34 8.34 7.40 9.94 11.84 13.46 9.88 10.27 8.28 7.38 9.95 11.81 13.49 9.82 10.28 8.34 7.34 9.92 11.94 13.75 9.81 10.30 8.33 7.37 9.88 11.98 13.76 9.83 Machinery, except electrical ................................. 9.96 Electrical and electronic equipm ent...................... 9.04 Transportation equipm ent....................................... 12.22 Motor vehicles and equipm ent............................ 12.74 Instruments and related products ......................... 8.85 Miscellaneous m anufacturing................................. 7.04 10.29 9.47 12.71 13.44 9.19 7.28 10.15 9.39 12.59 13.29 9.10 7.20 10.17 9.40 12.63 13.40 9.11 7.22 10.22 9.39 12.63 13.38 9.13 7.28 10.28 9.46 12.66 13.39 9.15 7.28 10.31 9.47 12.65 13.38 9.20 7.30 10.27 9.50 12.65 13.34 9.22 7.26 10.39 9.55 12.78 13.51 9.28 7.30 10.41 9.56 12.77 13.46 9.27 7.30 10.48 9.61 12.83 13.55 9.30 7.35 10.55 9.68 13.06 13.84 9.42 7.47 10.50 9.61 12.90 13.69 9.35 7.47 10.52 9.59 12.86 13.61 9.42 7.46 10.59 9.63 12.89 13.69 9.45 7.48 8.37 Food and kindred pro d u c ts................................ 8.38 Tobacco m anufactures........................................... 11.27 Textile mill p ro d u c ts ................................................ 6.46 Apparel and other textile products........................ 5.55 Paper and allied products ...................................... 10.41 8.68 8.54 12.05 6.71 5.73 10.82 8.61 8.53 12.00 6.64 5.73 10.64 8.67 8.59 12.16 6.70 5.74 10.72 8.64 8.58 12.65 6.68 5.69 10.75 8.65 8.55 12.83 6.69 5.70 10.79 8.72 8.54 12.91 6.69 5.70 10.91 8.67 8.47 12.44 6.72 5.68 10.86 8.70 8.51 11.47 6.75 5.75 10.90 8.69 8.49 11.45 6.76 5.73 10.91 8.75 8.58 12.08 6.79 5.75 10.97 8.84 8.68 11.90 6.83 5.80 11.07 8.83 8.70 12.01 6.84 5.81 11.02 8.82 8.67 12.31 6.83 5.79 11.00 8.86 8.72 12.72 6.86 5.78 11.06 Printing and publishing............................................ Chemicals and allied products............................... Petroleum and coal products................................. Rubber and miscellaneous plastics p ro d u c ts..... Leather and leather products ................................ 9.40 11.08 13.43 8.29 5.70 9.69 11.57 14.04 8.53 5.82 9.61 11.37 14.06 8.46 5.82 9.60 11.48 14.18 8.48 5.84 9.60 11.46 14.00 8.45 5.83 9.61 11.52 13.97 8.50 5.83 9.67 11.60 14.03 8.54 5.83 9.73 11.62 13.99 8.51 5.80 9.79 11.67 14.07 8.55 5.82 9.75 11.72 13.97 8.53 5.76 9.81 11.82 14.06 8.62 5.83 9.90 11.87 14.22 8.72 5.83 9.83 11.87 14.24 8.68 5.85 9.85 11.82 14.16 8.69 5.84 9.91 11.79 14.37 8.71 5.87 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES... 11.11 11.38 11.24 11.27 11.24 11.32 11.35 11.40 11.52 11.46 11.57 11.60 11.58 11.60 11.60 W HOLESALE T R A D E ....................................... 8.96 9.26 9.19 9.24 9.24 9.28 9.27 9.25 9.33 9.25 9.32 9.41 9.38 9.41 9.39 RETAIL TRADE ............................................... 5.88 5.97 5.97 5.96 5.97 5.94 5.93 5.91 5.99 5.97 6.00 6.02 6.05 6.06 6.05 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE 7.62 7.93 7.87 7.85 7.83 7.95 7.87 7.90 8.03 8.00 8.05 8.14 8.13 8.24 8.25 SERVICES ......................................... 7.64 7.95 7.87 7.89 7.88 7.91 7.86 7.87 8.04 8.04 8.10 8.16 8.17 8.22 8.21 Durable goods ....................................... Lumber and wood p ro d u c ts ................................... Furniture and fix tu re s .............................................. Stone, clay, and glass p ro d u c ts ............................ Primary metal industries .................................... Blast furnaces and basic steel p ro d u c ts .......... Fabricated metal products ..................................... Nondurable goods ........................................... - Data not available. p = preliminary 78 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: See “ Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 16. Average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry 1986 1985 Annual average Industry 1984 1985 Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Nov. Oct. Dec. Jan. Mar.p FebT PRIVATE SECTOR Current d o lla rs ........................................................ $294.05 $301.16 $298.20 $298.05 $298.55 $303.02 $301.46 $302.32 $305.54 $303.62 $302.93 $308.17 $303.80 $301.53 $304.15 299.90 298.90 300.11 301.51 299.95 301.86 303.62 303.26 303.45 306.77 305.18 303.98 305.90 Seasonally adjusted........................................... “ 173.48 171.60 171.68 170.80 170.50 172.56 171.48 171.68 173.01 171.54 170.47 172.93 170.01 169.30 Constant (1977) dollars ....................................... MINING............................................................. 503.58 518.63 519.28 516.57 515.91 523.96 509.65 517.44 524.40 516.24 520.47 535.24 540.79 518.60 515.30 CO NSTRUCTION.............................................. 456.92 462.20 460.69 461.54 464.44 461.77 469.38 468.03 477.40 472.15 448.47 458.30 457.19 431.73 444.08 Current d o lla rs ......................................................... Constant (1977) d o lla rs ......................................... 373.63 220.43 385.56 219.69 381.78 219.79 380.15 217.85 382.04 218.18 385.70 219.65 382.15 217.38 382.99 217.48 389.64 220.63 388.28 219.37 393.05 221.19 404.35 226.91 393.98 220.47 389.14 218.50 394.23 Durable goods ................................................. Lumber and wood p ro d u c ts ................................... Furniture and fix tu re s .............................................. Stone, clay, and glass p ro d u c ts ............................ Primary metal Industries ......................................... Blast furnaces and basic steel p ro d u c ts .......... Fabricated metal products ..................................... 403.24 320.40 271.95 401.94 478.30 527.39 388.33 415.71 326.36 283.29 411.88 484.72 548.69 398.96 412.41 317.56 277.85 404.91 481.56 540.09 396.34 410.23 317.58 276.83 411.60 480.73 547.45 395.24 411.64 325.61 275.16 415.52 479.57 543.05 395.79 417.31 336.19 281.46 418.20 486.97 552.86 400.48 410.06 325.54 276.53 418.35 485.34 559.31 394.13 412.05 333.70 285.19 418.49 480.32 550.84 395.93 420.21 337.39 290.14 420.75 487.47 554.14 403.52 418.78 334.92 292.40 418.06 480.65 545.61 401.72 423.72 327.06 292.13 413.82 491.57 557.76 404.77 439.45 335.27 304.14 414.50 504.38 565.32 420.89 425.18 328.72 290.77 413.92 493.66 557.14 406.55 421.48 327.76 286.26 403.74 502.67 578.88 402.21 426.42 334.03 291.12 409.03 506.75 580.67 405.98 Machinery, except electrical .................................. Electrical and electronic equipm ent...................... Transportation equipm ent....................................... Motor vehicles and equipm ent............................ Instruments and related products ......................... Miscellaneous m anufacturing................................. 417.32 370.64 521.79 558.01 365.51 277.38 427.04 384.48 542.72 584.64 376.79 286.83 424.27 383.11 537.59 576.79 374.01 282.24 417.99 376.00 538.04 586.92 368.96 280.86 421.06 377.48 539.30 587.38 372.50 285.38 427.65 385.02 539.32 579.79 376.07 286.10 420.65 376.91 531.30 574.00 370.76 281.78 422.10 383.80 531.30 566.95 373.41 284.59 432.22 387.73 544.43 586.33 381.41 292.00 430.97 388.14 545.28 586.86 377.29 294.19 438.06 396.89 550.41 590.78 384.09 295.47 451.54 408.50 578.56 626.95 400.35 303.28 437.85 394.97 554.70 596.88 384.29 297.31 435.53 389.35 542.69 583.87 386.22 293.18 440.54 393.87 549.11 598.25 392.18 298.45 331.45 333.52 438.40 257.75 202.02 448.67 342.86 341.60 448.26 266.39 208.00 466.34 338.37 335.23 452.40 258.96 206.85 454.33 337.26 336.73 424.38 257.28 203.20 458.82 339.55 343.20 469.32 260.52 205.98 460.10 342.54 340.29 483.69 266.93 209.19 463.97 341.82 341.60 437.65 258.23 206.34 465.86 344.20 341.34 461.52 270.14 207.32 465.89 348.00 347.21 438.15 275.40 209.88 473.06 346.73 343.00 448.84 276.48 210.86 472.40 350.00 344.92 439.71 279.75 212.18 477.20 358.02 353.28 452.20 283.45 215.18 490.40 350.55 347.13 452.78 278.39 212.65 479.37 345.74 338.13 446.85 273.88 206.70 474.10 351.74 341.82 478.27 278.52 210.39 481.11 356.26 464.25 586.89 365.31 484.78 603.72 362.30 478.68 601.77 360.00 481.01 595.56 358.08 480.17 583.80 358.45 484.99 596.52 360.69 482.56 606.10 369.74 483.39 605.77 373.98 487.81 620.49 369.53 486.38 620.27 373.76 496.44 610.20 384.12 504.48 621.41 370.59 496.17 615.17 370.36 494.08 604.63 378.56 497.54 625.10 345.69 209.76 350.58 217.09 347.71 212.43 346.83 215.50 345.61 218.04 350.20 221.54 346.72 218.63 346.36 216.92 351.41 219.41 350.58 216.58 356.01 219.79 366.24 221.54 359.35 217.04 356.29 211.99 360.59 215.43 MANUFACTURING Nondurable goods Food and kindred p ro d u cts .................................... Tobacco manufactures ........................................... Textile mill p ro d u c ts ................................................ Apparel and other textile products........................ Paper and allied products ...................................... Printing and publishing............................................ Chemicals and allied products............................... Petroleum and coal p roducts................................. Rubber and miscellaneous plastics pro d u cts................................................... Leather and leather products ................................ TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES........................................................ 437.73 448.37 441.73 441.78 441.73 449.40 448.33 454.86 457.34 452.67 457.02 460.52 451.62 451.24 452.40 W HOLESALE T R A D E ....................................... 345.86 358.36 353.82 354.82 357.59 360.99 359.68 358.90 362.00 357.98 361.62 366.99 362.07 360.40 361.52 RETAIL TRADE ................................................ 176.40 177.31 175.52 175.22 177.91 179.39 180.27 179.07 177.90 175.52 175.80 180.00 174.24 173.92 175.45 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE .......................................................... 278.13 288.65 286.47 285.74 284.23 291.77 285.68 286.77 292.29 290.40 291.41 298.74 295.93 303.23 303.60 SERVICES ........................................................ 250.59 260.76 256.56 257.21 257.68 261.03 260.17 260.50 263.71 263.71 264.87 267.65 267.16 267.97 268.47 - Data not available. p = preliminary NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 17. The Hourly Earnings Index for production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry Seasonally adjusted Not seasonally adjusted Industry Mar. Jan. Feb. Mar. Mar. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 1985 1986 1986p 1986» 1985 1985 1985 1986 1986p 1986» PRIVATE SECTOR (in current d o lla rs)....................... 164.3 168.2 168.7 168.7 164.4 167.1 168.4 167.4 Mining1 .................................................................................. C o nstruction........................................................................ Manufacturing ..................................................................... Transportation and public u tilitie s ................................... Wholesale trade’ ................................................................ Retail trade ......................................................................... Finance, insurance, and real estate’ .............................. S e rvice s ............................................................................... 177.8 148.8 167.3 164.8 169.9 155.8 170.3 167.4 180.8 149.3 171.4 169.1 173.1 157.8 175.6 173.5 180.5 149.2 171.5 169.6 173.6 158.2 178.1 174.6 179.6 148.1 171.9 169.4 173.3 158.3 178.3 174.6 PRIVATE SECTOR (In constant dollars) ..................... 94.6 94.1 94.7 - 1 This series is not seasonally adjusted because the seasonal component is small relative to the trend-cycle, irregular components, or both, and cpnsequently cannot be separated with sufficient precision. - Data not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 168.4 168.8 _ _ _ _ _ _ 149.9 167.4 165.4 148.9 170.1 168.1 150.5 170.8 169.2 149.2 170.8 168.3 150.1 171.4 169.1 149.1 172.0 170.1 - - - - - - 155.5 157.4 158.9 157.1 157.7 158.2 - - - 167.2 172.1 173.4 171.8 173.5 174.5 94.5 94.1 94.4 93.5 94.5 - p = preliminary, NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 79 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 18. Current Labor Statistics: May 1986 • Employment Data Indexes of diffusion: industries in which employment increased, data seasonally adjusted (In percent) Time span and year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Over 1984 1985 1986 1-month span ......................................................... ............................................................... ............................................................................. 67.3 57.6 63.0 72.7 50.3 49.5 66.8 55.9 52.4 67.3 44.6 Over 1984 1985 1986 3-month span .......................................................................... .............................................................................. .............................................................................. 78.1 58.6 63.0 75.9 54.1 55.4 77.6 46.8 68.9 45.9 Over 1984 1985 1986 6-month span .............................................................................. .............................................................................. .............................................................................. 79.2 52.2 77.8 49.5 77.3 44.3 June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 60.5 50.3 64.3 47.0 65.7 54.9 58.1 56.8 48.4 45.7 66.5 63.5 55.1 61.6 63.5 63.2 - - - - - - - - 69.7 44.1 67.0 49.7 - 65.4 50.5 60.3 49.2 60.0 53.8 56.5 52.7 - - - - 67.0 65.1 - 60.0 67.8 - 63.2 46.8 - 64.1 50.0 - 67.0 56.8 57.6 58.1 - 60.3 - 59.7 61.6 - 70.0 48.6 - 65.7 48.4 - 63.5 _ 60.5 _ 56.2 _ 51.9 - - - - - 69.2 44.3 - 64.9 42.4 - 75.4 44.6 - 76.8 49.5 “ 75.1 47.3 “ 72.7 46.2 - 73.0 47.3 - _ - Over 12-month span 1984 ....................................................................... 1985 .............................................................................. 1986 .............................................................................. 81.9 50.8 “ 78.4 48.4 - Data not available. NOTE: Figures are the percent of industries with employment rising. (Half of the unchanged components are counted as rising.) Data are centered within the 19. - spans. See the “ Definitions” in this section. See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision, Annual data: Employment status of the noninstitutional population (Numbers in thousands) Employment status 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Noninstitutional pop ulation........................................ 160,689 163,541 166,460 169,349 171,775 173,939 175,891 178,080 179,912 Labor force Total (num ber)........................................................ Percent of pop ulation........................................... 100,665 62.6 103,882 63.5 106,559 64.0 108,544 64.1 110,315 64.2 111,872 64.3 113,226 64.4 115,241 64.7 117,167 65.1 Employed Total (num ber).................................................. Percent of population ..................................... Resident Armed F o rce s............................... Civilian Total ............................................................. A g riculture................................................ Nonagricultural industries....................... 93,673 58.3 1,656 97,679 59.7 1,631 100,421 60.3 1,597 100,907 59.6 1,604 102,042 59.4 1,645 101,194 58.2 1,668 102,510 58.3 1,676 106,702 59.9 1,697 108,856 60.5 1,706 92,017 3,283 88,734 96,048 3,387 92,661 98,824 3,347 95,477 99,303 3,364 95,938 100,397 3,368 97,030 99,526 3,401 96,125 100,834 3,383 97,450 105,005 3,321 101,685 107,150 3,179 103,971 Unemployed Total (num ber)................................................ Percent of labor fo r c e ................................... 6,991 6.9 6,202 6.0 6,137 5.8 7,637 7.0 8,273 7.5 10,678 9.5 10,717 9.5 8,539 7.4 8,312 7.1 Not in labor force (number) ................................... 60,025 59,659 59,900 60,806 61,460 62,067 62,665 62,839 62,744 20. Annual data: Employment levels by industry (Numbers in thousands) Industry 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Total em plo ym en t........................................................................... Private se c to r.............................................................................. G oods-producing....................................................................... M in in g ..................................................................................... Construction ......................................................................... M anufacturing....................................................................... 82,471 67,344 24,346 813 3,851 19,682 86,697 71,026 25,585 851 4,229 20,505 89,823 73,876 26,461 958 4,463 21,040 90;406 74,166 25,658 1,027 4,346 20,285 91,156 75,126 25,497 1,139 4,188 20,170 89,566 73,729 23,813 1,128 3,905 18,781 90,196 74,330 23,334 952 3,948 18,434 94,461 78,477 24,730 974 4,345 19,412 97,699 81,404 25,057 969 4,662 19,426 Service-producing...................................................................... Transportation and public u tilitie s ...................................... Wholesale trade .................................................................... Retail trade ............................................................................ Finance, insurance, and real e s ta te .................................. S e rvices................................................................................... 58,125 4,713 4,708 13,808 4,467 15,303 61,113 4,923 4,969 14,573 4,724 16,252 63,363 5,136 5,204 14,989 4,975 17,112 64,748 5,146 5,275 15,035 5,160 17,890 65,659 5,165 5,358 15,189 5,298 18,619 65,753 5,082 5,278 15,179 5,341 19,036 66,862 4,954 5,268 15,613 5,468 19,694 69,731 5,171 5,550 16,584 5,682 20,761 72,643 5,300 5,769 17,425 5,924 21,930 G overnm ent.......................................................................... F ed era l............................................................................. S ta te .................................................................................. Local ................................................................................. 15,127 2,727 3,377 9,023 15,672 2,753 3,474 9,446 15,947 2,773 3,541 9,633 16,241 2,866 3,610 9,765 16,031 2,772 3,640 9,619 15,837 2,739 3,640 9,458 15,869 2,774 3,662 9,434 15,984 2,807 3,712 9,465 16,295 2,875 3,780 9,640 NOTE: Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959. See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark 80 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis revision. _ 21. Annual data: Average hours and earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry Industry 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 36.0 5.25 189.00 35.8 5.69 203.70 35.7 6.16 219.91 35.3 6.66 235.10 35.2 7.25 255.20 34.8 7.68 267.26 35.0 8.02 280.70 35.3 8.33 294.05 35.1 8.58 301.16 43.4 6.94 301.20 43.4 7.67 332.88 43.0 8.49 365.07 43.3 9.17 397.06 43.7 10.04 438.75 42.7 10.77 459.88 42.5 11.28 479.40 43.3 11.63 503.58 43.4 11.95 518.63 36.5 8.10 295.65 36.8 8.66 318.69 37.0 9.27 342.99 37.0 9.94 367.78 36.9 10.82 399.26 36.7 11.63 426.82 37.1 11.94 442.97 37.7 12.12 456.92 37.7 12.26 462.20 40.3 5.68 228.90 40.4 6.17 249.27 40.2 6.70 269.34 39.7 7.27 288.62 39.8 7.99 318.00 38.9 8.49 330.26 40.1 8.83 354.08 40.7 9.18 373.63 40.5 9.52 385.56 39.9 6.99 278.90 40.0 7.57 302.80 39.9 8.16 325.58 39.6 8.87 351.25 39.4 9.70 382.18 39.0 10.32 402.48 39.0 10.79 420.81 39.4 11.11 437.73 39.4 11.38 448.37 38.8 5.39 209.13 38.8 5.88 228.14 38.8 6.39 247.93 38.5 6.96 267.96 38.5 7.56 291.06 38.3 8.09 309.85 38.5 8.55 329.18 38.6 8.96 345.86 38.7 9.26 358.36 31.6 3.85 121.66 31.0 4.20 130.20 30.6 4.53 138.62 30.2 4.88 147.38 30.1 5.25 158.03 29.9 5.48 163.85 29.8 5.74 171.05 30.0 5.88 176.40 29.7 5.97 177.31 36.4 4.54 165.26 36.4 4.89 178.00 36.2 5.27 190.77 36.2 5.79 209.60 36.3 6.31 229.05 36.2 6.78 245.44 36.2 7.29 263.90 36.5 7.62 278.13 36.4 7.93 288.65 33.0 4.65 153.45 32.8 4.99 163.67 32.7 5.36 175.27 32.6 5.85 190.71 32.6 6.41 208.97 32.6 6.92 225.59 32.7 7.31 239.04 32.8 7.64 250.59 32.8 7.95 260.76 Private sector Average weekly h o u rs ................................................................. Average hourly earnings ............................................................. Average weekly ea rn in g s ............................................................ Mining Average weekly hours ........................................................... Average hourly earnings........................................................ Average weekly earnings ...................................................... Construction Average weekly hours ........................................................... Average hourly earnings........................................................ Average weekly earnings ...................................................... Manufacturing Average weekly hours ........................................................... Average hourly earnings........................................................ Average weekly earnings ...................................................... Transportation and public utilities Average weekly hours ........................................................... Average hourly earnings........................................................ Average weekly earnings ...................................................... Wholesale trade Average weekly hours ........................................................... Average hourly earnings........................................................ Average weekly earnings ...................................................... Retail trade Average weekly hours ........................................................... Average hourly earnings........................................................ Average weekly earnings ...................................................... Finance, insurance, and real estate Average weekly hours ........................................................... Average hourly earnings........................................................ Average weekly earnings ...................................................... Services Average weekly hours ........................................................... Average hourly earnings........................................................ Average weekly earnings ...................................................... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 22. May 1986 Current Labor Statistics: Compensation and Industrial Relations Data Employment Cost Index, compensation,1 by occupation and industry group (June 1981 =100) 1983 1984 1985 Percent change Series Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. 3 months ended 12 months ended Dec. 1985 Civilian workers 2 ................................ 117.8 119.8 120.8 122.4 123.9 125.5 126.4 128.4 129.2 0.6 4.3 118.9 115.8 119.1 120.9 117.7 122.0 122.1 118.6 122.1 124.0 119.6 124.6 125.5 120.9 126.8 127.3 122.2 127.8 128.3 123.1 128.0 130.7 124.4 130.9 131.6 124.9 131.8 .7 .4 .7 4.9 3.3 39 116.0 118.6 122.6 121.4 117.9 120.7 125.0 122.9 119.1 121.6 125.5 123.7 120.4 123.3 128.8 126.9 122.0 124.8 130.9 128.6 123.9 126.2 131.9 130.1 124.6 127.2 132.6 130.3 125.5 129.7 136.4 134.2 126.0 130.6 137.1 134.8 .4 .7 .5 .4 3.3 4.6 4.7 4.8 125.2 126.8 127.5 .6 39 127.1 122.8 126.5 128.8 124.0 128.8 129.8 124.4 129.5 .8 .3 .5 4.8 3.2 3.0 124.6 125.6 125.5 127.6 126.0 128.4 .4 .6 3.3 4.3 Workers, by occupational group: White-collar workers ......................................... Blue-collar w o rkers................................ Service w o rk e rs .................................. Workers, by industry division: Manufacturing .................................................. N onm anufacturing................................................... Services .............................................. Public administration 3 ...................................... Private industry w o rk ers....................................... 117.0 119.0 120.1 121.1 122.7 124.2 117.9 115.7 117.9 119.9 117.5 121.5 121.4 118.4 121.2 122.4 119.3 123.2 123.9 120.6 125.7 125.8 121.9 126.3 116.0 117.5 117.9 119.6 119.1 120.7 120.4 121.6 122.0 123.1 123.9 124.4 Workers, by occupational group: White-collar w o rkers............................................ Blue-collar w o rke rs ....................................................... Service workers ............................................. Workers, by industry division: M anufacturing........................................................... Nonmanufacturing ................................................................. State and local government workers ............................ Workers, by occupational group: White-collar w o rkers............................................................... Blue-collar w o rkers................................................... Workers, by industry division: Services ................................................................ Schools ..................................................................... Elementary and s econ dary............................................. Hospitals and other services4 ........................................... Public administration3 ....................................................... 122.0 123.9 124.4 128.8 130.1 131.7 132.0 136.5 137.5 .7 57 122.6 119.2 124.5 121.9 125.0 122.3 129.7 125.0 131.1 125.9 132.5 128.1 132.9 128.5 137.6 131.9 138.6 132.7 .7 .6 5.7 5.4 122.6 122.6 123.9 122.6 121.4 124.5 124.5 125.4 124.4 122.9 125.0 124.7 125.7 125.7 123.7 129.9 130.6 132.1 127.9 126.9 131.3 132.0 133.5 129.2 128.6 132.8 133.4 134.4 131.1 130.1 133.2 133.7 134.6 131.5 130.3 137.9 139.1 140.9 134.1 134.2 139.1 140.3 142.0 135.2 134.8 .9 .9 .8 .8 5.9 6.3 6.4 4.6 4.8 1 Cost (cents-per-hour worked) measured in the Employment Cost Index consists of wages, salaries and employer cost of employee benefits. 2 Consist of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers) Digitized for82 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4 and State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers. 3 Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities. 4 Includes, for example, library, social, and health services. 23. Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group (June 1981=100) Percent change 1985 1984 1983 Series Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. 12 months ended 3 months ended Dec. 1985 Civilian workers 1 .............................................................. 116.5 117.9 118.8 120.3 121.7 123.1 124.2 126.3 127.0 0.6 4.4 Workers, by occupational group: White-collar workers ................................................................. Blue-collar w o rkers.................................................................... Service w o rk e rs ......................................................................... 117.9 114.0 117.4 119.3 115.3 120.0 120.4 116.1 119.8 122.2 117.0 122.3 123.5 118.2 124.3 125.2 119.3 124.8 126.4 120.5 125.3 128.8 122.0 128.0 129.8 122.3 128.6 .8 .2 .5 5.1 3.5 3.5 Workers, by industry division Manufacturing ............................................................................ Nonmanufacturing ..................................................................... Services .................................................................................... Public administration 2 ........................................................... 114.5 117.4 121.3 119.4 115.7 118.9 123.3 120.4 116.8 119.7 123.8 121.3 118.0 121.3 127.2 124.4 119.5 122.6 128.9 125.7 121.0 123.9 129.7 127.0 122.3 125.0 130.5 127.2 123.2 127.6 134.2 131.4 123.8 128.4 134.8 132.0 .5 .6 .4 .5 3.6 4.7 4.6 5.0 Private industry w o rk e rs .............................................. 115.8 117.2 118.2 119.2 120.6 122.0 123.3 124.9 125.6 .6 4.1 122.3 127.3 122.2 111.6 122.9 124.0 127.7 123.8 116.3 124.7 125.5 128.7 126.5 117.4 125.6 127.3 131.2 127.7 119.3 127.1 128.3 131.5 128.4 122.5 127.9 .8 .2 .5 2.7 .6 4.9 3.3 5.1 9.8 4.1 Workers, by occupational group: White-collar w o rk e rs ............................................................ Professional and technical.............................................. Managers and adm inistrators......................................... Salesworkers ..................................................................... Clerical w o rke rs ................................................................. 117.2 120.4 115.7 111.2 118.3 118.5 122.2 118.0 110.2 119.8 119.9 123.8 119.2 111.9 120.7 120.9 125.2 121.0 110.5 122.0 Blue-collar w o rk e rs .............................................................. Craft and kindred w o rk e rs .............................................. Operatives, except tra n s p o rt.......................................... Transport equipment ope ra tiv e s .................................... Nonfarm la b o re rs .............................................................. Service workers ................................................................... 113.9 115.4 113.6 110.2 112.1 116.5 115.1 116.5 114.9 111.7 112.9 119.8 115.9 117.3 115.8 112.7 114.1 119.3 116.7 118.0 116.6 113.4 114.7 121.2 118.0 119.4 117.9 114.0 115.9 123.7 119.1 120.8 118.9 114.5 116.7 123.8 120.3 122.0 120.1 115.7 118.5 124.4 121.7 123.7 121.1 117.7 118.6 126.3 122.0 123.8 121.6 117.8 119.8 126.6 .2 .1 .4 .1 1.0 .2 3.4 3.7 3.1 3.3 3.4 2.3 Workers, by industry division: M anufacturing....................................................................... D u rab les............................................................................. Nondurables....................................................................... 114.5 114.4 114.6 115.7 115.7 115.8 116.8 116.6 117.1 118.0 117.7 118.6 119.5 119.1 120.2 121.0 120.6 121.6 122.3 122.0 122.6 123.2 122.7 124.0 123.8 123.4 124.6 .5 .6 .5 3.6 3.6 3.7 Nonmanufacturing................................................................ C onstruction....................................................................... Transportation and public u tilitie s .................................. Wholesale and retail tra d e .............................................. Wholesale trade ............................................................. Retail tra d e ...................................................................... Finance, insurance, and real e s ta te .............................. S e rvices.............................................................................. 116.5 112.9 116.8 112.3 116.5 110.6 116.9 121.9 118.0 113.3 118.5 114.3 118.2 112.8 116.1 124.2 119.0 114.0 119.3 116.0 120.0 114.4 116.9 124.7 119.9 114.3 119.9 116.5 120.7 114.9 115.3 127.1 121.2 114.4 120.7 118.1 122.9 116.2 115.8 129.5 122.6 115.5 121.7 118.8 123.7 116.9 122.0 129.9 123.9 116.6 122.8 121.1 126.8 118.9 121.7 131.0 125.9 117.3 124.8 122.7 127.7 120.8 124.1 133.9 126.6 117.9 125.2 123.7 128.3 121.9 126.5 134.1 .6 .5 .3 .8 .5 .9 1.9 .1 4.5 3.1 3.7 4.7 4.4 4.9 9.2 3.6 State and local government w o rk e rs........................... 120.0 121.6 122.0 126.1 127.1 128.4 128.7 133.2 134.2 .8 5.6 5.7 4.8 5.9 6.4 6.4 4.0 5.0 Workers, by occupational group White-collar w o rk e rs ............................................................ Blue-collar w o rk e rs .............................................................. Workers, by industry division Services ................................................................................. S ch o o ls............................................................................... Elementary and seco n d a ry.......................................... Hospitals and other services 3 ....................................... Public administration 2 ......................................................... 120.6 116.9 122.2 119.1 122.5 119.6 127.1 121.9 128.0 122.5 129.3 124.2 129.6 124.5 134.3 127.9 135.3 128.4 .7 .4 120.6 120.6 121.7 120.6 119.4 122.2 122.2 122.9 121.9 120.4 122.5 122.3 123.0 123.1 121.3 127.2 127.8 129.3 125.1 124.4 128.1 128.7 130.2 125.9 125.7 129.4 129.9 130.8 127.7 127.0 129.7 130.2 131.1 128.0 127.2 134.5 135.8 137.5 130.2 131.4 135.6 137.0 138.5 130.9 132.0 .8 .9 .7 .5 .5 1 Consists of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers) and State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities, 3 Includes, for example, library, social and health services. 83 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 24. Current Labor Statistics: May 1986 • Compensation and Industrial Relations Data Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and area size (June 1981=100) 1983 1984 1985 Percent change Series Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. 3 months ended 12 months ended Dec. 1985 COMPENSATION Workers, by bargaining status1 Union ................................................................... Manufacturing .............................................................. N onm anufacturing.................................................... 118.8 117.2 120.4 120.6 119.3 121.9 121.7 120.5 122.8 122.6 121.6 123.6 123.9 123.2 124.5 124.8 124.2 125.3 125.5 124.2 126.6 126.5 125.0 127.8 127.1 125.5 128.6 0.5 .4 .6 2.6 1.9 3.3 N o nunion......................................................... Manufacturing ........................................................... N onm anufacturing............................................................ 115.9 114.9 116.4 118.0 116.6 118.6 119.2 117.9 119.8 120.3 119.3 120.7 121.9 120.8 122.4 123.8 123.6 123.9 125.0 124.8 125.1 126.8 125.7 127.3 127.5 126.3 128.1 .6 .5 .6 4.6 4.6 4.7 117.5 117.1 114.7 120.0 118.9 119.7 117.2 121.0 120.7 120.7 117.9 122.2 122.4 120.7 119.7 122.5 123.8 122.2 120.8 124.9 125.1 124.2 122.0 126.8 126.4 125.2 122.7 127.9 128.8 126.5 124.2 129.1 129.9 127.2 124.6 129.8 .9 .6 .3 .5 4.9 4.1 3.1 3.9 117.4 114.5 119.4 116.7 120.6 117.4 121.5 119.0 123.2 119.8 124.7 121.4 125.7 122.5 127.3 123.9 128.1 123.9 .6 .0 4.0 3.4 Union ....................................................................................... Manufacturing ............................................................................ Nonmanufacturing ..................................................................... 116.9 114.8 118.9 118.1 116.1 120.1 119.0 117.1 120.7 119.8 118.1 121.3 120.9 119.5 122.1 121.7 120.4 122.8 123.0 121.7 124.1 124.1 122.8 125.3 124.7 123.3 125.9 .5 .4 .5 3.1 3.2 3.1 N o nunion.................................................................................... Manufacturing ............................................................................ Nonm anufacturing..................................................................... 115.2 114.2 115.6 116.7 115.4 117.2 117.8 116.5 118.3 118.8 117.9 119.2 120.4 119.5 120.7 122.1 121.5 122.3 123.4 122.8 123.6 125.2 123.7 125.9 125.9 124.4 126.6 .6 .6 .6 4.6 4.1 4.9 116.6 115.7 113.6 118.5 117.4 117.9 115.5 118.8 118.9 119.0 116.0 119.6 120.5 119.0 117.8 120.0 121.9 120.2 118.7 122.5 123.0 122.3 119.6 124.0 124.6 123.4 121.1 125.1 126.8 124.8 122.5 126.6 128.1 125.4 122.9 127.1 1.0 .5 .3 .4 5.1 4.3 3.5 3.8 116.2 113.4 117.6 115.1 118.6 116.0 119.5 117.5 121.0 118.3 122.4 119.6 123.8 120.6 125.5 121.9 126.3 122.0 .6 .1 4.4 3.1 Workers, by region 1 N ortheast.................................................................. South ................................................................ Midwest (formerly North C e ntral).............................................. W e s t........................................................... Workers, by area size 1 Metropolitan a re a s ....................................................................... Other a re a s ................................................................................. WAGES AND SALARIES Workers, by bargaining status 1 Workers, by region 1 N ortheast.................................................................................... South .................................................................................. Midwest (formerly North C e ntral).............................................. W e s t............................................................................ Workers, by area size1 Metropolitan a re a s ................................................................ Other a re a s .................................................................... 1 The indexes are calculated differently from those for the occupation and industry groups. For a detailed description of the index calculation, see the 84 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor R eview Technical Employment Cost Index,” May 1982. Note, “ Estimation procedures for the 25. Specified compensation and wage adjustments from contract settlements, and effective wage adjustments, private industry collective bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or more (in percent) Annual average Quarterly average Measure 1984 1984 1985 1985 I II III IV I llp |Vp lllp Specified adjustments: Total compensation ' adjustm ents,2 settlements covering 5,000 workers or more: First year of contract ............................................... Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t............................ 3.6 2.8 2.6 2.7 5.1 4.7 3.5 3.2 2.7 3.1 3.7 2.0 3.6 2.7 3.5 3.4 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.4 Wage adjustments, settlements covering 1,000 workers or more: First year of c o n tra c t................................................ Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t............................ 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.7 2.8 3.3 2.6 2.7 2.1 2.6 2.3 1.5 3.3 3.2 2.5 2.8 2.0 3.1 2.1 1.9 3.7 .8 3.3 .7 .9 .1 .9 .1 1.2 .2 .7 .3 .8 .1 .8 .2 1.2 .2 .5 .2 2.0 .9 1.8 .8 .4 .3 .7 .2 .7 .3 .2 .2 .6 .1 .5 .1 .6 .4 .2 .1 Effective adjustments: Total effective wage adjustment 3 ............................ From settlements reached in period ..................... Deferred from settlements reached in earlier p erio ds....................................................................... From cost-of-living-adjustments c la u s e s .............. 1 Compensation includes wages, salaries, and employers’ cost of employee benefits when contract is negotiated. 2 Adjustments are the net result of increases, decreases and no changes in compensation or wages. 3 Because of rounding total may not equal sum of parts. p = preliminary. 26. Average specified compensation and wage adjustments, major collective bargaining settlements in private industry situations covering 1,000 workers or more during 4-quarter periods (in percent) Average for four quarters ending1985 1984 Measure I III II IV I III» llp IV» Specified total compensation adjustments, settlements covering 5,000 workers or more, all industries: First year of c o n tra c t.................................................................................... Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t................................................................ 4.8 3.6 4.7 3.5 4.2 3.2 3.6 2.8 3.4 2.6 3.5 2.7 3.1 2.7 3.5 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.6 3.4 3.5 4.6 2.7 3.1 2.9 3.2 3.2 4.5 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.4 2.9 2.1 2.4 1.8 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.3 1.3 2.8 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.4 1.5 2.8 2.4 1.9 2.7 2.5 1.8 3.0 2.3 1.6 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.9 2.8 2.2 3.7 3.0 3.2 2.8 3.1 2.8 3.6 2.6 1.5 3.7 2.8 1.8 3.8 2.3 2.1 2.9 1.5 1.0 3.3 2.1 2.0 2.5 1.4 .9 3.2 2.0 1.9 2.2 1.5 1.0 3.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.4 2.4 .8 .8 .9 1.8 2.1 1.6 3.8 4.9 3.0 3.1 2.9 3.3 3.7 5.2 2.6 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.3 5.4 2.1 2.8 3.1 2.6 2.5 5.5 2.0 2.9 4.8 2.6 2.6 5.1 2.4 2.8 4.0 2.7 2.7 4.3 2.5 2.9 3.8 2.8 3.2 4.0 3.0 3.3 3.9 3.2 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.6 3.3 1.2 .1 1.4 2.0 .7 2.2 .8 -.4 .9 1.7 .0 1.8 .9 4.0 .9 1.4 1.4 1.4 .5 4,0 .4 1.0 1.4 1.0 .9 4.6 .8 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.1 9.2 1.0 1.7 4.6 1.7 1.0 (’ ) (1) 1.7 1.5 (’ ) O 2.1 0 (1) (1) (’ ) (’ ) 2.8 Specified wage adjustments, settlements covering 1,000 workers or more: All industries First year of contract ................................................................................ Contracts with COLA c la u s e s ............................................................... Contracts without COLA clauses ......................................................... Annual rate over life of contract ............................................................. Contracts with COLA c la u s e s ............................................................... Contracts without COLA clauses ......................................................... Manufacturing First year of contract ................................................................................. Contracts with COLA c la u s e s ............................................................... Contracts without COLA clauses ......................................................... Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t............................................................. Contracts with COLA c la u s e s ............................................................... Contracts without COLA clauses ......................................................... Nonmanufacturing First year of contract ................................................................................ Contracts with COLA c la u s e s ............................................................... Contracts without COLA clauses ......................................................... Annual rate over life of contract ............................................................. Contracts with COLA c la u s e s ............................................................... Contracts without COLA clauses ......................................................... Construction First year of contract ................................................................................ Contracts with COLA c la u s e s ............................................................... Contracts without COLA clauses ......................................................... Annual rate over life of contract ............................................................. Contracts with COLA c la u s e s ............................................................... Contracts without COLA clauses ......................................................... 1 Data do not meet publication standards. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis p = preliminary. 85 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1986 • Current Labor Statistics: Compensation and Industrial Relations Data 27. Average effective wage adjustments, private industry collective bargaining situations covering 1 000 workers or more during 4-quarter periods (in percent) Average for four quarters endingEffective wage adjustment 1984 II III 4.3 1.0 2.2 1.1 4.2 1.0 2.1 1.2 3.6 4.9 4.0 4.2 1985 IV I IIP up IVP 3.6 .7 2.2 .7 3.5 .9 1.9 .7 3.5 .9 1.8 .8 3.3 .7 1.8 .8 4.5 4.2 2.9 3.9 2.3 4.3 2.8 3.7 2.8 4.1 3.4 3.7 2.2 For all workers:1 T o ta l................................ From settlements reached in period .. Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period From cost-of-living-adjustments clauses .. 