The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
In this issue: The declining middle class thesis re-examined Recent growth of U.S. multifactor productivity Wage change in 1987 contracts MONIHLY LABOR REVIEW U. 5 Depariment of Labor B u ie a u ui Lciuu r ¿statistics May 1988 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ' ■k U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Ann McLaughlin, Secretary Regional Commissioners for Bureau of Labor Statistics Janet L. Norwood, Commissioner Region I—Boston: Anthony J. Ferrara Kennedy Federal Building, Suite 1603 Boston, MA 02203 Phone: (617) 565-2327 Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont 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. Region II—New York: Samuel M. Ehrenhalt 201 Varick Street, Room 808, New York, NY 10014 Phone (212) 337-2400 New Jersey New York Puerto Rico Virgin Islands BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Subscription price per year—$16 domestic; $20 foreign. Single copy, $4.75 domestic; $5.94 foreign. Subscription prices and distribution policies for the Monthly Labor Review (ISSN 0098-1818) and other Government publications are set by the Government Printing Office, an agency of the U.S. Congress. Send correspondence on circulation and subscription matters (including address changes) to: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, 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. Second-class postage paid at Washington, DC, and at additional mailing addresses. Region III—Philadelphia: Alvin I. Margulis 3535 Market Street P.O. Box 13309, Philadelphia, PA 19101 Phone: (215) 596-1154 Delaware District of Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia R egion IV — A tla nta : D o n a ld 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. O n 9th Floor, Federal Office Building, 230 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 353-1880 Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota Ohio Wisconsin Region VI—Dallas: Bryan Richey Federal Building, Room 221 525 Griffin Street, Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: (214) 767-6971 Arkansas Louisiana New Mexico Oklahoma Texas Regions VII and VIII—Kansas City: Gunnar Engen 911 Walnut Street, Kansas City, MO 64106 Phone: (816) 426-2481 VII Iowa Kansas Missouri Nebraska VIII Colorado Montana North Dakota South Dakota Utah Wyoming May cover: "Apple Pickers,’’ a 1937 oil study for a Department of Interior mural, by Nicolai Clkovsky (1894-1984), The study Is included in the exhibition, "Special Delivery: Murals for the New Deal Era,” running from January 15 to September 11, 1988, at the National Museum of American Art, Washington, D.C. Cover design by Melvin B. Moxley https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Regions IX and X—San Francisco: Sam M. Hirabayashi 71 Stevenson Street, P.O. Box 3766 San Francisco, CA 94119 Phone: (415) 995-5602 IX American Samoa Arizona California Guam Hawaii Nevada Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands X Alaska Idaho Oregon Washington r R E S E A R C H L IB R j Federal Reserve S a n k of St. Louis VOLUME Henry Lowenstern, Editor—in—Chief Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor JUL 01 1988 M .W . H orrig an , S.E. H au ge n 3 The declining middle-class thesis: a sensitivity analysis New study finds a decline in the proportion of middle-class families, with most of the shift going to the upper-income bracket E dw in D ean, K e n t K unze 14 Recent changes in the growth of U.S. multifactor productivity Since 1979, multifactor productivity growth has recovered completely only In manufacturing; for the rest of private business, recovery has been partial J.J. L a c o m b e II, F.R. S le e m i 23 Wage adjustments in contracts negotiated in private industry Many of the adjustments provided for slight increases, in contrast to the record low adjustments negotiated the previous year J o h n T. D u n lo p 29 Have the 1980's changed U.S. industrial relations? Economic and political policies and demographic and social trends affected labor-management practices, but have caused no fundamental changes A u d re y F re e d m a n 35 How the 1980's have changed industrial relations More cost-conscious management— by responding to foreign competition and deregulation— has altered the labor-management relationship P.S. W ild e r, V.L. K la rq u is t 39 Retail hardware stores register productivity gain Output per hour of all persons grew at an above-average rate, reflecting strong demand and operational improvements REPORTS P a tricia C a p d e v ie lle 44 International differences in employers’ compensation costs B ru c e J. B e rg m a n 47 Occupational pay in structural clay products industries https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis DEPARTMENTS 2 44 47 51 54 58 61 L a b o r m o n th in re vie w F o re ig n la b o r d e v e lo p m e n ts R e s e a rc h s u m m a rie s M a jo r a g re e m e n ts e xp irin g n e x t m o n th D e v e lo p m e n ts in in d u s tria l re la tio n s B o o k re v ie w s C u rre n t la b o r s ta tis tic s Labor Month In Review UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS. The Bureau of Labor Statistics received many inquiries concerning the effect that legali zation of undocumented aliens may be having on employment numbers, partic ularly those from the payroll survey. The questions are based on the theory that recent increases in payroll employment reflect the sudden reporting of aliens who, although long employed, were not reported until they were legalized under the new immigration law. This is how b l s responded to the inquiries: The sudden reporting theory relies on the critical assumption that the illegal aliens being processed through the “ legalization’' program had not previous ly been reported by their employers. Inherent in this assumption is the belief that employers of illegal aliens had previ ously faced serious sanctions, or censure, and that these have been removed through the legalization program. However, prior to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, there had been no “ adverse legal conse quences’’ that would have dissuaded em ployers from reporting illegal aliens on their payrolls. There was, in fact, no reason why the employers should have cared about the nationality and legal status of their workers until after the pas sage o f the immigration bill. More importantly, employers have never been asked the nationality or legal status of their employees in the surveys conduct ed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They are asked only how many employees they have, the hours they work, the earnings they receive, etc. There was, therefore, no meaningful in centive for employers to under-report the level of their payrolls to BLS. Even if some employers were paying some of their employees “ under the table” and thus off payroll, this was not very likely occurring on a large scale. 2 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Moreover, several studies of “ appre hended” illegal aliens have found that the majority had valid Social Security cards and had been paying taxes. One study, by David North in the 1970’s, found the percentage of illegal aliens with Social Security cards to be as high as 77 per cent. In fact, until the late 1970’s, Social Security cards could be obtained on demand, by anyone, regardless of citizenship, place of birth, or legalresidence status. Because the legalization program applies only to persons who arrived in this country prior to 1982, it would not be surprising if most of these had valid Social Security cards—and were “ on the books” of their employers. California data. Because California accounted for 57 percent of the legaliza tion claims, the sudden reporting hypothesis would suggest an unusually large spurt in this State’s payroll data for the period in question. But, from September 1987 to February 1988, the payroll employment data for California (not seasonally adjusted) show an in crease of 97,000, hardly different from the increase of 91,000 posted over the same period one year earlier (September 1986 to February 1987). Only by examining the data for the en tire February 1987 to February 1988 period, can one find evidence of a modest spurt in employment growth in California. Over this 1-year period, the number of payroll jobs in California increased by 450,000 (compared with 375,000 the previous year). The State’s growth in the latest 12-month period accounted for 14.5 percent of the total growth in payroll employment for the Nation, a somewhat greater share than the State’s share of the payroll employment pie (11.5 percent). But the “ excess” growth, whether computed on the basis of the previous year’s growth for the State or as a share of the national gains, is only on the order of 80,000 to 90.000. Moreover, this growth was achieved when the State’s unemploy ment rate was declining substantially. From February 1987 to February 1988, it dropped from 6.7 to 5.8 percent. It should be noted that the highest number of legalization claims per month actually were filed over the Juneto-September 1987 period. Thus, the employment effects — if any — should also have been concentrated during this period. California’s “ excess” growth did occur during this period, and thus it could be argued that it was linked to the legalization program. But even if all of this “ excess” growth was attribu table entirely to the legalization pro gram, it would still not have had a major impact on the national data. Given that the “ excess” growth for California did not exceed 90,000 for the 1-year period ended in February, and given further that this State accounted for nearly three-fifths of all the legali zations, the total impact on the national data could hardly have exceeded 150.000. Over the same 1-year period, payroll employment was estimated to have grown by more than 3 million. The legalization program even could have had a depressing effect on the pay roll numbers. This is because: (1) those aliens who have entered the United States since January 1, 1982, cannot be legal ized, and (2) employers of illegal aliens are now facing sanctions that they did not face before. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some aliens have lost their jobs be cause their employers did not want to be in violation of the new law, even this ef fect is likely to have been very small. In sum, BLS’ interpretation of the possible affects of the immigration bill, coupled with an analysis of the actual data, suggest that the impact on the pay roll numbers probably has been minimal. The declining middle-class thesis: a sensitivity analysis New study supports the hypothesis o f a shrinking middle; the declining proportion o f families in the middle has largely moved to the upper class, although the share o f income held by the lower class has declined M ic h a e l W. H o r r ig a n a n d St e v e n E . H aug en In recent years, there has been considerable interest in the changing distribution of income in the United States. The consensus within the literature is that the distribu tion has become more unequal over the past one or two decades, as evidenced by several measures of income inequality.1 In addition, a number of studies point to increasing proportions of the population in the lower and upper income classes, and thus a decreasing share in the middle class, as evidence of this trend. Across these studies, however, opinions differ as to the extent to which the middle class has declined and how this decline has been divided between the lower and upper classes. The lack of agreement among findings can be attributed to variations in both the definition and measurement of the middle. Indeed, most studies fail to test the sensitivity of the results to alternative specifica tions of the middle class and to different techniques for measuring its size over time. This article describes the nature and results of such a sensitivity analysis. Data on family income from the March Current Population Survey are used to track changes in the proportions of families in the lower, middle, and upper income classes over the 1969-86 period. By choosing alternative income intervals for defining the three classes, evaluating different methods for measuring changes in class size over time, and Michael W. Horrigan and Steven E. Haugen are economists in the Division of Labor Force Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis examining these changes from both a secular and cyclical perspective, the sensitivity of the findings is assessed. Through such sensitivity analysis, we attempt to recon cile the divergent views on secular changes in the size of the three classes over time. Although the underlying causes of the shifts are important, we do not attempt to identify them. Consistent with the results found in the literature, we find that the proportion of families in the middle class has declined substantially over time. However, in con trast to many studies, we conclude that the majority of the decline in the middle is offset by an increase in the upper class. It is important to note that our findings do not run counter to arguments of growing inequality in the distribution of income. Indeed, in terms of its share of aggregate income, there has been a growing disparity between the lower class and the remainder of the distribution. Overview of the literature A brief review of a few examples from the literature demonstrates some of the differences between studies, both in terms of overall approach and conclusions drawn.2 For instance, Lester Thurow defined the middle class as including households with income between 75 and 125 percent of median household income, and found that the middle shrank from 28 percent of all households in 1967, a business cycle recovery year, to 24 percent by 3 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Analysis o f Declining Middle-Class Thesis 1982, a trough year. The loss was evenly distributed between the lower and upper tiers.3 A study by Robert Lawrence concentrated on the weekly earnings of wage and salary workers who usually work full time. Lawrence set the middle-class bracket at roughly two-thirds and four-thirds of men’s median weekly earnings in 1983. Under this concept, the propor tion of all workers in the middle fell from 50 percent to 46 percent between 1969, a peak year, and 1983, the first year of a recovery. Most of the loss was accounted for by a widening of the lower class, which expanded to 33 percent of all persons.4 Katharine Bradbury, using family income to define the middle class, suggested that a reasonable definition of the middle class includes all families with incomes between $20,000 and $49,999, in 1984 dollars. After deflating this interval back to 1973, a peak year, she found that the middle class declined from 53 percent to 48 percent of all families by 1984, the second year of a recovery. Once again, the vast majority of the loss showed up as a widening of the lower class.5 Determining the ‘middle class’—the choices Certain critical choices are made in studies of the middle class.6 First, researchers choose among three sampling units—individuals, families, and households— and between two measures of compensation—wage and salary earnings and total income.7 Second, one must select a method for measuring the size of the middle class in each year over the relevant time period. Analysts generally adopt one of two methods: they either use dollar intervals adjusted to represent constant purchasing power over time, or they use an interval representing fixed percentages above and below median income. Finally, a technique must be chosen for uncovering the long-run trends in the size of the middle class. Some analysts simply make year-to-year comparisons of class sizes. An alternative approach often employed is to use regression analysis to establish long-run trends. Selection o f a sampling distribution. In this study, the middle class is identified on the basis of family income. This choice is based on both economic and cultural considerations. For instance, it is widely accepted that by virtue of family membership, individuals in families experience significant economies of scale in consumption that do not exist for single individuals, or even for most households comprised of two or more unrelated individu als. For example, suppose that a husband and wife each has average or slightly below-average income. By com bining both incomes, they can sustain a level of consump tion, such as homeownership, which they could not sustain individually. Each spouse is thus able to enjoy a somewhat higher “standard of living” than he or she would attain alone. Because the vast majority of persons 4 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis live in families (about four-fifths in 1987), these econo mies of scale figure importantly in our choice of sampling unit. In addition, the cultural view of the middle class seems to be one in which the family is the typical income unit. Significant changes have taken place among families over the last two decades, including the very large inflow of wives (and mothers) into the labor force and increases in the percentage of families maintained by single parents (mostly women). This increased heterogeneity among family types gives added impetus to using the family unit in examining changes in the size of the lower, middle, and upper income classes. None of these reasons, however, diminishes the impor tance of examining other sampling units, such as the household or the individual; rather, it is simply the lack of agreement across studies as to which group is the most appropriate for analysis of the declining middle-class thesis which invites researchers to explore the issue from different perspectives.8 Total money income is chosen as the measure of compensation for the family unit. This measure includes before-tax income from all sources (yearly totals of wage and salary earnings, self-employment earnings, Social Security, public assistance, interest, dividends, rent, and all other sources of money income regularly received) and thus is a comprehensive measure of a family’s financial resources.9 In addition to economic criteria, numerous social characteristics are also frequently associated with the middle class. These include educational and occupational standards for the earners in the family, as well as certain political and moral values, goals and aspirations, and so forth. At best, these variables can only be imperfectly proxied. Certainly, they cannot be easily quantified. As a result, studies of the middle class, including this one, define the concept in terms of income alone. Selecting middle-class income intervals. Given the selec tion of the family and total income as the focus of this study, the income intervals used to define the middle class in any given year need to be determined (in effect, splitting the distribution of incomes into three classes). Most studies do not explicitly identify the criteria by which the choice of a middle-class income interval is made. Although this is understandable given the arbi trary and intuitive nature of the middle-class concept, such an approach does not permit systematic examina tion of the sensitivity of findings to the choice of a middle-class income interval. To address this shortcom ing, two criteria are selected which determine a range of middle-class income intervals used in this study. These criteria impose reasonable bounds on the income inter vals defining the middle class, and, at the same time, provide a large number for use in sensitivity analysis. First, the lower endpoint of the 1986 middle-class income interval is required to be somewhere in the 60- to 90-percent range of median family income in that year ($29,460). Hence, a range of lower endpoints between $17,676 (60 percent of the 1986 median) and $26,514 (90 percent) is chosen. The lower bound of 60 percent reflects an intent to ensure that the lower endpoint of the middle class represents an income significantly above the poverty level, which was about a third of median family income in 1986.10 Second, in any given year, a middle-class interval is admissible only if the percentage of families in the middle class is between 40 and 60 percent. While some may intuitively view the middle as consisting of the middle third of families, our choice reflects a desire to create a middle class with a larger proportion of all families. However, the upper end of each middle-class income interval is restricted so that the resulting percentage of families in the upper class is always equal to or greater than 5 percent. Adhering to these criteria, the procedure for arriving at the set of middle-class income intervals involved two steps. First, the income intervals which represent the boundaries or limits of the two criteria were determined. Second, a range of intervals within these limits was selected. As discussed below, the admissible intervals vary according to the method used to measure the size of the middle class over time. Comparisons over time There are essentially two approaches in the literature used to make comparisons of the three classes over time. First, many studies use an interval deflator approach, in which a price index is used to deflate income intervals, thereby maintaining the purchasing power of the middle class over time. The second technique defines the middle class in each year as consisting of those families whose incomes are within given percentages of median family income for that year, thus preserving the relative position of the middle class in the overall distribution of incomes over time. Interval deflator approach. In this method, we use 1986 as the base year and deflate each chosen middle-class interval back to each year between 1969 and 1986. In deflating incomes, however, there are several price in dexes from which to choose, and they often indicate different rates of inflation over any given period. The choice of a price index can affect the cutoff points for the middle interval, and, consequently, the number of fami lies falling into the lower, middle, and upper intervals. Most studies use the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers ( c p i - u ) to measure inflation. However, the methodology used in constructing the c p i - u changed in 1983. Prior to 1983, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis the measurement of homeowner costs included changes in the asset value of homes. Recognizing that this approach mixed the investment and consumption aspects of homeownership, the b l s conducted extensive research and testing which led to the introduction of the rental equivalence methodology in 1983. The b l s also devel oped, for research purposes, an index which links the period before and after 1983, thereby treating homeown ership costs in a manner consistent with the new approach. (See appendix.) This study uses the research index titled Consumer Price Index for All Urban Con sumers, Experimental Measure 1 ( r e b a s e d ) —hereafter referred to as the c p i - u - x i —because it provides a contin uous series with no major change in methodology. However, to test the sensitivity of our results to the choice of a price index, two alternative price indexes, the c p i -u and the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ Fixed Weight Personal Consumption Expenditure ( f w - p c e ) index, are also applied.11 Fixed percentage o f median income approach. In this method, the middle class in each year consists of families whose incomes are within given percentages of median family income for that year.12 The purchasing power of the middle-class income intervals produced by this method depends on the behavior of median family income. For example, if median family income is increas ing in real value over time, so too will the real value of the associated middle-class income intervals. Indeed, when the c p i - u - x i is used to calculate the real value of median family income over the 1969-86 period (in 1986 dollars), the real value of median family income has increased, albeit modestly.13 (See chart 1.) Secular comparisons Many studies in the literature compare pairs of years to infer long-run trends in the relative size of income classes. However, we demonstrate that such inferences are very sensitive to the years chosen. As one might expect, results obtained from comparing a peak and trough year differ markedly from a comparison of similar points in successive business cycles. We use regression analysis to uncover the secular nature of changes in the size of each of the three classes over the 1969-86 period. This eliminates the sensitivity of the findings to the choice of years. Regression analysis essentially involves estimating trend lines for each of the lower, middle, and upper class income intervals selected for this study. The procedure first isolates cyclical movements and then estimates the remaining secular trend.14 However, to demonstrate the sensitive nature of conclusions drawn from making year-to-year comparisons, numerous peakto-peak and peak-to-trough com parisons are also conducted. 5 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Analysis o f Declining Middle-Class Thesis The sensitivity results Interval deflator approach. The results of applying regres sion analysis to estimate the trends in the size of the lower, middle, and upper classes over the 1969-86 period are summarized in table 1. (The values of the estimated parameters and their associated levels of statistical signif icance are shown in appendix table A -l.) In this case, the income intervals created using the c p i - u - x i are examined. There is a substantial range of income intervals for which the relative size of the middle class declined secularly over the 1969-86 period; in particular, this result holds for all middle-class intervals with starting incomes rang ing from $17,676, the lower limit of our first criterion, to $22,000. As income requirements for membership in the middle class are made more stringent, however, changes in the distribution around the $24,000-$26,000 mark help to create an upper limit on the range of intervals over which the declining middle-class thesis holds. These results support the declining middle-class thesis. There is a consistent decline in the middle class across a substantial range of alternative income intervals. The key question however is, where did the middle go? Across virtually all the intervals for which the declining middleclass thesis holds, one fact consistently emerges—the Table 1. Interval deflator approach (cpi-u-x i ): direction of secular change in the relative size of the lower, middle, and upper classes, using selective middle-class income intervals (in 1986 dollars), 1969-86 Middle-class income interval [1986 dollars] Middle class $17,676 to $39,999 ................................................ $48,999................................................ 0 0 - $18,000 to $39,999 ................................................ $41,999 ................................................ $49,999................................................ 0 0 0 _ _ $20,000 to $42,999................................................ $49,999 ................................................ $55,999 ................................................ $59,999 ................................................ 0 0 0 0 - $22,000 to $45,999 ................................................ $49,999................................................. $51,999................................................ $59,999 ................................................ $61,999 ................................................ $63,999 ................................................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 - $24,000 to $49,999 ................................................ $51,999................................................ $59,999................................................ $61,999................................................ $63,999................................................ $26,000 to $54,999 ................................................ $ 5 9 ,9 9 9 .......................................................................... $ 6 1 ,9 9 9 .......................................................................... $ 6 3 ,9 9 9 .......................................................................... Chart 1. Median family income, 1969-86 Lower class $ 2 6 ,5 1 4 to $ 5 5 ,9 9 9 .......................................................................... $ 6 3 ,9 9 9 .......................................................................... Note: 0 + = = = - - - - - - _ _ _ _ - 0 0 - _ - 0 0 0 - - - 0 0 trend that is not statistically different from zero, statistically significant negative trend, and statistically significant positive trend. Upper class + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + relative size of the lower class has been secularly stable over time. Hence, as table 1 indicates, the upper class has experienced secular increases in relative size over the period being considered. Chart 2 uses the $20,000$55,999 interval definition of the middle class to depict the changes in the size of the lower, middle, and upper classes and the estimated secular trends. What has happened to the share o f income held by the lower class? The secularly stable trend in the size of the lower class has been accompanied by a secular decline in the share of aggregate income held.15 Using the $20,000$55,999 interval to define the middle class, chart 3 shows the secular decline in the proportion of income held by the lower class. Thus, the picture which emerges is one of a lower class that, although stable in size, is receiving a declining share o f the pie over time. NOTE: Broken line represents secular trend from which cyclical movements have been removed. 6 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Choice o f a price index. The preceding analysis was conducted using the c p i - u - x i . To test the sensitivity of findings to the choice of an index, regression analysis was conducted to estimate the secular behavior of the three classes using two alternative price indexes, the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers ( c p i - u ) and the Fixed Weight Personal Consumption Expenditure ( f w p c e ) index. Again, the $20,000-$55,999 income interval is used. As was the case for the c p i - u - x i , the coefficients of the regressions indicate a secular decline in the relative size of the middle class for both of these alternative price indexes. However, in contrast to the stability in the size of the lower class when the c p i -u - x i was used, the lower class exhibited a secular increase when the c p i - u was employed, and a secular decline when the f w - p c e index was used.16 Given these overall secular trends, it is informative to compare class size over time using alternative price indexes. To do so, the distribution of family incomes in 1969 is compared to that of 1986.17 Results using all three price indexes show a decline in the relative size of the middle class between 1969 and 1986. (See table 2.) With the c p i - u , this decline in the middle was accompa nied by an increase in the relative size of the lower class. In contrast, the decline in the middle class associated with the c p i - u - x i was accompanied by a decline in the proportion of families in the lower class. Finally, the f w - p c e index shows a substantial decline in the relative size of both the middle and lower classes. Clearly, any examination of the declining middle-class thesis using an interval deflator approach is quite sensitive to the choice of a price index. Fixed percentage o f median income approach. The results of the fixed percentage around median family income approach to examining secular trends are shown in table 3. Here, the middle class declined over the 1969-86 period for an even broader range of income intervals than for the interval deflator approach.18 In terms of where the decline has gone, the results differ from those associated with the interval deflator method. For each interval, as the middle declines in relative size, both the lower and upper classes experience secular increases in relative size. (See appendix table A-2.) Using 68-190 percent as the fixed percentage interval to define the middle class (equivalent to $20,000-$55,999 in 1986), the proportions of the decline in the middle going to the lower and upper classes between 1969 and 1986 are about 40 and 60 percent, respectively. Across the entire range of intervals, the proportion of the decline in the middle going to the lower class varies from roughly 20 percent to 50 percent.19 The proportion of families in each of the three classes over the 1969-86 period is depicted in chart 4. It is important to note that while these findings suggest that the lower class has increased in relative size over the 1969-86 period, the share of aggregate income held by this group has either remained the same or declined secularly.20 Hence, despite differences between the fixed percentage and interval deflator methods in measured https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Chart 2. Interval deflator approach: proportions of families in the upper, middle, and lower classes, 1969-86, using the $20,000-$55,999 income interval (in 1986 dollars) [Percent] NOTE: Broken line represents secular trend trom which cyclical movements have been removed. 7 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Analysis o f Declining Middle-Class Thesis Percent distribution o f families Table 2. Percent distribution of families in the lower, middle, and upper classes, using alternative price indexes, 1969 and 1986 Middle-class income interval P e rc e n t d is tr ib u tio n o f P r ic e in d e x and year M id d le - c la s s in c o m e in te r v a l fa m ilie s Low er M id d le U pper c la s s c la s s c la s s CPI-U-X1: 1 9 8 6 .................................. 1 9 6 9 .................................. $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 - $ 5 5 ,9 9 9 7 , 1 8 0 - 2 0 ,1 0 4 3 1 .7 3 3 .7 5 3 .0 5 8 .8 15.3 7.5 2 0 ,0 0 0 -5 5 ,9 9 9 6 ,6 8 0 -1 8 ,7 0 4 3 1 .7 3 0 .4 5 3 .0 6 0 .0 15 .3 9 .7 2 0 ,0 0 0 - 5 5 , 9 9 9 7 ,4 4 0 - 2 0 ,8 3 2 v 3 1 .7 3 5 .6 5 3 .0 5 7 .8 15.3 6 .7 CPI-U: 1 9 8 6 .................................. 1 9 6 9 .................................. FW-PCE: 1 9 8 6 .................................. 1 9 6 9 .................................. effects, both point to a fundamental decline in the lower class per-family share of total aggregate income. Differences between the two approaches. What accounts for the differences in the findings of these two ap proaches? Using the c p i - u - x i to deflate both endpoints of the $20,000-$55,999 income interval produces a 1969 income interval of $7,180-$20,104. This interval repre sents the same level of purchasing power as the $20,000-$55,999 interval in 1986. In the fixed percent age of the median approach, the endpoints $20,000 and $55,999 represent roughly 68 percent and 190 percent of 1986 median family income, respectively. When applied to the value of median family income in 1969, these percentages yield a middle-class income interval of $6,404-$17,931. Because the real value of median family income increased over the 1969-86 period, the middle class associated with the fixed percentage approach has a lower level of purchasing power in 1969 than the one associated with the interval deflator approach. Moreover, by simply comparing the lower endpoints of the two income intervals, it is evident that the size of the lower class in 1969 was smaller for the fixed percentage approach than for the interval deflator approach. Hence, because the income intervals in both approaches grow to the same value in 1986, $20,000-$55,999, the fixed percentage approach shows a greater growth in the lower class between 1969 and 1986 than does the interval deflator approach. The following tabulation shows the distribution of families in the lower, middle, and upper classes in 1969 and 1986, using both the interval deflator and the fixed percentage of median family income approaches: 8 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Lower Middle Upper class class class Interval deflator (c p i-u -x i ) 1986 ................ $20,000 - $55,999 1969 ................ 7,180 - 20,104 31.7 33.7 53.0 58.8 15.3 7.5 Fixed percentage interval of median income [68-190]: 1986.............. $20,000 - $55,999 1969 .............. 6,404 - 17,931 31.7 28.7 53.0 60.2 15.3 11.1 Which of the two approaches is preferred? The answer depends on one’s view of what constitutes middle-class income. If one takes the position that the middle should represent a particular standard of living that is main tained over time, then the interval deflator approach is preferred. However, it is also compelling to argue that the middle-class concept is more reflective of where one stands in the relative profile of family incomes, and using the current median or “representative” level of family Chart 3. Proportion of aggregate income held by the lower class, 1969-86, using the interval deflator approach [Percent] NOTE: Broken line represents secular trend from which cyclical movements have been removed. Table 3. Fixed percentage of median family income approach: direction of secular trend in the relative size of the lower, middle, and upper classes for selective middle-class income intervals, 1969-86 M id d le - c la s s Low er M id d le U pper In c o m e In te rv a l c la s s c la s s c la s s + + - + + + + - + + + + - + + + + - + + + + + - + + + + + + - + + + + + + - + + + “ + 60 to 136 ................................................................... 166 ................................................................... 61 to 136 .......................................................... 170 ................................................................... 68 to 146 ................................................................... 190 ................................................................... 75 to 156 ................................................................... 217 ................................................................... 81 to 170 .......................................................... 217 .......................................................... 244 .......................................................... 88 to 187 .......................................................... 217 .......................................................... 244 .......................................................... 90 to 190 .......................................................... 217 .......................................................... 244 .......................................................... Symmetric Income interval: 6 0 -1 4 0 ...................................................... Note: Conclusion + ; + = statistically significant positive trend, and - = statistically significant negative trend. income as a fulcrum is quite reasonable. This study does not make a choice in this debate. Year-to-year comparisons In this study, we use regression analysis to evaluate secular trends in the relative size of the lower, middle, and upper classes. Many middle-class studies, however, infer long-run trends in the distribution of incomes by making comparisons between two points in time. To demonstrate the sensitivity of such inferences to the particular choice of years, several year-to-year compari sons are made using the interval deflator approach (although the fixed percentage approach could just as easily been used). The proportions of families in the lower, middle, and upper classes are very cyclically sensitive. (See chart 2; see also table 4 which provides the percent distribution of families in the lower, middle, and upper classes from 1969 to 1986.) Consequently, if year-to-year comparisons are made, it is inappropriate to choose years at cyclically dissimilar points in business cycles. For example, com pare the distribution in 1969, a peak year, with that in 1982, a trough year. It is reasonable to expect that the proportion of families in the lower class will increase from a peak to a trough year. Indeed, the decline in the middle class over this period, 5.6 percentage points, coincides with a 1.3-percentage point increase in the lower class. By 1985, however, after 3 years of economic recovery, the lower class had fallen slightly below its https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1969 proportion of 33.7 percent, and by 1986 had declined even further to 31.7 percent. Indeed, a compari son of each recession with its subsequent recovery gives evidence of a definite cyclical pattern in the shift in the distribution of family incomes, with the lower class growing during recessions, but then recovering its prere cession share in the subsequent economic expansion. Next, compare two cyclically similar years. Between peak years 1969 and 1979, the middle-class decline of 2.8 percentage points was accompanied by a decline in the lower class of 1.9 percentage points; the upper class absorbed these declines, thereby increasing in size by nearly 5 points. Alternatively, comparing 1973 and 1985, both representing the third year of a recovery, the 4.9percentage point decline in the middle was accompanied by a 1.2-point rise in the size of the lower class. Thus, even if care is taken to compare cyclically similar years, the findings may misrepresent the underlying secular trends. This study suggests that the consensus view of a declining middle class is correct. However, unlike some studies, this one finds that most of the decline in the proportion of families in the middle has gone to the upper class, not the lower. However, the size of this effect varies with the method used to measure the middle class. If the c p i - u - x i is used to deflate middle-class income intervals (thereby maintaining the purchasing power of the middle class over time), virtually all of the decline in the middle goes to the upper class. Alternatively, if the middle is based on a fixed percentage around median income for each year, the decline in the middle is split between the Table 4. Distribution of families in the lower, middle, and upper classes, 1969-86, using the interval deflator approach ( c p i - u - x i ) to adjust the 1986 income interval, $20,000-$55,999 [In percent) Low er M id d le U pper c la s s c la s s c la s s 1 9 6 9 ................................................................................... 1 9 7 0 ................................................................................... 1 9 7 1 ................................................................................... 1 9 7 2 ................................................................................... 1 9 7 3 ................................................................................... 1 9 7 4 ................................................................................... 3 3 .7 3 4 .3 3 4 .9 33.1 32.1 33.1 5 8 .8 5 7 .8 5 7 .0 5 7 .2 5 7 .6 5 7 .5 7 .5 7 .8 8 .0 9 .7 10.3 9 .4 1 9 7 5 ................................................................................... 1 9 7 6 ................................................................................... 1 9 7 7 ................................................................................... 1 9 7 8 ................................................................................... 1 9 7 9 ................................................................................... 1 9 8 0 ................................................................................... 3 4 .6 33.1 3 2 .8 3 1 .8 3 1 .8 3 3 .2 5 6 .6 57.1 5 6 .6 5 6 .4 5 6 .0 5 5 .2 8 .9 9 .7 10.6 11.8 12.3 11.5 1 9 8 1 ................................................................................... 1 9 8 2 ................................................................................... 1 9 8 3 ................................................................................... 1 9 8 4 ................................................................................... 1 9 8 5 ................................................................................... 1 9 8 6 ................................................................................... 3 4 .4 3 5 .0 3 5 .4 3 3 .8 3 3 .3 3 1 .7 5 4 .2 5 3 .2 5 2 .8 5 2 .8 5 2 .7 5 3 .0 11.4 11.7 11.8 13.4 14.0 15.3 Year 9 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Analysis o f Declining Middle-Class Thesis Chart 4. Fixed percentage approach: proportions of families in the upper, middle, and lower classes, 1969-86 [Percent] lower and upper classes, although the majority of the decline shows up as an increase in the upper class. Despite these differences, however, it is clear that in both the interval deflator and the fixed percentage approaches, the behavior of the share of aggregate income held by the lower class indicates a growing disparity between the lower class and the rest of the distribution. This result is consistent with other studies which show an increase in income inequality over the past couple of decades. In seeking to further explain the sensitive nature of findings to analytical choices, we examined the influence of two factors: (1) the choice of a price index in studies which use the interval deflator approach to measure changes in the size of the three classes, and (2) the practice in some studies of making secular inferences from comparisons of two years, rather than using a regression method such as the one employed in this paper. This study employs a research price index developed by the b l s which, unlike the c p i - u , provides a continuous series with no major changes in methodology. Use of this research index, the c p i - u - x i , suggests that virtually all of the decline in the middle goes to the upper class, whereas the c p i - u indicates that a significant proportion of the decline goes to the lower class. Finally, several middle-class studies compare pairs of years in order to infer long-run trends in the distribution of incomes, often selecting years for comparison that are at cyclically dissimilar points. Because there is a substan tial cyclical pattern to the distribution of family in comes—the size of the lower class widens dramatically in recessions, and shrinks during expansions—such compar isons can give very different results than studies making secular comparisons. Moreover, even comparing similar points in different business cycles can, depending on the points chosen, give very different indications of long-run trends. q --------- FOOTNOTES--------c k n o w l e d g m e n t s : The authors thank Robert J. Mclntire and Bernard R. Altschuler, Office of Employment and Unemployment Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for constructing the computer programs used in this study. A NOTE: Broken line represents secular trend from which cyclical m ovements have been rem oved. The percentages of median family Income used to define the endpoints of the middle class are roughly 68 and 190; In 1986, this produced a m iddle-class Income Interval of $20,000 to $55,999. 