2.0 For workers receiving changes: T o ta l........................... From settlements reached in period Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period From cost-of-living-adjustments clauses 1 Because of rounding total may not equal sum of parts. 4.2 2.3 = preliminary p ?n d Wa?e ad!uslment» 4.0 « ’ " t ™ 1 settlements, and effective wage adjustments, State and Annual average Measure 1984 Second 6 months 1985p 1985 Specified adjustments: Total compensation 1 adjustments, 2 settlements covering 5,000 workers or more: First year of contract .............. Annual rate over life of contract Wage adjustments, settlements covering 1,000 workers or more: First year of contract ............. Annual rate over life of contract Effective adjustments: Total effective wage adjustment 3 ....... From settlements reached in period Deferred from settlements reached in earlier periods ..................................................... From cost-of-living-adjustment clauses ... 1-------------- -------- --o w .a n c o, anu c m p iu y c r a uubi ui e m p lo y e e 3.8 5.3 4.8 O. I 4.6 5.4 4.4 5.6 5.0 1.9 3.1 (4) 5.8 4.1 1.6 (4> 4.1 3.2 .9 (4) Because of rounding total may not equal sum of parts. Less than 0.05 percent. = preliminary. benefits when contract is negotiated. 2 Adjustments are the net result of increases, decreases, and no change in compensation or wages. 29. 4.2 5.2 Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more Annual totals Measure 1984 Number of stoppages: Beginning in p e rio d ........ In effect during period .... Workers involved: Beginning in period (in thousands)................... In effect during period (in thousands).................... Days idle: Number (in thousands).......... Percent of estimated working time1 .................. 62 68 86 54 61 Mar. Apr. 12 May 8 June 8 July Aug. 2 8 9 13 Sept. 6 18 11 20 Oct. Nov. 4 18 Dec. 2 11 Jan.p 2 8 Feb.p Mar.p 4 3 _ 7 7 - 376.0 323.9 6.2 6.9 15.7 52.3 15.3 69.5 74.6 25.0 8.2 7.6 24.0 - 391.0 584.1 14.1 14.8 28.5 60.2 66.8 93.9 117.3 64.6 38.1 12.0 28.4 - 203.3 454.3 500.2 869.7 931.4 1,433.0 651.2 665.4 17.0 309.5 .01 .02 .02 .03 .04 .06 .03 .03 .01 .02 8,499.0 7,079.1 .04 .03 Agricultural and government employees working time: private household, forestry, explanation of the measurement of Idleness found in “ Total economy’ measure of strike https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1985 698.5 229.5 are included in the total employed and total and fishery employees are excluded. An as a percentage of the total time worked is idleness," Monthly L abor Review , O c to b e r 1968, pp. 54-56. - Data not available. p = preliminary - - 30. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: U.S. city average, by expenditure category and commodity service group; and CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, all items (1967 = 100, unless otherwise indicated) 1986 Annual average Jan. Feb. Mar. 326.6 379.9 328.4 381.9 327.5 380.8 326.0 379.1 302.5 309.8 295.3 318.9 261.1 257.1 317.1 363.0 402.6 291.2 454.1 296.8 350.3 236.4 303.6 311.0 296.6 319.9 266.1 257.1 314.3 362.2 401.4 292.1 451.7 296.8 351.3 236.2 307.9 315.6 302.5 322.0 271.5 257.2 334.4 365.7 405.1 292.1 459.7 298.0 353.1 237.5 307.7 315.3 301.5 322.5 268.4 257.3 320.7 375.1 408.6 291.4 485.3 299.5 354.2 238.3 307.8 315.4 301.2 322.7 267.7 256.8 319.2 375.7 408.4 290.2 488.0 299.3 355.5 238.8 353.8 386.9 117.0 267.7 410.7 114.6 114.6 113.7 368.7 421.9 268.6 400.5 496.8 601.7 466.5 244.6 247.1 199.0 313.9 341.5 354.4 389.1 117.9 269.9 412.5 115.1 115.1 114.6 368.5 422.2 268.0 395.6 488.4 615.3 453.9 244.7 248.4 200.3 315.7 342.2 355.0 391.3 118.4 271.7 408.7 115.8 115.9 114.5 372.7 426.4 271.5 392.1 481.5 641.6 440.5 245.9 248.9 200.8 316.4 342.7 355.8 392.3 118.3 272.4 398.1 116.3 116.3 115.0 373.7 426.2 273.3 393.3 483.6 657.3 439.9 245.8 248.8 356.5 394.8 119.0 273.7 404.1 117.0 117.0 117.4 379.6 432.8 277.8 390.0 476.3 591.2 444.5 247.9 249.0 199.7 318.6 344.5 357.0 397.0 119.6 275.0 405.5 117.9 117.9 118.0 367.5 422.4 266.1 385.5 467.6 549.9 442.3 249.0 249.8 317.7 343.2 356.8 393.8 118.8 273.4 401.1 116.7 116.7 115.7 379.1 432.6 277.1 394.6 484.7 650.3 442.6 247.3 248.8 199.8 318.3 343.9 205.3 190.6 197.2 167.7 300.6 210.3 217.5 322.9 209.6 195.3 201.5 176.1 302.0 210.9 215.2 324.1 211.1 196.7 203.2 177.9 302.1 212.3 214.9 325.7 211.2 196.8 203.6 176.5 307.0 215.5 214.9 326.3 209.0 194.2 202.0 172.6 304.1 213.1 214.6 326.9 205.0 189.5 198.6 164.4 313.9 209.1 215.5 329.8 204.1 188.5 196.8 163.4 311.6 207.9 216.1 330.7 206.3 190.8 198.3 167.6 313.1 321.8 316.1 214.3 214.7 376.7 385.5 385.3 351.1 287.6 202.2 313.0 402.4 320.7 314.9 214.2 214.6 374.0 381.9 381.8 351.9 287.7 202.8 313.0 403.7 319.7 313.6 214.2 214.5 374.3 377.7 377.4 353.5 285.8 203.4 310.4 408.0 320.9 314.7 215.9 216.2 375.3 374.6 374.2 355.7 289.6 202.8 315.4 411.5 323.2 317.0 218.2 218.4 376.4 376.7 376.1 355.8 293.9 201.6 321.2 412.8 324.0 317.8 219.2 219.4 375.6 377.5 376.8 357.5 295.2 202.1 322.7 412.9 323.9 317.3 219.7 219.9 374.1 373.3 372.5 357.9 297.7 203.4 325.5 419.6 319.2 312.2 220.2 220.4 370.7 351.5 350.8 358.9 299.2 202.9 327.6 422.2 309.6 302.1 401.7 257.0 433.0 366.4 513.6 404.0 257.8 435.8 368.1 517.6 406.6 259.3 438.6 370.C 521.6 408.3 260.2 440.5 371.7 523.S 410.5 261.3 443.C 373.3 527./ 413.0 262.7 445.8 375.5 530.8 414.7 262.9 448.0 377.1 533.6 418.2 264.5 451.9 378.9 540.3 422.3 267.4 456.2 381.6 546.4 425.8 269.4 460.1 385.0 550.8 263.6 259.5 269.9 264.8 260.1 272.0 265.7 260.6 273.C 265.7 260.6 273.e 266.5 262.5 273.: 268/ 264. ( 275.2 269.0 264.0 276.6 268.3 262.5 277.1 270.8 264.7 279.9 272.0 265.2 282.1 271.9 265.0 282.2 322.3 324.1 280.9 277.5 285.0 388.5 344.5 398.8 323.0 324.8 281.7 277.9 286.1 389.1 344.9 399.4 325.C 330.C 282T 278.S 286.: 390. 345. 400. 326.C 331.; 283.: 279.' 287. 390. 346. 401. 333.: 332.( 284. 280. 288. 412. 5 362. 423. 9 33 4 / 334.' 285. 281. 289. 414. 7 364. 5 426. 2 335.3 334.7 285.4 281.1 290.2 415.4 364.7 426.9 336.5 337.4 286.3 282.5 290.6 415.5 364.7 427.0 339.1 342.7 288.1 285.3 291.8 416.8 371.0 427.6 340.3 344.7 289.1 286.0 293.0 417.7 373.8 428.1 341.1 345.6 290.3 287.3 294.0 417.9 374.3 428.3 Oct. Nov. 324.5 377.4 325.5 378.5 301.8 309.7 295.9 318.5 259.7 257.4 326.3 361.7 401.8 297.1 449.6 295.8 348.4 228.9 302.1 309.9 295.6 319.2 260.6 258.0 319.9 362.6 401.1 294.8 452.8 296.3 349.9 229.3 312.9 338.0 112.8 112.7 367.6 423.2 265.7 399.4 497.7 612.0 465.6 241.1 247.1 200.0 313.6 338.3 351.6 383.2 115.8 265.0 405.1 113.5 113.5 112.7 367.8 421.1 267.8 399.9 497.3 601.9 467.1 242.8 246.5 198.8 313.1 339.8 352.9 385.9 116.6 266.6 409.9 114.3 114.3 113.0 370.6 425.1 269.2 398.9 494.4 594.6 465.1 244.2 247.0 199.1 313.5 340.7 205.9 191.8 197.4 170.0 295.3 213.2 215.8 318.4 205.3 191.0 197.8 168.0 298.3 213.2 215.1 319.4 204.6 190.2 196.4 166.5 300.7 213.9 216.3 319.9 202.8 188.0 194.5 163.4 294.5 211.4 216.7 321.4 316.7 311.0 213.8 214.1 386.1 360.6 360.0 348.5 284.5 201.9 309.1 397.3 320.0 314.6 213.9 214.1 386.4 374.2 373.8 348.2 285.8 202.8 310.5 398.0 321.4 316.0 214.2 214.5 384.2 381.6 381.4 349.6 285.6 201.3 310.7 398.4 321.8 316.3 214.3 214.7 380.3 384.7 384.5 350.4 286.6 203.9 311.3 399.3 403.1 256.7 435.1 367.C 517.C 396.5 251.9 428.1 361.9 508. C 398.0 253.9 429.4 363.0 509.6 399.5 255.2 430.9 364.5 511.2 255.1 253.C 258.C 265.C 260.Î 271. 262.2 258.7 267.6 263.3 259.5 269.2 307.' 310.C 271.' 269.( 274. 365. 322. 375. 3 326.Î 328. 281. 278. 286. 3 397. 350. B 407. 7 321.1 323.' 278." 276.( 282. 387. 343. 397. 3 321.8 324.0 279.8 277.1 283.3 388.3 344.5 398.5 Mar. Apr. 322.2 374.7 318.8 370.7 320.1 372.3 295.1 302.9 292.6 305.3 266.6 253.2 317.4 352.2 389.1 288.0 443.0 284.9 333.4 222.1 302.0 309.8 296.8 317.0 263.4 258.0 325.7 361.1 398.8 294.4 451.7 294.2 346.6 229.5 301.6 309.7 298.4 314.4 266.1 258.9 332.1 360.5 394.8 294.9 454.0 292.2 342.6 226.5 301.6 309.6 297.7 314.8 263.6 258.3 333.2 360.8 396.1 294.0 454.0 292.8 343.9 226.7 Housing .............................................................. Shelter ............................................................ Renters’ costs (12/82 = 1 0 0 ).................. Rent, reside ntial............. ........................ Other renters’ costs ................................ Homeowners' costs (12/82 = 1 0 0 )......... Owners’ equivalent rent (12/82=100 ) Household insurance (1 2 /8 2 = 1 0 0 ).... Maintenance and re p a irs .......................... Maintenance and repair services ........ Maintenance and repair commodities .. Fuel and other u tilitie s ................................. Fuels ............................................................ Fuel oil, coal, and bottled g a s ............. Gas (piped) and electricity ................... Other utilities and public s e rv ic e s .......... Household furnishings and ope ratio ns..... Housefurnishings....................................... Housekeeping supp lie s............................. Housekeeping services............................. 336.5 361.7 108.6 249.3 373.4 107.3 107.3 107.5 359.2 409.7 262.7 387.3 485.5 641.8 445.2 230.2 242.5 199.1 303.2 327.5 349.9 382.0 115.4 264.6 398.4 113.1 113.2 112.4 368.9 421.1 269.6 393.6 488.1 619.5 452.7 240.7 247.2 200.1 313.6 338.9 344.7 374.3 112.9 259.2 386.1 110.8 110.9 110.4 370.0 422.2 270.6 388.2 482.2 620.8 445.5 236.3 246.9 200.6 311.8 337.4 345.9 375.9 113.5 260.4 390.9 111.3 111.3 111.4 368.0 418.2 270.4 388.7 483.0 623.5 445.9 236.4 247.9 201.7 312.6 337.9 Apparel and upkeep ...................... Apparel com m o dities................. 200.2 187.0 192.4 163.6 287.0 209.5 216.4 305.0 206.0 191.6 197.9 169.5 299.7 212.1 215.5 320.9 205.3 191.3 195.2 169.9 302.1 213.1 216.9 317.1 Transportation ........................................................ Private transportation......................................... New ve h icle s.................................................... New c a rs ......................................................... Used cars .......................................................... Motor fuel .......................................................... G a soline......................................................... Maintenance and re p a ir.................................. Other private transportation.......................... Other private transportation commodities Other private transportation se rvice s....... Public tran sportation......................................... 311.7 306.6 208.0 208.5 375.7 370.7 370.2 341.5 273.3 201.5 295.0 385.2 319.9 314.2 214.9 215.2 379.7 373.8 373.3 351.4 287.6 202.6 312.8 402.8 Medical c a r e ............................................................ Medical care commodities ................................. Medical care se rvice s......................................... Professional s e rv ic e s ....................................... Other medical care se rv ic e s ........................... 379.5 239.7 410.3 346.1 488.C E nterta inm ent......................................................... Entertainment commodities ............................... Entertainment se rvice s...................................... 1984 1985 311.1 361.9 Food and beverages ....................................... F o o d ................................................................. Food at home ............................................. Cereals and bakery p ro d u c ts................ Meats, poultry, fish, and e g g s ............... Dairy p ro d u cts.......................................... Fruits and vegetables.............................. Other foods at h o m e ............................... Sugar and sw e e ts ................................. Fats and o ils .......................................... Nonalcoholic beverages....................... Other prepared fo o d s ........................... Food away from home .............................. Alcoholic beverages...................................... May July Aug. 322.3 374.8 322.8 375.5 323.5 376.2 301.4 309.3 296.0 317.3 259.8 257.8 329.0 360.8 398.3 296.0 451.5 293.4 346.9 227.8 301.6 309.5 296.2 317.3 260.5 257.8 328.9 360.6 400.2 297.8 448.2 294.5 347.3 227.8 350.4 381.0 115.1 263.6 401.6 June Sept. C CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR A LL URBAN CONSUMERS: All ite m s ............................. All items (1957-59 = 100) M e n 's and b oys’ a p p a r e l......... W omen’s and girls' apparel ... Infants’ and toddlers’ apparel F oo tw ear.................................... Other apparel com m odities.... Apparel services......................... Other goods and services ................................... Tobacco products .............................................. Personal c a re ....................................................... Toilet goods and personal care appliances. Personal care services ................................... Personal and educational expenses............... School books and supp lie s............................ Personal and educational services .............. See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . . . . . . . . 293.4 345.1 227.7 348.5 379.5 114.5 262.6 396.5 112.4 112.5 112.0 366.2 416.0 269.2 393.0 490.0 620.8 454.7 236.8 247.6 201.2 112.8 200.1 201.0 317.9 345.1 210.1 214.6 331.5 220.1 220.3 367.2 308.5 307.7 359.3 301.5 203.6 330.3 421.2 87 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW Current Labor Statistics: May 1986 • Price Data 30. Continued— Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: U.S. city average, by expenditure category and commodity service group; and CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, all items (1967=100, unless otherwise indicated) 1986 1985 Annual Series Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 284.6 195.3 335.3 268.7 325.5 287.9 302.5 285.3 196.7 335.6 270.2 326.6 289.2 303.6 286.8 196.8 337.8 271.5 327.4 289.9 305.6 286.8 194.2 339.1 271.4 328.4 290.1 307.9 284.9 189.5 338.7 271.4 327.5 287.4 307.7 278.6 188.5 329.5 270.5 326.0 283.7 307.8 268.9 190.8 313.6 269.7 384.9 115.1 113.2 337.4 438.6 313.8 386.5 115.4 113.5 337.1 440.5 319.7 387.7 116.1 112.1 341.1 443.0 321.4 388.7 116.7 110.8 344.7 445.8 322.5 389.5 117.0 110.8 346.1 448.0 322.9 391.7 117.4 111.4 349.0 451.9 324.8 393.3 117.7 111.8 351.0 456.2 326.1 394.9 118.5 111.6 352.4 460.1 326.6 324.2 304.4 109.9 318.4 272.4 277.9 321.9 293.5 114.2 375.2 437.1 314.5 314.1 258.2 418.1 376.6 325.0 304.6 110.1 318.9 272.3 278.1 321.1 293.7 114.5 376.7 433.8 315.6 315.3 258.8 414.0 378.6 326.2 305.7 110.4 319.9 273.1 279.6 321.0 294.6 115.0 378.3 432.6 316.8 316.9 260.2 411.2 380.2 327.4 306.3 110.7 320.8 274.4 280.7 322.0 295.1 115.1 379.3 427.1 318.4 318.9 262.0 410.1 382.5 328.5 307.2 111.1 321.9 275.7 282.0 324.0 296.4 115.2 380.1 425.1 319.8 320.4 262.7 415.2 384.8 328.9 307.9 111.3 322.6 275.7 282.0 325.1 297.4 115.4 380.8 426.5 320.5 320.7 262.2 417.9 385.8 329.5 308.8 111.6 323.4 274.7 280.4 324.9 297.7 116.2 382.7 424.7 321.8 321.6 261.8 413.2 387.9 328.5 307.4 111.2 322.2 270.9 274.5 316.8 294.3 116.8 384.0 408.9 322.3 322.3 261.6 386.5 389.4 326.6 305.2 110.5 320.5 265.2 265.6 302.7 289.5 117.1 385.4 381.3 323.3 323.6 262.0 343.0 391.5 31.0 26.7 31.0 26.6 30.9 26.6 30.8 26.5 30.7 26.4 30.6 26.3 30.5 26.3 30.5 26.2 30.5 26.3 30.7 26.4 317.8 369.6 318.7 370.6 319.1 371.2 319.6 371.8 320.5 372.7 321.3 373.7 322.6 375.1 323.4 376.1 324.3 377.1 323.2 375.8 321.4 373.7 301.4 309.2 296.1 313.1 262.9 257.2 328.1 361.3 395.5 293.7 455.6 294.2 347.1 229.9 300.8 308.4 294.6 314.1 259.2 257.3 324.8 361.6 396.9 293.6 455.4 294.9 348.4 230.8 301.2 308.8 294.5 315.7 259.3 256.7 323.5 361.3 398.0 295.6 453.0 295.0 350.1 231.0 301.4 309.0 294.6 315.7 259.7 256.6 323.9 361.1 399.8 297.3 449.8 296.1 350.4 231.0 301.6 309.1 294.3 316.8 259.0 256.3 320.6 362.2 401.4 296.5 451.2 297.3 351.5 232.2 301.8 309.3 294.0 317.6 259.9 256.8 313.6 362.9 400.8 294.1 454.1 297.7 353.0 232.6 302.2 309.3 293.7 317.3 260.4 255.9 311.2 363.4 402.2 290.6 455.6 298.3 353.4 239.1 303.4 310.6 295.2 318.2 265.4 255.9 309.4 362.5 400.9 291.8 453.1 298.3 354.4 238.8 305.4 312.8 297.9 320.4 269.2 255.7 319.3 361.6 401.8 289.6 450.4 298.7 355.2 239.1 307.7 315.1 300.9 320.4 270.7 256.0 329.7 366.1 404.7 291.6 461.0 299.4 356.2 240.1 307.5 314.9 300.1 320.9 267.7 256.0 316.0 375.2 408.1 290.8 485.5 300.9 357.3 240.9 307.6 315.0 299.7 321.1 267.2 255.5 314.6 375.6 407.8 289.7 487.4 300.7 358.6 241.4 342.1 368.1 261.8 396.7 102.5 102.4 102.8 361.8 410.1 260.7 393.8 488.9 623.2 453.0 237.7 244.0 198.9 310.0 339.2 344.0 369.5 262.7 401.0 102.8 102.8 103.4 362.9 417.0 258.4 400.9 497.7 614.3 465.1 242.0 243.3 197.6 310.8 339.5 345.0 371.5 237.2 243.2 198.2 308.9 338.5 339.5 364.7 259.6 391.0 101.4 101.4 102.4 363.1 411.7 261.6 389.7 482.3 625.9 444.6 237.3 244.1 199.2 309.8 339.0 264.1 405.2 103.4 103.4 103.5 363.4 415.3 260.0 401.2 497.0 604.2 466.3 243.7 242.6 196.2 310.3 341.0 346.2 374.0 265.7 409.6 104.1 104.1 103.7 365.6 419.6 260.6 400.1 494.0 596.9 464.2 245.1 243.1 196.6 310 4 342.2 347.2 375.0 266.8 409.8 104.3 104.3 104.3 364.4 416.8 260.5 401.9 496.7 604.3 465.9 245.6 243.2 196.5 311.0 342.9 347.5 377.1 268.9 411.6 104.8 104.8 105.2 364.6 417.4 260.5 396.3 487.2 618.1 452.0 245.7 244.5 197.7 312.7 343.9 348.3 379.3 270.7 408.0 105.5 105.5 105.2 367.7 420.9 262.7 393.2 481.0 644.3 439.5 246.8 245.1 198.3 313.5 344.5 349.1 380.4 271.5 397.5 105.9 105.9 105.7 368.5 420.1 264.2 394.3 483.1 659.9 438.8 246.7 245.2 197.8 315.0 345.0 350.1 381.8 272.5 400.8 106.3 106.3 106.3 373.2 426.2 267.2 395.6 484.1 652.7 441.4 248.3 245.1 197.3 315.8 345.6 349.7 382.9 272.8 403.5 106.6 106.6 107.8 374.0 426.5 268.1 390.9 475.7 593.6 443.2 248.8 245.3 197.2 316.4 346.3 350.1 385.0 274.1 405.4 107.4 107.3 108.2 364.7 416.6 261.1 386.3 467.1 552.8 441.2 249.9 246.0 198.5 315.5 346.6 204.2 204.9 204.2 203.7 201.8 204.3 208.7 210.2 210.2 208.1 204.1 203.1 205.2 Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. 318.8 285.3 301.6 320.1 286.8 301.6 321.3 287.0 301.0 322.3 286.9 301.4 323.5 286.5 301.8 - - 283.5 190.2 336.2 270.4 322.8 286.5 301.6 282.9 188.0 336.4 269.3 283.1 190.6 335.4 268.6 378.9 113.2 110.9 334.5 430.9 310.7 381.3 113.6 112.7 335.3 433.0 312.0 383.3 114.3 113.2 337.0 435.8 313.0 320.8 302.8 109.2 315.8 272.8 276.5 318.1 292.7 112.2 368.1 424.4 312.7 311.8 260.0 410.8 370.7 322.4 303.4 109.5 317.0 273.4 278.0 320.7 293.3 112.8 370.9 431.7 313.3 312.8 259.6 417.0 372.9 323.6 304.3 109.8 317.9 273.1 278.4 321.7 293.7 113.7 373.3 436.8 313.9 313.4 259.0 418.7 374.6 31.4 27.0 31.2 26.9 31.1. 26.8 318.5 370.4 315.3 366.7 316.7 368.3 295.2 302.7 291.2 303.7 266.0 252.2 312.5 352.7 388.6 287.5 444.4 286.4 336.7 225.3 301.8 309.3 295.3 315.4 262.7 256.9 320.3 361.5 398.3 293.9 453.2 295.7 349.7 232.6 301.6 309.3 296.9 312.7 265.6 257.8 326.8 361.0 394.2 294.3 455.5 293.7 345.8 229.9 Housing ................................................................................................... Shelter .................................................................................................. Renters' costs ( 1 2 /8 4 - 1 0 0 ) ........................................................ Rent, reside ntial............................................................................ Other renters’ costs ..................................................................... Homeowners’ costs (12/84 = 1 0 0 )............................................... Owners' equivalent rent (1 2/84= 100 ) ..................................... Household insurance ( 1 2 / 8 4 - 1 0 0 ) .......................................... Maintenance and repairs................................................................ Maintenance and repair services .............................................. Maintenance and repair com m odities....................................... Fuel and other u tilitie s ....................................................................... Fuels .................................................................................................. Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas .................................................... Gas (piped) and electricity .......................................................... Other utilities and public services ................................................ Household furnishings and ope ratio ns........................................... Housefurnishings............................................................................. Housekeeping su pp lie s................................................................... Housekeeping se rvices................................................................... 329.2 350.0 356.3 403.5 257.2 388.6 485.0 644.3 444.1 231.2 239.1 197.0 300.2 328.0 343.3 370.4 263.7 397.9 103.1 103.0 103.2 364.1 415.0 261.1 394.7 487.5 622.0 451.6 241.6 243.4 197.6 310.7 340.2 338.2 363.0 258.4 385.3 101.0 100.9 101.4 364.3 414.8 261.6 389.2 481.6 623.1 Apparel and u p k e e p .............................................................................. 199.1 205.0 1984 1985 All ite m s ..................................................................................................... C om m odities........................................................................................... Food and beverages.......................................................................... Commodities less food and beverages.......................................... ‘Nondurables less food and beverages ....................................... Apparel com m odities.................................................................... Nondurables less food, beverages, and apparel .................... Durables............................................................................................. 