10 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ‘Several studies, using measures of income inequality such as the Gini coefficient and the log-variance approach, have found evidence of increased inequality over the past two decades. See, for example, McKinley L. Blackburn and David E. Bloom, “Family Income Inequality in the United States, 1967-84,” Proceedings o f the 39th Annual Meetings (Industrial Relations Research Association, 1986), pp. 349-58; W. Norton Grubb and Robert H. Wilson, “The Distribution of Wages and Salaries, 1960-1980: The Contributions of Gender, Race, Sectoral Shifts and Regional Shifts,” Working Paper 39 (University of Texas, 1987); and Chris Tilly, Barry Bluestone, and Bennett Harrison, “What is Making American Wages More Unequal?” Proceedings o f the 39th Annual Meetings (Industrial Relations Research Association, 1986), pp. 338-48. 2The list of articles on the declining middle-class thesis is quite extensive. See, for example, Barry Bluestone and Bennett Harrison, The Deindustrialization o f America (New York, Basic Books, Inc., 1982); Bob Kuttner, “The Declining Middle,” The Atlantic Monthly, July 1983, pp. 60-72; McKinley L. Blackburn and David E. Bloom, “What is happening to the middle class?” American Demographics, January 1985, pp. 19-25; Neal H. Rosenthal, “The shrinking middle class: myth or reality?” Monthly Labor Review, March 1985, pp. 3-10; Patrick J. McMahon and John H. Tschetter, “The declining middle class: a further analysis,” Monthly Labor Review, September 1986, pp. 22-27; David Wessel, “U.S. Rich and Poor Increase in Numbers, Middle Loses Ground,” The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 22, 1986; “Is the Middle Class Shrinking?” Time, Nov. 3, 1986, pp. 54—56; Barry Bluestone and Bennett Harrison, “The Great American Job Machine: The Prolifera tion of Low Wage Employment in the U.S. Economy,” a study prepared for the U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee, December 1986; and Marvin H. Kosters and Murray N. Ross, “The Distribution of Earnings and Employment Opportunities: a Re-examination of the Evidence,” Studies in Economic Policy (Washington, American Enter prise Institute, 1987). 3See Lester C. Thurow, “The Disappearance of the Middle Class,” The New York Times, Feb. 5, 1984, p. F3. 4See Robert Z. Lawrence, “Sectoral Shifts and the Size of the Middle Class,” The Brookings Review, Fall 1984, pp. 3-11. 5See Katharine L. Bradbury, “The Shrinking Middle Class,” New England Economic Review, September/October 1986, pp. 41-55. 6For a review of the analytical choices made in studies of income distributions, as well as a comprehensive literature review, see Gary W. Loveman and Chris Tilly, “Good jobs or bad jobs—What does the evidence say?” New England Economic Review, January/February 1988, pp. 46-65. In contrast, consider the use of the Fixed Weight Personal Consump tion Expenditure ( f w - p c e ) index. Because this index indicates a slower rate of inflation than the c p i -U-x i , the nominal value of the $20,000 endpoint in 1969 dollars will be higher than the figure from the c p i -U -X I. Accordingly, the change in the size of the lower class over the period in question will be smaller for the f w - p c e than for the c p i -u -x i . "Note that, using a fixed percentage approach to define the middle class in any given year, the intervals representing the limits of our two criteria are asymmetric with respect to median family income in 1986. Most symmetric intervals violate our criteria for interval selection. For example, choosing $26,000 (roughly 88 percent of the median) as our left endpoint of the middle class, to satisfy symmetry our upper endpoint becomes $32,920 (approximately 112 percent of the median). However, in this case, only 12.9 percent of families are found in the middle class. By applying our two criteria, the resulting qualifying symmetric intervals vary within a small range of each other. Specifically, the narrowest and widest represent 62 to 138 and 60 to 140 percent of median family income, respectively. However, to further test the sensitivity of our findings to the variety of choices which can be made in this type of study, we incorporate into our approach the symmetric interval 60 to 140 percent of median family income. In addition, it should be noted that while many studies in the literature use symmetric intervals, such a choice is inconsistent with the asymmetric nature of the distribution. For example, consider the interval representing 50 and 150 percent of median family income. The percentage of families found in the 50-100 percent interval is not equal to the percentage in the 100-150 percent interval. The former interval contains 28.6 percent of families and the latter, 23.3 percent: Percentage interval o f median fa m ily income Percentage o f fam ilies 7A household is defined by the Bureau of the Census as consisting of all persons who occupy a housing unit. A household includes the related family members and all the unrelated persons, if any, who share the housing unit. The term “family” is defined as a group of two persons or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together. [80-100, [70-100, [60-100, [50-100, [40-100, [30-100, [11.2, [16.8, [22.7, [28.6, [34.5, [39.8, Total income is defined as yearly totals (before taxes) of wage and salary earnings plus all other reported sources of money income, such as interest, transfer payments, and so forth. Although a few studies focus on weekly earnings, annual measures are usually preferred because they take into account the number of weeks worked per year. The data also indicate that, as the symmetric intervals around median family income get larger, the asymmetry of the distribution becomes more pronounced. 8While the family is chosen for this study, it is important at some point to consider the consistency of findings between studies using individuals or households, and studies using families as the unit of analysis. 9Note that the ideal data, after-tax income, are not available from the March Current Population Survey. Also, we exclude families reporting negative income from our universe. 10Poverty levels of income are determined by the Bureau of the Census and vary with the size of the family. The poverty level of income for a three-person family in 1986 was $8,737, 28 percent of median family income for a three-person family in that year; that for a four-person family was $11,203, or 32 percent of the median. The average family size in 1986 was 3.2 persons. "What is the potential effect of using alternative choices of price indexes? To illustrate, let the 1986 income interval, $20,000-$55,999, represent the middle class in that year. Using the price index approach, we derive nominal values for these two endpoints over the 1969-85 period which represent the same amount of purchasing power as the $20,000-$55,999 interval in 1986. Consider the effect of using the c p i -u , which shows a greater rate of inflation over the time period than the c p i -u - x i . Under the c p i -u - x i the nominal value of the $20,000 endpoint in 1969 dollars is $7,180. Using the c p i - u , this value is $6,680, lower because of the relatively higher rate of inflation associated with this index. In other words, the relative size of the lower class in 1969 will automatically be smaller from using the c p i -u than from using the c p i -U- x i . Hence, because both values grow to $20,000 by 1986, the change in the size of the lower class between 1969 and 1986 will necessarily be larger for the c p i -u than for the c p i -u - x i . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 100-120].................................................................... 100-130].................................................................... 100-140]................................................................... 100-150].................................................................... 100-160].................................................................... 100-170].................................................................... 10.5] 15.2] 19.6] 23.3] 26.6] 29.5] 13A s the tabulation below indicates, the real value of median family income has increased slightly over the 1969-86 period: Current dollars Year Constant (1986) dollars 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... .................................................... ........ .....i ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ................................ $ 9,433 9,867 10,285 11,116 12,051 12,902 13,719 14,958 16,009 $26,276 26,172 26,170 27,447 28,026 27,219 26,743 27,598 27,793 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 .................................................... i............... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... 17,640 19,587 21,023 22,388 23,433 24,674 26,433 27,735 29,458 28,636 29,018 27,993 27,236 26,873 27,144 27,912 28,272 29,458 Current-dollar data were taken from various issues of Current Popula tion Reports, Series P-60 (Bureau of the Census). Constant-dollar data were derived by inflating the current-dollar figures by the c p i -U- x i , a price index developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for research purposes. 14In order to isolate the secular trend in the time series behavior of the class size associated with any income interval, we estimated three separate equations. The first equation regresses real values of gross 11 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Analysis o f Declining Middle-Class Thesis national product against a linear function of time. The error terms from this regression represent the cyclical portion of real gross national product. These error terms are then used as an independent variable in a regression with the proportion of families in a given income class (lower, middle, or upper) as the dependent variable (also a simple linear form). The error terms from this regression represent the secular behavior of the dependent variable; that is, the secular trend associated with the time series behavior of the proportion of families in the class. We then fit a linear regression of the error terms from the second equation against time. The coefficient on time can be tested to determine if it is statistically different from zero. Because the error terms represent the secular behavior of the proportion of families in a given class, this provides a test of whether this trend is positive, negative, or zero. 17The reader should be cautioned against inferring long-run trends from year-to-year comparisons. However, given the results of our regression analysis (and hence, a priori knowledge of long-run trends in the distribution), the example presented in the text is an acceptable way of demonstrating the sensitivity of findings to the choice of a price index. 18The conclusions we have drawn under the fixed percentage of median income approach remain unchanged when we specifically consider symmetric percentage intervals. As noted earlier, the range of symmet ric intervals which satisfy our criteria is very small. We present results of one such interval which represents 60 percent and 140 percent of median family income in each year. The regression results show that the long-run trend in the size of the three classes is the same as for the other fixed percentage intervals. (See appendix table A-2.) |SResults are available from the authors. ’’Results are available from the authors. 16Results are available from the authors. 20Results are available from the authors. APPENDIX: Comparison of price indexes In 1983, a new methodology using a rental equivalence approach was incorporated into the c p i -u . (For a discus sion of methods used to estimate changes in housing prices, see the following Monthly Labor Review articles: Janet L. Norwood, “Two Consumer Price Index issues: weighting and homeownership,” March 1981, pp. 58-59; “Indexing Federal programs: the c p i and other indexes,” March 1981, pp. 60-65; and “The effect of rental equivalence on the Consumer Price Index, 1967-82,” February 1985, pp. 53-55. Also see, “Changing the Homeownership Component of the Consumer Price Index to Rental Equivalence,” c p i Detailed Report, January 1983, pp. 7-13.) Before adopting this change in method, the Bureau developed several experimental price indexes. One such index, the c p i -u -x i , became the model for the changes that were incorporated into the c p i -u in 1983. In this paper, we employ a price index developed by the b l s for research purposes which links the pre-1983 CPI-U-XI to the post-1982 c p i -u series. This results in a research price index which is consistent with the current treatment of housing in the c p i -u . The tabulation below presents figures for the c p i -u , c p i -u - x i , and the Bureau 12 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis of Economic Analysis’ Fixed Weight Personal Consump tion Expenditure ( f w - p c e ) index, which is also used in this study: Price indexes (1986=100) Y ear C P I-U C P I-U -X I (r e b a se d F W -P C E ) 1 9 6 9 ........................................ ......................... 3 3 .4 3 5 .9 1 9 7 0 ........................................ ......................... 3 5 .4 3 7 .7 3 8 .8 1 9 7 1 ........................................ ......................... 3 6 .9 3 9 .3 4 0 .5 1 9 7 2 ........................................ .......................... 3 8 .2 4 0 .5 4 1 .9 1 9 7 3 ........................................ .......................... 4 0 .5 4 3 .0 4 4 .3 1 9 7 4 ........................................ ......................... 4 5 .0 4 7 .4 4 8 .4 1 9 7 5 ........................................ ......................... 4 9 .1 5 1 .3 5 2 .2 1 9 7 6 ........................................ ......................... 5 1 .9 5 4 .2 5 5 .1 1 9 7 7 ........................................ ......................... 5 5 .3 5 7 .6 5 8 .6 3 7 .2 1 9 7 8 ........................................ ......................... 5 9 .5 6 1 .6 6 2 .7 1 9 7 9 ........................................ ......................... 6 6 .2 6 7 .5 6 8 .2 1 9 8 0 ........................................ .......................... 7 5 .2 7 5 .1 7 5 .3 1 9 8 1 ........................................ ......................... 8 2 .9 8 2 .2 8 2 .1 1 9 8 2 ........................................ ......................... 8 8 .0 8 7 .2 8 6 .8 1 9 8 3 ........................................ ......................... 9 0 .9 9 0 .9 9 0 .5 1 9 8 4 ........................................ ......................... 9 4 .7 9 4 .7 9 4 .1 1 9 8 5 ........................................ ......................... 9 8 .1 9 8 .1 9 7 .5 1 9 8 6 ........................................ .......................... 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 Summary of regression results T ab le A-1. In te rv a l d e fla to r a p p ro a ch : s e c u la r tre n d c o e ffic ie n ts on th e re la tiv e size o f th e lo w e r, m iddle, and u p p e r c la s s e s fo r a lte rn a tiv e m id d le -cla ss in co m e in te rv a ls (in 1986 d o lla rs), 1969-86 Middle - class income interval Lower class Middle class Upper class Table A-2. Fixed percentage of median family income approach: secular trend coefficients on the relative size of the lower, middle, and upper classes for alternative middle-class income intervals, 1969-86 M id d le - c la s s Low er M id d le Upper in c o m e in te r v a l c la s s c la s s c la s s -.4 4 7 “ .2 6 0 “ -.4 9 2 “ .3 0 1 “ 6 0 to 1 3 6 .......................................................................... $17,676 to $39,999.......................................... $48,999.......................................... .1 8 7 “ 1 6 6 .......................................................................... .020 -.548“ -.502“ .529” .465“ 61 to - 1 3 6 .......................................................................... .1 8 4 “ 1 7 0 .......................................................................... $18,000 to $39,999.......................................... $41,999.......................................... $49,999.......................................... .2 6 0 “ -.4 9 7 “ .3 0 7 “ -.4 5 2 “ .2 7 8 “ -.4 4 2 “ .2 6 5 “ 6 8 to - .018 -.548“ -.537“ -.496“ .529“ .519“ .461“ 1 4 6 .......................................................................... .1 7 3 “ 1 9 0 .......................................................................... 7 5 to 1 5 6 .......................................................................... $20,000 to $42,999.......................................... $49,999.......................................... $55,999.......................................... $59,999.......................................... -.4 4 4 “ .1 5 9 “ 2 1 7 .......................................................................... -.028 -.493“ -.448“ -.353“ -.302“ .514“ .461“ .380“ .328“ 81 -.4 5 2 “ .2 9 1 “ -.3 8 0 “ .2 1 5 “ -.4 3 0 “ .3 0 7 “ to - 1 7 0 .......................................................................... .1 1 8 “ 2 1 7 .......................................................................... -.3 3 9 “ .2 1 5 “ 2 4 4 .......................................................................... -.2 9 0 “ .1 6 8 “ 8 8 to - $22,000 to $45,999.......................................... $49,999.......................................... $51,999.......................................... $59,999.......................................... $61,999.......................................... $63,999.......................................... $24,000 to $49,999.......................................... $51,999.......................................... $59,999.......................................... $61,999.......................................... $63,999.......................................... $26,000 to $54,999.......................................... $59,999.......................................... $61,999.......................................... $63,999.......................................... -.3 5 1 “ .2 7 8 “ 2 1 7 .......................................................................... -.2 9 2 “ .2 1 5 “ 2 4 4 .......................................................................... -.2 4 2 “ .1 6 8 “ 1 8 7 .......................................................................... -.083 -.430“ -.393“ -.358“ -.247“ -.215“ -.190“ .494“ .461“ .432“ .328“ .299“ .276“ -.293“ -.256“ -.145* -.113 -.087 .461“ .432“ .328“ .299“ .276“ -.148* -.081 -.049 -.024 .394“ .328“ .299“ .276“ .0 6 8 “ 9 0 to -.3 3 8 “ .2 6 5 “ 2 1 7 .......................................................................... - .3 3 5 “ .2 7 2 “ 2 4 4 .......................................................................... - .2 3 8 “ .1 6 8 “ - .4 5 6 “ .2 6 8 “ 1 9 0 .......................................................................... .0 6 3 “ S y m m e tr ic in c o m e in te r v a l: -.182“ -.249“ 6 0 - 1 4 0 .................................................................. .1 8 7 “ N o t e : * ‘ in d ic a te s th a t th e c o e ffic ie n t is s ta tis tic a lly d iffe r e n t fro m z e ro a t th e 9 9 - p e rc e n t le v e l o f c o n fid e n c e . $26,514 to -.249“ -.132 .379“ $55,999.......................................... -.096 .313“ $63,999.......................................... Note: ‘ indicates coefficient is statistically different from zero at the 95percent level of confidence. “ indicates coefficient is statistically different from zero at the 99-percent level of confidence. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 13 Recent changes in the growth of U.S. multifactor productivity Since 1979, multifactor productivity growth has recovered completely only in manufacturing; for the rest o f private business, growth has recovered partially, but remains below the 1948-73 trend rate Edw in D ean and K ent K unze The dramatic slowdown in productivity growth that began about 1973 has been the focus of much analysis and discussion. In recent months, this discussion has taken on new life, as analysts continue to probe the influence of U.S. productivity growth on the country’s competitiveness in world trade. Other commentators have raised the possibility that the slowdown has ended and productivity growth has resumed its earlier pace. The present article contributes to the discussion by presenting and analyzing recent Bureau of Labor Statis tics measures of growth in multifactor productivity in the United States. It also presents preliminary results of b l s studies of factors that have affected productivity change. Special attention is given to the productivity growth record for recent years, to examine whether productivity might have resumed its pre-1973 pace. bls multifactor measures In 1983, the b l s introduced measures of multifactor productivity for three major sectors of the U.S. econ omy—private business, private nonfarm business, and manufacturing. Since that year, annual news releases have provided current multifactor productivity measures. Because the methods used to develop these measures Edwin Dean is chief of the Division of Productivity Research, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Kent Kunze is an economist in the same division. 14 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis have been described in two 1983 publications,1 only a brief summary is presented here. In the b l s measures, growth in multifactor productiv ity is measured as the difference between the growth rate of output and the growth rate of combined capital and labor inputs.2 Growth in multifactor productivity reflects increase in output due to factors other than growth in capital and labor inputs.3 Multifactor productivity calcu lated in this way provides a numerical answer to the question: What is the portion of the growth rate of output that cannot be accounted for by the growth rate of combined inputs? The measured multifactor productivity growth rates reflect changes in all influences on output other than the inputs. They reflect changes in technology, including changes that result from research and development activities; economies of scale; changes in the management or organization of resources; and changes in the skills and efforts workers bring to the job. Multifactor productivity is closely related to the com monly used concept of labor productivity, or output per unit of labor input. It can be shown that, under certain assumptions,4 growth in labor productivity is equal to growth in multifactor productivity plus another factor. That factor is the growth in capital input per labor hour times the share of capital income in the value of output— or capital’s share, for short. It follows that growth in labor productivity can be decomposed into two parts, the part due to growth in multifactor productivity and the part due to growth in capital input per labor hour or the capital-labor ratio. Over long periods in most economies, all three of these terms will be positive, so that a positive growth rate in labor productivity is the sum of positive growth in multifactor productivity plus the positive growth rate in the capital-labor ratio times the capital share in output. (Of course, it is possible for one or more of these growth rates to be negative.) This relationship can be expressed in an equation: where Q is output, L is labor hours, K is capital input, sk is capital’s share, and A represents the state of technol ogy. A dot over a variable indicates the rate of change of the variable with respect to time. The ratio K / K is therefore the percentage rate of change of capital. Q L The term — - — is the percentage rate of change over Q L time in labor productivity, Q /L (output per hour). Similarly, A /A is the percentage rate of change in multifactor productivity, or output per unit of combined K L labor and capital inputs. The term — - — is the K L percentage rate of change in capital input per hour, the capital-labor ratio, while sk is capital’s share. (Capital’s share, sh and labor’s share, sh both are fractions and their sum exhausts the total value of output; it follows that sk + s, = 1.) Equation 1 expresses the relationship described earlier: The percentage rate of change in labor productivity, Q L — - —, is equal to the percentage rate of change in gauge has become increasingly important with the decel eration of productivity growth over the last 15 years. From 1948 to 1986, multifactor productivity in the private business sector increased at an average rate of 1.4 percent per year (table 1). This growth reflects a 3.2percent average annual increase in output and a 1.8percent rate of growth of combined inputs of labor and capital services. Labor services (hours) in private business increased at a rate of 0.9 percent per year, and capital services grew 3.4 percent annually. The capital-labor ratio grew 2.4 percent per year. The nonfarm business sector had a pattern of produc tivity growth for the 1948-86 period that was similar to that of private business. Multifactor productivity in creased 1.1 percent annually for the entire period as output rose 3.3 percent yearly and combined inputs grew at a 2.1-percent annual rate. Hours increased 1.4 percent annually in private nonfarm business, a faster rate of growth than in private business, reflecting a decline in hours in farm production. Inputs of capital services increased 3.6 percent per year in private nonfarm business. In manufacturing, multifactor productivity grew at an annual rate of 1.9 percent between 1948 and 1986. Output increased at a 3.3-percent rate and combined inputs grew 1.4 percent yearly. Labor hours rose at an annual rate of only 0.6 percent, and capital services grew 3.4 percent per year. The measured relationship between multifactor pro ductivity and labor productivity was approximately the same for the three sectors. Multifactor productivity growth accounted for 60 to 70 percent of labor productiv ity growth during the postwar period, with the remainder Table 1. Average annual growth rates of multifactor productivity and related measures for private business, private nonfarm business, and manufacturing, 1948-86 [In p e rc e n t] multifactor productivity, A /A , plus the percentage rate K L of change in the capital-labor ratio, — - —, times the share of capital in output, sk. ^ ^ Equation 1 decomposes the change in the familiar labor productivity ratio, Q /L, into the role of multifactor productivity and the role of capital input relative to labor input (the capital-labor ratio).5 Long-term trends Annual measures of productivity change often are sensitive to cyclical effects. It is helpful to look at long term trends in order to minimize the effects of cyclical disturbances. In addition, long-term trends help to provide a benchmark for gauging the relative perfor mance of productivity growth for shorter periods. Such a https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Measure P ro d u c tiv ity : M u ltifa c to r p ro d u c tiv ity 2 ......................... O u tp u t p e r h o u r o f a ll p e r s o n s ....... O u tp u t p e r u n it o f c a p ita l s e r v ic e s ....................................................... O u t p u t ................................................................. In p u ts: L a b o r h o u r s ................................................. C a p ita l s e r v ic e s ................................... C o m b in e d u n its o f la b o r a n d c a p ita l in p u ts 3 .......................................... Private business1 Private nonfarm business1 Manufac turing 1.4 2 .3 1.1 1.9 1.9 2.7 -.1 - .2 -.1 3 .2 3 .3 3 .3 .9 3 .4 1.4 3 .6 .6 3 .4 1.8 2.1 1.4 C a p ita l-la b o r ra tio 4 ........................................ 2 .4 2.1 2 .9 C o n trib u tio n o f c a p ita l in te n s ity 5 .......... .9 .8 .8 1 E x c lu d e s g o v e rn m e n t e n te rp ris e s . 2 O u tp u t p e r u n it o f c o m b in e d la b o r a n d c a p ita l Input. 3 H o u rs o f a ll p e r s o n s c o m b in e d w ith c a p ita l s e rv ic e In p u t in d e x , w e ig h te d by la b o r a n d c a p ita l s h a re s . 4 C a p ita l s e rv ic e s p e r h o u r o f a ll p e rs o n s . 5 C h a n g e s in c a p ita l-la b o r ra tio tim e s c a p ita l's s h a re in th e v a lu e o f o u tp u t. 15 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Changes in the Growth o f U.S. Multifactor Productivity Table 2. Shares of capital and labor income in the value of output, private business, private nonfarm business, and manufacturing, selected years, 1948-86 [In percent] Income shares Sector 1948 1973 1979 1986 Private business: C a p ita l................................. Lab o r.................................... 36.1 63.9 35.7 64.3 35.0 65.0 36.2 63.8 Private nonfarm business: C a p ita l................................. Lab o r.................................... 35.5 64.5 34.2 65.8 33.9 66.1 35.4 64.6 Manufacturing: Capital ................................. Lab o r.................................... 32.2 67.8 28.7 71.3 26.4 73.6 29.4 70.6 arising from an increase in the capital-labor ratio and changes in capital’s share (the share of capital income in the value of output, sk). Because capital’s share was fairly stable over time (table 2), changes in this share had little effect on labor productivity. In manufacturing, multifac tor productivity growth accounted for the largest propor tion of labor p roductivity increase, 70 percent. Manufacturing also had the fastest rate of growth of the capital-labor ratio; however, capital’s share was generally lower in manufacturing than in the other sectors, and this tended to dampen the influence on labor productivity of growth in the capital-labor ratio. For private business and private nonfarm business, growth in multifactor productivity accounted for about 60 percent of labor productivity increase during the period. The productivity slowdown The post-1973 decline in the growth rate of both multifactor and labor productivity has been a source of persistent concern for business leaders, economists, and policymakers. A plethora of books and articles has appeared analyzing the probable causes and conse quences of the productivity slowdown.6 The following discussion examines the magnitude of the slowdown, using the most current measures. Between 1948 and 1973, the United States enjoyed a sustained period of strong productivity growth. Multifac tor productivity in the nonfarm business sector rose at an annual rate of 1.7 percent during this period (table 3). This, coupled with the increase in the capital-labor ratio, produced an annual rate of growth of labor productivity of 2.5 percent. For the private business sector, the productivity advance was even greater: Extra growth occurred because of a shift of workers out of the farm sector, which had relatively low productivity, to the nonfarm sector, which had higher productivity.7 The manufacturing sector also experienced sustained high growth rates of both multifactor and labor produc tivity in the postwar period. The rapid advance in labor productivity was a reflection of both a high rate of multifactor productivity growth—2.0 percent annually— 16 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and a high rate of growth in the capital-labor ratio—2.6 percent per year. Between 1973 and 1979, the Nation’s rate of produc tivity growth changed drastically. Output per hour in private business increased only 0.6 percent annually and multifactor productivity rose only 0.1 percent per year. (See table 3 and chart 1.) In private nonfarm business, output per hour increased at an annual rate of 0.5 percent, while multifactor productivity did not grow at all. Labor productivity continued to show some advance in these two sectors only because of continued, though slower, growth in capital intensity (the capital-labor ratio). In private business, the average annual increase in the capital-labor ratio fell from 2.6 percent in the previous period to 1.5 percent in the 1973-79 period. Table 3. Average annual growth rates of multifactor productivity and related measures for private business, private nonfarm business, and manufacturing, 1948-73, 1973-79, and 1979-86 Period Sector and measure 1948-73 1973-79 1979-86 2.0 2.9 .3 3.6 0.1 .6 -.9 2.5 0.5 1.4 -1.0 .7 1.9 3.4 1.1 3.6 1.6 2.6 .9 2.4 1.5 .5 1.9 2.5 .9 P ro d u c tiv ity : M u ltifa c to r p r o d u c tiv ity 2 .................................. O u tp u t p e r h o u r o f a ll p e r s o n s ................ O u tp u t p e r u n it o f c a p ita l s e r v ic e s ........ 1.7 2.5 .3 -.1 .5 -1.1 .3 1.2 -1.3 O u t p u t ........................................................................... 3.8 2.5 2.4 Private business1 P ro d u c tiv ity : M u ltifa c to r p ro d u c tiv ity 2 ................................ O u tp u t p e r h o u r o f a il p e r s o n s ............... O u tp u t p e r u n it o f c a p ita l s e r v ic e s ....... O u t p u t .......................................................................... In p u ts: L a b o r h o u r s ......................................................... C a p ita l s e r v ic e s ................................................. C o m b in e d u n it o f la b o r a n d c a p ita l in p u ts 3 .................................................................. C a p ita l-la b o r ra tio 4 ............................................... C o n trib u tio n o f c a p ita l in te n s ity 5 ................. 3.3 2.5 Private nonfarm business1 In p u ts: L a b o r h o u r s .......................................................... C a p ita l s e r v ic e s .................................................. C o m b in e d u n it o f la b o r a n d c a p ita l in p u ts 3 ................................................................... 1.3 3.5 2.1 3.7 1.2 3.7 2.0 2.6 2.1 C a p ita l-la b o r ra tio 4 ................................................ C o n trib u tio n o f c a p ita l in te n s ity 5 .................. 2.2 .8 1.6 .6 2.5 .9 2.0 2.8 .2 3.9 .5 1.4 -1.8 1.9 2.6 3.5 .1 2.2 1.1 .5 3.7 3.8 -1.2 2.3 Manufacturing P ro d u c tiv ity : M u ltifa c to r p ro d u c tiv ity 2 ................................. O u tp u t p e r h o u r o f a ll p e r s o n s ................. O u tp u t p e r u n it o f c a p ita l s e r v ic e s ........ O u t p u t ........................................................................... In p u ts: L a b o r h o u r s ........................................................... C a p ita l s e r v ic e s .................................................. C o m b in e d u n it o f la b o r a n d c a p ita l in p u ts 3 ................................................................... C a p ita l-la b o r ra tio 4 ................................................. C o n trib u tio n o f c a p ita l in te n s ity 5 .................. 1.8 2.6 .8 1.4 -.4 3.3 .9 3.5 .9 1 E x c lu d e s g o v e rn m e n t e n te rp ris e s . O u tp u t p e r u n it o f c o m b in e d la b o r a n d c a p ita l in p u t. J H o u rs o f a ll p e rs o n s c o m b in e d w ith c a p ita l s e rv ic e in p u t in d e x , w e ig h te d by la b o r a n d c a p ita l s h a re s . C a p ita l s e rv ic e s p e r h o u r o f a ll p e rs o n s . 0 C h a n g e s in c a p ita l-la b o r ra tio tim e s c a p ita l's s h a re in th e v a lu e o f o u tp u t. C h a rt 1. A v e ra g e annual g ro w th ra te s of labor p ro d u ctivity, m u ltifa c to r p ro d u c tiv ity , and th e c o n trib u tio n of cap ital intensity, s e le c te d periods, 1 9 4 8 -8 6 1948-73 Percent 1973-79 1979-86 Percent 3.5 3.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 Percent https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Percent 17 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Changes in the Growth o f U.S. Multifactor Productivity Similarly, in nonfarm business, the growth rate fell from 2.2 percent annually over the period 1948-73 to 1.6 percent in 1973-79. Only in manufacturing did the capital-labor ratio continue to increase rapidly. In fact, this ratio accelerated to a growth rate of 3.3 percent annually, up from a 2.6-percent rate in the earlier period. Of the total deceleration in labor productivity growth in private business (2.3 percentage points), over 80 percent (1.9 percentage points) was a result of the deceleration in multifactor productivity growth. Less than 20 percent of the reduction in the rate of labor productivity increase was due to the decline in the growth rate of the capital-labor ratio. The same pattern held in private nonfarm business. In manufacturing, the deceleration of multifactor productivity growth accounted for more than the full decline in the labor productivity growth rate. Because the rate of increase in the capital-labor ratio actually acceler ated during the period, labor productivity growth slowed less than multifactor productivity growth. The recovery: 1979-86 During the most recent period, 1979 to 1986, there has been a partial recovery in productivity growth. The recovery must be considered incomplete because growth rates for both multifactor and labor productivity in private business and private nonfarm business have risen above the low rates of 1973-79 but have not reached the pre-1973 rates. In manufacturing, however, multifactor and labor productivity growth rates have surpassed the pre-1973 rates. In private business and private nonfarm business, the rate of increase in labor hours in 1979-86 declined relative to the 1973-79 rate, while capital services grew steadily, resulting in an acceleration of growth in the capital-labor ratio. These developments contributed to the more rapid rise of labor productivity. A modest increase in multifactor productivity growth also assisted the growth of labor productivity. In manufacturing, however, the rise of more than 2 percentage points, from 1.4 percent to 3.5 percent, in labor productivity growth reflected an increase in multifactor productivity growth of 2 percentage points, with no noticeable assistance from the capital-labor ratio. Elements of multifactor productivity change It is noted above that the measured growth rates of multifactor productivity reflect changes in technology (the processes used to produce output); economies of scale; organizational or management changes; and the skills workers bring to the job (generally acquired through schooling and experience). In addition, multifac tor productivity reflects any errors made in measurement of the inputs (hours and capital services) and the output. 18 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis b l s has conducted and continues to conduct research in these areas to gain understanding of the multifactor productivity changes and also to eliminate possible measurement error. The present areas of research include the measurement of the effects of research and develop ment ( r &d ) expenditures on productivity growth; the measurement of the changing amounts of education and experience that workers possess and the subsequent effects on productivity growth; and a better measure of hours, which reflects the actual number of labor hours spent at the workplace as opposed to the hours (including vacations and other leave time) for which workers are paid. Increased expenditures on r &d are considered to be a prime factor in the creation of more efficient technolo gies. Relative expenditures on r &d in nonfarm business slowed substantially in the 1970’s. The total stock of r &d , 8 which had increased 7.8 percent annually between 1948 and 1973, rose 4.0 percent per year between 1973 and 1979. From 1979 to 1985, the growth rate of the r &d stock accelerated moderately to 4.4 percent.9 However, results of the empirical work also show that the post1973 changes in the growth rates of the stock had almost no effect on post-1973 rates of change in multifactor productivity. The research results for manufacturing are quite similar to those for nonfarm business. Preliminary work on the productivity effects of worker experience and education shows that a small but measur able portion of the slowdown was attributable to changes in the composition of the work force. Increase in workers’ education and experience is positively correlated with growth in output and productivity. During the late 1960’s and throughout the 1970’s, the work force ex panded rapidly, resulting in an increased proportion of younger, inexperienced workers. At the same time, more and more workers attained higher levels of education, tending to counter some of the consequences of the influx of inexperienced workers. Preliminary results indicate that the contribution to multifactor productivity growth of changes in labor composition in private business dropped from an average of 0.2 percent per year in 1948-73 to zero in 1973-79.10 The rise in the proportion of less experienced workers ceased after 1979, although there continued to be an increase in the average years of schooling of the work force.11 After 1979, labor composition changes contrib uted about 0.3 percent per year to multifactor productiv ity growth—about as much as they had before 1973.12 Similar preliminary results hold for private nonfarm business, while results for m anufacturing are not presently available. Beginning in 1982, b l s began collecting data on the ratio of hours at work to hours paid for production and nonsupervisory workers in nonagricultural establish ments. One purpose of this survey is to develop new data on labor hours for use in productivity measurement. Only 15 percent of total labor hours, as presently measured in the labor productivity and multifactor measures, are based on an “hours at work” concept, the concept most consistent with productivity measurement. This portion of total hours is derived primarily from the Current Population Survey, a survey of households conducted for b l s by the Bureau of the Census. The remaining 85 percent of the hours are based on an “hours paid” concept; this portion of total hours is derived from the Current Employment Statistics survey, a b l s estab lishment-based program. Hence, the current productivity measures, as presented in tables 1 and 3, reflect predomi nately an “hours paid” concept. The growth rates of hours at work and hours paid may, of course, differ over time. If, for example, hours paid increase faster than hours at work, then productivity growth will be underestimated. Old estimates of the historical trend of the hours-at-work/hours-paid ratio show a small divergence in the growth rates of the two measures. Between 1948 and 1973, the ratio decreased 0.1 percent annually, and from 1973 to 1979, it fell 0.2 percent per year. These computations suggest that the slowdown in labor productivity growth is 0.1 percentage point less than recorded in table 3. From 1979 to 1986, the ratio of hours at work to hours paid remained virtually unchanged.13 Hence, productivity in nonfarm business has increased as presently reported. The results for manufacturing indicate that changes in the ratio of hours at work to hours paid had effects on productivity, as presently reported, of 0.1 percent or less for the periods under examination. Summary b l s measures show that, after a period of strong growth in both multifactor productivity and output per hour from 1948 to 1973, there followed a period of little or no increase from 1973 to 1979. Since 1979, productiv ity growth has recovered partially in the private business and the private nonfarm business sectors. Only in manufacturing has the recovery been complete. An analysis of the 1973-79 slowdown in labor produc tivity shows that the major part of the slowdown cannot be explained by any of the factors examined to date in the b l s research program. This conclusion holds for all three of the sectors examined here—private business, private nonfarm business, and manufacturing. In this regard, the b l s results coincide with the analyses of most private researchers. Three of the four factors discussed in this article—growth in the capital-labor ratio, changes in labor composition, and a decline in the ratio of hours at work to hours paid—contributed in modest ways to the slowdown, while the fourth, the decline in the growth rate of r &d expenditures, did not. The major component of the deceleration in labor productivity was a slowdown in multifactor productivity that was not explained by these four factors. The partial recovery of labor productivity growth in private business and private nonfarm business after 1979 can be attributed largely to increases in the capital-labor ratio and to changes in the composition of the labor force. The other two factors— r &d expenditures and hours at work—did not contribute to this recovery. For manufacturing, the complete recovery in labor productiv ity growth after 1979 was due predominately to increased growth in multifactor productivity. □ -FOOTNOTES c k n o w l e d g m e n t : The authors thank Steven Rosenthal, who performed the computer calculations underlying this analysis. A 1Trends in Multifactor Productivity, 1948-81, Bulletin 2178 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1983); and Jerome A. Mark and William H. Waldorf, “Multifactor productivity: a new b l s measure,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1983, pp. 3-15. 2Output is defined as real gross product originating in a given sector, which is net of its intermediate inputs. For consistency with this output definition, the inputs include only the primary inputs of labor and capital, that is, they exclude intermediate inputs such as energy, nonenergy materials, and business services. In measures of multifactor productivity growth for detailed indus tries, output is more appropriately measured as deflated gross output of the industry, rather than deflated gross product originating. For consistency with this output measure, inputs for detailed industries should include purchased intermediate inputs as well as the primary inputs of labor and capital. For further discussion of these concepts and implementation of the measurement methods, see William Gullickson and Michael Harper, “Multifactor productivity in U.S. manufacturing, 1949-83,” Monthly Labor Review, October 1987, pp. 18-28; and Mark K. Sherwood, “Performance of multifactor productivity in the steel and motor vehicles industries,” Monthly Labor Review, August 1987, pp. 22-31. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 3The multifactor productivity measurement formula is derived from an assumed production relationship: Q(t) = A(t) f [K(t),L(t)J, where Q(t) is real output, K(t) is real capital input, L(t) is real labor input, and A(t) is an index of neutral technological progress or multifactor productivity. The development of this assumed production relationship into a measurement formula is based on the assumptions of perfect competi tion, Hicks neutral technical change, and constant returns to scale. Equation 1 in the text is an example of the measurement formulae that can be derived from this assumed production relationship. For addi tional discussion of this model and the assumptions underlying it, see Trends in Multifactor Productivity, 1948-8T, Mark and Waldorf, “Multifactor productivity: a new b l s measure”; Gullickson and Harper, “Multifactor productivity in U.S. manufacturing, 1949-83”; and Susan Powers, “The role of capital discards in multifactor productivity measurement,” Monthly Labor Review, forthcoming. 4A s mentioned in the preceding note, it is assumed that the production function is characterized by Hicks neutral technical change and constant returns to scale, and that there is perfect competition in input and output markets. 5The b l s multifactor productivity measures introduced in 1983 were extensively revised in 1986. The recent measures are based on revised basic data as well as a methodological improvement. The data revisions consist of new output data for 1948 to 1984 and new capital input data for the same years. The methodological revision is an improvement in 19 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Changes in the Growth o f U.S. Multifactor Productivity the technique for measuring capital inputs. These improvements are described in detail in the appendix to this article. The 1986 revisions were first reflected in the data presented in an October 1986 news release, “Multifactor Productivity Measures, 1985,” u s d l 86— 402 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Oct. 2, 1986). Further minor revisions were reflected in the October 1987 news release, “Multifactor Productivity Measures, 1986,” u s d l 87^136 (Bureau of Labor Statis tics, Oct. 13, 1987). The measures presented in tables 1, 2, and 3 of this article are consistent with the October 1987 release. 6For examples, see the numerous references in Edward Denison, Trends in American Economic Growth, 1928-1982 (Washington, The Brookings Institution, 1985). 9Sveikauskas, “The contribution of r & d ” ; and Leo Sveikauskas, “Research and Development and Productivity Growth,” paper pre sented at the annual meetings of the American Economic Association, New Orleans, l a , December 1986. 10William H. Waldorf, Kent Kunze, Larry Rosenblum, and Michael B. Tannen, “New Measures of the Contribution of Education and Experience to U.S. Productivity Growth,” paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Economic Association, New Orleans, l a , December 1986. '’According to data from the Current Population Survey, in 1959, about 12 percent of the work force was between 18 and 24 years old and 50 percent of the total work force had graduated from high school. In 1969, 18- to 24-year-olds were about 17 percent of the work force and 64 percent of the total had a high school education or better. As of 1979, 18- to 24-year-olds were more than 19 percent of the work force and 75 percent of the work force had graduated from high school. By 1986, persons 18 to 24 had dropped to just over 16 percent of the work force, while 80 percent of the work force had graduated from high school. 7See J.R. Norsworthy and L.J. Fulco, “Productivity and costs in the private economy, 1973,” Monthly Labor Review, June 1974, pp. 3-9. The authors found an increase in labor productivity growth of 0.3 percentage points in the private economy between 1948 and 1973 due to the shift of employment and hours from the farm to the nonfarm sector. The difference between the private economy and private business is that the former includes nonprofit institutions, households, and government enterprises, which combined represent about 8.5 percent of gross national product. 12Waldorf, Kunze, Rosenblum, and Tannen, “New Measures of the Contribution of Education and Experience to U.S. Productivity Growth.” 8The stock of R&D is equivalent to accumulated expenditures, depreci ated each year at a rate of 10 percent. See Leo Sveikauskas, “The contribution of R&D to productivity growth,” Monthly Labor Review, March 1986, pp. 16-20. l3These estimates are based on preliminary b l s research. See Edward Denison, Trends in American Economic Growth, 1929-1982 (Washing ton, The Brookings Institution, 1985), and earlier studies by the same author, for use of the older estimates in measures. APPENDIX: Recent revisions to multifactor productivity measures This appendix describes two revisions made in the b l s multifactor productivity measures after they were intro duced in 1983. One set of revisions involved the introduc tion of new output and capital input data for 1948 to 1984, developed using revised National Income and Product Accounts data released by the Bureau of Eco nomic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce in December 1985 and January 1986. The second revision is a methodological improvement in the technique for measuring capital inputs. Revised data In December 1985 and January 1986, the Bureau of Economic Analysis released revised national accounts data for the years 1929-84, which caused b l s to revise its computations of output and capital input for the entire period covered by its multifactor productivity measures, which begins in 1948. The revisions in the national accounts statistics were of two types, statistical changes and definitional and classification changes. The latter changes mainly affected components of gross national product—for example, output of general government— that b l s excludes from its measures of the output of the private business sector of the economy, and so need not be examined in a discussion of output revisions. Private business sector output is gross national product minus general government, government enterprises, nonprofit institutions, the household sector, owner-occupied hous ing, the statistical discrepancy, and the rest-of-the-world sector. (For further discussion, see Trends in Multifactor 20 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Productivity, Bulletin 2178 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1983), appendix F; and Jerome A. Mark, “Measuring single-factor and multifactor productivity,” Monthly L a bor Review, December 1986, pp. 3-11.) The statistical changes in the national accounts af fected the b l s measures of output as well as the measures of capital input. The output measures were most affected by four important statistical changes: • Data from regularly used sources that appear less often than annually—for example, the 1977 input-output tables—were incorporated into the accounts. • The Bureau of Economic Analysis made improved adjustments for misreporting on tax returns, some times misleadingly referred to as “underground econ omy adjustments.” These adjustments were based on studies of the underreporting of income on tax returns and nonfiling of the returns. • The base year for computation of the accounts was changed from 1972 to 1982. Hence, constant-dollar output series were computed using 1982, rather than 1972, prices. • A price index for computers was introduced. For merly, it had been assumed that computer prices had not changed over time. The new index showed an average annual decline in computer prices, after ad justment for quality change, of 14 percent per year between 1969 and 1984. The b l s measures of capital services inputs are pre pared using, among several data sources, Bureau of Table A-1. Original and revised measures of multifactor productivity growth and related measures, private business, private nonfarm business, and manufacturing, 1948-841 [In p e rce n t] 1948-73 1979-84 1973-79 Sector Previous2 Revised3 3 .7 3 .6 1.7 2 .0 3 .6 3.4 1.6 2 .0 - 0 .1 - .2 -.1 3 .9 3 .6 2.1 1.7 3 .8 3 .5 2.1 1.7 -.1 -.1 4 .0 3 .4 1.8 2 .2 3 .9 3 .7 1.8 2 .0 -.1 .3 Difference Previous2 Revised3 2.7 3 .2 2 .3 .4 2 .5 3 .4 2 .4 .1 2 .8 3 .3 2 .5 .3 2 .0 3.5 1.3 .7 Difference Previous2 Revised3 Difference - 0 .2 .2 .1 - .3 2.3 2 .9 1.5 .8 2 .0 3 .6 1.8 .2 - 0 .3 .7 .3 - .6 2 .5 3 .7 2 .6 -.1 -.3 .4 .1 -.4 2 .3 3 .0 1.6 .7 2 .0 3 .7 1.9 .1 - .3 .7 .3 - .6 1.9 3 .8 1.4 .5 -.1 .3 .1 -.2 1.3 2 .0 -.5 1.8 1.4 2 .5 - .4 1.9 .1 .5 .1 .1 Private business4 O u t p u t ................................................................... C a p ita l s e r v ic e s ............................................... C o m b in e d in p u ts 5 .......................................... M u ltifa c to r p ro d u c tiv ity 6 .............................. - Private nonfarm business4 O u t p u t ................................................................... C a p ita l s e r v ic e s ............................................... C o m b in e d in p u ts 5 .......................................... M u ltifa c to r p ro d u c tiv ity 6 .............................. - - Manufacturing O u t p u t ................................................................... C a p ita l s e r v ic e s ............................................... C o m b in e d in p u ts 5 .......................................... M u ltifa c to r p ro d u c tiv ity 6 .............................. - - .2 1 A v e ra g e a n n u a l c o m p o u n d ra te s . 2 P re s e n te d in " M u lt if a c t o r P ro d u c tiv ity M e a s u r e s , " usdl 8 5 - 4 0 5 (B u re a u o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s , O c t. 3, 1 9 8 5 ). 3 P re s e n te d in " M u lt if a c t o r P ro d u c tiv ity M e a s u re s , 1 9 8 6 ," usdl 8 6 - 4 0 2 (B u re a u o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s , O c t. 2, 1 9 8 6 ). Economic Analysis data on real gross investment in depreciable assets and inventories. These real investment data also were revised in December 1985 and January 1986, along with other components of the national accounts. The four statistical changes mentioned in the discussion of output revisions, as well as two definitional and classification changes, all affected the series on real gross investment in depreciable assets. The two defini tional and classification changes were the capitalization of replacement railroad track and the capitalization of major replacements to residential structures, such as roofs and heating systems. The b l s measures of capital inputs were also affected by two other changes in procedures: (1) The Bureau of Economic Analysis adopted new—and usually longer— asset lives for several assets. The b l s uses these asset lives in developing measures of capital stocks from real gross investment data, utilizing the perpetual inventory method; and (2) for the first time, the Bureau of Economic Analysis prepared real gross investment data for 61 industries, essentially those industries at the twodigit level of the Standard Industrial Classification (sic) system maintained by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, in addition to investment data for major economic sectors. Using these disaggregated investment data, b l s prepared revised total productive capital stocks for each asset type for each major sector. These stocks were combined, using specially prepared weights, to provide measures of capital inputs for each major sector. The methods used in computation of productive capital stocks and in developing weights for each asset type were https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis E x c lu d e s g o v e rn m e n t e n te rp ris e s . 5 H o u rs o f a ll p e rs o n s c o m b in e d w ith c a p ita l s e rv ic e s in p u ta n d w e ig h te d w ith la b o r a n d c a p ita l s h a re s in th e v a lu e o f o u tp u t. 6 O u tp u t p e r u n it o f c o m b in e d la b o r a n d c a p ita l in p u t. the same as those described in Trends in Multifactor Productivity, appendix C, with the single exception of the methodological improvement described in the next sec tion of this appendix. Finally, the Bureau of Economic Analysis revisions of late 1985 and early 1986 included revised data on incomes of capital and labor, and therefore led to changes in the shares of capital and labor in the value of output, the sk and s/ terms discussed in connection with text equation 1. The revised data on capital income also affected the weights used to aggregate different produc tive capital stocks to produce a measure of aggregate capital services. The Bureau of Economic Analysis described its revi sions in several articles in its monthly publication, Survey o f Current Business, in 1984 to 1986. Among these articles were Robert P. Parker, “Improved Adjustments for Misreporting of Tax Return Information Used to Estimate the National Income and Product Accounts, 1977,” June 1984, pp. 17-25; John A. Gorman and others, “Fixed Private Capital in the United States,” July 1985, pp. 36-57; “Revised Estimates of the National Income and Product Accounts of the United States, 1929-85: An Introduction,” December 1985, pp. 1-33; and Roseann Cole and others, “Quality-Adjusted Price Indexes for Computer Processors and Selected Peripheral Equipment,” January 1986, pp. 41-50. A methodological improvement The methodological improvement in the measurement of capital inputs affected the weights used to aggregate 21 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Changes in the Growth o f U.S. Multifactor Productivity productive capital stocks. These weights are calculated to reflect the importance of each type of capital stock in producing a flow of capital services. To compute these weights, an implicit rental price is calculated for each capital asset. One of the variables in the equation used to estimate the rental price is a capital appreciation term. In 1983, when the b l s measures were introduced, this capital appreciation term was the annual change in the price of the asset. The 1983 adoption by b l s of this “annual first difference” estimate accorded with the then-dominant view of specialists in productivity measurement. Since 1983, b l s researchers, in collaboration with academic specialists, have determined that computation of capital appreciation using a 3-year moving average is superior to an annual first difference estimate. This 22 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis conclusion follows careful examination of the theory of price expectations as well as empirical tests of the relative performance of alternative ways of measuring capital appreciation. This work is described in Michael J. Harper, Ernst R. Berndt, and David O. Wood, “Rates of Return and Capital Aggregation Using Alternative Rental Prices,” Working Paper 170 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, July 1987). The effects of the revisions and improvements de scribed in this appendix are shown in table A -l. This table compares the b l s measures of output, capital services inputs, combined capital and labor inputs, and multifactor productivity before and after the revisions, as reflected in the data presented in the news releases of October 3, 1985, and October 2, 1986. Wage adjustments in contracts negotiated in private industry in 1987 Many o f the measures were up slightly from the historic lows o f last year; time will tell if this merely reflects the mix o f industries reaching agreement, or if the declines that began in 1982 are reversing J o h n J. L a c o m b e II and F e h m id a R . Sl e e m i Average wage adjustments under major collective bar gaining settlements in private industry were somewhat higher in 1987 than the historic lows of 1986. Specified adjustments (the net effect of decisions to increase, decrease, or not change wages) for the 2,049,000 workers under 1987 settlements averaged 2.2 percent the first contract year and 2.1 percent a year over the contract term. (See table 1.) These adjustments were next to the lowest ever registered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 20-year-old series on major contract settlements covering 1,000 workers or more in private industry.1 This was the sixth consecutive year in which settlements provided record or near-record low adjustments. (See table 2.) The 2.1-percent average annual wage adjustment speci fied over the term of 1987 settlements was the same as in the contracts they replaced, which typically had been negotiated in 1984 or 1985. This is the first year since this comparison was introduced in 1981 that settlements did not call for lower adjustments than the contracts they replaced. (See table 2.) The Bureau also measures compensation (wage and benefit costs) adjustments in settlements covering 5,000 workers or more. In 1987, compensation adjustments John J. Lacombe II and Fehmida R. Sleemi are economists in the Office of Compensation and Working Conditions, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis averaged 3.0 percent in the first contract year and 2.6 percent annually over the contract term. (See table 3.) These adjustments also were higher than the record low averages in 1986. Replaced contracts In 1987, bargainers replaced contracts that had pro vided total effective wage adjustments (specified adjust ments plus cost-of-living adjustments) of 2.6 percent a year. About the same time that most of these contracts were in effect (between December 1983 and December 1986), the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers ( c p i -w ) also rose 2.6 percent a year. Inflation, therefore, was not a prominent concern among bargainers, even though the c p i -w increased 4 .5 percent during 1987, compared with 0.7 percent in 1986. Total wage adjustments were smaller, on average, under contracts that were replaced in 1987 than under those replaced in 1986. This was the fifth consecutive year in which this occurred, reflecting recent declines in both specified wage adjustments and cost-of-living adjustments ( c o l a ’s), c o l a ’s declined because of the slowdown in the rate of inflation in the last few years and the drop in the proportion of workers under major agreements with c o l a clauses, c o l a coverage fell from 57 percent at the end of 1985 to 38 percent at the end of 1987. 23 M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Major Contracts Negotiated in Private Industry Settlements in 1987 About 2,049,000 workers, or one-third of those cov ered by major agreements in private industry, were under 1987 settlements. Terms were mixed, reflecting condi tions in the various industries. In some industries (for example, steel and automobile manufacturing), negotia tions were influenced by competitive pressures from abroad. In others (particularly, construction and food stores), regional conditions, such as the strong economy in New England and the weak economy in the South Central States, played a dominant role. About 1,490,000 workers had first-year wage increases averaging 3.5 percent, 474,000 had no wage change, and the remainder suffered wage cuts averaging -8.5 percent. Subsequent increases for 259,000 workers with a firstyear wage decrease or freeze will yield a net gain over the contract term. Thus, by the end of their 1987 agreements, 1,749,000 workers will receive average annual wage increases of 2.6 percent, 221,000 will experience no wage change, and the remainder will have an average decrease of -3.7 percent a year. Wage increases and freezes were negotiated in a variety of industries; cuts, however, were concentrated in retail food stores, steel manufacturing, and construction. Table 1. Wage adjustments in collective bargaining settlements covering 1,000 workers or more in private industry, 1987 Over life of contract First year Measure Average adjust ment (percent) Workers (thou sands) Average annual adjust ment (percent) 2,049 920 1,129 1,063 986 2.1 1.5 2.5 1.2 3.0 2,049 920 1,129 1,063 986 both lum p sum s and c o l a .... lum p sum s or c o l a , o r b o th .. lum p sum s, but no c o l a .......... c o l a , but no lum p s u m s .......... n eith er lum p sum s nor c o l a .. 2.1 1.9 .6 3.1 2.7 771 1,212 292 149 837 1.2 1.4 1.3 2.9 3.0 771 1,212 292 149 837 M a n u fa c tu rin g ................................................ W ith c o la c la u s e s ................................. W ith o ut c o la c la u s e s ........................... W ith lum p sum s .................................... W ith o u t lum p sum s .............................. 2.1 2.4 1.3 1.9 2.5 912 644 268 673 239 1.3 1.0 2.1 .9 2.6 912 644 268 673 239 b oth lum p sum s and c o l a .... lum p sum s o r c o l a , o r b o th .. lum p sum s, but no c o l a .......... c o l a , but no lum p s u m s .......... n eith er lum p sum s n or c o l a .. 2.5 1.9 - 1 .3 1.9 2.7 579 738 94 65 174 .9 .9 .3 1.5 3.0 579 738 94 65 174 N o n m a n u fa c tu rin g ........................................ W ith c o la c la u s e s ................................. W ith o ut c o la c la u s e s ........................... W ith lum p s u m s .................................... W ith o ut lum p sum s .............................. 2.3 1.9 2.4 1.2 2.8 1,137 276 861 390 747 2.7 2.7 2.7 1.9 3.1 1,137 276 861 390 747 W ith W ith W ith W ith W ith both lum p sum s and c o la .... lum p sum s or c o l a , or b o th .. lum p sums, but no c o l a .......... c o l a , but no lum p s u m s .......... n eith er lum p sum s nor c o l a .. .9 1.7 1.5 4.1 2.7 191 475 199 85 662 2.1 2.3 1.8 3.9 3.0 191 475 199 85 662 A ll industries, e xcluding c o n s tru c tio n .. N o nm anufacturing, excluding c o n s tru c tio n ................................. C o n s tru c tio n ................................................... G oo d s p ro d u c in g ......................................... S ervice p ro d u c in g ........................................ 2.0 1,662 1.8 1,662 1.9 2.9 2.3 1.9 750 387 1,299 750 2.5 3.1 1.8 2.5 750 387 1,299 750 All in d u s trie s ................................................. W ith c o la c la u s e s ................................. W ith o ut c o la c la u s e s ........................... W ith lum p s u m s .................................... W ith o ut lum p sum s .............................. 3.5 2.9 4.1 2.9 4.1 1,490 766 724 748 742 2.6 1.7 3.5 1.5 3.8 1,749 858 891 934 815 W ith both lum p sum s and c o l a .... W ith lum p sum s o r c o l a , o r b o th .. W ith lum p sum s, but no c o l a .......... 2.7 3.0 3.9 637 876 111 1.4 1.7 2.1 722 1,069 211 W ith W ith W ith W ith W ith Settlements providing wage increases 24 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Average adjust ment (percent) Workers (thou sands) Average annual adjust ment (percent) Workers (thou sands) Continued—Settlements providing wage increases 2.2 2.3 2.1 1.7 2.7 W ith W ith W ith W ith W ith Measure Workers (thou sands) All settlements All In d u s trie s ................................................. W ith c o la c la u s e s ................................. W ith o ut c o la c la u s e s ........................... W ith lum p sum s .................................... W ith o ut lum p sum s .............................. Over life of contract First year W ith c o l a , but no lum p s u m s .......... W ith n eith er lum p sum s n or c o l a .. 4.0 4.2 128 613 3.2 3.9 135 680 M a n u fa c tu rin g ................................................ W ith c o la c la u s e s ................................. W ith o ut c o la c la u s e s ........................... W ith lum p s u m s .................................... W ith o ut lum p sum s .............................. 3.0 2.8 3.8 2.7 3.8 721 576 145 548 173 1.6 1.1 3.4 1.1 3.4 779 599 180 592 187 both lum p sum s and c o la .... lum p sum s or c o l a , o r b o th .. lum p sum s, but no c o l a .......... c o l a , but no lum p s u m s .......... n eith er lum p sum s, n or c o la . 2.8 2.8 2.6 3.0 4.1 523 601 25 54 120 1.0 1.1 1.6 1.8 4.1 544 646 47 55 133 N o n m a n u fa c tu rin g ........................................ W ith c o la c la u s e s ................................. W ith o ut c o la c la u s e s ........................... W ith lum p sum s .................................... W ith o ut lum p sum s .............................. 4.0 3.3 4.2 3.3 4.2 769 189 580 201 568 3.4 3.0 3.5 2.4 3.9 970 259 712 342 628 both lum p sum s and c o la .... lum p sum s or c o l a , or b o th .. lum p sum s, but no c o l a .......... c o l a , but no lum p s u m s .......... n eith er lum p sum s nor c o l a .. 2.5 3.6 4.3 4.6 4.2 115 275 86 75 494 2.4 2.7 2.3 4.1 3.9 178 422 164 81 548 A ll industries, e xcluding c o n s tru c tio n .. N o nm an u fa cturin g, excluding c o n s tru c tio n ...................................... C o n s tru c tio n ................................................... 3.3 1,195 2.3 1,435 3.9 4.2 474 295 3.0 4.2 656 314 G oo d s p ro d u c in g ......................................... S ervice p ro d u c in g ........................................ 3.3 3.9 1,016 474 2.3 3.0 1,093 656 All in d u s trie s ................................................. W ith c o la c la u s e s ................................. W ith o u t c o la c la u s e s ........................... W ith lum p s u m s .................................... W ith o u t lum p sum s .............................. -8 .5 -7 .9 -8 .7 -8 .4 -8 .7 85 20 65 45 41 -3 .7 -2 .2 -4 .2 -2 .5 -5 .2 79 20 59 45 34 M a n u fa c tu rin g ................................................ N o n m a n u fa c tu rin g ........................................ -8 .0 -8 .8 32 53 - 2 .1 -4 .8 32 47 All industries, e xcluding c o n s tru c tio n .. N onm an u fa cturin g, excluding c o n s tru c tio n ...................................... C o n s tru c tio n ................................................... G oo d s p ro d u c in g ......................................... S ervice p ro d u c in g ....................................... -8 .2 76 -2 .7 70 -8 .4 - 1 1 .1 -8 .7 -8 .4 44 9 41 44 -3 .2 - 1 1 .6 -4 .2 -3 .2 38 9 41 38 W ith W ith W ith W ith W ith W ith W ith W ith W ith W ith Settlements providing wage decreases Lump-sum payments Contracts covering 1,063,000 workers, or 52 percent of the total, provided lump-sum payments. (See table 1.) Such payments are typically made instead of, or to supplement, wage increases, or are used to offset wage cuts. Lump-sum payments are excluded from the adjust ment data in the major collective bargaining series. Wage adjustments for workers under settlements providing lump-sum payments averaged 1.2 percent annually over the contract term, compared with 3 percent under settlements without lump sums. About nine-tenths of the workers with the provision in their 1987 settlements also will receive wage increases over the contract term. Lump sums were negotiated in a variety of industries, but were found primarily in automobile manufacturing, retail food stores, and trucking. cola clauses Table 2. Specified average wage adjustments in private industry settlements reached in 1982-87 and in previous agreements [In p e rc e n t] Settlem en ts reached in year Previous agreem ent Year https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Industry First year adjustm ent (percent) Annual adjustm ent o v e r life of contract (percent) W orkers (tho u sands) A ll In d u s t r ie s ........................................ W ith cola c la u s e s ........................ W ith o u t cola c la u s e s ................. M a n u fa c tu rin g ....................................... W ith cola c la u s e s ........................ W ith o u t cola c la u s e s ................. N o n m a n u fa c tu rin g ............................. W ith cola c la u s e s ........................ W ith o u t cola c la u s e s ................. 3 .0 3 .2 2 .7 3.1 3 .4 2.1 2 .9 2 .7 3 .0 2 .6 2 .3 2 .9 2.1 2 .0 2 .3 3.1 3 .2 3.1 1 ,3 1 6 778 537 705 546 159 611 232 379 2 .8 2 .3 1 ,1 9 5 2 .4 4 .9 2 .7 4 .6 490 121 3 .4 2 .4 2 .4 2 .7 826 490 A ll in d u s trie s , e x c lu d in g c o n s t r u c t io n ..................................... N o n m a n u fa c tu rin g , e x c lu d in g c o n s t r u c t io n ..................................... C o n s tr u c t io n .......................................... G o o d s p ro d u c in g .............................. S e rv ic e p r o d u c in g ............................. Settlements with c o l a clauses covered 920,000 work ers, or 45 percent of those under 1987 settlements, c o l a ’s are designed to adjust wages based on changes in consumer prices. The amount of the adjustment depends on the formula used to link price and wage changes, the timing of c o l a reviews, and possible limitations on the amount of c o l a changes. Generally, c o l a ’s do not recover the full amount of the percentage change in prices. Almost all of the c o l a clauses use the U.S. city average c p i -w to adjust wages; only a few use the c p i for a locality. The most common clause calls for a 1-cent wage increase for each 0.3-point or 0.26-point increase in the index, and for quarterly reviews of price change. Potential wage changes resulting from c o l a clauses that depend on future changes in the c p i , unknown at the time of settlement, are excluded from settlement data. Wage changes from c o l a ’s are included in the “effective wage adjustments” data. “Guaranteed,” or minimum, c o l a payments specified in the contract are included in settlement data, but such payments are not considered c o l a ’s because they are determined at the time the contract is reached and do not depend on the movement 1982........................ 1983........................ 1984........................ 1985........................ 1986....................... 1987........................ Table 3. Average compensation (wage and benefit costs) adjustments in settlements covering 5,000 workers or more in private industry, 1987 First year O ver-th elife First year O ver-th elife 3.8 2.6 2.4 2.3 1.2 2.2 3.6 2.8 2.4 2.7 1.8 2.1 8.5 9.3 5.9 3.9 3.5 2.0 6.6 6.8 4.9 3.7 3.2 2.1 of a price index. Payments above the specified amount that are contingent on changes in the c p i , however, are treated as c o l a ’s . Wage adjustments averaged 1.5 percent annually over the contract term in settlements with c o l a clauses, compared with 2.5 percent in settlements without, c o l a clauses were found in a variety of industries, but were most prominent in transportation equipment manufacturing. c o l a clauses were dropped or suspended in settlements covering 79,000 workers (57,000 of them were in the steel industry), or 8 percent of the workers under 1987 settlements who had such clauses in their previous agreements. In contrast, only 5,200 workers had c o l a clauses established during the year. These developments contributed to lowering the proportion of workers under major private industry bargaining agreements with c o l a clauses from 40 percent at the end of 1986 to 38 percent at the end of 1987. c o l a clauses and lump-sum pay provisions applied to substantially larger proportions of manufacturing than of nonmanufacturing workers under 1987 settlements. In manufacturing, seven-tenths of the workers were covered by c o l a ’s and three-fourths by settlements calling for lump-sum payments; in nonmanufacturing, corresponding proportions were one-fourth and one-third. Specified wage adjustments (excluding c o l a ’s and lump sums) over the contract term averaged 1.2 percent annually in manufac turing, compared with 2.7 percent in nonmanufacturing. Back- and front-loaded contracts Contracts which call for lower specified wage adjust ments in the first year than in subsequent years (backloaded contracts) covered about 26 percent of the 2,049,000 workers under 1987 settlements. This cost- 25 M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Major Contracts Negotiated in Private Industry curbing practice of delaying wage increases was rare in multiyear settlements reached before 1983. Back-loaded settlements provided wage adjustments averaging 0.1 percent in the first contract year and 2.3 percent annually over their term. Of the 532,000 workers under back-loaded contracts, 252,000 had wage freezes in the first contract year; 201,000 received smaller increases in the first year than in following years; and the remainder had wage cuts in the first year, but no additional decreases over the term of their multiyear agreements. The largest numbers of workers under backloaded contracts were in construction and retail food stores. About 55 percent of the workers under 1987 settle ments were covered by front-loaded contracts (those with larger wage adjustments in the first contract year than in later years). Wage adjustments in these contracts aver aged 3.6 percent in the first year and 2.3 percent a year over the life of the contract. Nearly one-half of the workers under front-loaded settlements were in transpor tation equipment manufacturing. The remaining workers under 1987 settlements were covered either by 1-year agreements or multiyear con tracts providing equal wage adjustments each year. Major negotiations Following are descriptions of 1987 settlements that covered the largest number of workers.2 These were in transportation equipment manufacturing, construction, retail food stores, United Parcel Service, and primary metal manufacturing. Transportation equipment. Approximately 574,000 work ers were covered by 27 settlements reached in 1987 in the transportation equipment manufacturing industry. They accounted for almost two-thirds of the workers under settlements in manufacturing. The United Automobile Workers settled with Ford Motor Co. in late September for 104,000 workers, and with General Motors in early October for 335,000 workers. These two contracts cov ered more than three-fourths of the workers under 1987 settlements in the industry. Most of the remaining workers were under settlements between the United Automobile Workers and Rockwell International Corp.’s Aerospace Group, McDonnell Douglas Corp., General Dynamics, and other aerospace manufacturing firms; and between the United Steelworkers and Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Co. The 3-year pacts negotiated at General Motors and Ford provided an immediate 3-percent general wage increase, as well as lump-sum “performance bonuses” in 1988 and 1989 equal to 3 percent of the prior year’s earnings. The contracts retained the c o l a formula, which provided quarterly adjustments of 1 cent for each 0.26-point movement in the c p i . 26 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Overall, wage adjustments in transportation equip ment settlements averaged 2.3 percent in the first con tract year and 0.9 percent annually over their term. More than nine-tenths of the workers under these settlements are covered by contracts containing either lump-sum provisions or c o l a clauses, or both. Construction. Wage adjustments under settlements in the construction industry (covering nearly one-fifth of the workers under all 1987 settlements), averaged 2.9 percent in the first contract year and 3.1 percent annually over the contract term, and were higher than in all other industries. None of the settlements had lump-sum provi sions, and only a few had c o l a clauses. Reflecting improved economic conditions in some areas, the average settlement specified larger wage adjustments than the contract it replaced, in which specified adjustments averaged 2.0 percent in the first year and 2.4 percent a year over the term. The size of settlements reflected the role of local economic conditions in the industry’s negotiations. The largest increases were negotiated in New England and the Middle Atlantic States, while wage cuts were negotiated in the economically depressed South Central region. The following tabulation shows the average wage adjustment (in percent) negotiated in the construction industry in 1987, by region: First year All 1987 construction settlements........................... .......... 2.9 Northeast............................ .......... 5.0 New England................. .......... 5.5 Middle Atlantic ............. .......... 4.8 Midwest .............................. .......... 2.4 East North C entral....... .......... 2.5 West North C entral...... .......... 1.4 South................................... .......... -1.1 South A tlantic................ .......... 2.3 South Central................. .......... -4.5 West..................................... .......... 1.4 M ountain............................ .................. 7 Pacific.................................. .......... 1.7 Interregional ....................... .................. 2 Annually, over life o f contract 3.1 5.3 5.5 5.2 2.5 2.6 1.5 -.9 2.9 -4.7 1.6 .7 2.0 .2 The size of settlements also varied by type of construc tion. Annual wage adjustments over the life of the contract averaged 3.7 percent in general building con struction, 3.0 percent in special trades, and 2.2 percent in general construction, other than building. Retail food stores. The 1987 settlements negotiated in food stores specified lower average wage adjustments than the contracts they replaced. Adjustments averaged 0.5 percent in the first contract year and 1.6 percent annually over the life of the agreement, compared with corresponding averages of 2.1 percent and 1.3 percent the last time the parties bargained. The 1987 settlements covered 188,000 food store workers, or two-fifths of those under major agreements in the industry. Almost 50,000 workers had their wages cut or frozen under terms of their 1987 settlements. However, almost three-fourths of these workers will receive lump-sum payments either to offset all or part of the cuts, or instead of wage increases. Overall, contracts for two-thirds of the workers cov ered by 1987 settlements provide for lump-sum pay ments. Contracts with lump-sum provisions call for smaller wage adjustments over their terms (1.1 percent) than those without (2.6 percent). United Parcel Service. About 110,000 United Parcel Service employees represented by the Teamsters reached a 3-year national accord in 1987. An identical settlement for 4,800 workers in Illinois and Indiana was negotiated separately at the same time. The United Parcel Service pacts provided wage in creases of 30 cents an hour on August 1 of 1987, 1988, and 1989, as well as lump-sum payments of $1,000 for full-time workers and $500 for part-time workers on September 1, 1987, and December 1 of 1988 and 1989. A cola clause was continued unchanged; it provides annual adjustments when the formula yields pay in creases that exceed the guaranteed pay hikes plus in creased payments for health and welfare benefits. The settlement also phased out the “two-tier” wage scales established by previous contracts, so that all employees can reach the same maximum job rates. However, the new wage schedule lengthened the period required for new hires to progress through the rate structure. Primary metals. The 1987 settlements in the primary metals industry (covering almost 60,000 steel and alumi num workers) continued the pattern of wage cuts or freezes that began in 1983. The 1987 settlements pro vided average wage adjustments of -3.2 percent in the Table 4. Average effective wage adjustment in collective bargaining agreements covering 1,000 workers or more, 1979-87 [ I n p e rc e n t] Source Year 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 ............. ............. .............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. Total adjustment 9.1 9 .9 9 .5 6 .8 4 .0 3 .7 3 .3 2 .3 3.1 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis New agreements Deferred from prior agreements CO LA 3 .0 3 .6 2 .5 1.7 .8 .8 .7 .5 .7 3 .0 3 .5 3 .8 3 .6 2 .5 2 .0 1.8 1.7 1.8 3.1 2 .8 3 .2 1.4 .6 .9 .7 .2 .5 first year and -0 .8 percent a year over the term of the agreements. Prior to 1986, the largest steel companies bargained with the United Steelworkers of America as a coalition. The last round of talks saw the breakup of the coordi nated bargaining practice. The Steelworkers and most of the large steel companies reached agreements in 1986. However, there were 1987 settlements for three large companies—u sx Corp. (formerly U.S. Steel) in January, Allegheny Ludlum Industries, Inc., in March, and l t v Steel Corp. in September—and two smaller companies. After a 6-month work stoppage, u sx Corp. and the Steelworkers agreed to wage and benefit cuts. Part, and possibly all, of the cuts, however, could be offset by a new profit-sharing plan. Negotiations concluded at Allegheny Ludlum yielded no wage changes, but provided quarterly lump-sum payments (based on hours worked) and a $200 “contract signing” payment. l t v Steel, after seeking a bankruptcy reorganization under Chapter 11, renegotiated its 1986 agreement with the Steelworkers. The new contract froze wages and benefits for active employees, but restored pension pay ments which were discontinued after the bankruptcy filing. Contracts for almost half the workers covered by 1987 settlements in primary metals included provisions for lump-sum payments. Some workers will receive specified amounts. For others, payments will be based on time worked or tied to company profits. Four steel contracts suspended their c o l a clauses for the term of the agreement, but kept the contract language intact. The one settlement in aluminum continued the c o l a clause, consistent with other contracts in the industry. Wage adjustments effective in 1987 Wage adjustments put into effect in 1987 averaged 3.1 percent for the 6.3 million workers under major agree ments. Although higher than the record low 2.3 percent registered in 1986, this was next to the lowest average effective adjustment in the 20-year history of this series. The increase in the average effective adjustment in 1987 stemmed from higher adjustments in each of its three components: (1) settlements reached during the year, (2) deferred changes made under agreements reached prior to 1987, and (3) c o l a provisions. (See table 4.) Wage changes (increases and decreases) put into effect in 1987 averaged 3.6 percent for the 5.4 million workers who received them. All but 2 percent of those with wage changes had wage increases. The following tabulation shows the number of workers with wage changes effective in 1987 and the source and amount of the change: 27 M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Major Contracts Negotiated in Private Industry Workers Amount o f (thousands) change (percent) T otal........................................... 5,376 3.6 Increases................................. From 1987 settlements.... Deferred from prior agreements..................... From c o l a ...................................... 5,281 1,535 3.8 3.5 3,537 3.3 1,277 2.6 96 85 -7 .9 -8 .6 10 -4.1 Decreases............................... From 1987 settlements.... Deferred from prior agreements..................... From c o l a ...................................... 0 Some workers received pay changes from more than one source; thus, the sum of the number of workers receiving wage changes from each source does not equal the total. Of the 2,077,000 workers who had cost-of-living reviews in 1987, 1,277,000 received average c o l a in creases of 2.6 percent. Reviews for the rest of the workers yielded no wage change because the c p i did not change enough to produce one. Wage adjustments stemming from c o l a reviews in 1987 averaged 43 percent of the price change during c o l a review periods. Effective wage adjustments in major collective bar gaining agreements are reflected in the Bureau’s Employ ment Cost Index, which provides data on changes in 28 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis labor costs for both union and nonunion workers and in establishments of all employment sizes. During 1987, wages rose 2.6 percent for union workers, compared with 3.6 percent for nonunion workers, continuing a relation ship that began in 1983. M a n y o f t h e w a g e a d j u s t m e n t s t a t i s t i c s for collective bargaining agreements in 1987 show slight increases over historic lows recorded a year earlier. The differences between 1987 and 1986 averages were small, however, and 1987 adjustments were frequently lower than those observed for 1985. Furthermore, the settle ment data reflect the changing mix of industries and firms that reach agreements each year. Therefore, more time must pass before it would be appropriate to assess whether the decline in the size of settlements that began in 1982 was reversed or even halted in 1987. □ --------- FOOTNOTES--------'The major collective bargaining agreement series for private industry covers 6.3 million workers in bargaining units with at least 1,000 workers. For definition of terms, see “Current Labor Statistics” section of the Monthly Labor Review. Additional tabulations from this series are in the March 1988 issue of the Bureau of Labor Statistics periodical Current Wage Developments, which also contains data from a similar series for State and local government. 2For more detailed information on 1987 bargaining developments, see George Ruben, “A review of collective bargaining in 1987,” Monthly Labor Review, January 1988, pp. 24-37. Have the 1980’s changed U.S. industrial relations? Economic and political policies and demographic and social trends affected labor-management practices, but have caused no fundamental changes Jo h n T. D unlop Where are American industrial relations headed? Is a major transformation at hand, as some observers have urged?1 Or is our industrial relations system merely reacting to changes in the environment, some of which are reversible and others that reflect longer term secular change.2 At any one time there is both change in our industrial relations system and stability. Moreover, there are vari ous types of change: short-run and long-run, reversible and irreversible, peripheral and structural, small and large, or pervasive. How do we classify the changes of the past decade? There is a related problem of perspective or bias derived from the fact that change or new elements are said to be newsworthy by the media or current events school of academics, while the unchanged or stable escape the spotlight. We expect our newspapers to tell what is new each day, not that which is old hat. Carried over to industrial relations, this perspective, combined with igno rance of history, often distorts or fails to put into perspective the reporting, analysis, and prescription of the day. Transitory changes Several illustrations will underscore the necessity to be clear about what is new and what is continuing, and to distinguish among types of change. John T. Dunlop is Lamont University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University. An earlier version of this paper was presented in November at Queen’s University, Canada. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Two-tier wages. The first half of the 1980’s saw an expansion of what we have come to call “two-tier” wage and salary scales that provide lower rates for new hires in the same job classification, compared with incumbents. Although not unknown in earlier years, the growth of twotier pay in both collectively bargained and nonunion wage settings was one labor market response to severe industry competition, particularly in enterprises with a degree of labor turnover or significant new hires, like food chain stores and airlines. Two-tier compensation systems were established in perhaps 10 percent of collective agreements, on average, over the 1980-85 period.3 There is ready agreement, I believe, that the two-tier wage innovation is a temporary response to economic conditions and is not likely to persist long-term. Lower rates are inherently demoralizing for employees perform ing the same work, with the same skills. The concern with such adverse consequences led to provisions for the integration or convergence of most two-tier scales in a specified period. It is now clear, moreover, that as economic conditions improve, two-tier systems are being phased out. Thus, the two-tier wage development is to be charac terized as short-run, reversible, and peripheral, rather than fundamental or structural to the industrial relations system. This characterization in no way detracts from its role in some circumstances in having facilitated adjust ments and avoided more general wage concessions. A number of other compensation developments of the first half of the 1980’s share, I believe, the same essential characteristics of the two-tier wage systems. 29 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Have the 1980's Changed US. Industrial Relations? Lump-sum payments. The lump-sum payment, instead of an increase in the wage or salary rate, has been used widely. The rate increase yields a higher base for the next period, while the lump-sum payment constrains overtime earnings and costs, and similarly affects vacation pay, sick pay, and other fringes. As many as a third of recentyear settlements may include such provisions. Inciden tally, such payments distort changes in average hourly earnings or wage rate data as a reliable measure of the rate of increase in wages. Elimination o f c o l a 's . The elimination of cost-of-living adjustment ( c o l a ) clauses, or restricting their impact, has also been a development of the era.4 But it is well known that, at least since World War I, periods of inflation have seen the introduction and extension of such automatic wage-rate adjustments to rising living costs, while periods of relative stability have seen the elimina tion or constriction of such escalator provisions. Concessions. The general concessionary era in collective bargaining of the first half of the 1980’s, which is now largely over, is likewise to be interpreted as a response to the intense product market competition of the era derived from enhanced international competition, exchange rate policies, other macroeconomic policies, and deregulation of airlines, trucking, telephones, and the like. It has always been declining product prices, rather than unem ployment, that has put effective and severe downward pressure on wages and benefits.5 It is understandable that a current generation may not well appreciate the source of these “concessions” and believe that a new and different industrial relations order is at hand. It may be helpful to put recent events in historical perspective and to remember that average hourly earnings (in current dollars) for all manufacturing fell by 22 percent in the 1929 to 1933 period, while they increased by the same amount (22 percent) from 1981 to 1986. The magnitude of wage concessions, on average, in the current period has been minuscule relative to the Great Depression. Indeed, the unquestioned tendency to describe wage increases in recent years as “moderate” reflects a simple comparison with earlier absolute amounts without refer ence to their economic context. Compare, for instance, two years—one with a rise in money wages of 8 percent and a cost-of-living increase of 14 percent, as took place in 1979-80, with another year that had a rise in money wages of 2.2 percent and a cost-of-living increase of 1.9 percent, as took place in 1985-86.6 In which year was the wage behavior more moderate? In 1979-80, money wages were more “moderate” relative to the rate of increase of living costs, although they rose almost four times the absolute rate of increase of 1985-86. The standard of moderation for money compensation might be the cost- 30 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis of-living, productivity, or profitability, yielding different judgments as to moderation. A great many of the changes in industrial relations in the first half of the 1980’s commonly cited are seen to be transitory, short-run and reversible, or simply different relative to the environment. But are there not more fundamental changes? Changes in the environment The dynamic interactions among labor, management, and government in the environment of an industrial relations system, in particular the market and budgetary context, the technological settings, and the power context in the larger society, for me provide the tools to understanding what is happening to industrial relations outcomes. Changes in these features of the environment affect the three parties whose interaction, in turn, influences the environment and the outcomes. Like all theory, for me, this is a way of organizing my thinking about industrial relations analysis and forecasting.7 The late 1970’s and 1980’s have seen some significant changes in the environment, particularly in some sectors. We can expect still further changes, although some of them are reversible. The major changes may be briefly identified as follows: Macroeconomic policies cut taxes, expanded defense ex penditures, and built unprecedented budget deficits. Tight monetary policy and high interest rates brought down inflation, produced a severe recession and an overvalued dollar and unprecedented trade deficits. The United States became the largest debtor nation instead of the largest creditor country in a few short years. No industrial relations system can be expected to adapt in the short term to such wrenching and traumatic experience. In this macroeconomic setting, the industrial relations parties are more subject than ever before to international product-market competition, and an environment of slow economic growth creates added difficulties for all parties. Only when exchange rates have settled down will we be able to appraise the full consequences of this competition. The period accelerated a development of greater interna tional dependence that was already under way. Deregulation. The precipitate deregulation, both of entry and rates charged, in airlines and master-freight trucking had significant impact on industrial relations in those sectors. Similar, though lesser, consequences have arisen in railroads and telephones, underlining interdependen cies of product and labor markets that the sponsors of deregulation did not anticipate.8 Technology. In some sectors, new technology has helped to create new work environments that have come to prominence in the past decade. “Patterns of relations in new high technology firms differ considerably from those of traditional heavy industries. The differences are conse quences of different labor markets, skill levels, and workforce expectations, as well as resulting from man agement ideology or reactions to the disfunctions of union-management relations.”9 cally) with its open-ended and nonenforceable agree ments.11 The fixed duration—often 2 or 3 years—favors stability and concentration on mutual administration, but this feature may inhibit steady attention to structural changes that cannot wait several years. Demography. There are significant changes in the demog raphy of the work force that are affecting various aspects of industrial relations: the rapid expansion in the propor tion of women in the work force, the growth of the Hispanic labor force, the decline in the rate of growth of the work force, the aging of the population, the shift of population to the South and West, and greater formal educational levels. (An industrial relations system is likely to be able to adapt more readily to such longer term secular changes than to absorb the consequences of rapid and extreme shifts in macroeconomic policies.) The decentralized character o f collective bargaining, com pared to that of most other Western countries. This feature derives in part from the size of the country, the diversity of its economic activity and the historic role of product markets in shaping the contours of collective bargaining. Recent events and the absence of tight labor markets have tended to create even more fractionated bargaining in some sectors, breaking up the basic steel negotiations and creating separate bargaining in the telephone industry, previously a single Bell system negotiations. Political climate. Finally, the political climate of the past 7 years has affected industrial relations. The hostility between an Administration and the labor movement has been unmatched in this century. The labor relations agencies have produced reverses in policy and uncertain ties that have not encouraged cooperative problem solving or consultation.10 All in all, some of the environment of the 1980’s will continue, some is likely to be reversed, and some will leave a continuing difficult legacy. Fundamental features in the U.S. system To appraise the extent and the depth of changes in the past decade in the industrial relations system of the United States, we must state briefly the major fundamen tal features of that system as it has evolved over the past. The most distinctive features, compared to the system of other countries, include the following: Exclusive representation—one union and only one union in a given job territory selected by majority vote. In contrast to continental Europe, with affiliations in the same job territory by religious and ideological attach ment, we developed the attribute of exclusive jurisdiction within the American Federation of Labor over 100 years ago and implanted the idea in law with the Railway Labor Act (1926) and the National Labor Relations Act (1935). Collective agreements that embody a sharp distinction between interpretation o f the agreement and negotiating a new agreement. The no-strike and no-lockout provision during the term of the agreement, the interpretation of the agreement by private arbitrators or umpire, and legitimate overt conflict confined to a negotiations period all derive from this fundamental distinction alien to the British system (from which we borrowed much histori https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Union organizations in the U.S. system are characterized by relatively high dues and large staffs necessary (in the absence of significant substantive intervention by govern ment) to negotiate and administer private decentralized agreements, including grievance arbitration, and to orga nize against massive employer opposition. Lobbying before legislative and administrative tribunals adds to these requirements. Employer opposition to union organization historically has been intense, compared to other countries and has been only slightly modified in its forms by 50 years of legislation.12 The opposition among smaller employers to labor organizations and to more social legislation can only be described as particularly intense. The role o f government in our industrial relations system over the years has been relatively passive in dispute resolution, although that varies with administrations, and highly legalistic in both administrative procedures and in the courts treating the most detailed matters and requir ing enormous lengths of time. As regulation has ex panded over health and safety, pension benefits, and equal employment opportunity, the litigious quality of relations has grown in many relationships. It is difficult to conclude that the events of the late 1970’s or 1980’s have altered in any fundamental way these features of the industrial relations arrangements of the United States. I have noted in passing some of the reinforcements, such as more decentralization that might be reversed to some degree with sustained high employ ment in a sector. But nothing of a systemic breaking or creating new features seems to me to have occurred. I am, of course, aware of the decline in the private sector labor movement with the growth of public sector labor organizations. But the economic and political environment has been most hostile. Sectors of union strength have declined and sectors devoid of unions have 31 M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Have the 1980’s Changed U.S. Industrial Relations? rapidly expanded. We have had even more severe periods in the past, as in the 1920’s. I am aware that workplaces under collective bargaining constitute a minority of all workplaces. But it is well said that “collective bargaining provides leadership to a much larger group in the labor force . . . Unionism still casts a long shadow over the non-union m ajority.” 13 But attention to the fundamen tals of the U.S. industrial relations system does not suggest to me any basic or profound transformation of these fundamental features. Labor-management cooperation The recent period has produced a number of widely publicized new instances of labor-management coopera tion that have led some commentators to express the view that our industrial relations system is becoming signifi cantly less adversarial and much more cooperative. The percentage of estimated working time lost in large strikes (involving 1,000 workers or more) is at a low level. The exceptional agreements between the United Auto Work ers ( u a w ) and Saturn (General Motors) and the u a w and the joint venture between Toyota and New United M otor M anufacturing, Inc. (General Motors), the worker participation programs at Ford Motor Co., a t &t , Xerox, and a number of major private companies, largely excluding the public sector, have received widespread attention.14 The expansion of worker participation in stock ownership, the tradeoff of wage and fringe conces sions for a share of ownership in some companies in financial difficulty and the election of labor organization candidates to a few board of directors are seen as symbolic of the new era of cooperation. But cases of labor-management cooperation have a long history in the United States, and in England they have been known under the term “joint consultation.” The distinction between collective bargaining and labormanagement cooperation, or joint consultation, can be simply stated. Under collective bargaining, there may be arbitration or resort to strike or lockout if there is not agreement, while under joint consultation or cooperation neither is appropriate if there is a failure to agree. Enforced consultation, save as the pressure of events or the environment, is a contradiction in terms. In the United States, the obligation to bargain in good faith under the National Labor Relations Act does not require programs of labor-management cooperation. There is a long experience with labor-management committees in the United States. The 1920’s and 1930’s produced such committees on the Baltimore and Ohio and the Canadian National railroads, in the Cleveland women’s garment industry, at the Naumkeag Steam Cotton Co., the Amalgamated Clothing Workers and the men’s clothing industry, and the Rocky Mountain Fuel Co. There were thousands of production committees 32 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis established in World War II. The National Planning Association case studies on the “Causes of Industrial Peace” belong to the late 1940’s and early 1950’s. Scanlon Plan companies are well known. I served as a member of the Kaiser Steel-Steelworkers Long Range Committee in the 1960’s. Is a new wave of labor-management cooperation changing U.S. industrial relations? My reading of history suggests not. Labor-management committees have functioned in only a relatively few collective bargaining relationships. As Sumner H. Slichter concluded more than 40 years ago: “In industry as a whole, the number of unions pursuing the policy of system atic cooperation is small . . . The traditional view of unions is that getting out production and keeping down costs is the employer’s responsibility . . . Unions had been bitterly opposed by most employers and have had to fight for the right to exist . . . Employers have not desired their help.” 15 In general, such labor-management committees appear to arise in response to threats to economic viability and job opportunities provided by the enterprise, locality, or sector, or under circumstances of special challenges and with the leadership of dedicated personalities who have the capacity to command unusual support in their respective organizations. Dramatic technological and market changes, a long work stoppage, the growth of competitive imports, or other threats also have led to joint committees. “ . . . The times when labor and management have cooperated over the years have been times when economic difficulties threatened the viability of both parties, as when international tensions necessi tated cooperation in the interest of national security. In these periods of crisis, collective bargaining alone had proved to be an inadequate forum for addressing each and every pressing issue.” 16 Slichter saw the main field of committees to be “in the high-cost establishments when equipment is semi-obsolete or the management is poor and where the union needs to do something to help its members hold their jobs.” 17 Historically, labor-management committees have had limited life spans, much shorter than collective bargain ing relationships. The central problem the committee was designed to consider may be resolved or pass; the special leadership may leave; the circumstances may change and a new set of urgent issues emerge; the vital neutral or the government official may disappear; or the willingness of both parties to cooperate may be undermined by internal considerations. The committee may vanish to be reincar nated with new leadership concerned with new problems. Contrary to much recent writing, labor-management committees are not a recent development. They go back to the early days of collective bargaining in this country and in England. The interstate joint conference in bituminous coal mining,18 the conciliation arrangements between the Bricklayers and the Mason Contractors in New York, Chicago, and Boston;19 and the impartial umpire institution in the clothing industries, going back as far as 70 or a 100 years, resemble joint committees in their attention to the basic problems of a sector and their discussions of cooperative means of meeting these issues, in addition to the function of negotiating collective agreements. Labor-management committees and their leadership on both sides are often plagued by internal tension in their choice between cooperation and conflict. Labor leaders can readily be undermined in their unions by policies, statements, and appearances that convey that they are too collaborative or too responsive to manage ment; they have sold out to management. Management members of joint committees likewise have inhibitions derived from long-held principles and attitudes relating to sharing confidential data and compromising manage ment prerogatives. The moderation or abandonment of traditional attitudes and procedures may prove to be adverse to the status of leaders of both sides. This problem is most sensitive and delicate. It may be well also to remember that there are ap proximately 60,000 enterprises in the United States, excluding those in agriculture, private households, the self-employed and the public sector. About 30 percent of these enterprises have fewer than 25 employees and only 42 percent have more than 500 employees. Stated in terms of employees, 21 percent of employees are in workplaces with less than 20 employees, 20 percent with 20-99 employees, 12 percent with 100-499 employees, and 47 percent in enterprises with more than 500 employees. These numbers indicate how decentralized and diffused are U.S. workplaces, and how unlikely it is for “a new industrial relations system” quietly and without notice to take shape in the country. Moreover, small enterprises are likely to be particularly resistant to participatory management. What does all of this say about the present state of industrial relations and about the future? I offer these conclusions. Perspective on the future There are significant new elements in the economic environment. A period of a bizarre macroeconomic setting is likely to yield to a more settled environment that is much more vulnerable to international pressures. Longer term, new elements in the demography exert influence: aging, women, Hispanics, educational levels, and geographical shifts, with new workplaces and indus tries. Technology changes skills and stability of employ ment. Deregulation has afflicted a few sectors. The political climate is not likely to remain in the mold of the first half of the 1980’s. A number of developments of the early 1980’s are reversible and are passing, such as two-tier wage and salary schedules, lump-sum payments, and escalator clauses. The era has seen labor directors in a few enterprises, but this tendency is not likely to expand. There have been new centers of concern such as health care costs, health for retirees, occupational health and safety, quality of output, drug and alcohol abuse, family issues such as day care, and skill training, particularly in large enterprises requiring substantial out-placement of employees. These latter interests are likely to persist. There has been no massive shift in the methods of management, no wide adoption of worker participation in management nor dimunition of management hostility to labor organizations. Instances of labor-management cooperation or joint consultation are significant, but they are relatively rare as they have been historically. The concern over sharing information and the difficulties of participatory management are overcome in circum stances that threaten survival. Union leaders are con cerned about being too collaborative as seen by constituents who elect them. The basic features of U.S. industrial relations arrange ments have not been altered, although the output of the system may be expected to change in the new environment. The labor movement in the United States is here to stay. It is adapting its methods to the new environment; already we have seen the reversal of a number of prominent losses and the penetration of some new fields. □ -FOOTNOTES 'According to the “New Industrial Relations,” Business Week, May 11, 1981, p. 85: “Quietly, almost without notice, a new industrial relations system with a fundamentally different way of managing people is taking shape in the U.S. Its goal is to end the adversarial relationship that has grown between management and labor and that now threatens the competitiveness of many industries.” An academic formulation that in important respects mirrors the same perspective is Thomas A. Kochan, Harry C. Katz, and Robert B. McKersie, The Transformation o f American Industrial Relations (New York, Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1986), p. 227: “We see the current moment as one of those historic periods of transformation in which existing institutional structures have been challenged and opened up to experimentation in ways that allow considerable choice in how to reconstruct and modify https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis them to best serve the interests of workers, employers, and society in general.” 2H.D. Woods and Sylvia Ostry, Labour Policy and Labour Economics in Canada (Toronto, Macmillan Company of Canada, Ltd., 1962), p. 497: “In every epoch of history, men are convinced that theirs is an age not merely of transition but of profound transformation.” 3Bureau of National Affairs, Daily Labor Report, No. 196, Oct. 13, 1987, pp. B1-B2. Also, see “National Mediation Board Report on TwoTier Wages in Airlines,” Bureau of National Affairs, Daily Labor Report, No. 116, June 17, 1985, pp. D 1 -D 4 ; and Sanford M. Jacoby and Daniel J.B. Mitchell, Management Attitudes Toward Two-Tier Pay Plans: An Analysis, 1985. 33 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Have the 1980's Changed U.S. Industrial Relations? 4Stuart E. Weiner, “Union Cola’s on the Decline,” Bureau of National Affairs, Daily Labor Report, No. 154, Aug. 11, 1986, pp. E1-E12. Relations Act (Washington, Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1987), pp. 1-15. 5John T. Dunlop, Wage Determination Under Trade Unions (New York, Macmillan and Co., 1944), pp. 144—48; John Dunlop, Clark Kerr, Richard Lester, and Lloyd Reynolds, in Bruce E. Kaufman ed., How Labor Markets Work, Reflections on Theory and Practice. (Lexington, D.C. Heath and Co., 1988), pp. 69-72. "Benjamin Aaron, “No Labour Courts, Little Arbitration; What’s Wrong with That?” Comparative Industrial Relations, A Trans-Atlantic Dialogue (Washington, Bureau of National Affairs, 1984), pp. 56-70. 6Wages are gross average hourly earnings in the total private nonagricultural economy. The cost-of-living index used is that for all urban consumers. 7John T. Dunlop, Industrial Relations Systems (New York, Henry Holt and Co., 1958). 8For a discussion of deregulation in trucking, see, D. Daryl Wyckoff, Truck Drivers in America (Lexington, Lexington Books, 1979). Safety, hours, wages, use of drugs and alcohol, and so forth, are related to the degree of product market regulation. John T. Dunlop, “Trends and Issues in Labor Relations in the Transportation Sector,” TR News, May-June 1985 (Washington, Transportation Research Board), pp. 1- 8 . 9Janice McCormick and D. Quinn Mills, “Discussion, Industrial Relations System in Transition,” Industrial Relations Research Associ ation, Proceedings o f the Thirty-Seventh Annual Meetings, December 28-30, 1984, p. 286. Also, see D. Quinn Mills, Not Like Our Parents: A New Look at How the Baby Boom Generation is Changing America (New York, William Morrow and Co., Inc., 1987). l0See John T. Dunlop, “The Legal Framework of Industrial Relations and the Economic Future of the United States,” in Charles J. Morris, ed., American Labor Policy, A Critical Appraisal o f the National Labor 34 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 12Paul Weiler, “Promises to Keep: Securing Workers’ Right to SelfOrganization Under the n l r a ,” Harvard Law Review, 96:1769, 1983. 13Janice McCormick and D. Quinn Mills, “Discussion, Industrial Relations System in Transition,” p. 289. 14See, for instance, Labor-Management Cooperation, Nos. 1-10 (July 1984-March 1987, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of LaborManagement Relations and Cooperative Programs); Jerome M. Rosow, ed., Teamwork, Joint Labor-Management Programs in America (New York, Pergamon Press, 1986); John T. Dunlop, Dispute Resolution, Negotiation and Consensus Building (Dover, Auburn House Publishing Co., 1984), pp. 225-78. "Sumner H. Slichter, Union Policies and Industrial Management (Washington, The Brookings Institution, 1941), pp. 561-62. 16U.S. Department of Labor, Labor Management Services Administra tion, The Operation o f Area Labor-Management Committees (Washing ton, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981), p. 25. "Slichter, Union Policies, p. 567. "Arthur E. Suffern, Conciliation and Arbitration in the Coal Industry o f America (Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1915). "Josephine Shaw Lowell, Industrial Arbitration and Conciliation (New York, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1893). How the 1980’s have changed industrial relations More cost-conscious management forced to respond to increased foreign competition and deregulation has shaped fundamental changes in the labor-management relationship — — A udrey Freedm an Union-management relations have undergone profound changes in the 1980’s. The changes have been wrought largely by a force external to union-management rela tions: competition—from abroad, from deregulation, and from nonunion companies. The result is that compensa tion and employment are both more flexible and adaptive than in the 1960’s and 1970’s. In my view, this shift has caused a fundamental change in human resource management practices. This is not a cyclical pattern of alternating ascendancy between labor unions and management. This article examines the cyclical analysis of unionmanagement relations in the light of evidence that the recent changes are broader and deeper than the tradi tional union-management dichotomy can encompass. The cyclical analysis Those who envision union-management relations as a pendulum, see the present period of industrial relations— a period characterized by lessening union power in bargaining and in organizing—as similar to previous eras. They see current bargaining outcomes as not new— and imply that they will be reversed. Some also assert that there is nothing new about specific techniques or Audrey Freedman is executive director of the Human Resources Program Group at The Conference Board. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis policies such as gainsharing, “lump sum” wage bonuses, security bargaining, and worker participation. This the ory suggests that within the world of union-management relations, the only change is the continual repetition of cycles as one party gains ascendancy over another for a time, and then gradually loses it as the other side regroups and acquires strength. Many union leaders, some third-party professionals such as mediators, and some longstanding management representatives hold this view. The cyclical point of view treats union-management relations as operating in a world within itself by classic power principles, played out by experienced practitioners of the labor relations arts. If some of these old-line labor relations experts think about human resources manage ment at all, it is as a union-avoidance strategy. Some even interpret every move toward worker participation as motivated by management desires to weaken and sup plant unions—everything is part of the closed-system power struggle between the two institutional adversaries. The change analysis The other point of view is a great deal more diffuse. It focuses on the pressures external to labor relations. It perceives the management of human resources as driven by incentives arising in the economic choices for the firm, within a larger economic, demographic, and social frame work of events and pressures. So management of human 35 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • How the 1980's Have Changed Industrial Relations resources is always being propelled toward adaptation to new business conditions. This approach views the decade of the 1980’s as a period of major change, in which the parties have had to adapt to a far more competitive business environment. As external competitive attack forced business to shift rapidly, to cut costs, to innovate, to enter other markets, to cede some product lines to others, to devise a flexible labor force strategy, the need to adapt broke open the formalized world of labor relations. Managers sought to get the most cost-effective use of their human resources, not to play the conven tional union relations game. In my view, these changes are still occurring and will not be reversed by some sort of cyclical return to the 1950’s. This is because the external economic and business world will not return to that era when U.S. enterprise dominated the world, when our technology was the most advanced, our capital was the major source for other countries’ economic growth, and our businesses had a very firm grip on all of the domestic and most of the world market. Just as the American automobile market will not again be totally dominated by a few domestic producers, so auto wages and working terms will not be set exclusively and “nationwide” by the u a w and one auto company, according to a fixed pattern. By now, domestic nonunion producers are creating a com petitive check on labor costs per unit of output. Non union domestic parts suppliers, foreign auto assemblers, foreign parts and subassembly makers, and a multiplicity of other competitive pressures are disciplining costs and quality in an industry that was once part of the “closed” labor relations system of the 1950’s and 1960’s. The power of unions to set industrywide wage levels and to relate these in “patterns” was based on the market power of strong domestic producers, or industries shel tered by regulation. As employers lost their market power in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, union wage dominance shrank and fragmented, narrowed down into the newly detailed segments into which competition was slicing markets. One union segment had to compete with another, and with nonunion segments here and abroad. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to imagine a pendulum-like return to the past. Perhaps the only factor that might accomplish this would be a political move toward “industrial policy,” or an economic planning system that might once again diminish competition. This may be the reason for union support of industrial policy proposals. Pressures on management W hat are the greatest influences or pressures on management in labor relations and bargaining? It has not been easy to discover, because any analysis of influences on union contracts is looking at outcomes—outcomes 36 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis that are themselves an effect of the union’s power in bargaining. So, The Conference Board asked managers directly in a late 1983/early 1984 survey. Most of the 499 respondents were labor relations managers. Pressure from competitors was identified as the most powerful influence on employee relations (from domestic competi tors, 164 companies; from foreign competitors, 29 com panies). An additional 82 identified “changing industry structure,” which parallels competition in effect. The only other choice of significance was recessionary condi tions, identified as most influential by 109 companies that were still feeling the aftereffects of 1982. From these responses we can conclude that labor-management rela tions is not a world unto itself, but that it has been deeply influenced by loss of market control, by competition that impinges on the resulting wage arrangements and on the managers’ drive for productivity gains.1 Because long-established conventions like the labor relations “system” are not easily disturbed, it seems reasonable to conclude that the double recessions of 1981 and 1982 sensitized both management and unions to the effect that competition was going to have upon their stable and institutionalized arrangements. At the time, many labor analysts described the situation as temporary, due to recession or individual company survival issues.2 Among these were most union spokesmen and academic analysts of collective bargaining, such as John T. Dunlop. But in 1988, with 5 full years of recovery behind us, the changes described as “temporary concessions” in 1983 are still present. In terms of wage-setting practices, management has shifted from following industry patterns, or imitative wage-setting behavior, toward internal cost concerns. Pressure from lower cost producers of goods and services has forced management bargainers to consider the wage rates, benefit costs, and productivity of specific business units and operations—in comparison to their competi tors’ costs and productivity. The objective is to get labor costs per unit of output to a point below that of the competition at the product-line level. Out of this ap proach has come wage-level differentiation, the break down of pattern bargaining.3 Economic conditions What has happened is that wages, even under union bargaining pressures, are now far more responsive to economic conditions at the industry and firm level, and even the product-line level, than they were in the 1970’s. The most direct way to test this is to ask of company labor relations managers: what information or factor most affects the company’s wage target in bargaining? The Conference Board asked this question in 1978, and again in 1983, of 197 identical bargaining units with the same line of business and the same union representation. There was a major shift in their answers. In 1978, the consideration of primary importance was “industry pat terns.” Just 5 years later, it was “productivity or laborcost trends in this company.” There was also a big drop in concern with (external) industry patterns. Other external factors also declined in importance: inflation rates, the effect of this settlement on other wage settle ments or nonunion wages or both, and union settlements in other industries.4 When the parties to an arrangement are being shaken by factors outside their control—in this case, by competi tors’ lower costs of operation—they are experiencing some major upheavals. The American collective bargain ing system, fortunately, is practical and flexible enough to allow the parties to adjust. I think it is appropriate to recognize the change that is occurring and analyze its positive results, rather than to insist that “nothing is changing”—that the closed system is calcified and undis turbed by signals from without. Nor do I see parallels in the post World-War I period to the current “state of American unions.” The factors causing change today are not at all internal to the “union-management institu tion.” They are, to be quite specific, Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai; Sanyo, NEC, Toshiba; Nucor, Pohang, and third-world steelmakers. They are dozens of new tele communications industries and companies springing up in a deregulated petri dish; new airlines, new routes, new services that seem constantly to be realigning old and stable business arrangements. One of these stable busi ness arrangements was union-management mutuality of interest (at a certain level of market protection or control). Withdraw that control or protection, and new arrangements must be made. Claim “nothing new is happening” and you miss the drama of adaptation as it is taking place. So, the first major change has been to force companies to consider their operating costs in terms of competitive pressure from other firms outside the closed circle of the unionized. This causes them to consider those costs at the product-line level, because that is where the competition focuses. Thus, there cannot be a single “industrywide rubber” wage when the tire market can allow one level, but the plants producing hose and belting, or consumer retail products like rubber shoes, are competing with Far Eastern producers paying much lower wages to their laborers. This competitive, product-line pressure ulti mately forces diverse new wage practices and other working conditions variations on union bargaining. It also tends to break down the use of automatic wage formulas such as cost-of-living escalators, as well as traditional fixed annual increases (such as the “annual improvement factor” of 3 percent in auto contracts, and its counterparts in steel and trucking). Without auto matic increases, the bargaining parties have more free dom to adopt new terms and tailor specific packages to https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis current conditions. The decline in these traditional/ automatic wage formulas has been documented in the Bureau of Labor Statistics periodical Current Wage Developments, and in many studies of bargaining out comes by Daniel J.B. Mitchell of University of California at Los Angeles5. Flexibility tools In removing automatic formulas and making wages more flexibly responsive, the parties have contrived many new wage techniques. Among them are “two-tier” sys tems in which incoming new workers are paid a lower wage, presumably closer to the market wage—the level that would be paid in the absence of a union contract. Another device is the “lump sum,” which provides a single payment, usually once a year, instead of raising the hourly wage rate. Lump sums are obviously less expen sive for management, but their most important quality is the fact that they do not become embedded in the wage rate and are thus infinitely more adjustable than previous formula wage increases. A third class of wage technique, “gainsharing,” has received much advocacy attention, but is less frequently found in actual contracts. It too is a flexibility tool, directly linking wages to output or production costs or profit. These techniques are not necessarily novel; parallels can be found in previous nonunion wage systems. The phenomenon that is new is that bargaining has been forced to seek out all kinds of variations in order to make wages more responsive to competitive pressure at the product-line level. The fact that wages are being made more flexible and adjustable is clear by now. Another development seems also to be discernible behind the details of events: it appears that management is trying to make employment itself more flexible. That is, management is trying to reduce the fixed aspect of labor costs represented by a core work force that has either implicit employment guarantees or costly downsizing penalties to protect it. Management is trying to contract out work more freely, use subcontracts for business services, use more part-time and free-lance and temporary workers. These techniques of contingent work arrangements are not new; what is new is management’s drive to make employment flexible. Management is trying to make employment far more fluid and adjustable, to make labor costs even more variable and work force redeployment even less expen sive. It is what has been called “Kanban employment,” using the Japanese term for just-in-time delivery and no stockpiling or inventorying of resources. The use of contingent workers and contracting out has always been an available management tool. In fact, it is essential to have various techniques for buffering a “core” work force in order to provide even a small 37 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • How the 1980's Have Changed Industrial Relations amount of security to that core as business conditions fluctuate. Whether the parties cared to admit it or not, the existence of buffers is the tradeoff for granting more employment security to the “primary” work force. So contingent worker techniques are not new. However, using contingent worker and subcontracting techniques to gain more adaptability and flexibility—to gain power for rapid downsizing and cost-cutting—is what is new in the environment of the late 1980’s. Competitive pressure As long as competitive pressure forces business to adapt quickly, these techniques are going to continue growing. Furthermore, their more extensive use is affect ing all employment, making all employment arrange ments less secure and more changeable than they have formerly been in “stable,” protected industries. Anecdot ally, it is said that no longer can a young man count on following his father into a lifetime in the local mill. It is also said that a young man can no longer enter the lower ranks of management and “stay with the firm” for his entire career. It does not require an elaborate longitudi nal study to prove that these inferences from real world observation are true. Employment, as well as wages, is being made more flexible. In the course of all these changes, the driving force has been business conditions in the firm. The labor relations system that evolved during the 1940’s through the 1970’s was institutionalized around the market power of the firms and those unions that had come to represent large proportions, if not nearly all, of the industry’s domestic work force. Under these closed and controlled circum stances, it is easy to see why the system was so internally directed and expert-dominated. And in time, the experts operated a system relatively isolated from “the busi ness”—and business was willing to delegate the handling of labor relations to such experts. But now that competition arises from abroad, from domestic nonunion operators, from nonregulated new entities, the management of human resource cost and productivity moves back toward the center of business concerns. It is no longer “left to the experts.” It becomes the direct and vital concern of line managers all the way up to the chief executive. The collective bargaining system, with its heavy flavor of formal, legalistic, adver sarial maneuvering, is giving way to a more fluid, adaptive, business-dominated behavior. Those old-line labor experts who adjust to the new environment are invaluable in responding wisely to the new forces at work. Those old hands who cannot perceive business needs are having to give way before line managers who may not know all the historical background of union relations, but they do know what has to be done to keep the business prospering. There are a lot of electrical sparks coming from these “inexperienced” line managers, and the course of bar gaining is not as predictable or smooth and familiar as it once was. But changes are being forced. They are not temporary. We are not looking at a segment of a cycle that will reverse itself and return to the 1950’s. This change is for good. □ -FOOTNOTES 'Audrey Freedman, The New Look in Wage Policy and Employee Relations (New York, The Conference Board, 1985), pp. 3-4. 2Audrey Freedman, “A Fundamental Change in Wage Bargaining,” Challenge, July-August 1982, pp. 14-17. This article discusses some of the reasons why collective bargaining’s academic analysts of longstanding reputation had difficulty in seeing the changes that were developing. It may also be that those with a lifetime of work invested in careful analysis of an elaborate system were unwilling to perceive that system fragmenting, and also losing its centrality in U.S. wage-setting models. T or a full discussion of these anticipated changes, see A. Freedman 38 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and W.E. Fulmer, “Last Rites for Pattern Bargaining,” Harvard Business Review, March-April, 1982, pp. 30-48. 4For more detail, see Freedman, The New Look, pp. 7-11. 