311.1 280.7 295.1 275.7 187.0 325.8 266.5 322.2 286.7 302.0 - - - - - 282.1 191.6 333.3 270.7 277.9 191.3 327.1 271.9 281.5 191.8 332.3 272.6 283.1 191.0 335.1 271.6 S e rvices................................................................................................... Rent of sh e lte r..................................................................................... Household services less rent of shelter ........................................ Transportation s e rv ic e s ..................................................................... Medical care se rvice s........................................................................ Other services ..................................................................................... 363.0 107.7 108.1 321.1 410.3 296.0 381.5 113.9 111.2 337.0 435.1 314.1 375.0 111.5 109.7 333.2 428.1 308.6 376.2 112.0 109.8 334.1 429.4 309.9 Special indexes: 311.3 All items less food ............................................................................. 295.1 All items less s h e lte r......................................................................... All items less homeowners’ c o s ts ................................................... 106.3 307.3 All items less medical c a re ............................................................... 267.0 Commodities less fo o d ...................................................................... 270.8 Nondurables less food ...................................................................... 311.9 Nondurables less food and apparel ............................................... 286.6 N ondurables......................................................................................... 108.5 Services less rent of sh e lte r......................................... ................... 355.6 Services less medical c a r e ............................................................... E nergy................................................................................................... 423.6 302.9 All items less energy ......................................................................... All items less food and energy ........................................................ 301.2 Commodities less food and e n e rg y ................................................ •253.1 409.8 Energy commodities .......................................................................... 356.4 Services less ene rgy.......................................................................... 323.3 303.9 109.7 317.7 272.5 277.2 319.2 293.2 113.5 373.3 426.5 314.8 314.4 259.7 409.9 375.9 319.1 301.5 108.7 314.5 270.6 273.2 313.5 291.0 111.9 366.9 416.6 312.0 310.8 259.3 398.3 369.4 32.1 27.6 31.0 26.7 All items .................................................................................................. All items (1 9 5 7 -5 9 -1 0 0 )........................................................................ 307.6 357.7 Food and beverages ............................................................................ F o o d ...................................................................................................... Food at h o m e ................................................................................... Cereals and bakery pro d u c ts ...................................................... Meats, poultry, fish, and e g g s ..................................................... Dairy p ro d u c ts ............................................................................... Fruits and vegetables................................................................... Other foods at h o m e .................................................................... Sugar and s w e e ts ...................................................................... Fats and o ils ............................................................................... Nonalcoholic beverages............................................................ Other prepared fo o d s ................................................................ Food away from home ................................................................... Alcoholic beverages........................................................................... Purchasing power of the consumer dollar: 1 9 6 7 -$ 1 .0 0 ......................................................................................... 1957-59 —$1.00 .................................................................................. Sept. 324.5 287.1 302.1 CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR URBAN WAGE EARNERS AND CLERICAL WORKERS: See footnotes at end of table. 88 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 248.6 372.4 - 444.4 - 30. Continued— Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: U.S. city average, by expenditure category and commodity service group; and CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, all items (1967=100, unless otherwise indicated) Series 1986 1985 Annual average Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 195.1 201.8 178.2 314.9 211.0 202.5 321.6 196.6 203.5 180.0 314.8 212.6 202.4 323.2 196.5 203.7 178.3 320.7 215.9 202.5 323.6 194.1 202.2 174.5 317.3 213.6 202.4 324.4 189.4 198.8 166.1 332.7 209.9 203.5 327.2 188.2 196.8 165.2 328.6 208.4 204.2 328.1 190.4 198.0 169.0 329.6 210.7 203.5 329.0 322.3 318.0 213.5 213.9 374.0 383.8 383.7 352.9 287.6 204.9 312.1 393.5 321.1 316.6 213.5 213.8 374.3 379.5 379.2 354.5 285.2 205.6 308.9 396.8 322.2 317.6 215.3 215.5 375.3 376.3 375.8 356.9 289.2 205.0 314.1 399.3 324.6 320.1 217.5 217.8 376.4 378.7 378.1 357.2 293.7 203.7 320.2 400.1 325.3 320.8 218.6 218.8 375.6 379.6 378.9 359.0 294.7 204.3 321.3 400.2 325.1 320.2 219.0 219.2 374.1 375.3 374.6 359.4 296.9 205.6 323.7 408.6 320.1 314.8 219.4 219.7 370.7 353.0 352.3 360.4 298.4 205.4 325.7 412.6 310.3 304.5 219.4 219.5 367.2 309.6 308.8 360.9 300.6 206.0 328.3 412.0 402.0 257.4 433.3 368.5 514.4 404.5 259.0 436.1 370.4 518.4 406.3 259.8 438.1 372.1 520.7 408.5 260.9 440.6 373.7 524.4 410.9 262.2 443.2 375.8 527.5 412.6 262.3 445.4 377.6 530.4 416.0 264.1 449.2 379.3 536.9 420.0 267.0 453.5 382.2 543.0 423.5 268.8 457.3 385.6 547.3 260.1 253.9 272.0 260.9 254.5 273.2 260.8 254.3 273.3 261.6 256.0 272.6 263.0 257.1 274.6 263.7 257.2 276.3 263.0 255.7 276.8 265.4 257.8 280.0 266.5 258.3 282.0 266.5 258.3 282.1 318.8 323.6 278.6 277.8 279.7 390.9 349.5 401.2 319.5 324.4 279.2 278.2 280.7 391.6 349.9 401.9 321.8 329.7 279.9 279.2 280.9 392.5 350.6 402.9 322.9 331.1 280.9 280.0 282.2 393.2 351.2 403.6 328.7 332.4 281.8 281.1 282.8 414.5 366.9 426.1 330.1 334.0 282.7 282.0 283.7 416.5 369.2 428.1 330.5 334.3 283.1 281.9 284.8 417.3 369.3 428.9 331.9 337.1 284.0 283.3 285.2 417.4 369.4 429.1 334.9 342.4 285.9 285.9 286.4 418.9 375.6 429.7 336.1 344.4 286.8 286.7 287.4 419.9 378.4 430.3 337.0 345.2 288.0 288.1 288.4 420.1 379.0 430.5 316.7 286.7 301.4 276.3 283.2 191.5 333.1 267.3 317.8 286.8 300.8 277.5 284.9 190.7 336.0 266.3 318.7 286.8 301.2 277.7 285.4 190.0 337.2 265.1 319.1 286.4 301.4 319.6 286.3 301.6 320.5 286.8 301.8 321.3 287.6 302.2 322.6 288.9 303.4 323.4 289.7 305.4 324.3 289.8 307.7 323.2 287.0 307.5 - - - - - - - - 285.0 187.8 337.6 263.8 285.1 190.4 336.6 263.1 286.5 195.1 336.4 263.1 287.0 196.6 336.5 264.5 288.5 196.5 338.8 265.7 288.7 194.1 340.1 265.7 286.9 189.4 339.6 265.6 280.1 188.2 330.1 264.6 321.4 283.1 307.6 269.6 190.4 313.2 263.7 371.0 101.1 101.1 328.8 425.7 304.9 372.2 101.6 101.2 329.6 427.1 306.2 374.9 102.6 102.2 329.9 428.7 307.2 377.4 102.9 104.2 330.6 430.7 308.4 379.2 103.5 104.5 332.2 433.3 309.3 380.7 104.3 104.6 332.4 436.1 310.1 382.0 104.5 104.8 331.4 438.1 315.0 383.0 105.1 103.3 335.5 440.6 316.7 384.2 105.8 102.1 339.3 443.2 317.8 385.1 106.1 102.0 340.5 445.4 318.3 387.2 106.4 102.6 343.3 449.2 320.4 388.8 106.7 103.0 345.4 453.5 321.6 390.5 107.4 102.8 347.0 457.3 322.1 319.4 ^ 315.4 303.4 301.1 101.8 101.0 314.3 311.3 272.8 271.0 279.0 274.7 320.3 314.4 293.9 291.6 102.6 101.2 369.0 362.8 426.3 416.0 309.9 307.4 308.7 305.5 256.8 256.6 410.9 399.0 371.1 364.9 317.2 302.4 101.4 312.6 273.3 278.2 319.1 293.4 101.4 364.1 424.2 308.1 306.4 257.2 411.6 366.2 318.7 303.0 101.7 313.7 273.8 279.8 321.8 294.0 101.9 366.8 431.3 308.6 307.3 256.8 418.0 368.4 319.8 303.9 102.0 314.6 273.6 280.4 322.9 294.4 102.8 369.3 436.9 309.1 307.8 256.2 419.9 369.9 320.3 304.0 102.0 314.9 272.8 280.0 323.2 294.3 103.3 371.1 437.2 309.5 308.3 255.3 419.6 371.9 320.9 304.0 102.1 315.3 272.7 280.2 322.4 294.5 103.5 372.5 433.9 310.4 309.4 255.8 415.7 373.7 321.9 304.8 102.4 316.1 273.4 281.5 322.3 295.2 103.8 373.6 432.5 311.5 310.7 257.2 412.6 374.9 322.9 305.4 102.6 316.9 274.5 282.4 323.1 295.7 103.9 374.5 426.6 313.0 312.7 258.8 411.2 377.3 324.2 306.4 103.0 318.1 275.9 283.8 325.0 297.1 103.9 375.5 425.4 314.5 314.2 259.5 416.3 379.8 324.6 307.2 103.2 318.9 275.9 283.9 326.3 298.2 104.2 376.2 426.8 315.3 314.6 259.2 418.9 380.8 325.1 307.9 103.5 319.6 275.0 282.3 325.9 298.4 104.9 378.2 424.7 316.5 315.4 258.8 414.1 382.9 323.8 306.4 103.0 318.3 270.9 276.1 317.5 295.0 105.5 379.5 408.1 316.9 316.1 258.5 387.3 384.5 321.5 303.8 102.3 316.2 264.9 266.4 302.6 289.8 105.7 381.0 379.0 317.8 317.2 258.7 343.3 386.5 31.6 27.2 31.5 27.1 31.4 27.0 31.3 26.9 31.3 26.9 31.2 26.8 31.1 26.8 31.0 26.7 30.9 26.6 30.8 26.5 30.9 26.6 31.1 26.8 Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. 191.3 198.2 171.3 311.7 212.5 203.1 318.5 190.9 195.7 171.5 314.5 213.4 204.2 314.7 191.5 197.8 172.0 306.4 213.3 203.3 316.1 190.7 198.2 169.7 310.6 213.3 202.7 317.0 190.0 196.6 168.4 313.5 214.1 204.0 317.6 187.8 194.8 165.5 306.4 211.6 204.5 319.0 190.4 197.3 169.9 311.2 210.5 205.2 320.5 313.9 310.1 207.3 207.9 375.7 372.2 371.8 342.2 274.2 203.9 295.4 376.8 321.6 317.4 214.2 214.5 379.7 375.4 375.0 352.6 287.7 204.7 312.3 391.7 318.7 314.6 213.2 213.4 386.2 362.2 361.6 349.6 285.1 204.2 309.2 386.7 322.0 318.0 213.2 213.4 386.4 375.7 375.3 349.3 286.3 205.1 310.4 387.4 323.3 319.4 213.5 213.8 384.2 383.0 382.7 350.6 285.9 203.5 310.4 387.6 323.6 319.6 213.6 214.0 380.3 386.2 386.0 351.5 286.9 205.9 310.9 388.4 323.5 319.3 213.6 214.0 376.7 387.2 387.0 352.2 287.7 204.3 312.4 392.1 Medical c a r e ........................................................................................... Medical care com m o dities................................................................ Medical care services........................................................................ Professional se rv ic e s ...................................................................... Other medical care se rv ic e s .......................................................... 377.7 239.7 407.9 346.5 484.7 401.2 256.3 432.7 367.7 513.9 394.6 251.5 425.7 362.4 505.0 396.1 253.5 427.1 363.6 506.6 397.7 254.8 428.7 365.0 508.2 399.8 256.7 430.7 366.8 510.5 E n tertainm ent......................................................................................... Entertainment commodities .............................................................. Entertainment se rvice s...................................................................... 251.2 247.7 258.5 260.1 254.2 271.6 257.3 252.2 267.4 258.6 253.2 269.2 258.9 253.1 270.0 Other goods and services ................................................................... Tobacco p ro d u c ts .............................................................................. Personal c a re ....................................................................................... Toilet goods and personal care appliances................................ Personal care services ................................................................... Personal and educational expenses............................................... School books and supp lie s............................................................ Personal and educational s e rv ic e s .............................................. 304.9 309.7 269.4 270.3 268.8 368.2 327.5 378.2 322.7 328.1 279.6 279.0 280.5 399.3 355.7 410.1 317.6 323.4 276.3 276.5 276.5 390.1 348.8 400.3 318.3 323.6 277.5 277.5 278.0 390.7 349.4 401.0 All Ite m s ..................................................................................................... C om m odities........................................................................................... Food and beverages.......................................................................... Commodities less food and beverages.......................................... Nondurables less food and beverages ....................................... Apparel com m odities.................................................................... Nondurables less food, beverages, and apparel .................... Durables............................................................................................. 307.6 280.4 295.2 269.3 277.5 186.6 327.0 261.1 318.5 286.5 301.8 283.8 191.3 334.2 265.2 315.3 285.2 301.6 273.6 279.4 190.9 327.8 266.7 S e rvices................................................................................................... Rent of shelter (1 2 /8 4 —1 0 0 )........................................................... Household services less rent of shelter ( 1 2 /8 4 = 1 0 0 )............... Transportation se rv ic e s ..................................................................... Medical care se rvice s........................................................................ Other services ..................................................................................... 358.0 377.3 103.2 102.6 332.2 432.7 310.1 1984 1985 Apparel com m o dities......................................................................... Men’s and boys’ a p p a re l................................................................ Women's and girls' apparel ........................................................... Infants' and toddlers’ a p p a re l........................................................ F ootw ear............................................................................................ Other apparel com m odities............................................................ Apparel se rvice s................................................................................. 186.6 192.9 165.0 297.6 210.0 204.5 302.9 Transportation ........................................................................................ Private transportation......................................................................... New ve h icle s..................................................................................... New c a rs ......................................................................................... Used c a r s .......................................................................................... Motor fuel .......................................................................................... G a soline.......................................................................................... Maintenance and re p a ir.................................................................. Other private transportation........................................................... Other private transportation com m o dities................................ Other private transportation services........................................ Public transportation.......................................................................... Special indexes: All items less food .............................................................................. All Items less shelter ......................................................................... All Items less homeowners’ costs (1 2 /8 4 —1 0 0 ).......................... All Items less medical c a r e ............................................................... Commodities less f o o d ...................................................................... Nondurables less food ...................................................................... Nondurables less food and apparel ............................................... N ondurables......................................................................................... Services less rent of shelter (12 /8 4 —1 0 0 )................................... Services less medical c a r e ............................................................... E n erg y................................................................................................... All items less energy ......................................................................... All items less food and energy ........................................................ Commodities less food and e n e rg y ................................................ Energy commodities .......................................................................... Services less ene rgy.......................................................................... Purchasing power of the consumer dollar: 1967—$ 1 .0 0 ......................................................................................... 1 9 5 7 -5 9 -$ 1 .0 0 ................................................................................... - - 317.2 407.9 292.9 307.5 295.1 - 304.0 267.1 272.6 313.2 287.4 - 350.5 423.3 298.3 295.8 250.5 410.5 350.8 32.5 28.0 - 31.4 27.0 31.7 27.3 Sept. Data not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 89 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 31. Current Labor Statistics: May 1986 • Price Data Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and available local area data: all items (1967=100, unless otherwise indicated) All Urban Consumers Area' Pricinc sche dule2 index base U.S. city ave ra g e .................... Dec. Jan. Feb. 318.8 320.1 326.8 Q07 328.4 327.5 326.C 317.4 315.5 319.1 315.8 323.1 326.3 323.1 326.4 322.9 325.0 326.8 318.8 319.7 323.1 320.3 - 327.1 333.2 364.4 174.6 314.7 315.9 310.9 310.4 311.8 312.4 Anchorage, Alaska (10/67 = 100) ...................... Baltimore, Md................ Boston, Mass.................... Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky.-Ind............ Denver-Boulder, Colo................ Miami, Fla. (11/77 = 10 0 )..... Milwaukee, Wis.......................... Northeast, Pa............................. Portland, Oreg.-Wash................ St. Louis, Mo.-lll......................... 1 10/67 1 1 1 1 1 11/77 1 1 1 1 Seattle-Everett, Wash............... Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va......... 1 1 Alanta, Ga.................................. Buffalo, N.Y............................. Cleveland, Ohio ........................ Dallas-Ft. Worth, Tex................ Honolulu, H a w aii...................... Houston, Tex.............................. Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas ....... Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.-Wis.......................... Pittsburgh, Pa....................... San Francisco-Oakland, Calif. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 - Region3 N o rth e a st........................... North C e n tra l...................... S o u th ..................................... West .............................. 2 2 2 2 12/77 12/77 12/77 12/77 169.8 172.8 172.6 173.0 Population size class3 A-1 ....................................... A - 2 ................................. B ............................ C ................................... D ........................................ 2 2 2 2 2 12/77 12/77 12/77 12/77 12/77 169.6 174.7 171.4 171.0 Region/population size class cross classification3 Class A: Northeast ......................... North C e n tra l....................... South .............................. W e s t..................................... 2 2 2 2 12/77 12/77 12/77 11/77 166.7 175.9 172.4 174.6 Class B: Northeast ............................. North C e n tra l....................... South ............................... W e s t........................... 2 2 2 2 12/77 12/77 12/77 12/77 173.5 171.7 173.7 174.4 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - - 1985 Nov. M - 1986 Apr. M M _ M M Urban Wage Earners Mar. Chicago, III.-Northwestern Ind..................................... Detroit, Mich........................ Los Angeles-Long Beach, Anaheim, Calif...................... New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J............................. Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J................. See footnotes at end of table. 90 1985 280.0 320.7 314.4 328.4 355.1 170.1 327.8 304.9 309.0 314.3 369.2 321.4 319.2 - - 324.6 305.4 342.4 335.6 292.7 335.3 319.8 - 333.6 324.3 330.4 - 286.9 327.3 325.4 333.4 359.4 173.9 333.9 310.6 317.1 324.0 326.9 - - 335.3 309.8 348.8 344.5 298.5 336.8 321.8 - 340.4 331.5 336.4 1“X 3 174.2 179.4 174.2 178 Í 1986 Apr. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 315.C 316.7 322.6 323.4 324.3 323.2 321.4 323.9 320.0 304.7 306.C 306.2 306.3 310.9 313.2 312.6 313.1 312.9 313.4 312.8 312.3 309.7 309.3 326.6 328.2 309.8 311.2 319.1 320.1 320.9 320.4 321.6 322.3 320.1 322.4 319.1 304.2 313.5 305.1 315.3 312.5 321.5 313.5 322.5 315.8 323.0 314.7 322.8 314.5 321.4 291.2 331.1 324.9 329.4 355.7 174.5 329.1 309.3 315.0 319.2 379.2 325.0 329.1 273.1 320.2 312.3 322.2 350.7 171.3 346.9 304.2 299.8 311.0 333.7 309.0 322.3 280.2 331.1 324.5 326.0 359.1 175.7 353.0 310.6 311.0 319.1 344.7 313.5 332.6 " - 284.4 329.5 322.3 321.8 350.1 175.1 347.2 308.3 304.3 -315JL 341.9 311.4 330.5 - 311.6 321.3 -4B5 Mar. 381.9 327.0 331.1 - - 336.9 310.1 350.2 347.0 301.2 337.2 321.1 - 339.9 330.1 341.1 “ ~ ~ “ ~ - - 280.1 326.3 323.0 326.2 354.1 174.9 353.2 “ 309.6 “ 307.3 ” “ - . 