5See, for example, Daniel J.B. Mitchell, “Wage Trends and Wage Concessions: Implications for Medium-Term Economic Expansion,” Department of Economics, University of Michigan; and The Economic Outlook for 1987, Proceedings of Nov. 20-21 1986 meeting of r s q e , pp. 266-335. Also, Daniel J.B. Mitchell, “Alternative Explanations of Union Wage Concessions,” California Management Review, Fall 1986, pp. 95-108. Retail hardware stores register productivity gain Output per hour o f all persons grew at an above-average annual rate o f 1.3 percent over the 1972-86 period, reflecting strong demand and improvements in store operations P a t r ic ia S. W i l d e r and V ir g in ia L. K l a r q u is t Productivity, or output per hour of all persons, in the retail hardware store industry1 rose at an average annual rate of 1.3 percent from 1972 to 1986. This increase was well above the 0.8 percent annual gain in productivity registered by the nonfarm business sector of the econ omy. The growth in productivity reflects an increase in output of 2.2 percent per year, and a rise in hours of 0.9 percent annually. Contributing to the growth in produc tivity were strong demand, an increased use of computers in store operations, and benefits derived from affiliation with dealer-owned cooperatives. The productivity trend for the 14-year period examined here was marked by much volatility. From 1972, annual increases in produc tivity occurred in 7 years, ranging from 0.2 percent to 14.5 percent. Declines in productivity also occurred in 7 years, the largest in 1981, when output per hour fell 3.7 percent. (See table 1.) The retail hardware store industry is strongly affected by cyclical changes in the economy. Expansions and contractions in output, and the associated changes in productivity are closely linked to changes in the housing market. While increases or decreases in sales of new homes affect industry output, sales of previously occu pied homes have an even greater impact. In the sale of existing homes, hardware store purchases are boosted, Patricia S. Wilder and Virginia L. Klarquist are economists in the Division of Industry Productivity and Technology Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis both when the dwelling is prepared for sale and when it is redecorated by its new owner.2 During periods of economic expansion, hardware items are purchased to prepare homes for resale, to remodel older homes, and to maintain new and existing homes. These factors contribute to output and productiv ity gains in the retail hardware store industry. When the economy contracts and the housing market is weak, output in the retail hardware store industry slows or declines, and productivity tends to fall off. During an economic downturn, industry output may grow because of expenditures on improvements, mainte nance, and repairs of existing homes, but be offset by declines in disposable income and new construction. This would slow the rate of growth in industry output, or even lead to a decline in output. Evidence of the cyclical influences on the retail hardware store industry can be seen in the four subperiods examined here. Subperiod trends In the early years of the period studied, productivity in the retail hardware store industry fell 1.2 percent annu ally from 1972 to 1976, as output grew at a slow rate of 1.2 percent, and hours rose 2.4 percent per year. The influence of the 1974-75 recession on the industry was mixed. The industry felt the effect of a sharp decline in housing starts, but this was offset by an increase in expenditures on improvements, maintenance, and repairs of residential properties.3 39 M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Productivity in Retail Hardware Stores The retail hardware store industry benefited from the economic recovery of the late 1970’s. Strong activity in the housing market was an impetus to growth in sales of hardware products. Between 1976 and 1979, housing starts rose 4 percent annually, and sales of existing onefamily homes advanced nearly 8 percent per year.4 Output of the retail hardware store industry grew at an average annual rate of 6.6 percent. With hours rising only 1.0 percent annually, productivity advanced 5.5 percent per year. The recessionary periods of 1980 and 1981-82 had a more negative impact on the industry than the earlier recession. From 1979 to 1983, sales of both older and new homes declined. Expenditures on improvements, maintenance, and repairs fell 4 percent annually. With output dropping at an average annual rate of 2.6 percent and hours falling 1.0 percent per year, productivity in the retail hardware store industry decreased 1.6 percent annually. The retail hardware store industry shared in the economic recovery at the end of 1982. Productivity advanced 2.9 percent per year during the subperiod 198386, as output rebounded at a 4.0-percent rate of growth, while hours increased at an average annual rate of 1.0 percent. Rapidly rising expenditures on improvements, maintenance, and repairs of almost 24 percent annually, and a strong resale home market were largely responsible for the business recovery of the retail hardware store industry. (Average annual rates, in percent) Output 1972-86 .......................... 1972-76....................... 1976-79....................... 1979-83....................... 1983-86....................... 2.2 1.2 6.6 -2 .6 4.0 Output per hour of all persons 1.3 - 1.2 5.5 - 1.6 2.9 Industry structure and employment The industry is characterized by small, single-unit firms designed to serve individual local markets. Retail hardware stores have relatively few employees per store. In 1972, the industry consisted of 18,530 establishments with an average work force of about five employees per store. By 1982, there were 19,870 establishments with an average of about six employees. In recent years, single unit firms have declined slightly in relative importance. While single unit firms still account for the majority of the stores in the industry, there has been an increase in the number of multiunit operations during the period studied. In 1972, multiunit operations accounted for 8 percent of total stores and generated 20 percent of industry sales. By 1982, the number of multiunit firms increased to 10 percent while the proportion of industry 40 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 1. Productivity and related indexes for the retail hardware store industry, 1972-86 Year Output per hour of all persons Output Hours of all persons All persons 1972............. 1973............. 1974 ............. 1975............. 101.1 98.9 95.3 97.9 90.8 90.0 88.9 92.4 89.8 91.0 93.3 94.4 88.3 90.1 92.9 94.1 1976............. 1977............. 1978............. 1979............. 1980............. 95.9 100.0 100.2 114.7 111.4 95.0 100.0 104.0 116.1 112.4 99.1 100.0 103.8 101.2 100.9 95.5 100.0 102.8 103.8 104.6 1981 ............. 1982............. 1983............. 1984............. 1985............. 1986............. 107.3 108.9 107.0 112.8 111.4 118.1 106.2 103.6 105.8 118.4 117.0 120.9 99.0 95.1 98.9 105.0 105.0 102.4 102.9 98.8 102.6 109.1 110.1 107.8 Average annual rates of change (in percent) 1972-86........ 1981-86........ 1.3 1.7 2.2 3.3 0.9 1.5 1.4 1.8 sales had risen to 25 percent. Employment in multiunit firms increased during this period, from 20 to 22 percent of the industry’s work force. The work force of the retail hardware store industry consists of self-employed, nonsupervisory workers, super visory workers, and unpaid family workers. The number of persons employed in the industry rose 22.1 percent, or 1.4 percent annually, from 143,820 in 1972 to 175,600 in 1986. Hours of all persons increased at a slower 0.9percent average annual rate, showing a rise in part-time workers, and a decline in the average weekly hours of nonsupervisory workers. Between 1972 and 1986, aver age weekly hours of nonsupervisory employees fell 9.1 percent, from 36.1 to 32.8. Employment of nonsupervisory workers, the largest component of the industry work force, increased 26.2 percent—from 105,000 in 1972 to 132,500 in 1986. Supervisory workers grew 64.1 percent, from 15,300 to 25,100. From 1972 to 1986, the number of self-employed persons fell 10.7 percent, from 19,040 to 17,000; unpaid family workers declined nearly 80 percent, from 4,480 to 1, 000 . The industry’s work force is dominated by persons in marketing and sales occupations.5 In 1986, nearly twothirds of the industry’s work force was employed in marketing and sales. Within this occupational group, salespersons represented the largest group and accounted for 39 percent of the total. Cashiers made up nearly 12 percent of the industry’s work force. Stock clerks repre sented 9 percent of employment in the industry. Factors affecting productivity The major technological change within the retail hardware store industry has been the increased use of computers for retail operations. However, because most retail hardware stores are small, the use of computers varies greatly throughout the industry. Recent productivity growth has benefited from the spread of computer technology. In the larger establish ments, computers are often used in conjunction with point-of-sales terminals (cash registers), and electronic scanning devices. Information coded on merchandise is fed into the computer using these scanning devices. This results in accurate inventory records and reduces em ployee time required for monitoring shelf stocks. In addition, the computer provides the location of each item in the stockroom, and where it belongs on the sales floor. Purchase orders are automatically printed when stockroom quantities are too low. Computers are used to perform recordkeeping and administrative functions for merly performed manually. By using computerized infor mation provided on sales activity, store managers can schedule staff hours more efficiently.6 Although not all retail hardware stores have fully computerized their operations, most have replaced me chanical cash registers with electronic cash registers ( e c r ’s ). Memory capacity of e c r ’s has also reduced employee hours in accounting and inventory control. Most hardware stores had some degree of self-service operations prior to 1972. However, the continuing shift to self service operations has helped to reduce the work load of store personnel by allowing customers to browse for their choice of merchandise. More recently, changes in packaging of some hardware items—from bulk mer chandise to carded merchandise—have enhanced the selfservice feature of hardware stores.7 Some retail hardware stores have sought to improve their productivity by the use of employee training programs.8 Retaining experienced personnel is a major problem for all retail stores. Some studies have shown that retail employee turnover is about 60 percent per year.9 High turnover rates can hinder gains in productiv ity because new employees must undergo training and are not as productive during training periods. Because most stores are relatively labor intensive and place a great deal of emphasis on knowledgable personal service, retaining experienced personnel is important to improving produc tivity in the industry. Another factor underlying productivity change has been independent hardware stores joining dealer-owned wholesale cooperatives.10 Tighter competition among hardware stores, home centers, and lumber yards led to a growth in the cooperatives during the 1970’s.11 Through the cooperatives, the independent hardware stores have been able to compete with integrated, mass merchandis ers. The independent retailers can take advantage of volume purchasing discounts and the economies of scale associated with large wholesale distribution. Most of the independent hardware stores are currently members of cooperatives.12 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Productivity in independent retail hardware stores has been fostered by their affiliation with the dealer-owned cooperatives. Improvements in ordering and distribution which have occurred in the cooperatives have aided productivity growth by reducing labor and inventory requirements in the retail hardware store industry.13 Purchase orders are built around electronic communica tions and centralized distribution operations. Through the use of central computers, gravity flow racks, and automated conveyer systems, errors in purchase orders have been reduced and order fill rates have been in creased. Cooperatives have contributed to lower inven tory requirements by providing dependable delivery of merchandise from the warehouse to the retailer. In some stores, the retailer is directly linked to the cooperative’s central computer and regional distribution center. The computerized stock number is punched into a hand-held order entry terminal. The resulting ticket specifies the stock number, quantity, location, and sug gested retail price. Along with the merchandise, the retailer receives preprinted price stickers and reorder information. This ordering system reduces labor require ments for the retailer because these ordering functions and pricing of items were previously done manually by the retailer. The dealer-owned cooperatives provide hardware re tailers with advertising aids such as direct mail catalogs, national media campaigns, low-cost phone directory advertising, and instore product promotion kits. These advertising aids have helped to increase store traffic for the retailer by building a strong brand identity among consumers.14 Outlook Industry productivity growth should benefit from the continuing diffusion of electronic data processing equip ment. The availability of more affordable personal com puters has put computer technology within the reach of many more small store owners. Point-of-sales technology may become more widely used in hardware stores, boosting productivity. Accounting and inventory control is expected to be greatly enhanced by the diffusion of electronic scanning equipment. However, most efforts of hardware retailers to increase productivity will probably center on raising sales per square foot in stores. The “do-it-yourself’ home improvement market is a post-World War II phenomenon, created when inflation pushed the costs of plumbers, electricians, and other skilled workers beyond the reach of many homeowners. With the baby-boomers reaching their prime home buying and remodeling years, the home improvement market is expected to remain strong. The skill composition of the work force of the retail hardware store industry is not expected to change much 41 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Productivity in Retail Hardware Stores over the next decade. Based on projections by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the proportion of marketing and sales personnel is expected to rise from 63 percent of wage and salary worker employment in 1986 to 66 percent in the year 2000. Within this broad occupational group, cash iers are expected to remain about the same, nearly 12 percent of industry employment in 1986 and also in 2000. The share of employment held by salespersons is ex pected to rise slightly. Administrative support occupa tions, including clerical, are projected to decline from 13 percent of industry employment in 1986 to 11 percent in 2000. This could reflect the diffusion of computer technology in the retail hardware store industry in the future. □ -FOOTNOTES ‘The retail hardware store industry is designated by the Office of Management and Budget as SIC 525 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1972. The industry is comprised of establish ments primarily engaged in the retail sale of a number of basic hardware lines, such as tools, builders’ hardware, paint and glass, housewares and household appliances, and cutlery. Average annual rates shown in the text and tables are based on the linear least squares trend of the logarithms of the index numbers. The indexes for productivity and related variables will be updated annually, and published in the annual Bureau of Labor Statistics bulletin, Productivity Measures for Selected Industries and Government Services. 2“Do-It-Yourself Stock Plays,” Fortune, June 11, 1984, pp. 213-16; and industry sources. 3U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Construction Reports, Series C50, C20. 8“Employees: Finding, Training, and Keeping Them,” Hardware Age, June 1985, pp. 31-35. In a recent survey of Hardware Age retail panelists, 64 percent of the respondents prefer to hire new workers through the recommendations of their existing staff. Hardware retailers prefer to hire through employees because it saves the time used to screen out applicants who are obviously not suited for the job, and provides the best background knowledge of the job applicant. More than two-thirds of the retailers surveyed conduct product and sales training programs for employees. These programs usually cover the areas of universally accepted sales methods, product knowledge, and individual store policies. Retaining employees is accomplished through the offering of benefits, incentives, and rewards. According to the survey, more than half of the hardware retailers offer bonuses and raises for time employed. More than two-thirds offer raises for merit. Paid medical benefits are offered by 75 percent of employers and paid vacations, 89 percent. 4U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract o f the United States, 1986, p. 727; and the National Association of Realtors. 9Brian Friedman, “Apparel stores display above-average productiv ity,” Monthly Labor Review, October 1984, pp. 37—42. “Figures cited in this section are based on data developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the 1986-2000 National IndustryOccupational Matrix. “ “Screws, Bolts . . . . 1982, pp. 146-49. 6“In-Store Computer Systems: Wholesalers Lead the Way,” Hardware Age, April 1987, pp. 39-42; and industry sources. 7“A Tough Line That’s Easy to Sell,” Hardware Age, January 1987, pp. 38-41; and industry sources. 1industry sources. and Tighter Competition,” Forbes, May 24, “ “Hardware Wars: the Big Boys Might Lose This One,” Business Week, Oct. 14, 1985, pp. 84-90. 13“John Cotter and Low Cost Distribution,” Do-It-Yourself Retailing, November 1986, pp. C5-C32; and industry sources. HIbid. APPENDIX: Measurement techniques and limitations Indexes of output per hour of all persons measure changes in the relationship between the output of an industry and hours expended on that output. An index of output per hour is derived by dividing an index of output by an index of industry hours. The preferred output index for retail trade industries would be obtained from data on quantities of the various goods sold by the industry, each weighted (that is, multiplied) by the employee hours required to sell one unit of each good in some specified base period. This concept also embodies the services associated with mov ing the goods from the retail establishment to the consumer. Thus, those goods which require more retail labor are given more importance in the index. Data on the quantities of goods sold usually are not available for trade industries, including retail hardware stores. Therefore, real output was measured by removing the effects of changing price levels from the current42 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis dollar value of sales. Because an adjustment for changing price levels usually lowers the dollar value, such a series is usually referred to as a deflated value measure. Output measures based on deflated value have two major characteristics. First, they can reflect shifts in sales among products of different value which have the same unit labor requirements. (For example, if customers begin to purchase more unadvertised brands instead of “nation ally advertised” brands, dollar sales will decrease if the unadvertised brand is priced lower.) Thus, a change can occur in the output per hour index even if the labor required to sell the merchandise does not change. Based on data from the National Retail Hardware Association, average transaction size (deflated by the c p i ) has not changed during the period studied. Second, the sales level, both in current and constant dollars, reflects differences in unit values for identical products sold in different types of establishments. For example, the unit value associated with a product sold in a self-service “discount” store may be lower than the unit value associated with the same product sold in a store that provides many sales clerks and delivery service. The output measure, therefore, reflects changes in the level of service provided to customers, insofar as differences in unit values reflect the difference in service among the various types of establishments. In addition to the deflated value technique, weights relating to labor importance were used to combine segments of the output index into a total output measure. The weights used were gross margin weights. These weights, calculated for each merchandise line category, represent the percentage markup provided by the retail hardware store industry. Gross margins are used in place of labor importance weights which are unavailable for this industry. These procedures result in a final output index that is closer, conceptually, to the preferred output measure. The index of hours for the retail hardware store industry is for all persons, that is, hours for paid employees, self-employed, and unpaid family workers. As in all of the output per hour measures published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, hours and employment are each considered homogeneous and additive. Adequate information does not exist to weight the various types of labor separately. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The indexes of output per hour relate total output to one input—labor time. The indexes do not measure the specific contribution of labor, capital, or any other single factor. Rather, they reflect the joint effect of many interrelated influences such as changes in technology, capital investment, capacity utilization, store design and layout, skill and effort of the work force, managerial ability, and labor-management relations. No explicit adjustments were made to the measures to take into account increases or decreases in some services provided to the consumer. There has been some shift to self-service operations. This has shifted some of the hours in retailing from the employee to the consumer. How ever, data are not available to measure the effect of this change. The basic sources for the output series for this measure consist of the total sales data and sales by merchandise line reported by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The deflators were developed using various Consumer Price Indexes published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The gross margin weights were developed from data reported by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The basic sources for the all person hour series consist of data on employment and hours published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of the Census, supplemented by data from special tabulations compiled for the Bureau of Labor Statistics by the Bureau of the Census. 43 Foreign Labor Developments International differences in employers’ compensation costs T ab le 1. In d e xe s o f h o u rly c o m p e n s a tio n c o s ts fo r p ro d u c tio n w o rk e rs in m a n u fa c tu rin g , 30 c o u n trie s o r areas, 1975-87 [United States = 100] Country or area 1975 1980 1985 1987 United States..................................... 100 100 100 100 Canada ............................................. Brazil ................................................. Mexico............................................... 92 14 31 86 14 30 84 9 16 89 11 10 Australia............................................ Hong Kong ....................................... Israel................................................. Japan................................................. 84 12 35 48 82 15 39 57 61 14 31 50 64 16 Korea................................................. New Zealand..................................... Singapore .......................................... Sri Lanka........................................... Taiwan.............................................. 5 50 13 4 6 10 54 15 2 10 10 34 19 2 11 17 Austria .............................................. Belgium............................................. Denmark............................................ Finland............................................... 68 101 99 72 87 134 111 84 56 69 63 62 95 112 108 97 France............................................... Germany............................................ Greece.............................................. 91 125 38 60 58 74 28 45 92 125 Ir e la n d ................................................................... 71 100 27 47 I t a l y ........................................................................ L u x e m b o u rg ........................................................ N e th e r la n d s ........................................................ N o r w a y .................................................................. 73 100 103 107 81 122 123 119 57 59 67 82 92 112 131 P o r t u g a l................................................................ S p a in ..................................................................... S w e d e n ................................................................ S w itz e r la n d ......................................................... U n ite d K in g d o m ............................................. 25 41 113 96 52 21 61 127 113 76 12 37 75 75 48 58 112 127 67 P a t r ic ia C a p d e v ie l l e In 1987, hourly compensation costs for manufacturing production workers in Germany, Norway, and Switzer land were 25 percent to 30 percent higher than the U.S. cost level, and in Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden, 8 to 12 percent higher, according to studies conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Compensa tion costs in France, Italy, Austria, and Finland rose to more than 90 percent of the U.S. level in 1987; Japanese costs rose to 84 percent and Canadian costs, to about 90 percent; while relative compensation costs rose to more than 60 percent in the United Kingdom and Australia, and to about 60 percent in Spain. (See table 1.) For Japan and all the European countries, 1987 compensation costs were up sharply from their 1985 relative levels—which ranged from about 40 to 80 percent of average U.S. costs. Japan’s level was a new high; France, Italy, Austria, Finland, Norway, and Switzerland surpassed their peaks reached in 1979 or 1980; and Germany matched its previous peak levels of 1979 and 1980. Hourly compensation costs in the newly industrializing Asian and Latin American countries or areas remained less than 20 percent of U.S. costs, although costs in Hong Kong, Korea, Taiwan, and Brazil were up 20 to 50 percent from 1985. Compensation costs in U.S. dollars for Singapore and Mexico actually declined, however— for Singapore, because of a wage freeze and cuts in employer social benefit contributions and for Mexico, because of the devaluation of the peso. Mexico’s relative compensation costs in 1987 were 10 percent of the U.S. level, compared with a peak of 34 percent of U.S. costs in 1981. For most of the European countries and Japan, exchange rate changes accounted for more than 80 percent of the narrowing in cost differentials with the United States since 1985. Between 1985 and 1987, the Patricia Capdevielle is an economist in the Division of Foreign Labor Statistics, Office of Productivity and Technology, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 44 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis _ 84 13 _ 18 _ - - _ N O T E : D a s h in d ic a te s d a ta n o t a v a ila b le . value of the Japanese yen relative to the U.S. dollar rose 65 percent, and gains in the relative values of the currencies of the European industrial countries ranged from 26 to 64 percent. Measured in national currency, hourly compensation costs rose 6 percent in Japan and from 6 to 18 percent in industrial Europe (except Norway, where hourly costs rose 30 percent, of which 7 percent resulted from a 2xh hour cut in the standard workweek), compared with 4 percent in the United States. Measured in U.S. dollars, costs rose 75 percent in Japan, 46 percent in the United Kingdom, and about 60 to 80 percent in the other European countries. Recent exchange rate trends. The value of the U.S. dollar has continued to fall relative to the currencies of every country studied, except Brazil, Mexico, Hong Kong, Israel, and Sri Lanka. As of January 1988, the value of the yen was 13 percent higher than its 1987 average, and the currencies of most European countries were 6 to 10 percent higher. Unless their underlying compensation changes are significantly less than those in the United States, these changes should raise hourly compensation costs further above the U.S. level for Germany and many other European countries; bring Japan’s cost level to about 95 percent of the U.S. level; bring the levels for France and Italy almost on par with the United States; and narrow the cost differences for other countries. Compensation structure. Compensation costs include pay for time worked, other direct pay, employer expenditures for legally required insurance programs and contractual and private benefit plans, and for some countries, other labor taxes. Pay for time worked accounted for about 75 to 80 percent of total compensation costs in the United States, Canada, the U nited Kingdom , and several other countries in 1987, but accounted for less than 60 percent of total compensation in Japan and many European countries. Other direct pay accounted for more than 25 percent of total compensation in Japan and for 15 to 20 percent in several European countries. (Other direct pay is the difference between total direct pay and pay for time worked, consisting primarily of vacation and holiday pay and seasonal bonuses.) In France, Italy, and Sweden, employer social insurance expenditures and other labor taxes (the difference between total direct pay and total compensation costs) accounted for 30 percent of compen sation, whereas in some other countries with extensive social benefits, they accounted for 15 percent or less. The differences in compensation structures among countries reflect differences in holiday and vacation entitlements, the prevalence of yearend and other sea sonal bonuses, and the relative cost and methods of financing social insurance benefits. International Comparisons o f Hourly Compensation Costs fo r Production Workers in Manufacturing, 1975-86, Report 745 (September 1987), and Preliminary Measures fo r 1987, Report 750 (February 1988), are available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, DC 20212. The reports present comparative levels and trends in compensation costs in 30 countries or areas. These comparative measures have been developed to provide a basis for assessing international differences in employer labor costs. Definitions, methods, and data limitations are summarized in the reports. □ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Part-time employment in Great Britain: establishment survey data Part-time employment has been the major feature of employment change in Great Britain, according to a recent study. The study uses data from the 1980 Workplace Indus trial Relations Survey, which was sponsored by the Department of Employment Policy Studies Institute, and the (then) Social Science Research Council. The data set included 2,040 observations of establishments, or “places of employment at a single address or site” throughout England, Scotland, and Wales. Establishments were limited to those with 25 employees or more who worked both full time and part time. The survey involved interviews with senior managers and worker representa tives (who were nominated by management respondents). Part-time workers were defined as persons who work fewer than 30 hours per week. According to Great Britain’s 1981 Census of Employ ment data (which are directly comparable with the data in the report), 4.5 million persons worked part-time in a work force of 21.3 million employees. The proportion of men who worked part time was 5.9 percent and women, 41.6 percent. Over the 1971-81 period, part-time employ ment among women increased 37.1 percent. For men, however, a 22.9-percent increase in part-time employ ment was offset by a 10.4-percent decline in full-time employment. According to the Workplace Industrial Relations Sur vey, part-time workers accounted for 13.8 percent of total employment— 87.2 percent of whom were women. The study looks at the distribution of part-time workers by industrial sector, the characteristics of estab lishments that employ significant proportions of parttime workers, and distinct industrial relations patterns where part-time workers are prevalent. Industries. Most of the part-time workers were concen trated in the nonmanufacturing sector— 18 percent of the total labor force, compared with less than 7 percent in the manufacturing sector. A higher proportion of the labor force worked part time in the public sector than in the private sector. Of the 40 industries surveyed, 12 accounted for 76 percent of part-time employees: food; other textiles and leather; clothing and footwear; retail food; other retail distribution; other business services; education; medical services; hotels and pubs; miscellaneous services; insur ance; and other services. Characteristics. To closely examine the characteristics of part-time establishments, the study describes “part-time 45 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Foreign Labor Developments using establishments” as those that employed at least 25 part-timers who constituted at least 50 percent of the labor force in establishments with fewer than 50 employ ees. These characteristics were found in 445 establish ments, which accounted for three-fourths of all part-time employment, and about 85 percent of these establish ments were among the 12 industries which employed mostly part-timers. nized. The study also found that the pay bargaining level was less important for part-time workers than for fulltimers. The pay for higher proportions of part-timers was determined by wage councils awards. In other instances, head offices determined pay levels. Moreover, part-time workers were most likely to be found in establishments with informal procedures for dealing with pay, condi tions, dismissals, or individual grievances. Industrial relations. A higher share of the labor force tended to work part time in nonunion establishments than in unionized establishments. Compared with full time workers, a smaller proportion of part-timers were employed in establishments where unions were recog T h e f u l l r e p o r t is entitled, Part-time employment in Great Britain: An analysis using establishment data, research paper no. 57, by David Blanchflower and Bernard Corry (London, Research Administration, De partment of Employment, 1986). □ 46 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Commissioner Neill studies T h e J u n g le Early in 1906, Upton Sinclair published The Jungle, which exposed the unsanitary practices of the Chicago packers and stirred public indignation. [President Theodore] Roosevelt called for action. The Bureau of Animal Industry of the Department of Agriculture, which maintained a staff of inspectors at the stockyards, immediately launched an investigation. The President directed [ b l s Commissioner Charles P.] Neill to make an independent inquiry: “I want to get at the bottom of this matter and be absolutely certain of our facts when the investigation is through.” Neill, along with James Bronson Reynolds, a reformer from New York City, spent 2/6 weeks gathering information and then submitted a report to Roosevelt, who praised him for his work. In addition, not satisfied with the report of the Animal Industry Bureau, Roosevelt asked Neill to revise it. Based on these reports, Roosevelt ordered the Department of Agriculture to prepare a bill establishing more stringent meat inspection procedures. On June 19, [1906,] Congress agreed to a meat inspection bill, and the President signed it on June 30, the same day he signed the Pure Food Law. — Jo s e p h P. G oldberg a n d W il l ia m T. M oye The First Hundred Years of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2235 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). Research Summaries Occupational pay in structural clay products industries Bruce J. Bergm an According to a Bureau of Labor Statistics wage survey, hourly earnings of production workers in structural clay products industries averaged $7.41 in October 1986, up from $5.86 in September 1980.1 This represents an increase of 4.0 percent, on an annual average basis, and compares with an increase of 5.2 percent a year in the Bureau’s Employment Cost Index for durable goods manufacturing industries. Average hourly earnings in October 1986 varied considerably among the seven regions for which separate data are available, ranging from $6.24 in the Southwest to $9.43 in the Middle West. In the Southeast, where three-fourths of the industries’ work force were em ployed, hourly earnings averaged $6.64. Averages in the other four regions were $7.16 in the Border States; $7.94 in the Pacific States; $8.21 in the Middle Atlantic; and $8.35 in the Great Lakes. Among the major product branches studied separately, nationwide hourly averages were $9.80 in clay refracto ries, $7.20 in ceramic wall and floor tile, and $6.78 in brick and structural clay tile. Although clay refractories maintained its lead in earnings, the pay difference between it and the relatively low-paying brick and structural clay tile branch narrowed between 1980 and 1986—from 57 to 45 percent. Pay levels were influenced by regional location and industrial concentration. For example, one-half of the workers in the Southwest and three-fifths of those in the Southeast, the two lowest paying regions in the Nation, were in brick and structural clay tile plants. However, slightly less than three-fifths of the Middle West work force—the highest paid among the regions—worked in clay refractory plants. Employment change. Overall, production employment in structural clay products manufacturing fell by 10 percent between September 1980 and October 1986—from 26,288 Bruce J. Bergman is an economist in the Division of Occupational Pay and Employee Benefit Levels, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis to 23,535 workers. Work force changes at the branch level varied considerably. For example, employment declined by 50 percent in clay refractories (from 6,340 to 3,414 workers). But the number of workers in brick and structural clay tile plants changed relatively little (from 11,687 in 1980 to 11,593 in 1986). The employment decline in clay refractories was accompanied by a 13-percent drop in shipments of refractories between 1981 and 1985.2 These declines are attributable, in part, to a drop in orders from the steel industry, a major purchaser of refractories. However, shipments for brick and structural clay products rose by 83 percent over the same period because of the construc tion industry’s strong demand for brick and tile. Occupational averages. Of the 31 occupations studied separately, industrywide averages were lowest for jani tors ($6.60 hourly) and off-bearers ($6.62) and highest for electricians ($10.31) and machinists ($10.32). Powertruck operators, the largest job group studied separately, averaged $7.28. Occupational averages were usually highest in clay refractory plants and lowest in brick and structural clay tile plants (table 1). Clay refractory workers usually earned between 25 and 45 percent more than workers in the same occupation in brick and clay tile plants. Nationwide, about four-fifths of the workers were paid on a time-rated basis, typically under formal plans providing single rates for specific jobs. Workers paid incentive wages typically averaged between 20 and 40 percent more than their time-rated counterparts. Jobs predominantly paid on this basis included unloaders of tunnel kilns, brick sorters, die pressers, and kiln setters and drawers. Virtually all workers were in establishments providing paid holidays and vacations. Workers typically received between 6 and 10 holidays per year. Nationwide, typical vacation provisions included 1 week after 1 year of service, 2 weeks after 3 years, 3 weeks or more after 10 years, and at least 4 weeks after 20 years. Almost all clay workers were in establishments provid ing at least part of the cost of life, hospitalization, surgical, medical, and major medical insurance. Also, most received accidental death and dismemberment insurance and protection against temporary loss of income due to illness or accident. Retirement plans were provided to the majority of the workers. 47 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Research Summaries Table 1. Average hourly earnings1 in structural clay products manufacturing, selected occupations, October 1986 Occupation A ll p ro d u c tio n w o rk e r s 2 All estab lishments Clay re fractory plants Brick and structural clay tile Ceramic wall and plants floor tile plants $7.41 $9.80 $6.78 $7.20 7.11 7.95 7.83 10.08 10.25 9.05 6.57 7.47 7.05 8.32 9.18 7.24 7.31 10.41 8.62 9.98 8.25 7.07 7.38 8.17 6.82 6.70 9.57 7.67 9.64 10.97 6.88 8.66 7.19 6.43 7.87 6.46 6.18 6.54 7.14 6.63 7.83 6.85 6.60 6.94 6.51 10.31 10.32 9.16 8.70 7.87 11.62 11.37 11.03 11.48 10.09 8.95 10.64 9.76 8.90 7.90 8.03 6.60 7.83 9.11 9.28 8.46 10.17 10.04 5.94 A comprehensive report, Industry Wage Survey: Struc tural Clay Products, October 1986 (Bulletin 2288), may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Publications Sales Center, p.o. Box 2145, Chicago, il 60690. The bulletin provides additional information on occupational pay and employee benefits by region and size of establishment. □ Crushing, grinding, and mixing: C la y g r in d e r s ........................... C la y m a k e r s ............................. D ry p a n o p e r a t o r s ............... 6.12 6.61 -FOOTNOTES Forming and cutting: D ie p r e s s e r s ............................. P re s s o p e r a t o r s .................... P u g m ill o p e r a t o r s ................. 6.86 7.23 6.77 8.05 Burning: F ire rs , tu n n e l k i l n ................. K iln s e tte rs a n d d r a w e rs .. P la c e rs , tu n n e l k i l n ............. U n lo a d e rs , tu n n e l k i l n ....... Finishing (drawing): F in is h e r s ..................................... O ff - b e a r e r s ................................ 8.11 Maintenance: E le c tric ia n s ................................ M a c h in is ts .................................. M e c h a n ic s ( m a c h in e r y ) .. .. M o to r v e h ic le m e c h a n ic s . G e n e ra l m a in te n a n c e w o r k e r s .................................. 8.22 8.03 8.17 7.23 'Earnings data exclude premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends, holidays, and late shifts. Incentive payments, such as those resulting from piecework or production bonus systems, and cost-ofliving pay increases (but not bonuses) were included as part of the workers’ regular pay. Excluded were performance bonuses and lump sum payments of the type negotiated in the auto and aerospace industries, as well as profit-sharing payments, attendance bonuses, Christmas or yearend bonuses, and other nonproduction bonuses. For a report on the previous study, see Industry Wage Survey: Structural Clay Products, September 1980, Bulletin 2139 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982). 2See Annual Survey o f Manufacturers, 1985, Value o f Product Ship ments (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census). Data for 1986 will be available in February. Custodial and material movement: J a n it o r s ....................................... P a c k a g in g -m a c h in e o p e r a t o r s .............................. S h ip p in g p a c k e r s .................. P o w e r-tru c k o p e r a t o r s ........ T r u c k d riv e rs .............................. 7.20 7.28 7.43 7.43 7.09 6.54 7.07 6.40 7.63 6.79 7.35 7.51 1 E x c lu d e s p re m iu m p a y fo r o v e rtim e a n d fo r w o rk o n w e e k e n d s , h o lid a y s , a n d la te s h ifts . In c e n tiv e p a y m e n ts , s u c h a s th o s e re s u ltin g fro m p ie c e w o rk o r p r o d u c tio n b o n u s s y s te m s , a n d c o s t-o f-liv in g in c re a s e s (b u t n o t b o n u s e s ) w e re in c lu d e d a s p a rt o f th e w o rk e rs ' re g u la r p ay. E x c lu d e d w e re p e rfo rm a n c e b o n u s e s a n d lu m p -s u m p a y m e n ts o f th e ty p e n e g o tia te d in th e a u to a n d a e ro s p a c e in d u s trie s , a s w e ll a s p ro fit-s h a rin g p a y m e n ts , a tte n d a n c e b o n u s e s , C h ris tm a s o r y e a re n d b o n u s e s , a n d o th e r n o n p ro d u c tio n b o n u s e s . 2 In c lu d e s d a ta f o r w o rk e rs s e p a ra te ly . In o c c u p a tio n s in a d d itio n to th o s e s h o w n Just more than one-half of the work force were employed in plants operating under labor-management contracts covering a majority of production workers. The Middle Atlantic and Middle West regions recorded the highest proportion (75 percent) of workers in union plants, while the Southwest recorded the smallest propor tion (25 percent). The Aluminum, Brick, and Glass Workers International Union and the United Steelwork ers of America (both a f l - c i o affiliates) were the major unions in the clay products industries. Also studied in the current survey was the use of temporary help and the extent to which services were contracted out. One-eighth of the production workers were in structural clay products plants regularly using temporary help. Plants employing nearly 60 percent of the clay industries’ production force commonly con tracted trucking services. 