318.5 341.9 _ 310.8 330.5 “ ~ “ “ 322.3 291.9 321.8 329.6 300.1 332.8 309.7 “ “ “ “ “ - “ - 332.6 295.9 327.5 338.3 305.8 334.1 311.7 " ~ - - 329.2 306.8 326.1 174.5 175.4 176.6 177.5 " " “ ~ ~ ~ ~ 167.9 169.7 172.5 171.4 “ 172.1 172.6 176.0 175.2 174.7 178.7 176.9 174.7 174.0 " “ ~ 166.0 172.0 171.2 172.0 172.8 “ “ “ “ “ 170.2 175.4 174.6 175.3 176.0 163.5 171.1 172.6 170.9 ” “ 167.7 174.5 176.5 175.0 171.8 179.2 177.3 179.8 176.4 173.7 178.2 177.6 ” “ “ “ “ “ “ “ " ” ” ~ “ “ 170.5 168.4 170.7 175.1 “ - ” “ “ “ ~ ~ 336.0 312.8 331.3 173.5 170.5 174.7 178.9 - - - 334.3 295.8 328.3 340.4 308.5 334.3 310.1 - 334.9 311.4 336.0 - “ “ 172.3 171.8 176.1 175.4 “ 170.5 175.5 174.2 175.0 175.2 “ 168.1 174.0 177.0 175.5 “ 173.4 169.7 174.6 178.2 “ _ - - - “ 31. Continued— Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and available local area data: all items (1967=100, unless otherwise Indicated) Urban Wage Earners All Urban Consumers Area1 Pricing sehedule2 Other index base 1985 Mar, Apr. Nov. Jan. Dec Feb Apr. Nov. Dec. Feb. Mar Class C: Northeast ............................. North C e n tra l....................... South .................................... W e s t...................................... 2 2 2 2 12/77 12/77 12/77 12/77 177.8 168.6 172.2 166.9 184.1 171.5 175.3 169.1 183.1 170.4 175.3 171.1 182.5 165.7 173.9 165.9 188.8 168.2 176.7 167.8 187.8 167.1 176.6 169.6 Class D: Northeast ............................. North C e n tra l....................... South .................................... W e s t...................................... 2 2 2 2 12/77 12/77 12/77 12/77 174.2 169.1 171.6 170.8 178.1 172.6 174.5 176.2 178.9 170.7 174.7 174.8 174.2 171.4 173.7 172.4 177.7 174.2 176.1 177.7 178.6 172.4 176.0 176.3 A-2 - 1,250,000 to 4,000,000. B - 385,000 to 1,250,000 C - 75,000 to 385,000. D - Less than 75,000. Population size class A is the aggregation of population size classes A-1 and A-2. - Data not available. NOTE: Local area CPI Indexes are byproducts of the national CPI program. Because each local index is a small subset of the national index, it has a smaller sample size and is, therefore, subject to substantially more sampling and other measurement error than the national Index. As a result, local area indexes show greater volatility than the national index, although their long-term trends are quite similar. Therefore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics strongly urges users to consider adopting the national average CPI for use in escalator clauses. 1 Area is generally the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA), exclusive of farms. L.A.-Long Beach, Anaheim, Calif, is a combination of two SMSA’s, and N.Y., N.Y.-Northeastern N.J. and Chicago, Ill Northwestern Ind. are the more extensive Standard Consolidated Areas. Area definitions are those established by the Office of Management and Budget in 1973, except for Denver-Boulder, Colo, which does not Include Douglas County. Definitions do not include revisions made since 1973. 2 Foods, fuels, and several other items priced every month in all areas; most other goods and services priced as indicated:. M - Every month. 1 - January, March, May, July, September, and November. 2 - February, April, June, August, October, and December. 3 Regions are defined as the four Census regions. The population size classes are aggregations of areas which have urban population as defined: A-1 - More than 4,000,000. 32. Annual data: Consumer Price Index all items and major groups Series 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 181.5 6.5 195.4 7.7 217.4 11.3 246.8 13.5 272.4 10.4 289.1 6.1 298.4 3.2 311.1 4.3 322.2 3.6 188.0 6.0 206.3 9.7 228.5 10.8 248.0 8.5 267.3 7.8 278.2 4.1 284.4 2.2 295.1 3.8 302.0 2.3 186.5 6.8 202.8 8.7 227.6 12.2 263.3 15.7 293.5 11.5 314.7 7.2 323.1 2.7 336.5 4.1 349.9 4.0 154.2 4.5 159.6 3.5 166.6 4.4 178.4 7.1 186.9 4.8 191.8 2.6 196.5 2.5 200.2 1.9 206.0 2.9 177.2 7.1 185.5 4.7 212.0 14.3 249.7 17.8 280.0 12.1 291 '.5 4.1 298.4 2.4 311.7 4.5 319.9 2.6 202.4 9.6 219.4 8.4 239.7 9.3 265.9 10.9 294.5 10.8 328.7 11.6 357.3 8.7 379.5 6.2 403.1 6.2 176.6 5.3 188.5 6.7 205.3 8.9 221.4 7.8 235.8 6.5 246.0 4.3 255.1 3.7 265.0 3.9 172.2 5.8 183.3 6.4 196.7 7.3 214.5 9.0 235.7 9.9 259.9 10.3 288.3 10.9 307.7 6.7 326.6 6.1 181.5 6.5 195.3 7.6 217.7 11.5 247.0 13.5 272.3 10.2 288.6 6.0 297.4 3.0 307.6 3.4 318.5 3.5 Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All items: Food and beverages: Housing Apparel and upkeep: Transportation: Medical care: Entertainment: 167.7 4.9 Other goods and services: > Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers All items: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis I MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1986 • Current Labor Statistics: Price Data 33. Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing (1967 = 100) Annual average 1985 1986 G r o u p in g 1984 1985 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Finished consumer goods .................... Finished consumer fo o d s ................... Finished consumer goods excluding foods .................................................... Nondurable goods less food ......... Durable goods ................................... Capital equ ipm ent................................... 291.1 290.3 273.3 293.8 291.9 271.2 293.1 291.2 272.2 294.1 292.4 269.5 294.0 292.2 268.7 294.8 293.1 271.2 293.5 291.4 268.7 290.0 288.2 265.7 294.7 292.3 268.2 296.4 294.4 271.8 297.2 295.4 274.4 296.2 294.1 274.9 292.3 288.9 272.3 288.1 283.5 272.2 294.1 337.3 236.8 294.0 297.4 339.4 241.5 300.5 295.9 337.4 240.7 299.9 299.0 342.4 241.4 300.3 299.0 342.1 241.9 300.5 299.2 342.4 241.9 300.8 297.8 340.0 241.8 301.0 294.7 340.3 234.5 296.3 299.4 340.3 244.9 303.5 300.7 342.6 245.0 303.8 301.1 343.7 244.4 303.5 298.8 340.3 243.6 304.0 292.5 329.3 243.6 304.2 284.4 315.0 243.9 304.3 I n t e r m e d i a t e m a t e r ia ls , s u p p lie s , a n d c o m p o n e n t s ........................................................... 320.0 318.7 319.3 319.9 319.3 318.6 317.9 317.7 317.6 318.1 318.8 317.2 313.5 309.4 301.8 271.1 290.5 325.1 287.5 299.4 258.7 285.8 320.2 291.5 300.6 263.9 287.1 322.1 291.1 300.5 261.9 286.7 323.0 291.1 300.3 262.0 286.4 322.3 291.3 299.8 260.3 285.8 320.9 291.6 299.1 253.0 285.8 320.3 291.9 298.4 249.9 285.1 319.2 292.1 298.0 252.3 283.3 318.6 292.3 297.7 254.0 282.8 317.5 292.3 297.6 253.0 282.5 317.6 292.4 297.0 252.4 283.2 313.9 292.9 296.5 248.9 283.0 313.0 293.3 296.4 246.3 281.9 313.6 294.2 310.3 566.2 302.3 283.4 315.2 549.4 311.2 284.2 314.0 552.3 312.4 283.7 315.9 558.0 311.7 283.4 317.3 549.1 312.0 283.3 316.9 544.0 311.4 283.6 316.5 539.8 310.3 284.1 315.6 542.4 309.9 284.5 315.5 542.6 310.4 285.1 315.0 550.5 309.8 285.6 315.4 557.3 310.7 285.9 316.3 539.8 310.7 286.7 316.6 500.7 310.6 286.3 316.8 453.9 311.2 286.7 330.8 259.5 380.5 306.2 235.0 355.4 311.0 239.9 360.2 309.1 236.3 357.7 305.6 233.7 354.0 303.9 231.6 353.5 295.3 221.0 351.2 291.8 215.4 352.2 297.8 224.6 352.8 304.7 236.6 352.0 304.7 236.8 351.1 301.3 231.4 351.2 290.5 226.9 321.7 280.9 224.0 293.2 294.8 750.3 265.1 257.8 262.3 299.1 721.4 269.2 261.3 268.7 297.8 714.9 268.8 260.9 267.7 300.1 746.1 268.4 260.3 268.2 300.2 741.4 268.4 260.3 268.6 300.5 733.8 269.7 261.9 269.4 299.5 719.9 269.0 260.9 269.4 295.9 718.2 265.5 257.7 265.7 301.3 716.5 270.5 262.1 271.6 302.4 729.5 271.6 263.4 271.8 302.5 736.1 272.1 264.1 271.4 301.1 704.8 272.7 264.8 272.1 296.7 636.8 272.2 264.1 272.4 291.1 551.1 272.3 264.2 272.6 255.9 256.1 319.7 228.6 481.9 303.0 315.5 227.6 437.4 303.2 F in is h e d g o o d s ............................................... Materials and components for manufacturing ............................................. Materials for food m anufacturing.......... Materials for nondurable manufacturing Materials for durable m anufacturing...... Components for m anufacturing.............. Materials and components for construction................................................. Processed fuels and lu bricants.................. Containers...................................................... Supplies.......................................................... C r u d e m a t e r ia ls f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e s s in g Foodstuffs and feedstuffs ........................ Nonfood materials1 .................................... S p e c ia l g r o u p in g s Finished goods, excluding fo o d s .................. Finished energy goods ................................... Finished goods less e n e rg y ........................... Finished consumer goods less e n e rg y ........ Finished goods less food and e n e rg y ......... Finished consumer goods less food and e n e rg y ............................................................... Consumer nondurable goods less food and e n e rg y ............................................................... 245.9 252.1 251.1 251.5 252.0 252.9 252.9 249.6 254.9 255.0 254.7 255.5 239.0 246.2 245.0 245.2 245.6 247.4 247.3 247.9 248.3 248.5 248.5 250.6 Intermediate materials less foods and fe e d s ........................................................ Intermediate foods and fe e d s .............. Intermediate energy goods ................... Intermediate goods less e n e rg y .......... Intermediate materials less foods and e n e rg y...................................................... 325.0 253.1 545.0 303.8 325.0 232.7 528.8 303.9 325.5 235.4 531.5 304.3 326.4 232.6 536.7 304.5 325.7 232.2 528.6 304.6 325.0 231.7 523.8 304.3 324.5 227.1 519.8 303.9 324.4 225.4 522.3 303.4 324.1 228.6 522.2 303.4 324.5 231.4 529.3 303.2 325.2 231.7 536.3 303.3 323.5 232.4 519.1 303.4 303.6 305.2 305.6 305.9 306.0 305.6 305.5 305.0 304.6 304.2 304.2 304.2 304.2 304.4 Crude energy m aterials........................ Crude materials less energy ............... Crude nonfood materials less energy . 785.2 255.5 266.1 749.1 233.2 249.7 749.1 238.6 257.3 760.7 234.8 252.3 754.5 231.7 247.4 752.6 230.1 247.2 742.9 221.8 245.8 743.2 217.9 246.7 743.1 224.7 246.5 737.1 233.2 244.6 739.5 232.9 242.6 739.9 229.1 243.7 679.0 225.9 244.6 618.4 224.0 245.6 1 Crude nonfood materials except fuel. 92 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 34. Producer Price indexes, by durability of product (1967 = 100) Annual average 1986 1985 G r o u p in g 1984 1985 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Total durable g o o d s ........................................ Total nondurable g o o d s .................................. 293.6 323.3 297.3 317.3 297.1 318.4 297.6 318.9 297.8 317.5 297.8 317.3 297.8 314.1 295.2 313.0 298.8 314.3 298.5 317.6 298.5 318.7 298.2 316.9 298.3 309.0 298.7 300.6 Total m anufactures.......................................... D u ra b le ............................................................ Nondurable ..................................................... 302.9 293.9 312.3 304.3 298.1 310.5 304.2 297.6 310.8 305.2 298.4 312.1 304.8 298.7 311.0 304.6 298.7 310.6 303.8 298.6 309.0 302.2 296.0 308.4 304.4 299.7 309.2 305.4 299.5 311.4 305.7 299.5 312.0 304.7 299.1 310.3 301.0 299.2 302.7 297.3 299.5 294.7 Total raw or slightly processed goods ........ D u rab le............................................................ Nondurable ..................................................... 346.6 266.7 351.4 328.2 252.2 332.8 332.1 262.1 336.2 329.8 255.4 334.3 327.3 247.3 332.1 327.5 247.6 332.3 320.2 249.7 324.4 317.6 249.7 321.6 320.6 248.1 324.9 326.2 245.2 331.2 328.8 243.8 334.0 326.9 247.6 331.7 319.0 250.6 323.1 310.4 251.5 313.8 35. Annual data: Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing (1967 = 100) In d e x 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 181.7 180.7 184.6 195.9 194.9 199.2 217.7 217.9 216.5 247.0 248.9 239.8 269.8 271.3 264.3 280.7 281.0 279.4 285.2 284.6 287.2 291.1 290.3 294.0 293.8 291.9 300.5 201.5 215.6 243.2 280.3 306.0 310.4 312.3 320.0 318.7 301.8 310.3 566.2 302.3 283.4 299.4 315.2 549.4 311.2 284.2 330.8 259.5 380.5 931.3 306.2 235.0 355.4 912.3 F in is h e d g o o d s : T o t a l........................................................................... Consumer g o o d s .................................................. Capital equipment ............................................... I n t e r m e d i a t e m a te r ia ls , s u p p lie s , a n d c o m p o n e n ts : Total ........................................................................... Materials and components for m anufacturing...................................................... Materials and components for construction .... Processed fuels and lubricants ......................... C o n ta in e rs............................................................. S u p p lie s ................................................................. 195.4 203.4 282.5 188.3 188.7 208.7 224.7 295.3 202.8 198.5 234.4 247.4 364.8 226.8 218.2 265.7 268.3 503.0 254.5 244.5 286.1 287.6 595.4 276.1 263.8 289.8 293.7 591.7 285.6 272.1 293.4 301.8 564.8 286.6 277.1 209.2 192.1 212.2 372.1 234.4 216.2 233.1 426.8 274.3 247.9 284.5 507.6 304.6 259.2 346.1 615.0 329.0 257.4 413.7 751.2 319.5 247.8 376.8 886.1 323.6 252.2 372.2 931.5 C r u d e m a t e r ia ls f o r fu r t h e r p ro c e s s in g : Total ........................................................................... Foodstuffs and fe e d s tu ffs .................................. Nonfood materials except fuel .......................... Fuel ........................................................................ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 93 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 36. May 1986 • Current Labor Statistics: Price Data U.S. export price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification (June 1977=100, unless otherwise indicated) C a te g o r y 1974 SITC 1983 1984 1985 June Sept. Mar. June Sept. Dec. - 100.0 99.5 100.2 101.5 99.3 98.1 97.5 97.5 96.5 96.8 0 01 03 04 05 08 09 105.1 100.5 96.5 103.5 105.8 100.6 101.1 113.1 100.8 97.7 111.5 114.8 121.4 102.8 108.8 101.2 100.4 105.6 116.1 117.4 101.7 106.2 108.9 99.8 102.7 116.2 106.9 104.9 109.6 108.7 98.7 107.4 126.8 98.8 110.6 103.5 105.6 98.0 101.2 125.5 83.5 109.5 96.5 104.4 98.7 92.9 114.6 82.4 108.4 95.8 103.9 101.0 92.4 119.4 72.8 110.6 94.0 104.7 103.6 90 3 120 1 68 6 109.2 90.2 106.1 102.6 8? 6 126 8 75 7 108.1 93.6 112.3 101 8 1 11 12 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 101.5 103.3 101.4 101.6 102.3 101.6 101.9 102.9 101.8 102.8 103.3 102.7 101.3 103.7 101.1 99.9 104 0 99.5 100.1 105 3 99.6 99 7 101 8 99.5 114.6 129.2 105.6 100.0 128.7 103.5 117.3 144.8 100.0 112.2 135.2 96.8 102.2 129.8 106.0 123.1 144.8 96.7 112.5 145.6 93.9 103.3 131.1 112.5 120.5 146.6 100.2 118.3 154.7 104.3 106.0 129.4 122.1 125.6 147.7 98.5 105.2 153.7 79.9 104.1 123.8 120.8 109.4 163.0 93.2 101.4 133.6 74.8 104.0 125.4 114.2 106.7 163.2 92.4 97.5 121.0 71.0 106.4 128.7 100.5 102.4 165.6 89.2 96 8 126 2 71 2 106.3 125.7 96.1 105.8 167.9 82.0 93 3 129 0 107.1 124.5 93.8 103 6 169 4 80.1 106.0 128 1 92 7 102 6 165 5 78.0 - 100.0 99.2 99.1 99.7 99.7 99.7 100.1 99.2 97.6 96.6 4 42 100.0 100.0 125.6 138.2 122.0 129.3 129.8 133.2 164.5 176.4 145.7 159.0 147.9 156.7 142.0 152.9 144.5 164.8 114 5 128.8 108.7 5 51 56 97.0 Organic chemicals (12/83 = 100) ................................................................. Fertilizers, manufactured (3/83 = 1 0 0 )............................................................ 88.9 89.8 98.6 100.0 96.8 101.4 100.2 108.3 99.7 101.0 96.9 98.3 97.4 97.4 97.7 94.7 94.8 97.0 93.8 92.5 96 8 96 5 87.9 97 1 97 1 89.8 90.0 (9/81 = 1 0 0 ) ..... Leather and furskins ( 9 /7 9 = 1 0 0 ) ........................ Rubber manufactures ................................. Paper and paperboard products ( 6 /7 8 = 1 0 0 ) ............. Iron and steel (3/82 = 100) ............................ Nonferrous metals (9 /8 1 = 1 0 0 ) ......................... Metal manufactures, n.e.s. (3 /8 2 = 1 0 0 ) ............... 6 61 62 64 100.4 67.2 144.8 135.8 95.9 102.8 101.5 100.8 70.1 145.0 139.7 96.6 102.3 101.9 100.0 75.8 145.0 145.5 96.3 93.8 102.1 101.0 83.5 146.7 150.2 95.9 94.2 103.1 101.3 81.2 147.5 154.7 96.1 92.9 104.5 102.0 80.8 148.9 160.0 96.8 90.4 105.1 100.4 79.0 148.5 159.5 96.5 82.5 105.0 99.4 82.5 150.2 155.0 95.5 79.7 105.4 99.2 79.2 149.0 151.6 95.3 79.6 105.2 99 2 75.9 148.3 149.6 95 9 79.8 105.4 78 5 148 7 148 1 98 3 78 2 104.4 67 68 69 7 71 72 73 74 75 76 135.3 152.5 148.9 148.4 145.0 103.6 131.1 108.5 125.6 175.8 135.9 152.3 149.1 148.3 145.4 103.2 132.2 109.4 127.5 176.4 137.0 154.4 151.1 148.7 145.9 102.5 132.1 109.8 128.8 179.3 138.5 158.4 152.3 150.8 148.6 101.4 133.0 110.2 130.2 183.1 139.4 156.9 152.8 151.2 149.0 101.5 132.3 112.6 131.2 187.7 140.1 160.6 153.7 151.7 149.3 99.8 134.4 113.8 131.0 189.6 141.5 167.5 153.4 151.9 150.2 101.4 134.3 114.6 131.8 191.7 142.3 165.3 155.0 153.4 152.4 100.9 133.3 114.9 133.1 195.5 143.0 167.4 155.7 155.1 152.0 100.0 133.3 116.1 133.9 196.9 143.1 167 1 156 0 156 3 152.4 99 9 134.1 115 3 133.8 199.6 143.3 167 6 156 1 158 4 152 2 99 4 134 5 113 8 135 0 201.0 77 78 79 169.8 100.0 100.0 169.0 100.2 100.8 171.5 100.6 101.9 171.8 100.4 102.1 172.0 100.7 103.9 175.8 99.3 103.4 171.7 99.5 104.7 175.5 100.4 104.7 178.3 100.3 105 0 178 7 100.3 105 3 178 8 8 129.8 130.0 132.0 132.0 131.3 132.7 130.3 128.0 129.1 127.5 128.5 84 100.0 100.0 98.2 98.5 97.9 95.2 94.1 92.4 93.1 93.1 92.4 - - - - - - - - - - - A L L C O M M O D IT IE S ( 9 / 8 3 = 1 0 0 ) .. F o o d ( 3 / 8 3 = 1 0 0 ) ..................... Most (3/83 = 1 0 0 )............... Fish (3/83 —100) ....................... Grain and grain preparations (3/80 = 100) .......................................... Vegetables and fruit ( 3 /8 3 -1 0 0 ) ......... Feedstuffs for animals (3/83 = 10 0 )....... Misc. food products (3/83 = 100) B e v e ra g e s a n d to b a c c o ( 6 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ) . Beverages (9/83 = 1 0 0 )............. Tobacco and tobacco products (6 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ) .... C r u d e m a t e r ia ls ( 6 / 8 3 = 1 0 0 ) ...... 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Raw hides and skins ( 6 /8 0 = 1 0 0 ) ............. Oilseeds and oleaginous fruit ( 9 /7 7 = 1 0 0 ) ............ Crude rubber (including synthetic and reclaimed) (9/83 = 100) Pulp and waste paper (6 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ) .......................... Textile fib e rs ..................................... Crude fertilizers and m inerals............................... Metalliferous ores and metal scrap ................ M in e r a l f u e l s ......................................... - 100.0 100.0 118.2 75.0 127.1 100.0 111.3 145.0 3 A n im a l a n d v e g e t a b l e s o ils , fa ts , a n d w a x e s ..................... Fixed vegetable oils and fats (6 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ) ...................... C h e m ic a ls ( 3 / 8 3 = 1 0 0 ) .............................. I n t e r m e d i a t e m a n u f a c t u r e d p r o d u c ts - - 96.4 - - Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. 83 4 107.7 98 6 98.4 101 4 M a c h in e r y a n d t r a n s p o r t e q u ip m e n t , e x c lu d in g m ilita r y a n d c o m m e r c ia l a ir c r a f t ( 1 2 / 7 8 = 1 0 ( 5 ) ........... Power generating machinery and equipment (1 2/78= 100 ) ....... Machinery specialized for particular industries (9/78 = 100) . Metalworking machinery (6 /7 8 = 1 0 0 ) ...... General industrial machines and parts n.e.s. 9 /7 8 = 1 0 0 ) Office machines and automatic data processing equipment Telecommunications, sound recording and reproducing equipment Electrical machinery and equipm ent..................... Road vehicles and parts ( 3 /8 0 = 1 0 0 ) .......................... Other transport equipment, excl. military and commercial aviation ..... O t h e r m a n u f a c t u r e d a r t i c l e s .................................. Apparel (9/83 = 1 0 0 )....................................... Professional, scientific, and controlling instruments and apparatus Photographic apparatus and supplies, optical goods, watches and clocks (1 2 /7 7 = 1 0 0 ).............................................. Miscellaneous manufactured articles, n.e.s................... G o ld , n o n - m o n e t a r y ( 6 / 8 3 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................. - Data not available. 94 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 971 - 37. U.S. import price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification (June 1977=100, unless otherwise indicated) C a te g o ry Dec. 97.3 Mar. 98.0 Cork and wood manufactures ......................................................................... Paper and paperboard products ..................................................................... Nonmetallic mineral manufactures, n.e.s........................................................ 96.7 Dec. 95.7 Mar. 93.5 June Sept. Dec. 93.0 92.9 94.6 102.8 131.2 100.5 132.7 100.4 134.1 99.6 136.0 102.5 133.4 100.8 132.7 103.5 133.8 99.8 134.2 102.0 135.4 98.9 134.2 98.1 132.3 98.4 133.9 98.5 130.4 98.3 132.9 96.8 118.2 97.9 129.4 04 05 06 07 132.7 125.0 117.9 59.6 136.5 136.1 117.1 61.4 134.8 135.8 120.3 62.4 132.9 135.4 119.0 60.3 132.8 117.2 118.5 58.4 131.8 127.1 118.4 57.0 132.3 129.4 122.6 56.0 136.3 120.2 .123.1 54.4 141.9 131.2 111.9 64.6 1 11 155.4 152.7 155.3 152.6 156.3 153.6 157.1 153.5 156.5 152.8 156.2 154.2 157.1 154.3 158.0 156.0 161.6 159.1 2 23 24 25 27 28 29 98.6 107.2 80.9 100.0 103.2 100.0 114.8 87.