48 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Occupational pay levels in footwear manufacturing According to a Bureau of Labor Statistics survey of footwear manufacturing, hourly pay levels of production and related workers averaged $5.72 in men’s shoe plants and $5.14 in women’s, in October 1986.1 This represents a 31-percent increase in earnings for men’s footwear plants, and a 24-percent rise for women’s footwear since a similar survey was conducted in April 1980.2 By comparison, the Bureau’s Employment Cost Index for nondurable goods manufacturing industries rose 41 per cent over the same period. Average hourly earnings in October 1986 varied considerably among the six regions studied separately for men’s footwear, from $4.96 in the Border States to $6.55 in the Great Lakes. In New England, where nearly onefourth of the workers in men’s plants were employed, hourly earnings averaged $5.77. In women’s footwear, hourly pay levels in the three regions studied separately were $5.14 (Middle West), $5.36 (Middle Atlantic), and $5.45 (New England). Among 67 jobs studied separately, hourly averages in men’s footwear ranged from $4.76 (foam cutters) to $7.21 (edge trimmers); in women’s footwear, the range was $4.55 (sock-lining stitchers) to $7.69 (platform-cover lasters). Fancy stitchers, the largest occupational group in both industries, averaged $5.52 in men’s shoe plants and $5.20 in women’s footwear. The departments in a footwear manufacturing plant typically reflect the sequence and the unique activities in shoemaking. (See table 1.) For example, workers in cutting rooms cut out shoe uppers or linings commonly using a clicking machine. Vamp and whole shoe cutters were the most numerous of six jobs studied in this department. They averaged $6.77 an hour in men’s footwear, and $5.96 in women’s. Within each cuttingroom occupation, pay may vary according to the type of machine used (conventional or numerically controlled) and the type of material cut (leather, synthetic, or both). Among the other departments, prefitting and fitting operations involve assembling or stitching the shoe components to form the upper. Employed here are fancy stitchers, who sew decorative designs on shoe uppers, and skivers, who taper the leather edges to ensure thinner seams. Occupational averages in these two departments were typically in the $5 to $6 range. Lasting operations include drawing the completed upper over the last (a foot-like form) and attaching the insole. The two most numerous job groups, and their average hourly pay, were toe and forepart lasters ($6.40 in men’s shoe plants and $5.59 in women’s) and side lasters ($6.50 in men’s and $6.07 in women’s). The bottoming department is responsible for attaching the sole to the upper, combining all footwear compo nents. The choice of three basic construction methods— cementing, stitching, and molding—is determined, in part, by the type of last and the means for attaching the upper to the insole and midsole. In men’s plants, occupational averages were usually between $5.50 and $6.50 an hour; in women’s footwear, the typical range was $4.75 to $6.25. Finishing occupations, which prepare the shoe for sale and distribution, include making minor repairs, cleaning, and polishing. The seven finishing jobs studied showed a wide range of earnings. In men’s footwear, averages ranged from $5.28 (repairers) to $6.56 (edge setters); in women’s footwear, the spread was $4.73 (repairers and sprayers) to $6.62 (edge setters). Nationwide, about three-fourths of the workers were employed under incentive pay systems, typically individ ual piece rates. A majority of the workers in nearly all of the occupations surveyed were paid incentive rates. Among the occupations usually paid time rates were repairers, floor workers, and inspectors. Virtually all workers were in establishments with weekly work sched ules of 40 hours. Nearly all production workers were in establishments providing paid holidays and paid vacations. The most prevalent holiday provisions, covering about three-fourths of the workers in men’s footwear and more than eighttenths of the workers in women’s footwear, spanned 8 to https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 1. Number of workers and average hourly earnings in footwear manufacturing plants, selected occupations, October 1986__________ M e n ’ s f o o tw e a r D e p a r tm e n t a n d o c c u p a tio n A ll p ro d u c tio n w o rk e r s 2 ....... M e n ............................................ W o m e n ..................................... W o m e n ’s f o o tw e a r A v e ra g e Num ber A v e ra g e N um ber of h o u r ly of h o u r ly w o rk e rs e a r n in g s 1 w o rk e rs e a r n in g s 1 2 6 ,6 1 2 1 0 ,0 5 2 1 5 ,9 9 3 $ 5 .7 2 6.01 5 .5 0 2 1 ,8 6 3 6,131 1 5 ,7 3 2 $ 5 .1 4 5 .4 5 5.01 18 342 4 .7 6 5 .9 6 16 174 5 .6 5 6.01 948 6 .7 7 695 5 .9 6 189 391 5 .5 5 5.41 220 279 4 .9 6 5 .0 8 1 ,3 3 6 5 .5 2 1 ,0 9 9 5 .2 0 10 5 .6 3 229 4 .5 5 530 5 .8 0 789 4 .9 3 17 7 .6 9 230 173 57 293 6 .5 0 6 .5 0 6 .5 0 6 .4 0 363 211 152 339 6 .0 7 6 .1 7 5 .9 5 5 .5 9 100 327 6.21 7.21 220 95 5 .3 5 5 .2 2 219 6 .3 8 469 5 .1 7 96 401 139 6 .5 6 5 .2 8 5 .6 3 8 322 98 6 .6 2 4 .7 3 4 .7 3 445 736 5 .4 8 5.31 648 372 5 .0 8 5 .0 8 Cutting C u tte rs , f o a m ............................. C u tte rs , lin in g ............................. C u tte rs , v a m p a n d w h o le shoe ........................................ Prefitting M a rk e rs , s t it c h ........................... S k iv e rs , u p p e rs o r lin in g s .. Fitting F a n c y s t it c h e r s ......................... S o c k -lin in g s titc h e rs (s lip la s te d s h o e s ) ........................ T o p s t it c h e r s .............................. Lasting P la tfo rm -c o v e r la s te rs (s lip la s te d s h o e s ) ....................... S id e l a s t e r s ................................ S ta p le o r ta c k la s tin g ....... C e m e n t l a s t i n g .................... T o e a n d fo re p a r t la s te r s . .. . Bottoming B o tto m r o u g h e r s ...................... E d g e tr im m e r s ........................... S o le a tta c h e rs , c e m e n t p ro c e s s .................................. Finishing E d g e s e t t e r s .............................. R e p a ir e r s ....................................... S p ra y e rs , u p p e r s ...................... Miscellaneous F lo o r w o r k e r s ............................. In s p e c t o r s ..................................... ’ E x c lu d e s p re m iu m p a y fo r o v e rtim e a n d fo r w o rk o n w e e k e n d s , h o lid a y s , anu ic u e a im io . _ in c lu d e s d a ta fo r o c c u p a tio n s in a d d itio n to th o s e s h o w n s e p a ra te ly . S o m e d a ta w e re c o lle c te d fo r w o rk e rs w h o s e s e x w a s n o t a v a ila b le fro m p a y ro ll re c o rd s . N O T E : D a s h e s in d ic a te th a t n o d a ta w e re re p o rte d o r th a t d a ta d id n o t m e e t p u b lic a tio n c rite ria . 10 days per year. Typical vacation provisions included 1 week of vacation pay after 1 year of service, 2 weeks after 3 or 4 years, 3 weeks after 10 years, and 4 weeks after 20 years. Nine-tenths or more of the footwear workers were in establishments providing at least part of the cost of life, hospitalization, surgical, and basic medical insurance. Footwear establishments providing insurance protection against accidental death and dismemberment or lost income due to short-term illness or accident covered about three-fourths of the work force. Dental plans covered nearly three-tenths of the workers in men’s footwear and about one-tenth in women’s; and vision care insurance plans were provided to about one-tenth of the workers in men’s plants, but were not reported in visits to women’s plants. Most life and health insurance plans were financed jointly by employers and employees. 49 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Research Summaries Retirement plans, usually financed entirely by employers, applied to eight-tenths of the workers in men’s shoe plants and to three-fourths in women’s. A comprehensive report on the survey, Industry Wage Survey: Men's and Women's Footwear, October 1986 (Bulletin 2291) may be purchased from the Superinten- dent of Documents, Washington, DC 20402, or from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Publications Sales Center, P.O. Box 2145, Chicago, il 60690. The bulletin provides additional information on occupational pay, and on the incidence of employee benefits. □ 1Wage data are straight-time hourly earnings, excluding premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends, holidays, and late shifts. Costof-living increases (but not bonuses) were included as part of the workers’ regular pay. Excluded were performance bonuses and lump sum payments of the type negotiated in the auto and aerospace industries, as well as profit-sharing payments, attendance bonuses, Christmas or yearend bonuses, and other nonproduction bonuses. The survey included establishments primarily manufacturing men’s or women’s leather footwear, except athletic, that were designed for dress, street, or work use. Footwear plants making shoes whose uppers were not leather or a leather-like substitute, such as vinyl, were excluded. 2For a discussion of the earlier survey, see Industry Wage Survey: Men's and Women’s Footwear, April 1980, Bulletin 2118 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 1982). The October 1986 study is not strictly comparable to the April 1980 survey, because the current one has a lower minimum establishment size— 50 workers instead of 100. How ever, establishments with less than 100 workers accounted for less than 5 percent of the 1986 survey work force and had little or no effect on industry pay levels. A note on communications The Monthly Labor Review welcomes communications that supple ment, challenge, or expand on research published in its pages. To be considered for publication, communications should be factual and analytical, not polemical in tone. Communications should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20212. 50 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Major Agreements Expiring Next Month This list of selected collective bargaining agreements expiring in June is based on information collected by the Bureau’s Office of Compensation and Working Conditions. The list includes agreements covering 1,000 workers or more. Private industry is arranged in order of Standard Industrial Classification In d u stry or activity N um ber of w orkers Em ployer and location L abor o rganization1 A ssociated G eneral Contractors, Labor Relations Division, M ichigan C hapter and one other (Southw estern M ichigan) A ssociated G eneral C ontractors of California and others (Southern California) A ssociated G eneral C ontractors and others, 11 counties (Southern C arpenters................................................ 2,000 C arpenters................................................ 40,000 L a b o re rs .................................................... 17,500 O perating E n g in e e rs ............................ 10,500 L a b o re rs.................................................... O perating E n g in e e rs ............................ C arpenters................................................ 4,000 5,500 5,000 C arpenters................................................ L a b o re rs .................................................... O perating E n g in e e rs ............................ Plumbers .................................................. 12,000 3,500 1,500 3,000 P a in te rs ..................................................... 5,200 Plum bers .................................................. Plumbers .................................................. 3,800 10,000 P riv ate C o n stru ctio n ...................................... California) A ssociated G eneral C ontractors and others (Southern California and N evada) A ssociated G eneral C ontractors (A riz o n a )................................................ A ssociated G eneral C ontractors (Alaska) .................................................. R esidential C ontractors Association and others (Southern California) Residential C ontractors Em ployers Council (Chicago, il) ................... Highway C ontractors, Inc. (K entucky)........................................................ Highway Contractors, Inc. (K entucky)........................................................ Association of Contracting Plumbers of the City of New York (N ew York) Painting and D ecorating C ontractors Association (Los Angeles, ca ) A ssociated G eneral C ontractors, pipefitters (Los Angeles, c a ) Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry Council and independent com panies (Los Angeles, ca ) M echanical C ontractors o f C entral California (California) ................. Food p ro d u cts.................................. A p p a re l............................................... Furniture ............................................ P a p e r.................................................... R u b b e r................................................ H Plum bers .................................................. 1,450 Team sters ................................................ Ladies’ G arm ent W o rk e rs ................. Ladies’ G arm ent W o rk e rs ................. 20,000 3,200 3,300 C arpenters................................................ P ap e rw o rk e rs.......................................... Ladies’ G arm ent W o rk e rs ................. 4,500 1,100 4,500 N ew U nited M otors M anufacturing Inc. (Frem ont, ca ) ...................... Electrical W orkers ( iue ) .................... Various u n io n s ....................................... Electrical W orkers ( iue ) .................... M etal Trades C o u n c il......................... A uto W o rk e rs......................................... M achinists ............................................... A uto W o rk e rs......................................... A uto W o rk e rs......................................... A uto W o rk e rs......................................... A uto W o rk e rs......................................... 1,400 80,000 1,100 12,000 5,000 3,000 1,000 2,000 3,600 1,200 Railroads including A m trak and Conrail (In te rs ta te )............................ G eneral Telephone Co. of K entucky (K entucky).................................... A rkansas Power and Light Co. (A rk a n sas)............................................... G ulf States U tilities Co. (Louisiana and T e x a s )...................................... Potom ac Electric Pow er Co. (W ashington, DC)....................................... East Ohio Gas Co. (O h io ).............................................................................. Various u n io n s ....................................... C om m unications W orkers ................. Electrical W orkers ( ibew ) ................. Electrical W orkers ( ibew ) ................. Electrical W orkers ( ibew ) ................. Service E m p lo y e e s............................... 348,350 1,400 3,000 2,500 3,300 1,900 California Processors, Inc., and others (California) ............................... Belt A ssociation, Inc. (N ew York, n y ) ....................................................... Pleaters, Stitchers and Em broiderers Association, Inc. (New Y ork, n y ) M illwork M anufacturers Association, Inc. (N ew York, n y ) .............. G eorgia-Pacific Corp. (Crossett, a r ) ........................................................... Plastics and M etal Products M anufacturers Association (N ew York, ny ) . . Electrical p ro d u c ts ......................... T ransportation e q u ip m en t............. R a ilro a d s ............................................ C om m unication ............................... U tilitie s ............................................... G eneral Electric Co. (I n te rsta te )................................................................... Zenith Electronics Corp. (Evansville, in ) .................................................. G eneral D ynam ics Corp., Electric Boat Division (G roton, C T)........ G eneral D ynam ics Corp., Land Systems Division (Interstate) ......... G eneral D ynam ics Corp. (Pom ona, ca ) ..................................................... AM G eneral Corp. (South Bend, in ) .......................................................... H ow m et Corp. (W hitehall, Ml) ...................................................................... See footnote at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 51 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • M a jo r A g r e e m e n ts E x p ir in g N e x t M o n th Continued—Major Agreements Expiring Next Month N um ber of w orkers In d u stry or activity Em ployer and location L abor o rganization1 Retail tr a d e ....................................... Chain and independent food stores (St. Louis, m o ) .............................. Chain and independent food stores (N ew York, n y ) ........................... Food M art/W aldbaum s (M assachusetts and C o n n ec tic u t)................... W om en’s A pparel Chain Store Association (New York, n y ) ........... G reater M ilwaukee H otel-M otel A ssociation (W isco n sin )................... Food and Commercial W orkers...... Food and Commercial W orkers...... Food and Commercial W orkers...... Ladies’ G arm ent W o rk e rs ................. H otel Em ployees and R estaurant Em ployees 7,500 12,000 3,100 2,500 1,100 Arizona: Phoenix clerical u n i t ........................................................................ State, C ounty and M unicipal Em ployees State, C ounty and M unicipal Em ployees Police A ssociations............................... Education A ssociation (Ind.) State, C ounty and M unicipal Employees U nited Teachers of Los Angeles (Ind.) Los A ngeles City Em ployees (Ind.) State, C ounty and M unicipal Em ployees Education A ssociation (Ind.) State, County and M unicipal Em ployees State, County and M unicipal Em ployees Education A ssociation (Ind.) Service Em ployees 1,800 H o te ls .................................................. Public G eneral g o v e rn m e n t...................... Phoenix blue collar ......................................................................... Law e n fo rc e m e n t............................ E d u c a tio n .......................................... Phoenix Police D e p a rtm e n t.......................................................... Phoenix Board of Education, te a ch e rs...................................... Tucson Board of Education, teacher aides and clerical ... California: Los Angeles Board of Education, te a c h e rs ......................... G eneral g o v e rn m e n t...................... Los A ngeles equipm ent operators and laborers................. Los Angeles c le ric a l..................................................................... E ducation .......................................... G eneral g o v e rn m e n t.................... . O akland teachers and related professionals......................... San Diego white co lla r................................................................ San Diego blue c o lla r .................................................................. Education .......................................... H ealth serv ices................................. San Diego Unified School D istrict, paraprofessionals .... San Diego County social w o rk e rs .......................................... T ran sp o rta tio n .................................. Southern California Rapid T ransit A u th o rity ...................... G eneral g o v e rn m e n t...................... State State State State State adm inistration and staff .................................................. cu sto d ian s.............................................................................. office and allied e m ployees............................................ forest fire fig h ters............................................................... health and social services, professional .................... State State State State State m edical and social s erv ice s............................................ registered nurses ................................................................ professional e n g in e e rs ....................................................... protective services and public safety ......................... correctional peace officers ............................................. Fire p ro te c tio n ................................. H ealth serv ices................................. G eneral g o v e rn m e n t...................... Law e n fo rc e m e n t............................ Education .......................................... State U niversity clerical and support u n its ......................... G eneral governm ent ...................... C onnecticut: State blue co lla r......................................................................... State c le ric a l................................................................................ State general u n it...................................................................... Law e n fo rc e m e n t............................ State corrections u n i t .............................................................. Education .......................................... G eneral g o v e rn m e n t...................... W aterbury Board of E d u c a tio n ............................................ Florida: Broward County Board of Education, m aintenance and crafts D ade County Board of Education, te a c h e rs............................ D ade C ounty Board of Education, blue co lla r....................... Education .......................................... Duval County School D istrict, te a c h e rs .................................... Duval County School D istrict, blue c o lla r............................... Hillsborough County Board of Education, te a ch e rs.............. Palm Beach County Board of Education, teachers .............. Pinellas C ounty Board of Education, te a c h e rs ....................... Polk C ounty Board of Education, te a c h e rs .............................. See footnote at end of table. 52 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Transit Union; Transportation U nion Service E m p lo y ee s............................... Service E m p lo y ee s............................... Service E m p lo y ee s............................... Fire Fighters .......................................... State, County and M unicipal Em ployees Service E m p lo y ee s............................... Service E m p lo y e e s............................... Professional Engineers (Ind.) ........... Safety Em ployees ( I n d .) .................... C orrectional Peace O ffic e rs.............. California State Em ployees Association State, C ounty and M unicipal Em ployees State, County and M unicipal Em ployees State, County and M unicipal Em ployees State, County and M unicipal Em ployees Education A ssociation (Ind.) ........... Federation of Public Em ployees (m e b a ) T e a c h e rs.................................................... State, County and M unicipal Em ployees T e a c h e rs.................................................... Various u n io n s ....................................... H illsborough County Teachers A ssociation (Ind.) Palm Beach Classroom Teachers A ssociation (Ind.) Education A ssociation (Ind.) ........... T e a c h e rs.................................................... 2,400 1,400 1.100 1,200 32,200 3,400 3,000 3,200 3,500 1,700 1,400 1,500 6,200 19,450 5,000 28,100 2,800 2,650 1,200 2,000 3,100 4,400 13,000 12,100 7,500 6,500 1,000 1,300 1,100 2,200 16,000 6,650 6,100 3,500 7,000 4,600 6,200 3,600 Continued—Major Agreements Expiring Next Month Industry or activity Employer and location State U niversity fa c u lty ...................................................................... Indiana: State U niversity m a in te n an c e ........................................................ Kansas: Kansas City te a c h e rs ......................................................................... G eneral g o v e rn m e n t...................... Kentucky: Jefferson County te a ch e rs........................................................... M aryland: A nne A rundel County Board of Education, teachers .... Baltimore white c o lla r .................................................................. Baltimore blue c o lla r..................................................................... Education .......................................... Baltimore County Board of Education, m a in te n an c e ...... G eneral g o v e rn m e n t...................... M assachusetts: Springfield School Board, te a c h e rs ................................. W orcester municipal em p lo y ees....................................... M ichigan: D etro it m unicipal employees ..................................................... E ducation .......................................... U niversity of M ichigan service and m aintenance.............. N evada: W ashoe C ounty te a c h e rs ................................................................ G eneral G overnm ent .................... Clark C ounty public e m ployees................................................... E ducation .......................................... N ew Jersey: Paterson Board of Education, teachers ............................ N ew ark Board of Education, te a c h e rs ............................... N ew Mexico: A lbuquerque m ultidepartm ent ............................................ G eneral governm ent ...................... Law e n fo rc e m e n t............................ State University p rofessionals................................................ Buffalo fire fig h ters..................................................................... Buffalo p o lic e ................................................................................ E ducation .......................................... Ohio: A kron Board of Education, te a c h e rs............................................... Oklahoma: Tulsa Board of Education, te a ch e rs....................................... G eneral governm ent ...................... O r e g o n : P o r tl a n d c le r ic a l a n d m a i n t e n a n c e ........................................................ O klahom a City Board of Education, teachers ................... Pennsylvania: Philadelphia City employees ............................................... Law e n fo rc e m e n t............................ Fire p ro te c tio n ................................. G eneral g o v e rn m e n t...................... Philadelphia Police D e p artm e n t......................................... Philadelphia Fire D e p a rtm e n t............................................ State adm inistrative, clerical, fiscal.................................. State m aintenance and tr a d e s ............................................ Education .......................................... t : Tennessee: M em phis Board of Education, professional employees .. Nashville te a c h e rs ......................................................................... i E ducation .......................................... ‘Affiliated with a fl -cio https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis W isconsin: M ilwaukee Board of Education, te a c h e rs ............................ Labor organization1 Education Association (Ind.) ........... Education A ssociation (Ind.) ........... State, County and M unicipal Em ployees Education Association (Ind.) ........... Education Association (Ind.) ........... Education Association (Ind.) ........... E ducation Association (Ind.) ........... Education Association (Ind.) ........... Classified M unicipal E m ployees...... State, C ounty and M unicipal Em ployees Police ( I n d .) ............................................ State, County and M unicipal Employees Education Association (Ind.) ........... Service E m p lo y e e s............................... State, County and M unicipal Em ployees State, County and M unicipal Em ployees W ashoe County Teachers Association (Ind.) Clark County Public Em ployees Association (Ind-) Education Association (Ind.) ........... T e a c h ers.................................................... State, County and M unicipal Em ployees Police A ssociations............................... U niversity Professors (I n d .) .............. Fire Fighters ...... ................................... N ew York State Police Conference (Ind.) Education A ssociation (Ind.) ........... Classroom Teachers Association (Ind.) T e a c h ers.................................................... Various u n io n s ....................................... State, County and M unicipal Em ployees Police (I n d .) ............................................ Fire Fighters .......................................... State, County and M unicipal Em ployees State, County and M unicipal Em ployees State, County and M unicipal Em ployees Education A ssociation (Ind.) ........... E ducation A ssociation (Ind.) ........... Education Association (Ind.) ........... V erm ont State Em ployees Association Education A ssociation (Ind.) ........... Number of workers 6,800 1,900 1,500 1,300 1,650 2,900 5,200 4,000 5,000 7,200 2,600 1,500 1,750 1,400 7,000 2,100 1,800 2,100 1,800 5,700 1,300 2,400 18,600 1,000 1,100 1,900 2,000 2,300 1,700 13,400 7,000 2,700 16,650 10,900 15,400 6,000 4,200 2,700 6,000 5,700 except where noted as independent (Ind.) 53 Developments in Industrial Relations Auto industry update There were several major occurrences in the automo bile industry in the early months of 1988, led by clashes between Chrysler Corp. and the United Automobile Workers (uaw ) over cuts in operations that did not bode well for their contract bargaining later in the year. In contrast, the bargaining relationship between the u a w and Ford Motor Co. was enhanced when the employees received a sizable profit-sharing distribution. The controversy at Chrysler erupted when the com pany announced plans to close its assembly and stamping operations in Kenosha, wi, and later announced plans to sell its Acustar, Inc. parts-making subsidiary. Chrysler claimed that closing of the Kenosha operations was mandated by overcapacity in the industry resulting from “a shrinking U.S. automotive market,” and by the fact that plants in the manufacturing complex—some dating back to 1902—were the least efficient in its chain because of their outmoded layout. Reactions to the closing were bitter. Wisconsin Gover nor Tommy G. Thompson, voicing the contention of the u a w and local government officials, said Chrysler had made a contractual commitment to continue building vehicles in Kenosha for at least 5 years. The Governor claimed the commitment had been made after Chrysler acquired the complex as part of its August 1987 purchase of American Motors Corp. The dispute eased somewhat when Chrysler an nounced that it would divert all of its profits from 1988 vehicle sales in Wisconsin into a fund to aid the 5,500 workers affected by the closing. The allocation was expected to total $20 million. Company chairman Lee Iacocca said that “time and the marketplace just caught up with an 86-year-old plant,” and that Chrysler had not made a legal commitment to keep the plants open. Despite Chrysler’s action, some of the employees to be affected by the closing filed a suit in the Federal courts to block the use of Federal money for the company’s new Jefferson Avenue Plant in Detroit, m i . In the suit, the plaintiffs charged that Chrysler was not eligible for a $15 “Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by George Ruben of the Division of Developments in Labor-Management Relations, Bureau of labor Statistics, and is largely based on information from secondary sources. 54 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis million Federal grant because it was shifting jobs from Kenosha to the detriment of the Kenosha workers. According to the plaintiffs, Federal law prohibits finan cial aid to companies engaging in such detrimental shifts of operations. The Acustar controversy turned out better for the u a w , as Chrysler modified its plan to sell all of the 11 parts manufacturing plants, which employ 11,000 mem bers of the union. Under the new plan, only four plants will be sold, or closed, within 18 months. The four targeted facilities are Amplex Van Wert in Ohio and Trenton Chemical, Detroit Forge, and Detroit Trim in Michigan. About 2,000 employees are involved. The displaced employees will be put in a job bank and paid until they are placed in another plant. When Chrysler first announced that it would close the parts plants, the company said it wanted to get out of parts production and focus on production of “new products and powertrains, rather than components.” The u a w ’s immediate contention was that Chrysler wanted to divest the operations because of a cash-flow problem and because one of the union’s major demands in national bargaining later in 1988 will be adoption of stronger successorship contract clauses similar to those negotiated with Ford and General Motors in 1987. Under such clauses, companies acquiring operations from Ford and General Motors are required to retain all contract provisions as a condition of sale. In recent years, the domestic manufacturers—particularly General Mo tors—have claimed that parts produced internally are more costly than those purchased from outside suppliers. In the 1987 negotiations, General Motors was unsuccess ful in efforts to overcome the claimed cost disparity by adopting pay rates in the parts plants lower than those in engine, transmission, and assembly plants. Chrysler’s decision to continue parts production was apparently influenced by the tactics adopted by the u a w . Immediately after the initial sale announcement, mem bers of local unions began authorizing their leaders to initiate strikes, ostensibly over excessive backlogs of unresolved grievances. The union also indicated that it would delay implementation of six “modern operating agreements” already negotiated at the plant level and refuse to enter into any more such agreements. The agreements are designed to improve quality and effi- ciency through increased cooperation in revising work rules, the scope of jobs, and other provisions. In the wake of all the controversy, Chrysler moved to increase the possibility of a peaceful national settlement on wages and benefits by asking the u a w to start the talks “promptly.” Based on past practice, negotiations would have started in July on a contract to succeed the current agreement, scheduled to expire on September 14. After considering the proposal, the union agreed to begin the talks in mid-April. In the talks, the attitude of Chrysler employees was presumably also influenced by the contrast between the flat $500 lump-sum payments they received in March and the average $3,700 profit-sharing distributions Ford workers received. In 1982, Chrysler and the union had replaced a profit-sharing plan with specified wage in creases to partly restore the wage cuts the employees had accepted earlier to improve the company’s financial condition. In the 1985 settlement, the parties agreed to the $500 payment in March of 1987, 1988, and 1989, in lieu of profit-sharing distributions. They also agreed to re-establish a profit-sharing plan in the contract to be negotiated in 1988, with the $500 payment in March 1989 serving as a guaranteed minimum for the first distribution under the new plan. The $3,700 distribution to Ford employees was a company record, reflecting Ford’s net income of $4.6 billion for 1987. Distributions averaged $2,100 for 1986 and $1,800 for 1985. General Motors employees did not receive a distribu tion in March 1988, although their 1987 settlement revised the profit-sharing formula—which had been less liberal than the Ford formula—to make it identical to the improved formula adopted in 1987 at Ford. General Motors employees received an average distribution of $1,800 for 1985 and nothing for 1986. The u a w ’s efforts to organize foreign-owned vehicle and vehicle parts plants in the United States were boosted when the union and Mazda Motor Manufacturing Corp. settled for 2,000 workers in Flat Rock, m i . The develop ments leading to the settlement began in 1984, when Mazda announced plans to begin producing vehicles in the United States, in cooperation with Ford, which owns 25 percent of the operation. At that time, the company and the u a w agreed that when the plant opened, workers would be paid at 85 percent of the average of the “Big Three” domestic manufacturers, increasing to full parity after 3 years of production. The union agreed to give Mazda “operating flexibility” by allowing a limited num ber of job classifications. When the plant opened in September 1987, employees participated in an election conducted by the American Arbitration Association in which they officially decided to be represented by new u a w Local 3000. Subsequent https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis negotiations led to the settlement for the unit of 2,000 workers, which is expected to grow to more than 3,000. The u a w reported that the 3-year agreement provides for: • Movement from the current 85-percent wage parity with Ford employees to full parity by the end of the contract. On the March 3, 1991, contract termination date, the Mazda workers will also receive an increase equal to any first-contract-year specified wage increase resulting from the 1990 settlement at Ford. • A $750 immediate “settlement bonus” ($250 for probationary employees), followed by payments in April 1989, December 1989, and April 1990, equal to 3 percent of the employee’s earnings during the preced ing 52 weeks. • Automatic quarterly cost-of-living adjustments using the same formula as Ford (and General Motors). • An improved vacation schedule, ranging up to 17 paid days off after 10 years’ service. • A total of 42 paid holidays over the contract term. • An improved pension plan different from that at Ford and General Motors, but designed to provide equiva lent benefit levels at age 65. The benefit levels at Mazda are based on career earnings, subject to increases (no decreases) during working years based on the interest rate paid by a 30-year U.S. Treasury Bill. • Extensive improvements in health insurance benefits. • Establishment of a profit-sharing plan during the contract term, or, if that is not possible, during the succeeding contract. • Employee discounts on purchases of Mazda vehicles. • Prohibition of outsourcing (subcontracting) work tra ditionally performed by members of the bargaining unit. • A ban on layoffs, except when the company’s viability is at stake, and then only after various efforts to avert the layoffs. Elsewhere in the industry, the u a w was in the midst of an organizing campaign at Nissan Motor Co.’s vehicle plant in Smyrna, t n . The plant, which employs 2,000 hourly workers, opened in 1985. Success at Nissan could lead to renewal of the union’s campaign at Honda Motor Co.’s Marysville, o h , plant, the first of the Japaneseowned automobile plants to open in the United States. In 1986, the u a w terminated an organizing drive at the plant but promised to return. By a vote of 1,915 to 1,668, u a w members at General M otors’ Van Nuys, c a , plant approved a work-sharing plan under which workers of each on the two shifts will alternately work 2 weeks while the other shift goes on temporary layoff. The approval came after an intensive compaign by proponents and opponents of the approach. The plan was earlier rejected by an eight vote margin, apparently 55 M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Developments in Industrial Relations because senior employees were concerned that they would suffer a loss of income while on layoff because General M otors’ national Supplemental Unemployment Benefit fund was partly depleted. Normally, the company benefit combined with the State unemployment benefit would total nearly 95 percent of job take-home pay. The unhappy employees also argued that the approach violated one of organized labor’s basic tenets: the last employees hired should be the first employees fired. If the workers had rejected the work-sharing plan, the second shift would have been ended indefinitely. Rejec tion also would have disrupted the Japanese-type team approach to production that had been adopted in May 1987. This would have occurred because some team members would have been laid off, while others were shifted about under contract seniority provisions permit ting senior workers to avoid layoff by “bumping” those with less seniority. General Motors ended the work sharing 1 month earlier than the expected 2-month duration, saying that a sales increase permitted a resumption of two-shift pro duction. Some workers contended that the resumption was hastened by company concern over alleged morale problems, despite General Motors announcement that it would probably use work sharing again if sales decline. Such a plan has already been used at a General Motors plant in Lansing, m i . Rubber Workers agree on contract provisions Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. and the United Rubber Workers agreed on a new contract to replace the contract scheduled to expire in April. A company official said resolution of key issues would aid new management in dealing with problems resulting from a corporate restruc turing. Rubber Workers President Milan Stone said the agreement demonstrated the union’s willingness to insure companies’ “continuing viability.” However, union offi cials also said that the terms at Uniroyal Goodrich would not set a pattern for Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. and Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. where contracts also were to expire in April. On the contrary, Uniroyal Goodrich and the union agreed to negotiate on or after April 12, 1990, to determine what portion of the “industry pattern” wage and benefit terms at Goodyear and Firestone will be incorporated into their contract. Tire companies’ attempts to adapt to the growing “internationalization” of production and sales has re sulted in corporate acquisitions and mergers and revamp ing of operations, including plant closings. At Uniroyal Goodrich (which resulted from the 1986 merger of Uniroyal, Inc. and B.F. Goodrich Co.), recent changes in management occurred because of the December 1987 acquisition of Goodrich stock shares by Clayton & 56 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Dubilier, an investment firm that already owned a substantial portion of Uniroyal shares. Under the contract, employees will not receive speci fied wage increases during the 39-month contract period which ends in April 1991. During the first year, the provision for quarterly cost-of-living adjustments will operate at the existing rate of 1 cent an hour for each 0.26-point movement in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (1967=100), but only to the extent that the increase in the index exceeds 4.5 percent. Adjust ments in the second and third contract years will not be subject to similar limits. In return for the wage restraint, employees will receive “equity units” of the company described as “a stake in the company’s success,” according to a corporate official. The units will be held in trust by the Rubber Workers and will be redeemable in cash if the company is sold, assumes the status of a publicly-owned corporation, or on the fifth anniversary of the agreement, whichever occurs first. From the employees’ view, the most important provi sion was a guarantee that the company will not close its plants in Fort Wayne, i n , and Opelika and Tuscaloosa, a l . The fate of the fourth plant, in Eau Claire, w i , will be considered by a joint committee. Another provision calls for a joint effort to contain rising health care costs. In another change, pension rates for future retirees will be raised by $2 in the third year, to $22 for the former Goodrich employees and to $20.50 for the former Uniroyal employees. Equalization of these rates and other provisions will be negotiated during the agreement period. Safeway sells stores, new contract negotiated Safeway Stores’ efforts to reduce debt resulting from a successful fend-off of a hostile takeover bid in 1986 continued, as the grocery chain completed the sale of its Kansas City division. The final condition of the sale was met when the new owners negotiated an initial labor contract with the United Food and Commercial Work ers, the incumbent union. The new owners are a group of former Safeway division managers and a New York City investment firm, Morgan, Lewis, Githens and Ahn. The 66 stores will be operated under the name Food Barn Stores, Inc. The 3-year accord included some employee “give backs.” But, according to the president of the largest of the three local unions, it was “the best possible contract we could have gotten under the circumstances.” One area of cost reduction was premium pay for work on Sundays, which was reduced to the employee’s regular hourly pay rate plus $1, from time-and-one-half. All employees will be paid at time-and-one-quarter for working on holidays, down from double-time for meatcutters and time-andone-half for clerks. Wage rates were frozen for all employees except wrappers, whose rate was cut 74 cents, to $9.50 an hour, and clerks at the top of the pay scale, whose rate was cut 68 cents, to $9 an hour. A union official estimated that the 68-cent cut would affect 500 employees, but 1,500 clerks would benefit by moving up to the new $9 rate. These employees had been receiving less than $9 because they were at the lower end of a two-tier pay system that was abolished under the settlement. Also, the starting rate for clerks was increased to $4.50 from $4.19. Other provisions included: • Elimination of paid personal leave, which had totaled 3 or 4 days per year. • Shortening of the time intervals between steps in the pay progression schedule. • Equalization of the employer’s pension financing at 52 cents for all hours worked by all employees. Previ ously, the rate ranged from 22 cents to 52 cents. • Requirements that at least 50 percent of all work hours be given to full-time workers and that part-time workers must be assured of a least 20 hours a week. • Elimination of credits for service with Safeway in determining the duration of paid vacations. However, all employees will receive 1 week of paid vacation beginning in the first year. • Retention of credits for service with Safeway in setting work schedules, job bumping, and transfers. At the time of the settlement, Safeway was also proceeding with plans to sell its Little Rock, a r , division, comprising 51 stores. Earlier, Safeway had sold its Dallas, t x , division, which led the company and the Food and Commercial Workers to adopt a national severance plan providing for benefits to employees losing their jobs as a result of the sale of an entire division. (See Monthly Labor Review, January 1988, p. 35.) Contract terms vary among sugar producers A 3-year contract between 13 Hawaiian sugar produc ers and the International Longshoremen’s and Ware housemen’s Union provided for variations in wage terms among the producers, reflecting their financial condition. At Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar, the most profitable of the companies, employees received an immediate 3- https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis percent wage increase, to be followed by 1.5-percent increases in the second and third contract years. Workers at 10 plantations will receive 1.5-percent increases in each of the 3 years. At Hamakua and Hilo Coast Processing, the two plantations that are in serious financial difficulty, workers will not receive a wage increase in the first year, but will receive lump-sum payments equal to a 1.5-percent wage increase in the second and third years if the plantations attain at least a financial breakeven after the first year. The two planta tions employ more than 1,400 of the 6,000 workers covered by the overall settlement. The new contract, which runs to January 1, 1991, also eliminated a 35-year limit on employee accrual of service for pension calculations. Early retirement offered at power company In Upstate New York, 8,100 employees of Niagara Mohawk Power Co. agreed to extend their current contract for 1 year, to May 31, 1990, and to defer a scheduled 4.7-percent wage increase for 1 year, to June 1989. In return, the company agreed not to subcontract janitorial work, which would have eliminated 120 jobs in the bargaining unit, according to the International Broth erhood of Electrical Workers, which represents the workers. In 1987, the employees had rejected a company proposal to defer for 1 year a 4.5-percent wage increase scheduled for June 1987. The utility then announced plans to cut 389 jobs from the bargaining unit as part of an ongoing program to cut costs. However, only 44 employees were cut because some workers were shifted to other jobs. According to a union official, the 1988 proposal was accepted by the employees because it was initiated by the union and because it contained more “guarantees” for the employees. According to both parties, the settlement signaled an improvement in their bargaining relationship. The new contract also extended an early retirement option to employees in the bargaining unit. Under the option (which was offered to nonunion employees in 1987), union members who were on the payroll on April 29, 1987 and who attained age 58 and 10 years of service any time in 1987 could retire at unreduced pension rates. In addition, the retirees would receive a $700 a month supplement until they reach age 62. □ 57 Book Reviews From laborlords to landlords Old South, New South: Revolutions in the Southern Economy Since the Civil War. By Gavin Wright. New York, Basic Books, 1986. $9.95, paper. “The preeminent distinctiveness of the Southern con text was the labor market,” writes Gavin Wright. The regional labor market of the South provides the axis upon which this well-argued, well-written work turns. As a prism refracts light, so for Wright the changing southern labor market refracts the forces that have underlain the development of the southern economy. Wright deals essentially with two questions—why did the southern labor market retain its regional distinctiveness for some 80 years after emancipation; and what caused it eventu ally to become integrated into the national labor market? The core of W right’s answer is that (1) the southern labor market’s isolation resulted from the need to maintain a cheap agricultural work force; industrial wages in the South were linked to the farm wage; and the dominant planter interests resisted the wage competition which industrial development, with its attendant invest ment in education, would have involved; and (2) that with the introduction of farm (including cotton) price supports by the New Deal legislation, the mechanization of cotton harvesting became economically feasible, dis placing farm labor even as job opportunities in the North opened up during World War II. The system upon which the economy of the post bellum South had been based thus disintegrated. The interest in keeping the southern labor market isolated disappeared, giving the forces that sought to promote industrial development the upper hand, and tending to integrate the southern labor market into the national one. The separateness of the South’s labor market was evident from the low average wages paid there; low investment in education; and low average value added in manufacturing per worker—nonfarm labor being concen trated in low-wage, low-skill sectors. It was a burden inherited from the slave economy. Slavery had retarded southern economic development—but how so? Wright strikingly conceptualizes the behavioral response of slave owners to the incentives available in a system of slave labor: they were laborlords rather than landlords, he argues. Their concern was with raising the value of their labor (which constituted an estimated two-thirds of their 58 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis wealth), rather than of their land. Hence, in contrast to landed interests in the North, they exerted little pressure for “internal improvements.” Population per square mile remained low, canal mileage and railroad mileage per 1,000 square miles was much less than elsewhere in the United States, and also the social groups seeking capital gains as the major benefit from owning land were virtually absent. The slaveholders, small as well as large, were footloose; unlike northern wealthholders, they fre quently changed domicile. They lacked the interest in developing land—the banks generally would lend only with slaves, not with land, as security—as indicated by the neglect in using fertilizer, by soil exhaustion, and by failure to invest in the rich deposits of potash and coal found in the South. The Civil War, however, turned laborlords into land lords, writes Wright. The planters had not been the great landowning class before the war that has often been written about; they became one after the war. Their new interest in land is documented by the campaigns they led in many States for fence laws, strict trespass laws, and enforcement—laws that were bitterly fought by smaller farmers who had earlier used the land freely for grazing, fishing, and hunting. Railroad building increased, and there was a population shift to smaller urban centers. But the dominance of cotton persisted and cotton planting expanded. It remained by far the most profitable crop in the agricultural South. “Cotton was not the totality of southern agriculture, but for most of the region it defined the opportunities and dictated the pace of economic life.” While per capita income rose, the rise remained linked to the fortunes of the world market demand for cotton: real hourly wages and farm labor rates were linked to one another (although the link began to weaken after World War I). The South could not compete for the immigrant labor that came to staff the northern industries, being “a low-wage region in a high-wage country.” The kinship networks that immigrant labor built, and which were major channels of labor market information, remained confined in the South for southern workers, and this factor hindered their migration to the North. The southern textile mill village epitomized this kinship-based labor market system. While fostered by employers, and despite its vaunted exploitative character, it was accepted by textile worker families who had often to leave the land because of the decline in the size of their farms, the spread of tenancy, and other factors that marginalized their existence. Employers had little trouble in staffing the mills, despite the decline in the southern textile mill wage to one-half the New England level by 1900. Kinship was the vital ingredient in hiring and holding this work force. As Wright states, “Rather than thinking of kinship, ethnic, and linguistic loyalties as market ‘imper fections,’ it is more appropriate to consider these forces as part of the way the market functions and expands.” The isolation of the southern labor market was perpet uated by low educational attainment, and the smallness or absence of a technical base in such fields as machine building, metallurgy, and so forth. Low educational attainment stemmed largely from inadequate funding of schools. As late as 1940, expenditures per pupil in such States as Virginia ran to only 54 percent of the national average; in Texas, 73 percent; in North Carolina, 49 percent. Wright does not believe such low spending is explainable by relative income. It resulted from the South’s economic structure: “ . . . as a low-wage region in a high-wage country, the South had no expectation that it could capture the return on investment in its own people.” Wright cites the experience of Birmingham, a l , where, under the pressure of the steel industry located there and of interested local business circles, schools were better funded than rural schools, and schools attended by blacks were, as an exception, not underfunded. But no sooner than World War I stopped the flow of immigrants to the United States, “experienced miners and steelwork ers of the Birmingham district were among the first ones to leave for the better paying jobs of the N orth.” Employers in mining, sawmills, and lumber camps “could not block the mobility of workers to leave but they did not have to spend their money on an educational process likely to raise the probability of departure.” The South’s industrial start came late; the latecomer may derive an advantage from his ability to adopt more up-to-date production equipment than that of competi tors who started earlier. The preconditions to take such advantage were lacking in the post bellum South. The experience of southern labor built slowly, turnover and absenteeism remained high for a long period. No widely diffused community of technical experts existed—“the basic lack of an indigenous technology is observable in many . . . areas”—not only in steel and mining, but also in paper and textile machinery (although in time the textile machinery industry increasingly located in the South, and generated a group of innovative engineers). Moreover, the diffusion of technology was hampered by the failure to upgrade labor whose schooling, as noted, remained below the national norm. Among the more important theses which Wright argues in this book is that market pressures were not hostile to racial segregation, that, on the contrary, they accommodated to it. Hence, segregation did not in itself impede southern progress. Competitive pressures indeed https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis tended to equalize wages between whites and blacks, especially in unskilled work. But occupational advance ment in industrial settings, being far more dependent upon personal relationships in the work environment than upon the impersonal market, perpetuated segrega tion by excluding blacks from promotional opportunities in nearly all those industries in which they did not constitute the great majority of workers in the lower job rungs (as in sawmills). There was, then, no “law of industrialization” in evidence which, as some economists have held, would in time eliminate racialist criteria in occupational advancement. Racial segregation, Wright shows, led not only to occupational but to experiental segregation as well. That is, blacks came to be identified with certain industries, such as tobacco and lumbering, and also to some extent with steelmaking—but they were unable to compete for the better jobs, for example, in textile mills because of the white milieu that stamped the work environment there. Despite the long tradition of segregation, racial wage differentials did not fully emerge until the 1920’s. Con struction jobs came to be more distinctly associated with “white jobs” (being high wage), and “black jobs” (being low wage), in part from deliberate trade union policies. A comparable evolution occurred in other industries. A dualism developed, with both black and white workers often holding not merely different but noncompeting jobs with different base pay rates. Market pressures and industrialization thus did not lead to “convergence and equalization but to the opposite.” The specific reasons for the emerging dual-wage structure are not clear; Wright traces this and other developments unfavorable to black workers to “the larger historical process of creating a segregated society.” We now turn to the second question which Wright poses. What were the forces that spelled the end of the South’s low-wage economy? There were essentially two such forces, both receiving their impetus from the changing political constellations of the 1930’s and 1940’s, both rooted in New Deal policies. One was the upward pressure on wages first channeled through the National Recovery Act, and later institutionalized by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Both the n r a and the f l s a in part represented responses to the fears of northern labor of the low-wage competition of the South. The other force was the farm price support program, which stabilized the price of cotton, and eventually resulted in the elimination of tenantry in the South, and a shift to wage labor on cotton plantations. In addition, the economics of cotton planting began to favor mechanization. The need for cheap farm labor abated, and massive out-migration, particularly of blacks, ensued. What Wright calls “The Assault on the Low-Wage Economy” proved indubitably effective. The impact of n r a , even during the brief period of its existence in the 59 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Book Reviews 1930’s, was such as to sizably reduce North-South wage differentials in key southern industries—reductions that “were never really reversed.” The reduced differentials, together with federally mandated minimum wages, had long been a goal of northern labor fearing its gains being undermined by the South, n r a and f l s a also found support among a majority of southerners. However, these wage policies eliminated many jobs, and the first to be laid off were blacks (with an estimated 500,000 of them being on relief in 1934 as a result of the minimum wage provisions of the n r a , by one official estimate). (Black newspapers dubbed the n r a as the Negro Removal Act.) The proportion of black workers in such industries as tobacco, where they had been the majority in 1930 (68 percent), dropped precipitately (to 37 percent by 1950). “A 1941 survey found that 95 percent of new job openings in Georgia were reserved for whites.” In cotton farming, displacement occurred by a more circuitous route. Under the Agricultural Adjustment Act ( a a a ), payments were made to owners for reducing cotton acreage. The payments were structured and administered so as to reduce tenant acreage rather than wage-labor acreage. The percentage of farm families (mostly blacks) who were tenants shrank drastically; the proportion of wage labor increased. The real daily wage of the farm wage laborer dropped, and, in 1940, ran below the level of the 1920’s. As noted, the expansion of wage-labor acreage, combined with the later shortage of farm labor from outmigration, made farm mechanization economically feasible. While the 1930’s echoed with the protests of liberals seeking in vain a betterment in the conditions of southern tenants, the economic interests of the planters had turned against tenantry. “(It) was not the northern liberals but the southern planters who were perpetrating revolutionary changes in southern institu tions,” Wright writes in taking issue with the frequent complaints of southern farming interests, voiced during the 1930’s, that lawyers in the U.S. Department of Agriculture were fomenting unrest in their region. In consequence of these developments, interest on the part of dominant groups in the South in regionally isolated labor and capital markets waned. Wright dis tances himself from certain interpretations of the evolu tion of the “new” South after 1940— among them, the stimulation from military outlays; the importance of climate in the residential choice of professional and 60 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis managerial personnel; the small membership of trade unions; and the absence of bureaucratic impediments to business development often encountered in northern States. These interpretations, Wright believes, are not wrong so much as they fail to answer the question as to why the South’s transformation into an integrated region of the national economy did not occur earlier. His answer is essentially what his book is about. Wright has much to say concerning the human suffering caused by the “speed and heartlessness” with which farm mechanization was undertaken and to which the “all-out research effort by public agencies . . . ” contributed. He quotes Gunnar Myrdal’s remark that the a a a represented an American enclosure movement, although he also points to some of the progressive results it had in terms of the eventually better lives for those who were displaced. Moreover, that “enclosure movement,” doing away as it did with the low-wage regional system, helped lay the social and economic bases of the civil rights movement of the 1960’s. The movement did away with the dualistic wage structure, compelled the expansion of job opportuni ties for blacks, and lent urgency to the promotion of business and industrial development in the South. Again, Wright rejects the notion that this evolution arose from the “rationality” of industrial society. Here, as elsewhere in his book, his orientation is that of the political economist who views political and social forces as central to understanding economic events. The book is rich and instructive as an economic history. There remains the question, however, how successful Wright’s focus upon the southern labor market is. The labor market here constitutes a conditioning factor of the history he has written, not truly an agent. The greatest revolution in the history of the South was abolition. While labor was generally free to move after abolition, it did so within the ambit of the cotton economy: cotton remained king for decades still, and cotton planters imposed a lowwage labor market system that conformed to their interest. The demise of the system, again, was the work of agents or forces that cannot be subsumed within the analytical terms of the labor market. Wright’s skill as a writer conceals the limitations of his approach. Yet, this is a minor criticism. It cannot detract from the quality of his work. —H orst Brand Office of Productivity and Technology Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Labor Statistics S c h e d u le o f r e le a s e d a te s fo r m a jo r bls s ta tis tic a l s e r ie s N o t e s o n C u r r e n t L a b o r S t a t i s t i c s ...................................................................................................................................................... 62 63 C o m p a r a tiv e in d ic a to r s 1. Labor market indicators..................................................... 2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in compensation, prices, andproductivity ........................................................................... 3. Alternative measures of wage and compensation changes............................................................................................... 72 73 73 L a b o r fo r c e d a ta 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Employment status of the total population, data seasonally adjusted................................................................................................ Employment status of the civilian population, data seasonallyadjusted ............................................................................................ Selected employment indicators, data seasonally adjusted..................................................................................................................... Selected unemployment indicators, data seasonally adjusted..................... ..................................................................................... Unemployment rates by sex and age, data seasonally adjusted............................................................... Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, data seasonallyadjusted .................................................. Duration of unemployment, data seasonally adjusted............................. ............. — . .. .. .. .. — ................. .................................... Unemployment rates of civilian workers, by State ....................................... ....................................— .............. ................................ Employment of workers by State............................................................................. Employment of workers by industry, data seasonally adjusted ...................................................................................................... Average weekly hours by industry, data seasonally adjusted..................................................................... ......................................... Average hourly earnings by industry............................................................................................................................................................. Average weekly earnings by industry........................................................ Hourly Earnings Index by industry........ .................. Indexes of diffusion: proportion of industries in which employment increased, seasonally adjusted........................................ Annual data: Employment status of the noninstitutional population............................ Annual data: Employment levels by industry ................................................ Annual data: Average hours and earnings levels by industry............................................................................................................... L a b o r c o m p e n s a tio n 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. P r ic e 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 74 75 76 77 78 78 78 79 79 80 81 82 83 83 84 84 84 85 a n d c o lle c t iv e b a r g a in in g d a ta Employment Cost Index, compensation, by occupation and industry group..................................................................................... Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group......................................................................... Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status,region, and area s iz e ................................................ Specified compensation and wage adjustments from contract settlements, and effective wage adjustments, situations covering 1,000 workers or more............................................................................. ................................................................... Average specified compensation and wage adjustments, bargaining situations covering 1,000workersor m ore..................... Average effective wage adjustments, bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or more ..................................................... Specified compensation and wage adjustments, State and local government bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or m ore................................................................................................................................................................................................. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more................................................................................................................................. 86 87 88 89 89 90 90 90 d a ta Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average, by expenditure category and commodity and servicegroups ................................ Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and local data, all items.......................................................... ....................................... Annual data: Consumer Price Index, all items and major groups.................................................................................................... Producer Price Indexes by stage of processing......................................................................................................................................... Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product ................................................................................ Annual data: Producer Price Indexes by stage of processing .............................................................................................................. U.S. export price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification........................................................................................ U.S. import price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification....................................................................................... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 91 94 95 96 97 97 98 99 61 Current Labor Statistics Contents— Continued 38. 39. 40. 41. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. export import export import price indexes price indexes price indexes price indexes by end-use category................................................... by end-use category ...... by Standard Industrial Classification................................ by Standard Industrial Classification......................................................................................................... 100 100 100 101 42. Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs, data seasonallyadjusted.............................................................. 43. Annual indexes of multifactor productivity............................................................................................................................................... 44. Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices................................................................................ 101 102 103 Productivity data International comparisons 45. Unemployment rates in nine countries, data seasonally adjusted....................................................................................................... 46. Annual data: Employment status of civilian working-age population, ten countries ................................................................... 47. Annual indexes of productivity and related measures, twelve countries........................................................................................... 103 104 105 Injury and illness data 48.. Annual data: Occupational injury and illness incidence rates.............................................................................................................. 106 Schedule of release dates for BLS statistical series P ro d u c tiv ity a n d co s ts : N o n fa rm b u s in e s s a n d m a n u fa c tu rin g .. N o n fin a n c ia l c o rp o ra tio n s ....................... Release date Period covered M ay 2 1st q u a rte r Release date Period covered Release date Period covered MLR table number 2 ’ 4 2 -4 4 ?• 4 P - 4 4 E m p lo y m e n t s it u a t io n ........................................... M ay 6 A p ril P ro d u c e r P rice I n d e x ........................................... M a y 13 A p ril J u n e 10 M ay J u ly 15 June 2; 3 3 -3 5 C o n s u m e r P rice I n d e x ......................................... M a y 20 A p ril J u n e 21 M ay J u ly 22 June 2; 3 0 -3 2 R eal e a r n in g s ........................................................... M a y 20 A p ril J u n e 21 M ay J u ly 22 June June 3 M ay Ju ly 8 June 1; 4-21 14 -1 7 M a jo r c o lle c tiv e b a rg a in in g s e ttle m e n ts ... J u ly 2 6 3- E m p lo y m e n t C o s t I n d e x ..................................... J u ly 26 1 -3 - U .S . Im p o rt a n d E x p o rt P rice In d e x e s . . . . J u ly 28 62 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 n d q u a rte r ? ? -? 4 36-4 1 NOTES ON CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS This section of 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 of tables are briefly described, key definitions are given, notes on the data are set forth, and sources of additional information are cited. Adjustments for price changes. Some data— such as the Hourly Earnings Index in table 17— are adjusted to eliminate the effect of changes in price. These adjustments are made by dividing current dollar values by the Consumer Price Index or the appropriate component of the index, then multiplying by 100. For example, given a current hourly wage rate of $3 and a current price index number of 150, where 1977 = 100, the hourly rate expressed in 1977 dollars is $2 ($3/150 x 100 = $2). The $2 (or any other resulting values) are described as “real,” “constant,” or “1977” 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 of 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, 4-10, 13, 14, 17, and 18.) Begin ning in January 1980, the bls introduced two major modifications in the seasonal adjustment methodology for labor force data. First, the data are seasonally adjusted with a procedure called x - n arima, which was devel oped at Statistics Canada as an extension of the standard x -n method previously used by bls . A detailed description of the procedure appears in The x -n a r i m a Seasonal Adjustment Method by Estela Bee Dagum (Statis tics Canada, Catalogue No. 12-564E, February 1980). The second change is that seasonal factors are calculated for use during the first 6 months of the year, rather than for the entire year, and then are calculated at midyear for the July-December period. However, revisions of historical data con tinue to be made only at the end of each calendar year. Seasonally adjusted labor force data in tables 1 and 4-10 were revised in the February 1988 issue of the Review, to reflect experience through 1987. Annual revisions of the seasonally adjusted payroll data shown in tables 13, 14, and 18 were made in the July 1987 Review 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 available for this series. Data that supplement the tables in this section are published by the Bureau in a variety of sources. News 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 of the Bureau. More data from the household survey are published in the two-volume data book—Labor Force Statistics Derived From the Current Population Sur vey, Bulletin 2096. More data from the establishment survey appear in two data books—Employment, Hours, and Earnings, United States, and Em ployment, Hours, and Earnings, States and Areas, and the annual supple ments to these data books. More detailed information on employee com pensation and collective bargaining settlements is published in the monthly periodical, Current Wage Developments. More detailed data on consumer and producer prices are published in the monthly periodicals, The c p i Detailed Report, and Producer Prices and Price Indexes. Detailed data on all of the series in this section are provided in the Handbook of Labor Statistics, which is published biennally by the Bureau, bls bulletins are issued covering 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; employee compensation and collective bargaining; prices; productivity; international comparisons; and injury and illness data. Symbols p = preliminary. To increase the timeliness of some series, prelim inary figures are issued based on representative but incom plete returns. r = revised. Generally, this revision reflects the availability of 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 (eci) 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 hours by major industry sector are given using nonagricultural payroll data. The Employment Cost Index (compensation), by major sector and by https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 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 of change of compensation and wages from the Employment Cost Index program are provided for all civilian nonfarm workers (excluding Federal and household workers) and for all private nonfarm workers. Measures of changes in: consumer prices for all urban consumers; producer prices by stage of processing; and the overall export and import price indexes are given. Measures of productivity (output per hour of all persons) are provided for major sectors. 63 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Current Labor Statistics Alternative measures of wage and compensation rates of change, which reflect the overall trend in labor costs, are summarized in table 3. Differences in concepts and scope, related to the specific purposes of the series, contribute to the variation in changes among the individual mea sures. Notes on the data Definitions of each series and notes on the data are contained in later sections of these notes describing each set of data. For detailed descriptions of each data series, see b l s Handbook of Methods, Volumes I and II, Bulletins 2134-1 and 2134-2 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982 and 1984, respectively), as well as the additional bulletins, articles, and other publi cations noted in the separate sections of the Review’s “Current Labor Statistics Notes.” Historical data for many series are provided in the Hand book 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 AND UNEMPLOYMENT 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 of personal interviews conducted monthly by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The sample consists of about 59,500 households selected to represent the U.S. population 16 years of age and older. Households are interviewed on a rotating basis, so that three-fourths of the sample is the same for any 2 consecutive months. Definitions Employed persons include (1) all civilians who worked for pay any time during the week which includes the 12th day of the month or who worked unpaid for 15 hours or more in a family-operated enterprise and (2) those who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs because of illness, vacation, industrial dispute, or similar reasons. Members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States are also included in the employed total. A person working at more than one job is counted only in the job at which he or she worked the greatest number of hours. Unemployed persons are those who did not work during the survey week, but were available for work except for temporary illness and had looked for jobs within the preceding 4 weeks. Persons who did not look for work because they were on layoff or waiting to start new jobs within the next 30 days are also counted among the unemployed. The overall unem ployment rate represents the number unemployed as a percent of the labor force, including the resident Armed Forces. The civilian unemployment rate represents the number unemployed as a percent of the civilian labor force. The labor force consists of all employed or unemployed civilians plus members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. Persons not in the labor force are those not classified as employed or unemployed; this group includes persons who are retired, those engaged in their own house work, those not working while attending school, those unable to work because of long-term illness, those discouraged from seeking work because of personal or job-market factors, and those who are voluntarily idle. The noninstitutional population comprises all persons 16 years of age and older who are not inmates of penal or mental institutions, sanitariums, or homes for the aged, infirm, or needy, and members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. The labor force participation rate is the proportion of the noninstitutional population that is in the labor force. The employment-population ratio is total employment (including the resident Armed Forces) as a percent of the noninstitutional population. Notes on the data From time to time, and especially after a decennial census, adjustments are made in the Current Population Survey figures to correct for estimating errors during the preceding years. These adjustments affect the comparabil ity of historical data. A description of these adjustments and their effect on 64 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis the various data series appear in the Explanatory Notes of Employment and Earnings. Data in tables 4-10 are seasonally adjusted, based on the seasonal experience through December 1987. Additional sources of information For detailed explanations of the data, see b l s 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 1981 are available in Labor Force Statistics Derived from the Current Population Survey: A Databook, Vols. I and II, Bulletin 2096 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982). A comprehensive discussion of the differences between household and establishment data on employment appears in Gloria P. Green, “Comparing employment estimates from household and payroll surveys,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1969, pp. 9-20. Establishment survey data Description of the series Employment, hours, and earnings data in this section are compiled from payroll records reported monthly on a voluntary basis to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperating State agencies by more than 290,000 establishments representing all industries except agriculture. In most indus tries, the sampling probabilities are based on the size of the establishment; most large establishments are therefore in the sample. (An establishment is not necessarily a firm; it may be a branch plant, for example, or ware house.) Self-employed persons and others not on a regular civilian payroll are outside the scope of the survey because they are excluded from estab lishment records. This largely accounts for the difference in employment figures between the household and establishment surveys. Definitions An establishment is an economic unit which produces goods or services (such as a factory or store) at a single location and is engaged in one type of economic activity. Employed persons are all persons who received pay (including holiday and sick pay) for any part of the payroll period including the 12th of the month. Persons holding more than one job (about 5 percent of all persons in the labor force) are counted in each establishment which reports them. Production workers in manufacturing include working supervisors and all nonsupervisory workers closely associated with production operations. Those workers mentioned in tables 12-17 include production workers in manufacturing and mining; construction workers in construction; and non supervisory 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 employ ment 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 Earners 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 of changes and seasonal factors in the proportion of workers in high-wage and low-wage industries. Hours represent the average weekly hours of production or nonsupervi sory workers for which pay was received and are different from standard or scheduled hours. Overtime hours represent the portion of average weekly hours which was in excess of regular hours and for which overtime premiums were paid. The Diffusion Index, introduced in the May 1983 Review, represents the percent of 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 of 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 comprehensive counts of employment (called “benchmarks”). The latest complete adjustment was made with the release of May 1987 data, published in the July 1987 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 1985; seasonally adjusted data have been revised back to January 1982. These revisions were published in the Supplement to Employment and Earnings (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1987). Unadjusted data from April 1986 forward, and seasonally adjusted data from January 1983 for ward are subject to revision in future benchmarks. In the establishment survey, estimates for the 2 most recent months are based on incomplete returns and are published as preliminary in the tables (13 to 18 in the Review). When all returns have been received, the esti mates are revised and published as final in the third month of their appear ance. Thus, August data are published as preliminary in October and November and as final in December. For the same reason, quarterly estab lishment data (table 1) are preliminary for the first 2 months of publication and final in the third month. Thus, second-quarter data are published as preliminary in August and September and as final in October. Additional sources of information Detailed national data from the establishment survey are published monthly in the bls periodical, Employment and Earnings. Earlier compara ble unadjusted and seasonally adjusted data are published in Employment, Hours, and Earnings, United States, 1909-84, Bulletin 1312-12 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985) and its annual supplement. For a detailed discus sion of the methodology of the survey, see b l s Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 2. For addi tional 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. 9-20. 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 of local economic condi tions and form the basis for determining the eligibility of an area for benefits under Federal economic assistance programs such as the Job Train ing Partnership Act and the Public Works and Economic Development Act. Insofar as possible, the concepts and definitions underlying these data are those used in the national estimates obtained from the cps. Notes on the data Data refer to State of residence. Monthly data for 11 States— California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas— are obtained directly from the cps , because the size of the sample is large enough to meet bls standards of reliability. Data for the remaining 39 States and the District of 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 of Labor Statistics periodical, Employment and Earnings, and the annual report, Geographic Profile of Employment and Unemployment (Bureau of Labor Statistics). See also b l s Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 4. COMPENSATION AND WAGE DATA (Tables 1-3; 22-29) Compensation 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 of employee benefits. It uses a fixed market basket of https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis labor— similar in concept to the Consumer Price Index’s fixed market basket of goods and services— to measure change over time in employer costs of employing labor. The index is not seasonally adjusted. Statistical series on total compensation costs and on wages and salaries are available for private nonfarm workers excluding proprietors, the selfemployed, and household workers. Both series are also available for State and local government workers and for the civilian nonfarm economy, which consists of private industry and State and local government workers combined. Federal workers are excluded. The Employment Cost Index probability sample consists of about 2,200 private nonfarm establishments providing about 12,000 occupational ob servations and 700 State and local government establishments providing 65 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • 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. Beginning with June 1986 data, fixed employment weights from the 1980 Census of Population are used each quarter to calculate the indexes for civilian, private, and State and local governments. (Prior to June 1986, the employment weights are from the 1970 Census of Population.) These fixed weights, also used to derive all of the industry and occupation series indexes, ensure that changes in these indexes reflect only changes in com pensation, not employment shifts among industries or occupations with different levels of wages and compensation. For the bargaining status, region, and metropolitan/nonmetropolitan area series, however, employ ment data by industry and occupation are not available from the census. Instead, the 1980 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 aggregate, industry, and occupation series. Definitions Total compensation costs include wages, salaries, and the employer’s 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 of the percent change in employer costs for employee total compensation. State and local government units were added to the eci coverage in 1981, providing a measure of total compensation change in the civilian nonfarm economy (excluding Federal employees). Historical in dexes (June 1981 = 100) of the quarterly rates of change are presented in the May issue of the bls monthly periodical, Current Wage Developments. (wage and benefit 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 worker's 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— firstyear— 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 of previ ously negotiated benefits, legally required social insurance programs, and average hourly earnings. Compensation changes are calculated by placing a value on the benefit portion of the settlements at the time they are reached. The cost estimates are based on the assumption that conditions existing at the time of settle ment (for example, methods of financing pensions or composition of labor force) will remain constant. The data, therefore, are measures of negotiated changes and not of total changes in employer cost. Contract duration runs from the effective date of the agreement to the expiration date or first wage reopening date, if applicable. Average annual percent changes over the contract term take account of the compounding of successive changes. Additional sources of information Notes on the data For a more detailed discussion of the Employment Cost Index, see the Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 11, and the follow in g M onthly L abor R eview articles: “Employment Cost Index: a measure of change in the ‘price of labor’,” July 1975; “How benefits will be incorporated into the Employment Cost In dex,” 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 of Labor Statistics, 1985). Care should be exercised in comparing the size and nature of the settle ments in State and local government with those in the private sector because of differences in bargaining practices and settlement characteristics. A principal difference is the incidence of cost-of-living adjustment (cola) clauses which cover only about 2 percent of workers under a few local government settlements, but cover 50 percent of workers under private sector settlements. Agreements without 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. Collective bargaining settlements Description of the series Collective bargaining settlements data provide statistical measures of negotiated adjustments (increases, decreases, and freezes) in compensation 66 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Additional sources of information For a more detailed discussion on the series, see the b l s Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 10. Comprehensive data are published in press releases issued quarterly (in January, April, July, and October) for private industry, and semi- annually (in February and August) for State and local government. Histor ical data and additional detailed tabulations for the prior calendar year appear in the April issue of the bls monthly periodical, Current Wage Developments. monthly periodical, Current Wage Developments. Historical data appear in the b l s Handbook of Labor Statistics. 