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 102.6 93.7 103.2 96.1 96.2 102.8 100.8 100.6 90.7 99.6 96.3 98.0 100.1 101.1 98.9 83.8 104.0 93.2 98.6 95.6 106.4 94.0 77.6 100.7 84.0 100.3 90.4 104.3 93.6 76.4 106.9 80.4 101.7 87.6 104.9 91.5 68.9 101.6 76.8 102.7 89.5 102.5 91.2 73.2 99,4 75.8 102.1 90.1 102.5 3 33 87.6 87.6 88.3 88.2 88.0 88.1 86.9 87.0 85.2 85.2 82.9 83.8 80.9 81.6 79.8 80.3 80.1 81.1 4 42 100.4 100.5 117.4 118.1 141.8 143.1 124.4 125.3 114.9 115.3 89.9 89.5 76.7 75.9 57.6 56.2 50.6 48.9 5 54 56 59 99.5 _ _ _ 101.1 100.0 100.0 100.6 98.5 101.7 98.8 96.4 98.5 100.0 97.1 94.6 92.9 97.5 95.7 91.6 94.2 96.1 94.9 95.1 82.0 95.6 94.5 95.3 80.8 96.9 94.2 96.7 78.5 97.8 6 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 137.3 137.6 141.1 134.7 147.0 128.5 166.4 119.5 94.8 118.9 137.6 141.6 141.8 130.1 148.0 130.8 168.4 118.5 95.0 119.7 139.6 145.3 140.8 131.0 150.4 130.1 166.6 123.8 96.3 120.5 137.2 144.0 139.6 126.4 156.1 131.6 156.6 124.7 90.2 119.3 136.8 140.4 140.5 126.1 157.5 132.9 159.4 123.7 87.3 119.3 133.1 135.3 139.5 121.3 157.6 130.4 154.3 121.0 81.9 117.4 132.4 133.3 138.6 121.2 157.2 127.5 151.8 120.1 82.3 117.8 133.6 137.0 137.3 123.4 157.8 126.5 157.6 119.1 83.7 119.5 133.4 141.3 138.1 124.0 156.5 128.1 162.3 118.3 80.4 121.6 7 72 73 74 104.1 100.8 95.7 93.5 104.0 100.4 94.3 93.7 104.1 100.0 93.8 94.4 102.6 98.8 92.1 92.4 102.9 98.0 89.9 91.3 101.6 96.2 86.3 89.2 102.6 97.0 90.5 91.1 103.5 101.4 94.2 94.3 107.2 104.7 98.1 98.0 75 96.9 97.8 96.7 94.1 92.2 89.6 89.4 90.3 93.7 76 77 78 94.9 95.9 109.5 94.2 94.2 109.0 94.8 91.2 110.4 93.6 87.0 109.8 91.3 86.4 111.3 90.0 82.1 111.5 88.8 83.9 112.1 88.3 81.4 112.7 88.6 83.3 117.8 8 81 82 84 85 100.0 108.2 136.0 128.5 136.0 100.6 109.5 136.8 130.2 136.8 101.5 112.0 140.8 132.5 140.8 99.7 110.7 138.4 135.4 138.4 100.0 111.6 142.5 138.5 142.5 97.0 113.9 137.4 136.7 137.4 98.0 114.1 136.7 133.9 136.7 99.6 117.8 142.1 134.5 142.1 100.8 115.0 142.7 134.5 142.7 87 97.6 98.7 97.8 95.6 92.9 89.2 92.3 98.8 102.4 88.9 91.2 89.5 95.2 91.1 96.4 94.9 97.9 _ _ _ Telecommunications, sound recording and reproducing apparatus Plumbing, heating, and lighting fixtures (6/80 = 100) ................................. 98.3 Sept. 0 01 02 03 Office machines and automatic data processing equipment Electrical machinery and equipment (12/81 =100) ..................................... June 94.9 120.6 99.1 129.7 Bakery goods, pasta products, grain and grain preparations Crude rubber (inc. synthetic & reclaimed) (3/84 = 1 0 0 ).............................. 1985 1984 1983 1974 SITC Professional, scientific, and controlling instruments and Photographic apparatus and supplies, optical goods, watches, and 88 89 971 90.6 104.9 _ 89.6 105.2 92.8 104.0 91.2 98.3 _ _ _ 91.3 96.3 _ - - - - -I--------------- - Data not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 95 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 38. Current Labor Statistics: May 1986 • Price Data U.S. export price indexes by end-use category (September 1983 = 100 unless otherwise indicated) C a te g o r y Foods, feeds, and beverages .............. Raw m aterials.......................................... Raw materials, n o n durable...................... Raw materials, d u ra b le .................................. Capital goods (1 2 /8 2 = 1 0 0 ).............................. Automotive vehicles, parts and engines (1 2/82= 100 ) ...... Consumer g o o d s ............................... Durables .............................................. N ondurables.......................................... 39. Per centage of 1980 trade value 16.294 30.696 21.327 9.368 30.186 7.483 7.467 3.965 3.501 1983 Dec. 95.0 100.7 101.9 97.7 102.0 103.9 99.6 98.9 100.3 1984 Mar. June 92.8 102.2 103.6 98.8 103.2 104.5 100.9 100.1 101.8 1985 Sept. 98.5 102.5 104.4 97.7 103.9 105.3 100.9 99.6 102.1 Dec. 88.8 100.5 102.8 95.0 104.6 105.3 101.3 99.4 103.0 Mar. 83.0 99.1 101.4 93.3 105.6 105.7 100.8 99.3 102.3 June 81.5 97.6 99.6 92.6 106.2 106.7 100.9 99.1 102.7 Sept. 80.9 97.2 99.5 91.6 106.6 108.0 101.1 99.2 103.0 Dec. 76.2 96.5 98 7 91.1 106 6 108.1 101.9 100.4 103.3 77.5 96 2 98 3 91.0 106 6 109 2 101.7 100.0 103.3 U.S. import price indexes by end-use category (December 1982 = 100) C a te g o r y Foods, feeds, and beverages ..................... Petroleum and petroleum products, excl. natural gas .................... Raw materials, excluding petroleum .................................................. Raw materials, nondurable ............................. Raw materials, d urable............................. Capital g o o d s ......................................... Automotive vehicles, parts and e n g in e s........................................... Consumer g o o d s ........................................ Durable ............................................. N ondurable................................................. 40. Per centage of 1980 trade value 7.477 31.108 19.205 9.391 9.814 13.164 11.750 14.250 5.507 8.743 1983 1984 Dec. Mar. 104.0 88.1 101.8 99.0 104.7 101.3 103.8 100.4 101.1 99.5 June 106.0 88.8 103.5 100.7 106.5 100.8 103.6 101.0 101.1 100.9 1985 Sept. Dec. Mar. June 107.2 88.5 104.3 102.1 106.7 99.8 104.9 101.9 101.4 102.5 105.6 87.5 102.5 101.7 103.3 98.0 104.0 100.6 98.8 103.0 101.8 85.7 101.1 100.7 101.6 97.8 105.2 101.1 98.5 104.6 102.1 84.4 96.3 95.0 97.7 94.8 105.4 99.5 97.0 103.0 Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. 100.4 82.1 95.8 93.9 97.8 96.3 105.9 99.4 97.0 102.5 99.0 80 9 95.4 93.5 97.4 97.6 106.4 101.0 98.9 103.9 Sept. Dec. U.S. export price indexes by Standard Industrial Classification 1 1983 1984 1985 I n d u s tr y g r o u p Dec. Manufacturing: Food and kindred products (6/83 = 100) ....... Tobacco m anufactures............................... Textile mill p ro d u cts................. Apparel and related p ro d u c ts ................... Lumber and wood products, except furniture (6/83 = 1 0 0 )...................................... Furniture and fixtures (9/83 = 100) ........ Paper and allied products (3/81 = 1 0 0 ) ................................ Printing, publishing, and allied p ro d u c ts............................. Chemicals and allied products (12/84 = 1 0 0 )...................... Petroleum and coal products (12/83 = 1 0 0 )........................ Rubber and miscellaneous plastic p ro d u c ts ........... Leather and leather products .................................. Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products......................... Primary metal products (3/82 = 100) ............... Fabricated metal products ........................... Machinery, except electrical (9/78 = 1 0 0 )........................ Electrical machinery (12/8 0 = 1 0 0 ) .............................. Transportation equipment (1 2 /7 8 = 1 0 0 )....................... Scientific instruments; optical goods; clocks ( 6 /7 7 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................................... Miscellaneous manufactured com m o d itie s.......................... 1 SIC - based classification. Digitized for 96 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 108.3 Mar. June _ _ _ 109.0 112.7 _ _ _ 101.0 100.9 94.7 101.4 100.0 101.5 101.8 98.6 103.3 101.6 - _ _ 105.6 103.3 99.5 99.5 96.7 98.1 100.1 103.1 104.3 97.0 103.5 106.2 97.9 104.9 103.6 99.9 105.2 97.1 99.5 106.5 94.7 98.3 107.1 93.2 101.2 108.4 92.1 102.3 102.1 101.3 100.7 100.7 100.4 100.3 101.3 99.6 102.7 99.7 102.0 99.2 99.1 _ _ _ 95.8 91.2 92.7 - 93.6 _ _ _ _ 104.0 _ 93.6 135.8 107.6 153.6 137.4 108.0 155.7 137.9 109.5 157.2 138.0 110.7 157.8 139.9 111.1 158.9 140.4 111.3 160.5 140.5 112.4 162.0 140.6 111.9 162.8 140.5 111.2 164.4 152.8 153.1 153.2 153.0 - 156.6 156.2 156.7 ” 156.0 - 154.9 “ - _ _ 105.0 105.1 - _ _ 100.0 _ _ _ _ Data not available. - 106.0 81 5 93 9 91 8 96.2 100.0 111.4 102.5 100.8 104.7 41. U.S. import price indexes by Standard Industrial Classification 1 1985 1984 1983 Industry group Dec. Manufacturing: Food and kindred products (6 /7 7 = 1 0 0 ) .................................... Tobacco manufactures ................................................................... Textile mill products (9 /8 2 = 1 0 0 ) .................................................. Apparel and related products ( 6 /7 7 = 1 0 0 ) ................................. Lumber and wood products, except furniture (6 /7 7 = 1 0 0 ) .................................................................................... Furniture and fixtures (6 /8 0 —1 0 0 )................................................ Paper and allied products (6/77 —1 0 0 )....................................... Printing, publishing, and allied p ro d u c ts ...................................... Chemicals and allied products ( 9 /8 2 -1 0 0 ) ............................... Petroleum and coal p ro d u c ts ......................................................... Rubber and miscellaneous plastic products (1 2 /8 0 = 1 0 0 ) .................................................................................. Leather and leather products ........................................................ Stone, clay, glass, concrete products.......................................... Primary metal products (6 /8 1 —100) ........................................... Fabricated metal products (1 2 /8 4 —1 0 0 ).................................... Machinery, except electrical (3 /8 0 —1 0 0 )................................... Electrical machinery (9/84 — 1 0 0 )................................................. Transportation equipment ( 6 /8 1 = 1 0 0 ) ....................................... Scientific instruments; optical goods; clocks ( 1 2 / 7 9 - 1 0 0 ) ................................................................................. Miscellaneous manufactured commodities ( 9 /8 2 - 1 0 0 ) .................................................................................... Mar. 120.8 126.6 122.3 Dec. 124.1 June 118.8 122.6 Dec. Sept. 115.0 115.1 114.2 - - - - - - - - - 103.3 126.5 104.4 128.1 103.8 129.6 104.3 133.9 104.7 138.2 102.8 135.6 101.0 133.0 100.4 133.9 101.8 134.4 125.0 95.5 132.9 99.5 - 129.4 95.7 136.5 101.8 - 121.1 96.9 141.9 101.8 120.0 95.6 145.5 98.2 - 116.3 93.9 141.5 95.3 120.6 96.1 139.8 93.9 - 117.3 96.2 146.0 99.8 - - - 117.5 97.7 138.7 93.3 - 115.8 98.2 137.4 95.8 - 97.4 139.1 98.1 140.3 - - 98.5 143.7 91.9 97.1 111.6 97.8 141.6 88.3 95.5 100.0 110.7 98.0 144.2 86.6 100.0 94.1 98.6 112.9 96.9 139.1 82.2 99.0 91.8 95.1 113.1 96.7 138.9 83.0 99.1 93.4 95.8 114.2 96.6 142.3 83.4 101.0 96.6 94.5 114.8 97.5 144.0 81.9 102.6 100.0 95.9 119.6 90.5 90.1 - - 98.0 110.3 97.8 110.6 94.3 94.0 95.5 94.4 93.2 90.7 91.7 94.6 99.0 99.7 99.8 99.1 95.8 96.4 95.1 95.1 96.6 98.7 Data not available. 1 SIC - based classification. 42. Sept. June Mar. Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs, quarterly data seasonally adjusted (1977=100) Annual average Quarterly Indexes Item 1984 1983 1985 1984 II III IV I II III IV I II III IV B u s in e s s ; Output per hour of all p e rs o n s................................ Compensation per h o u r............................................ Real compensation per hour ................................... Unit labor costs .......................................................... Unit nonlabor p a y m e n ts ........................................... Implicit price deflator ................................................. 105.2 168.2 98.2 159.9 156.5 158.7 103.5 161.5 98.7 156.0 144.9 152.0 103.5 162.1 98.1 156.6 146.8 153.1 103.6 164.1 98.3 158.4 148.6 154.9 104.9 166.1 98.3 158.4 153.4 156.6 105.5 167.5 98.2 158.7 156.8 158.0 105.3 169.1 98.2 160.6 157.3 159.4 105.0 170.4 98.1 162.3 158.0 160.8 105.3 172.4 98.5 163.8 157.6 161.6 105.5 174.3 98.5 165.2 158.2 162.7 105.9 176.1 98.9 166.3 158.6 163.5 104.9 177.6 98.7 169.3 156.2 164.6 104.1 168.0 98.0 161.4 156.3 159.6 102.8 161.6 98.8 157.2 146.9 153.6 103.3 162.3 98.2 157.1 148.9 154.2 103.0 164.0 98.2 159.1 150.7 156.1 104.0 165.9 98.1 159.6 152.5 157.1 104.5 167.4 98.1 160.1 156.3 158.8 104.2 168.8 98.0 162.0 157.6 160.5 103.8 170.1 97.9 163.9 158.4 161.9 104.1 172.1 98.3 165.3 158.8 163.0 104.2 173.7 98.2 166.8 160.2 164.5 104.3 175.0 98.3 167.8 161.4 165.5 103.2 176.4 98.0 170.9 157.7 166.3 106.2 166.1 96.9 161.2 156.4 175.3 135.6 161.4 158.1 103.7 160.1 97.9 160.1 154.4 176.9 103.1 151.0 153.2 1(54.6 160.8 97.3 159.6 153.8 176.7 114.4 154.9 154.2 105.0 162.4 97.3 159.5 154.8 173.7 124.0 156.3 155.3 106.2 164.2 97.1 159.1 154.7 172.3 132.9 158.5 156.0 106.7 165.6 97.1 159.9 155.1 174.0 139.1 161.8 157.4 106.1 166.8 96.9 162.2 157.2 177.0 134.3 162.1 158.9 105.8 167.9 96.7 163.6 158.7 177.9 135.9 163.2 160.3 105.8 169.4 96.7 164.4 160.0 177.6 138.3 163.8 161.3 105.8 170.8 96.6 165.8 161.5 178.6 139.1 164.8 162.6 106.5 172.0 96.6 165.5 161.5 177.2 150.2 167.7 163.6 105.9 173.3 96.3 167.2 163.7 177.8 143.1 165.7 164.4 118.5 169.1 98.7 142.8 111.9 162.6 99.4 145.4 114.5 163.3 98.8 142.6 114.7 164.4 98.5 143.4 116.7 166.7 98.6 142.8 117.8 168.1 98.6 142.7 119.8 169.9 98.7 141.9 119.5 171.8 98.9 143.7 119.9 174.3 99.5 145.4 121.7 176.1 99.5 144.7 122.7 177.3 99.6 144.5 122.3 178.8 99.4 146.2 N o n f a r m b u s in e s s : Output per hour of all p e rs o n s................................ Compensation per h o u r............................................ Real compensation per h o u r ................................... Unit labor costs .......................................................... Unit nonlabor payments ........................................... Implicit price deflator ................................................. N o n f in a n c ia l c o r p o r a t io n s ; Output per hour of all e m plo yees........................... Compensation per h o u r............................................. Real compensation per h o u r ................................... Total unit c o s ts ........................................................... Unit labor costs ....................................................... Unit nonlabor c o s ts ................................................. Unit p ro fits ................................................................... Unit nonlabor payments ........................................... Implicit price deflator ................................................ M a n u fa c tu r in g : Output per hour of all p e rs o n s................................ Compensation per h o u r............................................ Real compensation per h o u r ................................... Unit labor costs .......................................................... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 97 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 43. Current Labor Statistics: May 1986 • Productivity Data Annual indexes of multifactor productivity and related measures, selected years (1977 = 100) Item 1960 1970 1973 1974 1976 1977 1979 1980 1981 1982 1984 1983 P r iv a t e b u s in e s s Productivity: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ............................. Output per unit of capital s e rv ic e s ....................... Multifactor productivity........................................... O u tp u t.......................................................................... Inputs: Hours of all persons................................................ Capital services ....................................................... Combined units of labor and capital In p u t......... Capital per hour of all persons................................ 64.8 98.4 75.4 53.3 86.1 98.5 90.2 78.3 94.8 103.0 97.5 91.8 92.5 96.5 93.8 89.9 97.6 96.1 97.1 93.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.3 100.3 99.7 107.9 98.7 95.6 97.6 106.4 100.6 94.1 98.3 109.2 100.8 89.5 96.8 106.3 103.7 92.3 99.6 111.1 107.1 97.4 103.7 121.0 82.2 54.1 70.7 65.9 90.8 79.4 86.7 87.4 96.8 89.1 94.1 92.0 97.2 93.1 95.8 95.9 95.9 97.5 96.5 101.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 108.6 107.5 108.2 98.9 107.8 111.4 109.0 103.3 108.5 116.0 111.0 106.9 105.4 118.8 109.9 112.7 107.2 120.4 111.6 112.3 113.0 124.3 116.8 109.9 68.0 98.4 77.6 52.3 86.8 98.6 90.7 77.8 95.3 103.2 97.9 91.7 92.9 96.5 94.1 89.7 97.8 96.1 97.2 93.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.0 100.1 99.4 108.0 98.2 95.2 97.2 106.4 99.6 93.2 97.4 108.7 99.9 88.7 95.9 105.9 103.5 91.9 99.4 111.3 106.3 96.6 102.9 121.0 77.0 53.2 67.4 69.1 89.7 78.9 85.9 88.0 96.2 88.8 93.6 92.4 96.5 93.0 95.3 96.3 95.7 97.4 96.3 101.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 109.1 107.9 108.7 98.9 108.4 111.7 109.5 103.1 109.1 116.6 111.6 106.8 106.0 119.4 110.4 112.6 107.6 121.1 112.0 112.6 113.8 125.2 117.5 110.1 60.0 87.9 67.0 50.7 79.2 91.8 82.3 77.0 93.0 108.2 96.8 95.9 90.8 99.6 93.1 91.9 97.6 96.1 97.1 93.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 101.6 99.5 101.0 108.2 101.7 90.7 98.8 103.5 104.9 89.9 100.8 106.1 107.1 82.9 100.3 99.3 111.6 87.6 104.9 104.4 115.6 96.0 110.4 115.3 84.4 57.6 75.6 68.3 97.3 83.9 93.5 86.2 103.1 88.6 99.0 85.9 101.2 92.2 98.7 91.1 95.9 97.4 96.3 101.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 106.5 108.8 107.1 102.1 101.7 114.1 104.8 112.2 101.1 118.0 105.2 116.7 92.7 119.8 99.0 129.2 93.5 119.2 99.5 127.5 99.8 120.2 104.5 120.4 P r iv a t e n o n f a r m b u s in e s s Productivity: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ............................. Output per unit of capital se rv ic e s ....................... Multifactor productivity........................................... O u tp u t.......................................................................... Inputs: Hours of all persons................................................ Capital services ....................................................... Combined units of labor and capital in p u t......... Capital per hour of all persons................................ M a n u f a c t u r in g Productivity: Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ............................. Output per unit of capital s e rv ic e s ....................... Multifactor productivity........................................... O u tp u t.......................................................................... Inputs: Hours of all persons............................................... Capital services ....................................................... Combined units of labor and capital in p u ts ....... Capital per hour of all persons................................ 44. Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years (1977 = 100) Item 1960 1970 1973 1974 1976 1977 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 67.5 33.6 68.8 49.8 46.3 48.5 88.3 57.7 90.1 65.4 59.4 63.2 95.9 70.9 96.7 73.9 72.5 73.4 93.9 77.6 95.4 82.7 76.4 80.5 98.3 92.8 98.7 94.3 93.4 94.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.6 119.1 99.4 119.6 112.5 117.0 99.2 131.5 96.7 132.6 118.8 127.6 100.7 143.7 95.7 142.7 134.7 139.8 100.3 154.9 97.3 154.5 136.8 148.1 103.2 161.9 98.5 157.0 145.4 152.8 105.2 168.2 98.2 159.9 156.5 158.7 105.3 175.0 98.6 166.2 157.7 163.1 70.9 35.3 72.2 49.8 46.2 48.5 89.1 58.1 90.7 65.2 60.0 63.4 96.4 71.2 97.1 73.9 69.4 72.3 94.3 78.0 95.9 82.7 74.0 79.7 98.5 92.8 98.8 94.2 93.1 93.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.2 118.9 99.2 119.8 110.5 116.5 98.8 131.3 96.6 132.9 118.5 127.8 99.8 143.6 95.7 144.0 133.5 140.3 99.2 154.8 97.2 156.0 136.6 149.2 102.6 162.1 98.6 158.0 147.0 154.1 104.1 168.0 98.0 161.4 156.3 159.6 103.9 174.2 98.1 167.7 159.5 164.8 73.4 36.9 75.5 50.2 51.5 50.7 91.1 59.2 92.4 65.0 60.1 63.3 97.5 71.6 97.6 73.4 68.9 71.9 94.6 78.2 96.1 82.6 73.1 79.4 98.4 92.9 98.9 94.3 93.8 94.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 118.7 99.1 119.0 108.4 115.4 99.1 131.1 96.4 132.3 118.6 127.6 99.6 143.3 95.5 143.8 137.8 141.7 100.4 154.3 96.9 153.8 142.1 149.8 104.0 160.6 97.7 154.5 152.2 153.7 106.2 166.1 96.9 156.4 161.4 158.1 105.9 171.3 96.5 161.7 165.5 163.0 62.2 36.5 74.7 58.7 60.2 59.1 80.8 57.3 89.4 70.9 64.3 69.0 93.4 68.8 93.8 73.7 70.7 72.8 90.6 76.2 93.6 84.1 67.7 79.3 97.1 92.1 98.1 94.9 93.5 94.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 101.4 118.6 99.1 117.0 98.9 111.7 101.4 132.4 97.4 130.6 97.8 121.0 103.6 145.2 96.7 140.1 111.8 131.8 105.9 157.5 98.9 148.7 114.0 138.6 112.9 163.2 99.3 144.5 132.4 141.0 118.5 169.1 98.7 142.8 140.5 142.1 121.6 176.6 99.5 145.2 B u s in e s s : Output per hour of all p e rs o n s................................ Compensation per h o u r............................................ Real compensation per h o u r ................................... Unit labor costs .......................................................... Unit nonlabor payments ........................................... Implicit price deflator ................................................ N o n f a r m b u s in e s s : Output per hour of all p e rs o n s................................ Compensation per h o u r............................................ Real compensation per h o u r ................................... Unit labor costs .......................................................... Unit nonlabor p a ym e n ts........................................... Implicit price deflator ................................................ N o n f in a n c ia l c o r p o r a t io n s : Output per hour of all e m plo yees........................... Compensation per h o u r............................................ Real compensation per h o u r ................................... Unit labor costs .......................................................... Unit nonlabor payments ........................................... Implicit price deflator ................................................ M a n u fa c tu r in g : Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ................................ Compensation per h o u r............................................ Real compensation per h o u r ................................... Unit labor costs .......................................................... Unit nonlabor payments ........................................... Implicit price deflator ................................................ - Data not available. 98 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - - https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 45. Unemployment rates in nine countries, quarterly data seasonally adjusted Annual average 1984 1985 Country 1984 1985 II III IV I II III IV T o t a l la b o r f o r c e b a s is United S ta te s ........................................ Canada .................................................. Australia ................................................ Japan ...................................................... 7.4 11.2 8.9 2.7 France ................................................... G erm any................................................ Great Britain ......................................... Italy 1, 2 ................................................... Sweden ................................................. 9.7 7.7 12.8 5.8 3.1 United S ta te s ........................................ Canada ................................................... Australia ................................................ Japan ..................................................... France ................................................... G erm any................................................ Great Britain ......................................... Italy ......................................................... Sweden ................................................. 7.1 10.4 8.2 - 15.7 11.3 9.1 2.7 15.3 11.2 8.8 2.8 14.6 11.1 8.5 2.7 15.1 11.0 8.5 2.6 14.9 10.5 8.4 2.6 14.5 10.2 8.1 2.6 13.9 10.1 7.7 2.8 10.1 7.7 13.1 6.0 2.8 9.7 7.7 12.7 5.9 3.1 9.9 7.8 13.0 5.7 3.0 10.0 7.7 12.8 5.7 3.0 10.2 7.8 13.0 5.8 3.0 10.1 7.8 13.1 5.8 2.9 10.1 7.7 13.3 6.0 2.7 9.9 7.7 12.9 6.2 2.7 7.5 11.3 9.0 2.8 7.2 10.5 8.3 - 15.9 11.4 9.2 2.7 15.5 11.3 8.8 2.8 14.8 11.1 8.6 2.7 15.3 11.1 8.5 2.6 15.1 10.6 8.5 2.6 14.7 10.2 8.2 2.7 14.1 10.1 7.8 2.9 10.0 7.8 '13.0 5.9 3.1 10.3 7.9 13.3 6.1 2.8 9.9 7.9 12.9 6.0 3.1 10.1 7.9 13.2 5.8 3.1 10.3 7.8 13.0 5.8 3.0 10.4 7.9 13.1 5.9 3.0 10.3 8.0 13.3 5.9 2.9 10.4 7.9 13.4 6.2 2.8 10.1 7.8 13.1 6.3 2.7 C iv ilia n la b o r f o r c e b a s is 1 Quarterly rates are for the first month of the quarter. 2 Major changes in the Italian labor force survey, introduced in 1977, resulted in a large Increase in persons enumerated as unemployed. However, many persons reported that they had not actively sought work in the past 30 days, and they have been provisionally excluded for comparability with U.S. concepts. Inclusion of such persons would more than double the Italian unemployment rate shown. - Data not available. NOTE: Q uarterly figures fo r France, Germ any, and Great Britain are c a lc u la te d by a pp lyin g annual ad ju s tm e n t fa c to rs to curre nt pub lish ed data and therefore should be viewed as less precise Indicators of unem ploym ent under U.S. c once pts than the an nual figures. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 46. May 1986 Current Labor Statistics: International Comparisons Data Annual data: Employment status of the civilian working-age population, ten countries (Numbers in thousands) Employment status and country 1976 1977 96,158 10,203 6,244 53,100 22,010 25,900 25,290 20,300 4,890 4,149 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1978 1979 99,009 10,500 6,358 53,820 22,320 25,870 25,430 20,530 4,950 4,168 102,251 10,895 6,443 54,610 22,490 26,000 25,620 20,630 5,010 4,203 104,962 11,231 6,519 55,210 22,680 26,240 25,710 20,910 5,100 4,262 106,940 11,573 6,693 55,740 22,810 26,500 25,870 21,210 5,290 4,312 108,670 11,904 6,810 56,320 22,950 26,610 25,870 21,410 5,500 4,326 110,204 11,958 6,910 56,980 23,170 26,640 25,880 21,450 5,560 4,350 111,550 12,183 6,997 58,110 23,110 26,640 25,980 21,610 5,720 4,369 113,544 12,399 7,133 58,480 23,260 26,700 26,390 21,600 5,740 4,385 61.6 61.1 62.7 62.4 57.4 53.8 63.2 47.8 49.1 66.0 62.3 61.6 62.7 62.5 57.6 53.4 63.2 48.0 49.0 65.9 63.2 62.7 62.0 62.8 57.6 53.3 63.3 47.7 48.8 66.1 63.7 63.4 61.7 62.7 57.5 53.3 63.2 47.8 49.0 66.6 63.8 64.1 62.2 62.6 57.2 53.2 63.2 48.0 50.0 67.0 63.9 64.8 62.0 62.6 57.1 52.9 62.2 48.0 51.3 66.8 64.0 64.1 61.8 62.7 57.1 52.5 61.9 47.4 51.2 66.8 64.0 64.4 61.5 63.1 56.5 52.8 62.2 47.2 52.4 66.9 64.4 64.8 61.5 62.7 56.6 53.1 62.7 47.5 52.3 67.0 88,752 9,477 5,946 52,020 21,020 25,010 23,810 19,600 4,630 4,083 92,017 9,651 6,000 52,720 21,200 24,970 23,840 19,800 4,700 4,093 96,048 9,987 6,038 53,370 21,280 25,130 24,040 19,870 4,750 4,109 98,824 10,395 6,111 54,040 21,310 25,460 24,360 20,100 4,830 4,174 99,303 10,708 6,284 54,600 21,340 25,730 24,100 20,380 4,960 4,226 100,397 11,006 6,416 55,060 21,220 25,520 23,190 20,480 4,990 4,218 99,526 10,644 6,415 55,620 21,250 25,060 22,820 20,430 4,930 4,213 100,834 10,734 6,300 56,550 21,150 24,650 22,650 20,470 4,890 4,218 105,005 11,000 6,490 56,870 20,940 24,610 22,960 20,400 4,880 4,249 56.8 56.7 59.7 61.1 54.8 52.0 59.5 46.1 46.5 64.9 57.9 56.6 59.2 61.2 54.7 51.6 59.3 46.3 46.5 64.8 59.3 57.5 58.1 61.3 54.5 51.5 59.4 45.9 46.3 64.6 59.9 58.7 57.9 61.4 54.0 51.7 59.8 45.9 46.4 65.3 59.2 59.3 58.4 61.3 53.5 51.6 58.9 46.1 46.9 65.6 59.0 59.9 58.4 61.2 52.8 50.7 55.8 45.9 46.5 65.1 57.8 57.0 57.3 61.2 52.4 49.4 54.6 45.2 45.4 64.7 57.9 56.7 55.4 61.4 51.7 48.8 54.2 44.7 44.8 64.4 59.5 57.4 56.0 61.0 50.9 48.9 54.6 44.8 44.5 64.7 7,406 726 298 1,080 990 890 1,480 700 260 66 6,991 849 358 1,100 1,120 900 1,590 740 250 75 6,202 908 405 1,240 1,210 870 1,580 760 260 94 6,137 836 408 1,170 1,370 780 1,350 810 270 88 7,637 865 409 1,140 1,470 770 1,770 830 330 86 8,273 898 394 1,260 1,730 1,090 2,680 920 510 108 10,678 1,314 495 1,360 1,920 1,580 3,060 1,020 630 137 10,717 1,448 697 1,560 1,960 1,990 3,330 1,140 830 151 8,539 1,399 642 1,610 2,320 2,090 3,430 1,200 860 136 7.7 7.1 4.8 2.0 4.5 3.4 5.9 3.4 5.3 1.6 7.1 8.1 5.6 2.0 5.0 3.5 6.3 3.6 5.0 1.8 6.1 8.3 6.3 2.3 5.4 3.4 6.2 3.7 5.2 2.2 5.8 7.4 6.3 2.1 6.0 3.0 5.3 3.9 5.3 2.1 7.1 7.5 6.1 2.0 6.4 2.9 6.8 3.9 6.2 2.0 7.6 7.5 5.8 2.2 7.5 4.1 10.4 4.3 9.3 2.5 9.7 11.0 7.2 2.4 8.3 5.9 11.8 4.8 11.3 3.1 9.6 11.9 10.0 2.7 8.5 7.5 12.8 5.3 14.5 3.5 7.5 11.3 9.0 2.8 10.0 7.8 13.0 5.9 15.0 3.1 L a b o r fo rc e United States .............................................................. Canada ........................................................................ A u stra lia ....................................................................... Japan ........................................................................... France .......................................................................... G e rm any...................................................................... Great B rita in ................................................................ Ita ly ............................................................................... N etherlands................................................................. S w e d e n ........................................................................ P a r t ic ip a t io n r a te United S ta te s .............................................................. Canada ........................................................................ A u stralia....................................................................... Japan ........................................................................... F ra n ce .......................................................................... G erm any...................................................................... Great B rita in ................................................................ Ita ly ............................................................................... N etherlands................................................................. S w e d e n ........................................................................ E m p lo y e d United States .............................................................. Canada ........................................................................ A u stralia....................................................................... Japan ........................................................................... France .......................................................................... G e rm any...................................................................... Great B rita in ................................................................ Ita ly ............................................................................... N etherlands................................................................. S w e d e n ........................................................................ E m p lo y m e n t-p o p u la tio n r a tio United States .............................................................. Canada ........................................................................ A u stralia....................................................................... Japan ........................................................................... F ra n ce .......................................................................... G erm any...................................................................... Great B rita in ................................................................ Ita ly ............................................................................... N etherlands................................................................. S w e d e n ........................................................................ U n e m p lo y e d United S ta te s .............................................................. Canada ........................................................................ A u stralia....................................................................... Japan ........................................................................... F rance.......................................................................... G erm any...................................................................... Great B rita in ................................................................ Ita ly ............................................................................... N etherlands................................................................. S w e d e n ........................................................................ U n e m p lo y m e n t r a te United S ta te s .............................................................. Canada ........................................................................ A u stralia....................................................................... Japan ........................................................................... F ra n ce .......................................................................... G e rm any...................................................................... Great B rita in ................................................................ Ita ly ............................................................................... N etherlands................................................................. S w e d e n ........................................................................ 100 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 47. Annual indexes of productivity and related measures, twelve countries (1977 = 100) Item and country 1960 1970 1973 1974 1976 1977 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 62.2 50.3 23.2 32.8 36.4 36.4 40.5 36.5 32.4 54.6 42.3 53.9 80.8 76.8 64.8 60.0 65.3 69.6 71.5 72.7 64.3 81.7 80.7 77.7 93.4 91.3 83.1 78.3 82.8 82.2 84.2 90.9 81.5 94.6 94.8 93.1 90.6 93.4 86.5 82.7 85.5 85.2 87.6 95.3 88.1 97.7 98.8 95.5 97.1 96.2 94.3 95.1 98.0 95.0 96.6 98.9 95.8 99.7 101.7 99.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 101.4 104.2 114.8 112.1 108.3 110.3 107.8 110.5 112.3 107.1 110.9 101.9 101.4 101.9 122.7 119.7 114.3 112.0 108.3 116.9 113.9 109.3 112.7 99.7 103.6 104.0 127.2 128.0 116.2 116.4 110.6 121.0 116.9 109.7 113.2 105.9 105.9 101.0 135.0 134.0 115.3 123.5 112.4 123.4 119.8 112.7 116.5 110.6 112.9 107.6 142.3 143.0 119.4 128.6 119.3 126.4 126.1 119.0 125.5 118.7 118.5 111.5 152.2 149.6 120.4 135.9 124.8 134.7 139.3 121.4 132.6 124.3 52.5 41.5 19.2 41.7 48.2 35.4 50.0 37.4 44.8 55.1 52.6 71.0 78.6 75.1 69.9 78.1 81.7 73.3 86.6 78.0 84.4 87.0 92.5 94.7 96.3 94.6 91.9 95.8 95.4 88.6 96.1 90.5 95.8 99.5 100.3 104.7 91.7 98.0 91.7 99.6 96.8 91.8 95.4 96.3 100.0 104.0 105.7 103.5 93.1 98.1 94.8 99.5 99.4 96.1 98.0 97.9 99.0 101.4 106.1 98.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 108.1 110.9 113.9 104.2 107.2 106.1 106.6 108.6 106.1 100.3 103.6 100.5 103.2 107.7 124.1 107.2 112.1 106.6 106.6 115.4 106.6 101.3 104.0 91.7 104.8 108.8 129.8 105.9 108.5 105.9 104.9 114.3 106.7 100.1 100.6 86.2 98.4 96.4 137.3 109.1 110.2 106.0 102.4 111.6 105.0 99.9 100.1 86.4 105.6 101.7 148.2 110.7 114.2 107.4 103.5 109.0 105.3 98.7 105.2 88.9 117.9 110.1 165.2 112.8 120.6 109.6 107.5 113.1 110.8 101.2 112.4 92.4 84.4 82.6 82.7 127.1 132.4 97.2 123.4 102.3 138.4 101.0 124.4 131.8 97.3 97.7 107.9 130.2 125.1 105.3 121.2 107.4 131.2 106.4 114.6 121.9 103.1 103.6 110.7 122.3 115.2 107.8 114.2 99.6 117.6 105.1 105.7 112.4 101.2 105.0 106.1 120.4 113.2 107.8 108.9 101.0 113.5 106.5 107.0 108.4 95.9 102.0 100.6 104.6 101.4 101.2 101.5 99.0 103.3 101.7 104.3 98.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 106.5 106.4 99.3 93.0 99.0 96.2 98.9 98.2 94.4 93.6 93.4 98.6 101.7 105.7 101.2 89.6 98.0 95.2 98.4 98.7 93.6 92.6 92.3 92.0 101.1 104.6 102.0 82.8 93.4 91.0 94.9 94.5 91.2 91.3 88.9 81.5 92.9 95.4 101.7 81.4 95.6 85.9 91.1 90.5 87.7 88.6 85.9 78.1 93.5 94.6 104.2 77.4 95.6 83.5 86.8 86.2 83.5 82.9 83.9 74.9 99.5 98.7 108.5 75.4 100.2 80.7 86.2 83.9 79.5 83.4 84.8 74.3 United States ............................................................................................... Canada ......................................................................................................... Japan ............................................................................................................ B e lgium ......................................................................................................... D e nm a rk....................................................................................................... France ........................................................................................................... G erm any....................................................................................................... Ita ly ................................................................................................................ N etherlands.................................................................................................. N o rw ay.......................................................................................................... S w e d e n ......................................................................................................... United K ingdo m ........................................................................................... 36.5 27.1 8.9 13.9 12.6 15.1 18.9 8.3 12.5 15.8 14.7 14.8 57.3 46.5 33.9 34.7 36.3 36.6 48.4 26.1 39.0 37.9 38.5 30.8 68.8 59.2 55.1 53.6 56.1 52.3 67.9 43.7 60.5 54.5 54.2 44.9 76.2 68.5 72.3 65.4 67.9 62.0 77.4 54.5 71.9 63.6 63.8 57.1 92.1 89.9 90.7 89.4 90.4 88.9 91.7 84.1 91.9 88.8 91.5 88.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 118.6 118.3 113.4 117.5 123.2 129.3 116.0 134.7 117.0 116.0 120.1 137.3 132.4 130.6 120.7 130.4 135.9 147.5 125.7 160.2 123.6 128.0 133.6 163.3 145.2 151.5 129.8 144.9 149.7 170.3 134.6 197.1 129.1 142.8 148.1 185.4 157.5 167.1 136.6 152.1 161.1 200.8 141.3 237.3 138.0 156.0 158.9 202.6 163.2 179.3 140.7 164.4 174.3 225.0 149.4 277.0 144.7 173.4 173.3 217.8 169.1 181.8 144.8 174.9 184.0 244.0 155.0 306.9 152.8 185.6 190.7 233.6 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ National currency basis: United States ............................................................................................... Canada ......................................................................................................... Japan ............................................................................................................ B e lgium ......................................................................................................... Denmark ....................................................................................................... F ra n ce ........................................................................................................... G e rm a n y....................................................................................................... Ita ly ................................................................................................................. N e therlands.................................................................................................. N o rw ay.......................................................................................................... S w e d e n ......................................................................................................... United K ingdo m ........................................................................................... 58.7 53.9 38.4 42.3 34.5 41.6 46.8 22.8 38.5 29.0 34.8 27.6 70.9 60.6 52.3 57.9 55.6 52.6 67.6 36.0 60.7 46.4 47.7 39.7 73.7 64.8 66.4 68.5 67.8 63.6 80.6 48.1 74.3 57.6 57.2 48.2 84.1 73.3 83.6 79.0 79.4 72.8 88.3 57.2 81.6 65.2 64.6 59.7 94.9 93.5 96.2 94.1 92.3 93.6 95.0 85.1 96.0 89.1 90.0 89.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 117.0 113.5 98.8 104.8 113.7 117.3 107.7 121.9 104.1 108.2 108.3 134.7 130.6 128.1 98.4 108.9 118.9 131.7 116.1 137.0 108.5 117.0 118.6 163.8 140.1 145.7 102.0 113.2 128.8 146.3 121.7 162.9 110.4 130.2 130.9 175.1 148.7 165.4 101.2 113.5 139.7 162.6 125.7 192.4 115.2 138.5 136.3 183.1 144.5 166.7 98.9 114.9 146.0 175.0 125.3 219.2 114.7 145.6 138.1 183.5 142.8 163.0 95.1 116.9 152.8 179.5 124.2 227.7 109.7 152.9 143.8 187.9 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ U.S. dollar basis: United States ............................................................................................... Canada ......................................................................................................... Japan ............................................................................................................ B e lg iu m ......................................................................................................... D e n m a rk....................................................................................................... F ra n ce ........................................................................................................... G e rm any....................................................................................................... Ita ly ................................................................................................................ N etherlands.................................................................................................. N o rw ay.......................................................................................................... S w e d e n ......................................................................................................... United K ingdo m ........................................................................................... 58.7 59.0 28.5 30.4 30.1 41.7 26.0 32.5 25.1 21.7 30.1 44.4 70.9 61.7 39.1 41.8 44.5 46.8 43.1 50.6 41.2 34.5 41.1 54.4 73.7 68.8 65.6 63.2 67.6 70.4 70.7 73.1 65.6 53.4 58.7 67.7 84.1 79.7 76.8 72.8 78.4 74.5 79.4 77.6 74.6 62.8 65.1 80.1 94.9 100.7 86.9 87.4 91.7 96.3 87.6 90.5 89.1 86.9 92.3 92.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 117.0 103.0 121.3 128.1 129.7 135.5 136.4 129.5 127.4 113.8 112.9 163.9 130.6 116.4 116.8 133.7 126.8 153.4 148.5 141.4 134.2 126.2 125.3 218.3 140.1 129.1 123.8 109.5 108.4 132.2 125.3 126.3 108.9 120.6 115.4 203.1 148.7 142.3 108.8 88.9 100.5 121.5 120.2 125.4 105.8 114.1 96.9 183.5 144.5 143.7 111.5 80.6 95.8 112.9 113.9 127.4 98.6 106.2 80.4 159.4 142.8 133.7 107.2 72.5 88.6 101.0 101.3 114.5 83.9 99.7 77.7 143.9 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1985 O u tp u t p e r h o u r United S ta te s ............................................................................................... Canada ......................................................................................................... Japan ................................................................. B e lgium ......................................................................................................... D e n m a rk....................................................................................................... F ra n ce ........................................................................................................... G erm any....................................................................................................... Ita ly ............................................................................................ N etherlands.................................................................................................. N o rw ay.......................................................................................................... S w e d e n ......................................................................................................... United K ingdo m ........................................................................... - _ - _ _ _ - O u tp u t United S ta te s ............................................................................................... Canada ......................................................................................................... Japan ............................................................................................................ B e lgium ......................................................................................................... Denmark ....................................................................................................... F ra n ce ........................................................................................................... G erm any....................................................................................................... Ita ly ................................................................................................................ N etherlands.................................................................................................. N o rw ay.......................................................................................................... S w eden......................................................................................................... United K ingdo m ........................................................................................... T o ta l h o u rs United States ............................................................................................... Canada ......................................................................................................... Japan ............................................................................................................ B e lgium ......................................................................................................... D e n m a rk....................................................................................................... F ra n ce ........................................................................................................... G erm any....................................................................................................... Ita ly ................................................................................................................ N etherlands.................................................................................................. N o rw ay.......................................................................................................... S w e d e n ......................................................................................................... United K ingdo m ........................................................................................... - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - C o m p e n s a t io n p e r h o u r - U n it la b o r c o s t s : - U n it la b o r c o s t s : - _ _ - Data not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 101 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 48. May 1986 • Current Labor Statistics: Injury and Illness Data Occupational injury and illness incidence rates by industry, United States Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers2 Industry and type of case1 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 P R IV A T E S E C T O R 3 Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday cases ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... _ _ - - - “ - 9.5 4.3 67.7 8.7 4.0 65.2 8.3 3.8 61.7 7.7 3.5 58.7 7.6 3.4 58.5 8.0 3.7 63.4 - 11.7 5.7 83.7 11.9 5.8 82.7 12.3 5.9 82.8 11.8 5.9 86.0 11.9 6.1 90.8 12.0 6.1 90.7 - - “ “ 11.4 6.8 150.5 11.2 6.5 163.6 11.6 6.2 146.4 10.5 5.4 137.3 8.4 4.5 125.1 9.7 5.3 160.2 - - 16.2 6.8 120.4 15.7 6.5 117.0 15.1 6.3 113.1 14.6 6.0 115.7 14.8 6.3 118.2 15.5 6.9 128.1 - - 16.3 6.8 111.2 15.5 6.5 113.0 15.1 6.1 107.1 14.1 5.9 112.0 14.4 6.2 113.0 15.4 6.9 121.3 - - 16.6 6.7 123.1 16.3 6.3 117.6 14.9 6.0 106.0 15.1 5.8 113.1 15.4 6.2 122.4 14.9 6.4 131.7 - - 16.0 6.9 124.3 15.5 6.7 118.9 15.2 6.6 119.3 14.7 6.2 118.6 14.8 6.4 119.0 15.8 7.1 130.1 - “ 13.3 5.9 90.2 12.2 5.4 86.7 11.5 5.1 82.0 10.2 4.4 75.0 10.0 4.3 73.5 10.6 4.7 77.9 - - 20.7 10.8 175.9 18.6 9.5 171.8 17.6 9.0 158.4 16.9 8.3 153.3 18.3 9.2 163.5 19.6 9.9 172.0 - - 17.6 7.1 99.6 16.0 6.6 97.6 15.1 6.2 91.9 13.9 5.5 85.6 14.1 5.7 83.0 15.3 6.4 101.5 - - 16.8 8.0 133.7 15.0 7.1 128.1 14.1 6.9 122.2 13.0 6.1 112.2 13.1 6.0 112.0 13.6 6.6 120.8 - - - - - - 17.3 8.1 134.7 15.2 7.1 128.3 14.4 6.7 121.3 12.4 5.4 101.6 12.4 5.4 103.4 13.3 6.1 115.3 - - 19.9 8.7 124.2 18.5 8.0 118.4 17.5 7.5 109.9 15.3 6.4 102.5 15.1 6.1 96.5 16.1 6.7 104.9 - - 14.7 5.9 83.6 13.7 5.5 81.3 12.9 5.1 74.9 10.7 4.2 66.0 9.8 3.6 58.1 10.7 4.1 65.8 - - 8.6 3.4 51.9 8.0 3.3 51.8 7.4 3.1 48.4 6.5 2.7 42.2 6.3 2.6 41.4 6.8 2.8 45.0 - - - - 11.6 5.5 85.9 10.6 4.9 82.4 9.8 4.6 78.1 9.2 4.0 72.2 8.4 3.6 64.5 9.3 4.2 68.8 - - 7.2 2.8 40.0 6.8 2.7 41.8 6.5 2.7 39.2 5.6 2.3 37.0 5.2 2.1 35.6 5.4 2.2 37.5 “ - 11.7 4.7 67.7 10.9 4.4 67.9 10.7 4.4 68.3 9.9 4.1 69.9 9.9 4.0 66.3 10.5 4.3 70.2 A g r ic u lt u r e , fo r e s t r y , a n d fis h in g 3 Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday cases ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... ~ M in in g Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday cases ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... - C o n s tr u c tio n Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday cases ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkdays..................................................................................................... General building contractors: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday cases ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkdays..................................................................................................... Heavy construction contractors: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkdays..................................................................................................... Special trade contractors: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday cases ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... M a n u fa c tu r in g Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday cases ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkdays..................................................................................................... D u r a b le g o o d s Lumber and wood products: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday cases ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Furniture and fixtures: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday cases ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Stone, clay, and glass products: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday cases ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Primary metal industries: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Fabricated metal products: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday cases ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Machinery, except electrical: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Electric and electronic equipment: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkdays..................................................................................................... Transportation equipment: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday cases ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Instruments and related products: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Miscellaneous manufacturing industries: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... See footnotes at end of table. 102 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis “ 48. —Continued Occupational injury and illness incidence rates by industry, United States Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers2 Industry and type of case1 1977 1978 - - 19.9 9.5 141.8 18.7 9.0 136.8 17.8 8.6 130.7 16.7 8.0 129.3 16.5 7.9 131.2 16.7 8.1 131.6 _ - - 9.3 4.2 64.8 8.1 3.8 45.8 8.2 3.9 56.8 7.2 3.2 44.6 6.5 3.0 42.8 7.7 3.2 51.7 _ - - 9.7 3.4 61.3 9.1 3.3 62.8 8.8 3.2 59.2 7.6 2.8 53.8 7.4 2.8 51.4 8.0 3.0 54.0 - - 6.5 2.2 34.1 6.4 2.2 34.9 6.3 2.2 35.0 6.0 2.1 36.4 6.4 2.4 40.6 6.7 2.5 40.9 - - 13.5 6.0 108.4 12.7 5.8 112.3 11.6 5.4 103.6 10.6 4.9 99.1 10.0 4.5 90.3 10.4 4.7 93.8 - - 7.1 3.1 45.1 6.9 3.1 46.5 6.7 3.0 47.4 6.6 2.8 45.7 6.6 2.9 44.6 6.5 2.9 46.0 - - 7.7 3.5 54.9 6.8 3.1 50.3 6.6 3.0 48.1 5.7 2.5 39.4 5.5 2.5 42.3 5.3 2.4 40.8 N ondurable goods Food and kindred products: Total c a s e s ......................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ....................................................... Lost w o rkda ys............................................................ Tobacco manufacturing: Total c a s e s ........................................................... Lost workday cases ........................................... Lost w o rkda ys............................................................ Textile mill products: Total c a s e s ........................................................ Lost workday cases ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................... Apparel and other textile products: Total c a s e s .................................................................................. Lost workday cases ....................................................................... Lost w o rkdays............................................................. Paper and allied products: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................ Lost w o rkda ys.................................................................... Printing and publishing: Total c a s e s .......................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ..................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys.................................................................................... Chemicals and allied products: Total c a s e s .................................................................................................. Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................ Lost w o rkdays.................................................................................. Petroleum and coal products: Total c a s e s ................................................................................................ Lost workday cases ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys....................................................................................... Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products: Total c a s e s ................................................................................... Lost workday cases ...................................................................... Lost w o rkdays.................................................................................... Leather and leather products: Total c a s e s ...................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................ Lost w o rkda ys.............................................................. T ra n s p o rta tio n and pub lic u tilitie s Total c a s e s ......................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ............................................... Lost workdays ................................................................. W holesale and retail trade Total c a s e s ....................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s .............................................. Lost w o rkda ys....................................................................... Wholesale trade: Total c a s e s .................................................................................. Lost workday c a s e s .................................................................... Lost w o rkdays....................................................................... Retail trade: Total c a s e s ................................................................................. Lost workday cases ........................................................... Lost w o rkda ys.................................................................................. Finance, insurance, and real estate Total c a s e s ..................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... Services Total c a s e s .......................................................................................................... Lost workday c a s e s ........................................................................................... Lost w o rkda ys..................................................................................................... 1 Total cases include fatalities. 2 The incidence rates represent the number of injuries and illnesses or lost workdays per 100 full-time workers and were calculated as: (N/EH) X 200,000, where: N = number of injuries and illnesses or lost workdays. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 _ _ _ _ _ - - - - 7.7 3.6 62.0 7.2 3.5 59.1 6.7 2.9 51.2 5.3 2.5 46.4 5.5 2.4 46.8 5.1 2.4 53.5 _ _ - - - 17.1 8.2 127.1 15.5 7.4 118.6 14.6 7.2 117.4 12.7 6.0 100.9 13.0 6.2 101.4 13.6 6.4 104.3 _ _ - - 11.5 4.9 76.2 11.7 5.0 82.7 11.5 5.1 82.6 9.9 4.5 86.5 10.0 4.4 87.3 10.5 4.7 94.4 _ _ 10.0 5.9 107.0 9.4 5.5 104.5 9.0 5.3 100.6 8.5 4.9 96.7 8.2 4.7 94.9 8.8 5.2 105.1 8.0 3.4 49.0 7.4 3.2 48.7 7.3 3.1 45.3 7.2 3.1 45.5 7.2 3.1 47.8 7.4 3.3 50.5 _ 8.8 4.1 59.1 8.2 3.9 58.2 7.7 3.6 54.7 7.1 3.4 52.1 7.0 3.2 50.6 7.2 3.5 55.5 _ 7.7 3.1 44.7 7.1 2.9 44.5 7.1 2.9 41.1 7.2 2.9 42.6 7.3 3.0 46.7 7.5 3.2 48.4 _ 2.1 .9 13.3 2.0 .8 12.2 1.9 .8 11.6 2.0 .9 13.2 2.0 .9 12.8 1.9 .9 13.6 5.5 2.5 38.1 5.2 2.3 35.8 5.0 2.3 35.9 4.9 2.3 35.8 5.1 2.4 37.0 5.2 2.5 41.1 - - - “ - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - “ - - - - - - - - - “ - _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ - EH = total hours worked by all employees during calendar year. 200,000 = base for 100 full-time equivalent workers (working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year.) 3 Excludes farms with fewer than 11 employees since 1976. - Data not available. 103 NEW FROM BLS SALES PUBLICATIONS York, Pennsylvania, M etropolitan Area, January 1986. Bulletin 3035-3, 31 p p ., $1.25 (GPO Stock N o. 829-001-00075-6). BLS Bulletins Periodicals Bargaining Calendar 1986. Bulletin 2258, 56 p p ., $2.25 (GPO Stock N o. 029-001-02891-1). Presents inform ation on an ticipated labor-managem ent developm ents in private industry and in State and local governm ent in 1986. Consum er Expenditure Survey: Diary Survey, 1982-83. Bulletin 2245, 70 p p ., $2.75 (G PO Stock N o. 029-001-02890-0). Presents detailed incom e and expenditure data for 1982-83 Diary com p o nent o f the ongoing Consum er Expenditure Survey. CPI Detailed Report. Each issue provides a com prehensive report on price m ovem ents for the m onth, plus statistical tables, charts, and technical notes. $4 ($25 per year). January issue features an article on the Consum er Price Index revision. Current W age Developm ents. Each issue includes selected wage and benefit changes, work stoppages, and statistics on com pen sation changes. $2 ($21 per year). February issue features index to 1985 wage and benefit changes. Area Wage Surveys These bulletins cover office, professional, technical, m aintenance, custodial, and material movement jobs in m ajor metropolitan areas. The annual series o f 70 is available by subscription for $103 per year. Individual area bulletins are also available. Anaheim -Santa Ana-Garden G rove, California, M etropolitan Area, October 1985. Bulletin 3030-54, 39 pp., $1.75 (G PO Stock N o . 829-001-00054-3). B uffalo, New York, M etropolitan Area, O ctober 1985. Bulletin 3030-55, 36 p p ., $1.50 (GPO Stock N o. 829-001-00055-5). Gary-Hammond-East Chicago, Indiana, M etropolitan Area, N o vember 1985. Bulletin 3030-57, 39 pp., $1.75 (GPO Stock N o. 829-001-00057-8). Jackson, M ississippi, M etropolitan Area, January 1986. Bulletin 3035-2, 29 p p ., $1.25 (GPO Stock N o. 829-001-00074-8). Los Angeles-Long Beach, California, Metropolitan Area, October 1985. Bulletin 3030-62, 42 p p ., $1.75 (GPO Stock N o. 829-001-00062-4). Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana, M etropolitan Area, Novem ber 1985. Bulletin 3030-58, 29 p p ., $1.25 (G PO Stock N o. 829-001-00058-6). M em phis, Tennessee-Arkansas-M ississippi, M etropolitan Area, N ovem ber 1985. Bulletin 3030-65, 43 p p ., $1.75 (GPO Stock N o. 829-001-00065-9). Em ploym ent and Earnings. Each issue covers em ploym ent and unem ploym ent developm ents in the m onth plus regular statistical tables on national, State, and area em ploym ent, hours, and earnings. $4.50 ($31 per year). March issue features 1985 annual averages for national establishm ent survey data. Occupational O utlook Quarterly. Each issue helps people plan ning careers, guidance counselors, manpower developm ent specialists, and others keep inform ed o f changing occupational opportunities. $3 ($11 per year). Producer Price Indexes. Each issue includes a com prehensive report on price m ovem ents for the m onth, plus regular tables and technical notes. $4.25 ($29 per year). January issue features articles on expansion o f the Producer Price Index; price indexes for the net output o f major mining and m anufacturing industry groups; recalculation o f seasonal adjustm ent factors; and changes in table numbers and form ats. Other Publications (Single copies available upon request while supplies last.) BLS Summaries O ccupational Earnings and W age Trends in M etropolitan Areas, 1985. Summary 85-13 (N o. 2 o f 3). 10 pp. M inneapolis-St. Paul, M innesota-W isconsin, M etropolitan Area, January 1986. Bulletin 3035-1, 42 pp., $1.75 (G PO Stock N o. 829-001-00073-0). Special Advisories Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa, M etropolitan Area, October 1985. Bulletin 3030-52, 29 pp., $1.25 (GPO Stock N o. 829-001-00052-7). Statement o f Dr. Janet L. N orw ood, Com m issioner, Before the Joint Econom ic Com m ittee, March 7, 1986. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-New Jersey, M etropolitan Area, Novem ber 1985. Bulletin 3030-64, 58 p p ., $2.25 (GPO Stock N o . 829-001-00064-1). To Order: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, M etropolitan Area, January 1986. Bulletin 3035-4, 43 pp., $1.75 (GPO Stock N o. 829-001-00076-4). Saginaw, M ichigan, M etropolitan Area, N ovem ber 1985. Bulletin 3030-53, 37 p p ., $1.75 (GPO Stock N o. 829-001-00053-5). Salt Lake City-O gden, Utah, M etropolitan Area, N ovem ber 1985. Bulletin 3030-56, 31 pp., $1.25 (GPO Stock N o. 829001-00056-0). Trenton, New Jersey, M etropolitan Area, N ovem ber 1985. B u lletin 3 0 3 0 -6 1 , 29 p p ., $ 1 .2 5 (G P O S to c k N o . 829-001-00061-6). https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis BLS, Sale Publications: Order bulletins by title, bulletin number, and GPO stock number from the Superintendent o f D ocum ents, U .S . G overnm ent Printing O ffice, W ashington, DC 20402, or from the Bureau o f Labor Statistics, Publications Sales Center, P .O . Box 2145, C hicago, IL 60690. Subscriptions, including m icrofiche subscriptions, are available only from the Superintendent o f D ocum ents. A ll checks— including those that go to the Chicago Regional O ffice— should be m ade payable to the Superintendent o f D ocum ents. Other Publications: Request from the Bureau o f Labor Statistics, U .S . Department o f Labor, Room 2421, 441 G Street, N .W ., W ashington, DC 20212, or from the Bureau o f Labor Statistics, Chicago Regional O ffice, P .O . Box 2145, C hicago, IL 60690. 6 U. S. G O VERNM ENT P RINTING O F F IC E : 1986 4 9 1 -5 3 7 /4 0 0 0 3 IN THE M AZE OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL STATISTICS, do you som etim es feel like Stanley hunting for Livingstone? If so, your search for a single source of reliable and comprehensive statistics and analysis is over. Subscribe to the MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, the oldest government journal providing up-to-date information on economic and social statistics. PUBLISHED CONTINUOUSLY SINCE 1915, the REVIEW provides a 40-page section of current statistics covering employment and unemployment; wages, and strike activity; worker and capital productivity; unit labor costs and output; consumer, industrial, and international prices; economic growth; and related topics. Each month, the REVIEW also contains articles and informative reports. Some recent titles are: ■ Youth joblessness ■ Job Training Partnership Act ■ Men’s and women's earnings ■ Older workers in the labor market ■ Occupational winners and losers ■ Japan’s low unemployment ■ Black workers’ gains ■ Employee-owned firms ■ Shortage of machinists? ■ The labor force in 1995 ■ Price inflation remains low ■ Multifactor productivity ■ Employment in energy industries ■ Import prices for petroleum ■ Collective bargaining ■ The employment cost index ■ Work Injuries from falls ■ Fatal injuries TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE REVIEW, please fill out the following coupon and send to the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 Order form Please send the MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW for 1 year at $24 (Foreign Subscribers add $6) □ Enclosed is a check or money order payable to Superintendent of Documents. □ Charge to GPO Deposit Account No___________ _ ______ _____ Order No-------------□ Credit Card Orders □ MasterCard □ VISA, on orders to Credit Card and No. Superintendent of Documents only. ________________ Expiration Date Total charges $____________ Month/Year______ Nam e_____________________________________________________________ _ Organization (if appropriate)_______________________________________________________________ Address_______________________________________________________________ City, State, Zip Code_______________________________________________________________ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 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 LIBR a “ BRA442L P0DB0XS4A2E BANK ° F ST L0UI* SAINT LOUIS Mn «U ,
@FedFRASER