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 of the following: Industry Wage Surveys provide data for specific occupations selected to represent an industry’s wage structure and the types of activities performed by its workers. The Bureau collects information on weekly work schedules, shift operations and pay differentials, paid holiday and vacation practices, and information on incidence of health, insurance, and retirement plans. Reports are issued throughout the year as the surveys are completed. Summaries 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 of indus tries in the areas (labor markets) surveyed. Reports are issued throughout the year as the surveys are completed. Summaries of 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 of jobs mentioned in the survey’s title in private employment. Although the definitions of the jobs surveyed reflect the duties and responsibilities in private industry, they are designed to match specific pay grades of Federal white-collar employees under the General Schedule pay system. Accordingly, this survey provides the legally re quired information for comparing the pay of salaried employees in the Federal civil service with pay in private industry. (See Federal Pay Com parability Act of 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 of 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. Description of the series Data on work stoppages measure the number and duration of major strikes or lockouts (involving 1,000 workers or more) occurring during the month (or year), the number of workers involved, and the amount of time lost because of 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 of stoppages on other establishments whose employees are idle owing to material shortages or lack of service. Definitions Number of stoppages: The number of strikes and lockouts involving and lasting a full shift or longer. Workers involved: The number of workers directly involved in the stoppage. Number of days idle: The aggregate number of workdays lost by workers involved in the stoppages. Days of idleness as a percent of estimated working time: Aggregate workdays lost as a percent of the aggregate number of standard workdays in the period multiplied by total employment in the period. 1,000 workers or more 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 of the following year. Monthly data appear in the bls Other compensation data 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 (1982 = 100 or 1982-84 = 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 of goods and services. The cpi is calculated monthly for two population groups, one consisting only of urban households whose primary source of income is derived from the employment of wage earners and clerical workers, and the other consisting of all urban households. The wage earner index (cpi- w) is a continuation of 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 of the 1982-84 buying habits of about 80 percent of the noninstitutional population of the United States at that time, com pared with 32 percent represented in the cpi- w . In addition to wage earners https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and clerical workers, the cpi- u covers professional, managerial, and tech nical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the unemployed, retirees, and others not in the labor force. The cpi is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, fuel, drugs, trans portation fares, doctors’ and dentists’ fees, and other goods and services that people buy for day-to-day living. The quantity and quality of 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 21,000 retail establishments and 60,000 housing units in 91 urban areas across the country are used to develop the “U.S. city average.” Separate estimates for 27 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 CPi-u. A rental equivalence method replaced the 67 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • 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 of shelter services provided by owner-occupied homes. An updated cpi-u and cpi w were introduced with release of the January 1987 data. Additional sources of information For a discussion of the general method for computing the CPI, see b l s Handbook of Methods, Volume II, The Consumer Price Index, Bulletin 2134-2 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1984). The recent change in the mea surement of homeownership costs is discussed in Robert Gillingham and Walter Lane, “Changing the treatment of shelter costs for homeowners in the cpi,” Monthly Labor Review, July 1982, pp. 9-14. An overview of the recently introduced revised cpi, reflecting 1982-84 expenditure patterns, is contained in The Consumer Price Index: 1987 Revision, Report 736 (Bu reau of Labor Statistics, 1987). Additional detailed cpi data and regular analyses of consumer price changes are provided in the c p i Detailed Report, a monthly publication of the Bureau. Historical data for the overall cpi and for selected groupings may be found in the Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). Producer Price Indexes Description of the series Producer Price Indexes (ppi) measure average changes in prices re ceived in primary markets of the United States by producers of commodi ties in all stages of processing. The sample used for calculating these indexes currently contains about 3,100 commodities and about 75,000 quotations per month selected to represent the movement of prices of all commodities produced in the manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, gas and electricity, and public utilities sectors. The stage of proc essing structure of Producer Price Indexes organizes products by class of buyer and degree of fabrication (that is, finished goods, intermediate goods, and crude materials). The traditional commodity structure of 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 of the month. Since January 1987, price changes for the various commodities have been averaged together with implicit quantity weights representing their importance in the total net selling value of all commodities as of 1982. The detailed data are aggregated to obtain indexes for stage-of-processing groupings, commodity groupings, durability-of-product groupings, and a number of 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 of 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. The Bureau has completed the first major stage of its comprehensive overhaul of 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 68 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis coverage of the net output of virtually all industries in the mining and manufacturing sectors; a shift from a commodity to an industry orientation; the exclusion of imports from, and the inclusion of exports in, the survey universe; and the respecification of commodities priced to conform to Bureau of the Census definitions. These and other changes have been phased in gradually since 1978. The result is a system of indexes that is easier to use in conjunction with data on wages, productivity, and employ ment and other series that are organized in terms of the Standard Industrial Classification and the Census product class designations. Additional sources of information For a discussion of the methodology for computing Producer Price In dexes, see b l s Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 7. Additional detailed data and analyses of price changes are provided monthly in Producer Price Indexes. Selected historical data may be found in the Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). International Price Indexes Description of the series The bls International Price Program produces quarterly export and import price indexes for nonmilitary goods traded between the United States and the rest of the world. The export price index provides a measure of price change for all products sold by U.S. residents to foreign buyers. (“Residents” is defined as in the national income accounts: it includes corporations, businesses, and individuals but does not require the organiza tions to be U.S. owned nor the individuals to have U.S. citizenship.) The import price index provides a measure of price change for goods purchased from other countries by U.S. residents. With publication of an all-import index in February 1983 and an all-export index in February 1984, all U.S. merchandise imports and exports now are represented in these indexes. The reference period for the indexes is 1977 = 100, unless otherwise indicated. The product universe for both the import and export indexes includes raw materials, agricultural products, semifinished manufactures, and finished manufactures, including both capital and consumer goods. Price data for these items are collected quarterly by mail questionnaire. In nearly all cases, the data are collected directly from the exporter or importer, al though in a few cases, prices are obtained from other sources. To the extent possible, the data gathered refer to prices at the U.S. border for exports and at either the foreign border or the U.S. border for imports. For nearly all products, the prices refer to transactions completed during the first 2 weeks of the third month of each calendar quarter— March, June, September, and December. Survey respondents are asked to indicate all discounts, allowances, and rebates applicable to the reported prices, so that the price used in the calculation of the indexes is the actual price for which the product was bought or sold. In addition to general indexes of prices for U.S. exports and imports, indexes are also published for detailed product categories of exports and imports. These categories are defined by the 4- and 5-digit level of detail of the Standard Industrial Trade Classification System (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 of the Laspeyres 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 of the Census. The trade weights currently used to compute both indexes relate to 1980. Because a price index depends on the same items being priced from period to period, it is necessary to recognize when a product’s specifica tions or terms of transaction have been modified. For this reason, the Bureau’s quarterly questionnaire requests detailed descriptions of the phys ical and functional characteristics of the products being priced, as well as information on the number of units bought or sold, discounts, credit terms, packaging, class of buyer or seller, and so forth. When there are changes in either the specifications or terms of transaction of a product, the dollar value of each change is deleted from the total price change to obtain the “pure” change. Once this value is determined, a linking procedure is employed which allows for the continued repricing of the item. For the export price indexes, the preferred pricing basis is f.a.s. (free alongside ship) U.S. port of exportation. When firms report export prices f.o.b. (free on board), production point information is collected which enables the Bureau to calculate a shipment cost to the port of exportation. An attempt is made to collect two prices for imports. The first is the import price f.o.b. at the foreign port of exportation, which is consistent with the basis for valuation of imports in the national accounts. The second is the import price c.i.f. (cost, insurance, and freight) at the U.S. port of impor tation, which also includes the other costs associated with bringing the product to the U.S. border. It does not, however, include duty charges. Additional sources of information For a discussion of the general method of computing International Price Indexes, see b l s Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 8. Additional detailed data and analyses of international price develop ments are presented in the Bureau’s quarterly publication U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes and in occasional Monthly Labor Review articles prepared by b l s analysts. Selected historical data may be found in the Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). PRODUCTIVITY DATA (Tables 2; 42-47) U. S. productivity and related data Description of the series The productivity measures relate real physical output to real input. As such, they encompass a family of measures which include single factor input measures, such as output per unit of labor input (output per hour) or output per unit of capital input, as well as measures of multifactor produc tivity (output per unit of labor and capital inputs combined). The Bureau indexes show the change in output relative to changes in the various inputs. The measures cover the business, nonfarm business, manufacturing, and nonfinancial corporate sectors. Corresponding indexes of hourly compensation, unit labor costs, unit nonlabor payments, and prices are also provided. Unit profits include corporate profits and the value of inventory adjust ments per unit of output. Hours of all persons are the total hours paid of payroll workers, selfemployed persons, and unpaid family workers. Capital services is the flow of services from the capital stock used in production. It is developed from measures of the net stock 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 of capital services input. Multifactor productivity is the ratio output per unit of labor and capital inputs combined. Changes in this measure reflect changes in a number of factors which affect the production process such as changes in technology, shifts in the composition of the labor force, changes in capacity utilization, research and development, skill and efforts of the work force, manage ment, and so forth. Changes in the output per hour measures reflect the impact of these factors as well as the substitution of capital for labor. Compensation per hour is the wages and salaries of 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)— the sum divided by hours paid for. Real compensation per hour is compensation per hour deflated by the change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. Unit labor costs are the labor compensation costs expended in the production of a unit of output and are derived by dividing compensation by output. Unit nonlabor payments include profits, depreciation, interest, and indirect taxes per unit of output. They are computed by subtracting compensation of all persons from current dollar value of output and divid ing 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 of gross national product. The measures are derived from data supplied by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, and the Federal Reserve Board. Quarterly manufacturing out put indexes are adjusted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to annual esti mates of output (gross product originating) from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Compensation and hours data are developed from data of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The productivity and associated cost measures in tables 42-44 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 of 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 of output; utilization of capacity, energy, and materials; the organization of 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 b l s 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. 69 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Current Labor Statistics INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS (Tables 45-47) Labor force and unemployment Description of the series Tables 45 and 46 present comparative measures of 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. 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 of age and over. Therefore, the adjusted statistics relate to the population age 16 and over in France, Sweden, and from 1973 onward, the United Kingdom; 16 and over in Canada, Australia, Japan, Germany, the Nether lands, and prior to 1973, the United Kingdom; 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 Ger many; it is excluded 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. 8-11. The figures for one or more recent years for France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom are calculated using adjustment factors based on labor force surveys for earlier years and are considered preliminary. The recent-year measures for these countries are, therefore, subject to revision whenever data from more current labor force surveys become available. 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. Manufacturing productivity and labor costs Description of the series Table 47 presents comparative measures of manufacturing labor produc tivity, hourly compensation costs, and unit labor costs for the United 70 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis States, Canada, Japan, and nine European countries. These measures are limited to trend comparisons— that is, intercountry series of changes over time— rather than level comparisons because reliable international com parisons of the levels of manufacturing output are unavailable. Definitions Output is constant value output (value added), generally taken from the national accounts of 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 of 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 1971), 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 of 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 For additional information, see the b l s Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 16 and periodic Monthly Labor Review articles. Historical data are provided in the Bureau’s Hand book 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 of 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 of 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 of 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 of 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 of employment. Definitions Recordable occupational injuries and illnesses are: (1) occupational deaths, regardless of 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 of work or motion, transfer to another job, or medical treatment (other than first aid). Occupational injury is any injury such as a cut, fracture, sprain, ampu tation, 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 of restricted work activity, or both. Lost workday cases involving restricted work activity are those cases which result in restricted work activity only. Lost workdays away from work are the number of workdays (consec utive or not) on which the employee would have worked but could not because of 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. A d dition al sou rces o f inform ation 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. 71 M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: Comparative Indicators 1. Labor market indicators 1987 1986 Selected indicators 1986 1987 I III II IV I II III IV Employment data Employment status of the civilian noninstitutionalized population (household survey)' Labor force participation ra te ........................................................ Employment-population ra tio ......................................................... Unemployment rate ....................................................................... M e n .............................................................................................. 16 to 24 years .......................................................................... 25 years and o v e r..................................................................... Women ........................................................................................ 16 to 24 years .......................................................................... 25 years and o v e r..................................................................... Unemployment rate, 15 weeks and o ver.................................... 65.3 60.7 7.0 6.9 13.7 5.4 7.1 12.8 5.5 1.9 65.6 61.5 6.2 6.2 12.6 4.8 6.2 11.7 4.8 1.7 65.0 60.5 7.0 6.8 13.4 5.3 7.2 13.1 5.6 1.9 65.2 60.6 7.2 7.0 14.1 5.4 7.3 13.1 5.7 1.9 65.4 60.8 7.0 7.0 13.9 5.4 7.0 12.7 5.4 1.9 65.4 60.9 6.8 6.9 13.4 5.4 6.8 12.5 5.3 1.9 65.5 61.1 6.6 6.6 13.3 5.1 6.6 12.5 5.0 1.8 65.5 61.4 6.3 6.3 12.9 4.9 6.2 11.8 4.7 1.7 65.6 61.7 6.0 5.9 12.2 4.6 6.1 11.4 4.7 1.6 65.7 61.9 5.9 5.8 11.9 4.4 6.0 11.1 4.7 1.5 Total .................................................................................................. Private sector ................................................................................. Goods-producing............................................................................ Manufacturing.............................................................................. Service-producing .......................................................................... 99,610 82,900 24,681 18,994 74,930 102,112 85,049 24,884 19,112 77,228 98,901 82,299 24,767 19,086 74,134 99,321 82,670 24,702 19,003 74,619 99,804 83,119 24,629 18,939 75,175 100,397 83,498 24,624 18,953 75,773 101,133 84,183 24,733 18,979 76,399 101,708 84,675 24,757 19,015 76,951 102,278 85,240 24,884 19,134 77,394 103,293 86,069 25,164 19,322 78,129 Average hours: Private sector ................................................................................. Manufacturing ........................................................................... Overtime................................................................................... 34.8 40.7 3.4 34.8 41.0 3.7 34.9 40.7 3.4 34.8 40.7 3.4 34.7 40.7 3.5 34.7 40.8 3.5 34.8 41.0 3.6 34.8 40.9 3.7 34.8 40.9 3.7 34.8 41.2 3.9 Percent change in the ECI, compensation: All workers (excluding farm, household, and Federal workers) ...... Private industry workers ............................................................... Goods-producing2 ..................................................................... Service-producing2 .................................................................... State and local government workers........................................... 3.6 3.2 3.1 3.2 5.2 3.6 3.3 3.1 3.7 4.4 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 .7 .8 .9 .6 .6 1.1 .7 .6 .8 2.8 .6 .6 .5 .6 .8 .9 1.0 .5 1.3 .8 .7 .7 .7 .7 .3 1.2 1.0 .8 1.0 2.3 .8 .7 1.0 .5 .9 Workers by bargaining status (private industry): Union............................................................................................. Nonunion ...................................................................................... 2.1 3.6 2.8 3.6 1.0 1.2 .2 .9 .5 .8 .3 .7 .5 1.1 .5 .7 .6 1.1 1.1 .6 Employment, nonagricultural (payroll data), in thousands:1 Employment Cost Index 1 Quarterly data seasonally adjusted. 2 Goods-producing industries include mining, construction, and manufacturing. Service- 72 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis producing industries include all other private sector industries. 2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in compensation, prices, and productivity 1987 1986 Selected measures 1986 1987 Compensation data III II I IV III II I IV 2 Employment Cost Index-compensation (wages, salaries, benefits): Civilian nonfarm .................................................................... Private nonfarm ................................................................... Employment Cost Index-wages and salaries Civilian nonfarm .................................................................. Private nonfarm ................................................................... 3.6 3.2 3.6 3.3 1.1 1.1 0.7 .8 1.1 .7 0.6 .6 0.9 1.0 0.7 .7 1.2 1.0 0.8 .7 3.5 3.1 3.5 3.3 1.0 1.0 .8 .9 1.1 .7 .6 .5 1.0 1.0 .5 .7 1.3 1.0 .7 .6 .6 .3 1.4 1.2 1.3 Price data1 Consumer Price Index (All urban consumers): All item s...... 1.1 4.4 -.5 Producer Price Index: Finished goods..................................................................... Finished consumer goods................................................... Capital equipment ............................................................... Intermediate materials, supplies, components .................... Crude materials..................................................................... -2.3 -3.5 2.1 -4.4 -8.9 2.1 2.5 1.3 5.5 8.8 -3.1 -4.0 .2 -3.0 -7.6 .6 -.7 -.7 -.8 -.2 -.6 .5 .4 .6 -.9 -1.5 .0 -.3 1.1 1.0 -1.5 .2 .3 -.2 1.2 .6 1.2 1.6 .3 1.9 5.3 .8 .9 .1 1.3 4.2 1.1 .8 2.1 -.3 .6 .3 Productivity data3 Output per hour of all persons: Business se cto r................................................................... Nonfarm business se cto r.................................................... Nonfinancial corporations 4 ................................................. .9 .8 0.3 1.9 1.6 1.6 5.8 6.6 3.3 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. 2 Excludes Federal and private household workers. 3 Annual rates of change are computed by comparing annual averages. -0.3 -.6 .9 0.6 .1 -.2 0.5 .4 -2.9 -0.1 .0 2.1 1.4 1.4 .7 -1.5 -1.0 -1.0 4.7 4.2 3.3 dexes. The data are seasonally adjusted. 4 Output per hour of all employees. - Data not available. 3. Alternative measures of wage and compensation changes Four quarters ended- Quarterly average 1987 1986 Components Average hourly compensation:’ IV III II I IV III 3.7 3.6 3.3 3.4 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.7 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 3.0 2.8 3.6 4.0 1.4 1.1 3.3 3.0 3.8 3.6 3.1 3.4 1.1 .7 .5 .8 2.8 .6 .6 .3 .7 .8 .9 1.0 .5 1.1 .8 .7 .7 .5 .7 .3 1.2 1.0 .6 1.1 2.3 .8 .7 1.1 .6 .9 3.6 3.2 2.3 3.5 5.2 3.6 3.2 2.1 3.6 5.2 3.4 3.1 1.6 3.6 5.0 3.3 3.0 1.9 3.4 4.7 3.4 3.3 2.0 3.7 4.2 3.6 3.3 2.8 3.6 4.4 1.1 .7 .6 .7 3.2 .5 .1 .5 (4) .6 .5 .2 .7 .7 .5 .2 .2 .1 1.0 1.0 .4 1.2 .8 .4 (4) .3 .1 .5 .7 .5 .8 .2 1.0 .2 .7 .2 1.3 1.0 .6 1.1 2.3 .9 .2 .6 .1 .7 .6 1.1 .5 .9 .8 .3 .3 .2 3.5 3.1 2.3 3.4 5.4 2.3 .5 1.6 .2 3.5 3.1 2.0 3.5 5.4 2.3 .5 1.7 .2 3.5 3.2 1.7 3.5 5.2 2.0 .4 1.5 .1 3.2 3.0 1.7 3.3 5.0 2.2 .3 1.6 .3 3.4 3.3 1.7 3.8 4.1 2.6 .5 1.7 .4 3.5 3.3 2.6 3.6 4.2 3.1 .7 1.8 .5 .8 1.5 2.0 2.1 1.2 1.8 2.6 2.9 2.1 2.0 2.4 1.8 1.2 1.7 1.2 1.8 1.2 1.8 1.5 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.1 .7 1.2 2.7 2.4 1.7 2.4 4.1 3.9 2.5 2.1 3.4 2.4 .9 1.4 1.1 1.6 1.2 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.8 2.6 3.1 2.6 Employment Cost Index-compensation: Employment Cost Index-wages and salaries: Negotiated wage adjustments from settlements:3 Negotiated wage and benefit adjustments from settlements:5 1 Seasonally adjusted. 2 Excludes Federal and household workers. 3 Limited to major collective bargaining units of 1,000 workers or more. The most recent data are preliminary. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis IV III II I IV III 1987 1986 u a i c l IU U IIU /.C IU . 5 Limited to major collective bargaining units of 5,000 workers or more. The most recent data are preliminary. 73 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: 4. Employment Data Employment status of the total population, by sex, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Numbers in thousands) Annual average 1987 1988 Employment status 1986 1987 Mar. Apr. May June July 182,293 119,540 65.6 111,303 184,490 121,602 65.9 114,177 183,915 120,982 65.8 113,191 184,079 121,098 65.8 113,541 184,259 121,633 66.0 114,060 184,421 121,326 65.8 114,018 184,605 121,610 65.9 114,359 184,738 122,042 66.1 114,786 184,904 121,706 65.8 114,615 61.1 1,706 109,597 3,163 106,434 8,237 6.9 62,752 61.9 1,737 112,440 3,208 109,232 7,425 6.1 62,888 61.5 1,736 111,455 3,237 108,218 7,791 6.4 62,933 61.7 1,735 111,806 3,250 108,556 7,557 6.2 62,981 61.9 1,726 112,334 3,269 109,065 7,573 6.2 62,626 61.8 1,718 112,300 3,192 109,108 7,308 6.0 63,095 61.9 1,720 112,639 3,212 109,427 7,251 6.0 62,995 62.1 1,736 113,050 3,143 109,907 7,256 5.9 62,696 87,349 66,973 76.7 62,443 88,476 67,784 76.6 63,684 88,186 67,590 76.6 63,263 88,271 67,604 76.6 63,390 88,361 67,802 76.7 63,543 88,442 67,623 76.5 63,543 88,534 67,671 76.4 63,711 71.5 1,551 60,892 4,530 6.8 72.0 1,577 62,107 4,101 6.1 71.7 1,575 61,688 4,327 6.4 71.8 1,575 61,815 4,214 6.2 71.9 1,566 61,977 4,259 6.3 71.8 1,559 61,984 4,080 6.0 94,944 52,568 55.4 48,861 96,013 53,818 56.1 50,494 95,729 53,392 55.8 49,928 95,808 53,494 55.8 50,151 95,898 53,831 56.1 50,517 51.5 155 48,706 3,707 7.1 52.6 160 50,334 3,324 6.2 52.2 161 49,767 3,464 6.5 52.3 160 49,991 3,343 6.2 52.7 160 50,357 3,314 6.2 Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 185,052 122,128 66.0 114,951 185,225 122,349 66.1 115,259 185,370 122,472 66.1 115,494 185,571 122,924 66.2 115,878 185,705 123,084 66.3 116,145 185,847 122,639 66.0 115,839 62.0 1,743 112,872 3,184 109,688 7,091 5.8 63,198 62.1 1,741 113,210 3,249 109,961 7,177 5.9 62,924 62.2 1,755 113,504 3,172 110,332 7,090 5.8 62,876 62.3 1,750 113,744 3,215 110,529 6,978 5.7 62,898 62.4 1,749 114,129 3,293 110,836 7,046 5.7 62,647 62.5 1,736 114,409 3,228 111,182 6,938 5.6 62,621 62.3 1,736 114,103 3,204 110,899 6,801 5.5 63,208 88,598 67,937 76.7 63,916 88,683 67,776 76.4 63,949 88,756 67,947 76.6 64,048 88,849 68,019 76.6 64,174 88,924 68,030 76.5 64,245 89,033 68,243 76.6 64,396 89,099 68,343 76.7 64,636 89,168 68,148 76.4 64,332 72.0 1,561 62,150 3,960 5.9 72.1 1,575 62,341 4,021 5.9 72.1 1,581 62,368 3,827 5.6 72.2 1,580 62,468 3,899 5.7 72.2 1,593 62,581 3,845 5.7 72.2 1,589 62,656 3,785 5.6 72.3 1,588 62,808 3,847 5.6 72.5 1,577 63,059 3,707 5.4 72.1 1,573 62,759 3,816 5.6 95,979 53,703 56.0 50,475 96,071 53,939 56.1 50,648 96,140 54,105 56.3 50,870 96,221 53,930 56.0 50,666 96,295 54,181 56.3 50,903 96,376 54,330 56.4 51,085 96,446 54,442 56.4 51,249 96,538 54,681 56.6 51,482 96,606 54,740 56.7 51,509 96,679 54,491 56.4 51,507 52.6 159 50,316 3,228 6.0 52.7 159 50,489 3,291 6.1 52.9 161 50,709 3,235 6.0 52.7 162 50,504 3,264 6.1 52.9 161 50,742 3,278 6.1 53.0 162 50,923 3,245 6.0 53.1 161 51,088 3,193 5.9 53.3 161 51,321 3,200 5.9 53.3 159 51,350 3,231 5.9 53.3 163 51,344 2,985 5.5 Jan. Feb. Mar. TOTAL Noninstitutional population 1, 2 ....... Labor force2 .................................. Participation rate 3 ................ Total employed 2 ....................... Employment-population ratio 4 ................................... Resident Armed Forces 1 ....... Civilian employed .................... Agriculture ............................ Nonagricultural industries..... Unemployed............................... Unemployment rate 5 ........... Not in labor force ........................ Men, 16 years and over Noninstitutional population 1, 2 ...... Labor force2 .................................. Participation rate 3 ................ Total employed 2 ........................ Employment-population ratio 4 ................................... Resident Armed Forces 1 ....... Civilian employed .................... Unemployed............................... 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 .................... Unemployed............................... Unemployment rate 5 ........... ' The population and Armed Forces figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation. 2 Includes members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. 3 Labor force as a percent of the noninstitutional population. 74 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) 1988 1987 Annual average Employment status Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 1986 1987 180,587 117,834 65.3 109,597 182,753 119,865 65.6 112,440 182,179 119,246 65.5 111,455 182,344 119,363 65.5 111,806 182,533 119,907 65.7 112,334 182,703 119,608 65.5 112,300 182,885 119,890 65.6 112,639 183,002 120,306 65.7 113,050 183,161 119,963 65.5 112,872 183,311 120,387 65.7 113,210 183,470 120,594 65.7 113,504 183,620 120,722 65.7 113,744 183,822 121,175 65.9 114,129 183,969 121,348 66.0 114,409 184,111 120,903 65.7 114,103 60.7 8,237 7.0 62,752 61.5 7,425 6.2 62,888 61.2 7,791 6.5 62,933 61.3 7,557 6.3 62,981 61.5 7,573 6.3 62,626 61.5 7,308 6.1 63,095 61.6 7,251 6.0 62,995 61.8 7,256 6.0 62,696 61.6 7,091 5.9 63,198 61.8 7,177 6.0 62,924 61.9 7,090 5.9 62,876 61.9 6,978 5.8 62,898 62.1 7,046 5.8 62,647 62.2 6,938 5.7 62,621 62.0 6,801 5.6 63,208 78,523 61,320 78.1 57,569 79,565 62,095 78.0 58,726 79,303 61,933 78.1 58,380 79,387 61,970 78.1 58,516 79,474 62,129 78.2 58,673 79,536 62,054 78.0 58,632 79,625 62,106 78.0 58,783 79,668 62,083 77.9 58,825 79,740 62,085 77.9 58,967 79,807 62,211 78.0 59,037 79,885 62,299 78.0 59,164 80,002 62,248 77.8 59,185 80,120 62,440 77.9 59,287 80,203 62,696 78.2 59,625 80,260 62,497 77.9 59,407 73.3 2,292 55,277 3,751 6.1 73.8 2,329 56,397 3,369 5.4 73.6 2,361 56,019 3,553 5.7 73.7 2,378 56,138 3,454 5.6 73.8 2,383 56,290 3,456 5.6 73.7 2,316 56,316 3,422 5.5 73.8 2,333 56,450 3,323 5.4 73.8 2,289 56,536 3,258 5.2 73.9 2,345 56,622 3,118 5.0 74.0 2,343 56,694 3,174 5.1 74.1 2,297 56,867 3,135 5.0 74.0 2,298 56,887 3,063 4.9 74.0 2,323 56,964 3,154 5.1 74.3 2,280 57,344 3,071 4.9 74.0 2,253 57,154 3,089 4.9 87,567 48,589 55.5 45,556 88,583 49,783 56.2 47,074 88,321 49,414 55.9 46,582 88,395 49,494 56.0 46,761 88,464 49,728 56.2 47,028 88,546 49,722 56.2 47,088 88,632 49,886 56.3 47,206 88,685 49,969 56.3 47,308 88,785 49,922 56.2 47,251 88,843 50,095 56.4 47,480 88,923 50,254 56.5 47,634 89,010 50,361 56.6 47,750 89,110 50,558 56.7 47,977 89,178 50,640 56.8 48,005 89,261 50,542 56.6 48,132 52.0 614 44,943 3,032 6.2 53.1 622 46,453 2,709 5.4 52.7 602 45,980 2,832 5.7 52.9 603 46,158 2,733 5.5 53.2 629 46,399 2,700 5.4 53.2 619 46,469 2,634 5.3 53.3 620 46,586 2,680 5.4 53.3 609 46,699 2,661 5.3 53.2 600 46,651 2,671 5.4 53.4 636 46,844 2,615 5.2 53.6 636 46,998 2,620 5.2 53.6 643 47,107 2,611 5.2 53.8 646 47,331 2,581 5.1 53.8 654 47,351 2,635 5.2 53.9 656 47,476 2,411 4.8 14,496 7,926 54.7 6,472 14,606 7,988 54.7 6,640 14,555 7,899 54.3 6,493 14,562 7,899 54.2 6,529 14,595 8,050 55.2 6,633 14,621 7,832 53.6 6,580 14,628 7,898 54.0 6,650 14,649 8,254 56.3 6,917 14,637 7,956 54.4 6,654 14,661 8,081 55.1 6,693 14,663 8,041 54.8 6,706 14,609 8,113 55.5 6,809 14,592 8,177 56.0 6,865 14,588 8,011 54.9 6,779 14,591 7,865 53.9 6,564 44.6 258 6,215 1,454 18.3 45.5 258 6,382 1,347 16.9 44.6 274 6,219 1,406 17.8 44.8 269 6,260 1,370 17.3 45.4 257 6,376 1,417 17.6 45.0 257 6,323 1,252 16.0 45.5 259 6,391 1,248 15.8 47.2 245 6,672 1,337 16.2 45.5 239 6,415 1,302 16.4 45.7 270 6,423 1,388 17.2 45.7 239 6,467 1,335 16.6 46.6 274 6,535 1,304 16.1 47.0 323 6,542 1,312 16.0 46.5 293 6,486 1,232 15.4 45.0 295 6,269 1,301 16.5 155,432 101,801 65.5 95,660 156,958 103,290 65.8 97,789 156,561 102,836 65.7 97,074 156,676 102,972 65.7 97,338 156,811 103,416 65.9 97,829 156,930 103,150 65.7 97,698 157,058 103,248 65.7 97,917 157,134 103,516 65.9 98,181 157,242 103,357 65.7 98,069 157,342 103,669 65.9 98,317 157,449 103,731 65.9 98,492 157,552 103,907 66.0 98,779 157,676 104,252 66.1 99,044 157,773 104,530 66.3 99,474 157,868 104,171 66.0 99,274 61.5 6,140 6.0 62.3 5,501 5.3 62.0 5,762 5.6 62.1 5,634 5.5 62.4 5,587 5.4 62.3 5,452 5.3 62.3 5,331 5.2 62.5 5,335 5.2 62.4 5,288 5.1 62.5 5,352 5.2 62.6 5,239 5.1 62.7 5,128 4.9 62.8 5,208 5.0 63.0 5,056 4.8 62.9 4,897 4.7 19,989 12,654 63.3 10,814 20,352 12,993 63.8 11,309 20,249 12,853 63.5 11,072 20,279 12,778 63.0 11,114 20,312 12,889 63.5 11,129 20,341 12,892 63.4 11,238 20,373 13,039 64.0 11,381 20,396 13,150 64.5 11,513 20,426 13,028 63.8 11,421 20,453 13,152 64.3 11,556 20,482 13,193 64.4 11,589 20,508 13,215 64.4 11,605 20,539 13,222 64.4 11,608 20,569 13,168 64.0 11,504 20,596 13,098 63.6 11,420 54.1 1,840 14.5 55.6 1,684 13.0 54.7 1,781 13.9 54.8 1,664 13.0 54.8 1,760 13.7 55.2 1,654 12.8 55.9 1,658 12.7 56.4 1,637 12.4 55.9 1,607 12.3 56.5 1,596 12.1 56.6 1,604 12.2 56.6 1,610 12.2 56.5 1,614 12.2 55.9 1,663 12.6 55.4 1,678 12.8 TOTAL Civilian noninstitutional population1.................................... Civilian labor fo rce ....................... Participation rate .................. Employed ................................... Employment-population ratio2 .................................... Unemployed............................... Unemployment ra te .............. Not in labor fo rc e ........................ Men, 20 years and over Civilian noninstitutional population1.................................... Civilian labor fo rce ....................... Participation rate .................. Employed................................... Employment-population ratio2 .................................... Agriculture............................... Nonagricultural industries........ Unemployed............................... Unemployment ra te .............. Women, 20 years ond over Civilian noninstitutional population1 .................................... Civilian labor fo rce ........................ Participation rate .................. Employed ................................... Employment-population ratio2 .................................... Agriculture............................... Nonagricultural industries........ Unemployed............................... Unemployment ra te .............. Both sexes, 16 to 19 years Civilian noninstitutional population1.................................... Civilian labor fo rce ........................ Participation rate .................. Employed................................... Employment-population ratio2 .................................... Agriculture............................... Nonagricultural industries....... Unemployed............................... Unemployment ra te.............. White Civilian noninstitutional population1 .................................... Civilian labor fo rce....................... Participation rate .................. Employed ................................... Employment-population ratio2 .................................... Unemployed............................... Unemployment ra te .............. Black Civilian noninstitutional population1 .................................... Civilian labor fo rce ....................... Participation rate .................. Employed ................................... Employment-population ratio2 .................................... Unemployed............................... Unemployment ra te .............. See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 75 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: 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 1987 1988 Employment status 1986 1987 Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 12,344 8,076 65.4 7,219 12,867 8,541 66.4 7,790 12,732 8,395 65.9 7,632 12,770 8,468 66.3 7,686 12,809 8,549 66.7 7,797 12,848 8,468 65.9 7,738 12,887 8,447 65.5 7,762 12,925 8,549 66.1 7,856 12,965 8,581 66.2 7,877 13,003 8,654 66.6 7,935 13,043 8,763 67.2 7,978 13,082 8,772 67.1 8,058 13,115 8,879 67.7 8,238 13,153 9,017 68.6 8,268 13,192 8,803 66.7 8,079 58.5 857 10.6 60.5 751 8.8 59.9 763 9.1 60.2 782 9.2 60.9 752 8.8 60.2 730 8.6 60.2 685 8.1 60.8 693 8.1 60.8 704 8.2 61.0 719 8.3 61.2 785 9.0 61.6 714 8.1 62.8 642 7.2 62.9 749 8.3 61.2 724 8.2 Hispanic origin Civilian noninstitutional population'.................................... Civilian labor force....................... Participation rate .................. Employed ................................... Employment-population ratio2 .................................... Unemployed............................... Unemployment ra te .............. ' 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 Hispanics are included in both the white and black population groups. Selected employment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted (In tho u san ds) Annual average 1987 1988 Selected categories 1986 1987 Mar. 109,597 60,892 48,706 39,658 112,440 62,107 50,334 40,265 111,455 61,688 49,767 40,054 27,144 5,837 28,107 6,060 1,547 1,447 169 Apr. May June 111,806 61,815 49,991 40,021 112,334 61,977 50,357 40,075 112,300 61,984 50,316 40,120 112,639 62,150 50,489 40,262 113,050 62,341 50,709 40,308 27,966 5,946 28,130 5,971 28,314 5,963 28,282 6,011 28,283 6,033 1,632 1,423 153 1,689 1,416 152 1,599 1,488 170 1,672 1,429 165 1,622 1,403 162 98,299 16,342 81,957 1,235 80,722 7,881 255 100,771 16,800 83,970 1,208 82,762 8,201 260 99,863 16,594 83,269 1,227 82,042 8,082 270 100,106 16,518 83,588 1,234 82,354 8,139 268 100,634 16,708 83,926 1,240 82,686 8,157 276 5,588 2,456 2,800 13,935 5,401 2,385 2,672 14,395 5,459 2,438 2,707 14,201 5,394 2,345 2,725 13,940 5,345 2,305 2,719 13,502 5,122 2,201 2,587 13,928 5,180 2,234 2,612 13,717 5,104 2,163 2,648 13,544 July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 112,872 62,368 50,504 40,404 113,210 62,468 50,742 40,556 113,504 62,581 50,923 40,645 113,744 62,656 51,088 40,711 28,189 6,107 28,069 6,151 28,099 6,178 28,175 6,237 1,625 1,424 153 1,591 1,393 155 1,624 1,415 139 1,705 1,430 140 100,510 16,920 83,590 1,163 82,427 8,293 274 100,825 16,876 83,949 1,212 82,737 8,216 266 101,241 16,794 84,447 1,175 83,272 8,214 248 101,282 16,928 84,354 1,100 83,254 8,204 297 5,333 2,292 2,677 14,498 5,254 2,345 2,623 14,836 5,428 2,429 2,683 14,437 5,283 2,468 2,526 14,573 5,058 2,126 2,603 13,995 4,979 2,176 2,530 14,334 5,154 2,261 2,599 13,953 5,016 2,265 2,463 14,099 Jan. Feb. Mar. 114,129 62,808 51,321 40,404 114,409 63,059 51,350 40,475 114,103 62,759 51,344 40,481 28,249 6,227 28,441 6,168 28,707 6,157 28,805 6,160 1,595 1,407 155 1,599 1,450 156 1,666 1,454 138 1,677 1,414 114 1,648 1,423 142 101,522 17,033 84,489 1,222 83,267 8,274 242 101,943 17,118 84,825 1,286 83,539 8,222 235 101,997 17,064 84,933 1,200 83,733 8,280 248 102,507 17,197 85,310 1,147 84,163 8,150 237 102,683 16,948 85,735 1,170 84,565 8,312 228 102,279 16,908 85,371 1,175 84,196 8,366 248 5,261 2,213 2,683 14,415 5,353 2,377 2,655 14,488 5,534 2,408 2,696 14,523 5,262 2,284 2,638 14,711 5,367 2,396 2,640 14,571 5,566 2,478 2,598 14,572 5,343 2,520 2,535 14,603 4,986 2,034 2,603 13,987 5,067 2,196 2,557 14,011 5,241 2,209 2,597 14,064 5,004 2,111 2,552 14,222 5,145 2,260 2,566 14,096 5,254 2,327 2,457 14,123 5,106 2,325 2,475 14,141 CHARACTERISTIC Civilian employed, 16 years and over............................................. M e n .......................................... Women .................................... Married men, spouse present .. Married women, spouse present.................................... Women who maintain families . MAJOR INDUSTRY AND CLASS OF WORKER Agriculture: Wage and salary workers ....... Self-employed workers............ Unpaid family w orkers............. Nonagricultural industries: Wage and salary workers ....... Government .......................... Private industries................... Private households............. Other ................................... Self-employed workers............ Unpaid family workers............. PERSONS AT WORK PART TIME' 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 reasons as vacation, illness, or industrial disputes. 76 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 7. Selected unemployment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Unemployment rates) 1988 1987 Annual average Selected categories 1986 1987 Mar. Apr. May June 6 .2 6.5 17.8 5.7 5.7 6.3 17.3 5.6 5.5 6.3 17.6 5.6 5.4 6 .1 16.9 5.4 5.4 16.0 5.5 5.3 5.3 14.4 15.5 13.4 4.8 4.6 5.6 15.3 16.8 13.7 5.0 4.7 5.5 14.8 16.3 13.3 4.9 4.6 5.4 15.2 17.0 13.3 4.8 4.5 5.3 13.9 14.8 13.0 4.9 4.4 1 2 .8 Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 6 .0 6 .0 16.2 5.2 5.3 5.9 16.4 5.0 5.4 6 .0 15.8 5.4 5.4 17.2 5.1 5.2 5.9 16.6 5.0 5.2 5.8 16.1 4.9 5.2 5.8 16.0 5.1 5.1 5.7 15.4 4.9 5.2 5.6 16.5 4.9 4.8 5.2 13.3 13.5 13.1 4.7 4.5 5.2 14.1 15.2 12.9 4.6 4.4 5.1 14.3 15.1 13.4 4.4 4.5 5.2 14.5 15.1 13.8 4.6 4.3 5.1 14.1 14.8 13.3 4.4 4.4 4.9 13.6 14.9 12.3 4.3 4.4 5.0 14.0 14.4 13.6 4.4 4.2 4.8 12.4 4.7 14.1 15.7 12.4 4.2 3.9 12.7 32.7 32.4 33.1 12.3 30.8 31.5 30.0 11.4 12.4 30.6 33.7 27.1 10.7 11.3 July CHARACTERISTIC Total, all civilian workers......................................... Both sexes, 16 to 19 years................................ Men, 20 years and over ..................................... Women, 20 years and over................................ 7.0 18.3 6 .1 6 .2 White, total ......................................................... Both sexes, 16 to 19 years............................. Men, 16 to 19 years ................................... Women, 16 to 19 years.............................. Men, 20 years and over .................................. Women, 20 years and o ver............................. 15.6 16.3 14.9 5.3 5.4 Black, total ......................................................... Both sexes, 16 to 19 years............................. Men, 16 to 19 years ................................... Women, 16 to 19 years.............................. Men, 20 years and over .................................. Women, 20 years and o ve r............................. 14.5 39.3 39.3 39.2 12.9 12.4 13.0 34.7 34.4 34.9 13.9 37.0 36.1 38.0 13.0 37.1 37.8 36.3 1 1 .1 1 1 .6 1 1 .0 13.7 37.5 38.3 36.6 12.3 1 1 .6 12.7 1 1 .6 1 1 .6 33.4 31.4 35.4 11.4 11.3 Hispanic origin, to ta l........................................... 1 0 .6 8 .8 9.1 9.2 8 .8 8 .6 8 .1 Married men, spouse present............................ Married women, spouse present....................... Women who maintain families........................... Full-time workers ................................................ Part-time workers ............................................... Unemployed 15 weeks and over....................... Labor force time lost1 ........................................ 4.4 5.2 9.8 3.9 4.3 9.2 5.8 8.4 1.7 7.1 4.1 4.5 9.7 4.1 4.4 9.4 5.9 4.0 4.2 9.5 5.9 8.7 1.7 7.2 4.0 4.0 9.5 5.9 7.3 1.7 7.1 6 .0 6 .6 9.1 1.9 7.9 6 .1 9.1 1.7 7.4 8 .6 1.7 7.3 1 2 .2 12.7 4.1 4.5 1 2 .1 1 2 .2 1 2 .2 1 2 .2 1 2 .6 1 2 .8 33.9 32.2 35.8 33.4 33.5 33.4 35.0 35.1 34.9 1 0 .1 33.8 32.5 35.2 9.8 1 0 .2 1 0 .1 1 0 .1 11.7 1 1 .0 1 0 .8 10.9 1 1 .1 38.3 42.0 34.7 11.3 10.4 36.9 39.0 35.0 11.4 10.9 8 .1 8 .2 8.3 9.0 8 .1 7.2 8.3 8 .2 3.8 4.2 9.3 5.7 3.7 4.3 9.0 5.6 3.7 4.2 3.4 4.3 8.4 5.4 8 .2 5.5 8.4 3.5 4.2 8.5 5.5 8 .1 8 .2 8 .0 1 .6 1 .6 1 .6 3.7 4.2 8.9 5.6 8.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 3.6 4.2 8.9 5.4 8.3 1.4 3.4 4.1 8.3 5.3 7.9 1.4 6.9 6.9 6 .8 6 .8 6 .8 6 .6 6 .6 6 .6 3.4 4.0 7.5 5.3 7.7 1.4 6.5 6 .0 1 1 .2 8 .8 INDUSTRY Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers .... Mining................................................................. Construction....................................................... Manufacturing .................................................... Durable goods.................................................. Nondurable goods ........................................... Transportation and public utilities ..................... Wholesale and retail tra d e ................................. Finance and service industries.......................... Government workers ............................................... Agricultural wage and salary workers ..................... 7.0 13.5 13.1 7.1 6.9 7.4 5.1 7.6 5.5 3.6 12.5 6 .2 1 0 .0 1 1 .6 6 .0 5.8 6.3 4.5 6.9 4.9 3.5 10.5 6.5 9.5 12.4 6.7 1 1 .2 6.3 13.0 1 2 .0 6.3 1 2 .1 6.3 6.3 6 .6 6 .2 6 .2 7.0 4.5 7.3 4.9 3.5 6.4 4.7 7.1 4.8 3.5 9.5 6.5 4.4 7.0 4.9 3.4 9.4 1 0 .8 6 .1 9.5 11.7 5.7 5.4 6 .1 4.8 7.1 4.9 3.4 9.3 7.9 8 .6 1 0 .8 11.3 5.6 5.5 5.8 4.4 7.0 4.7 3.7 5.9 7.4 11.9 5.6 5.4 5.9 4.1 6.4 4.8 3.4 1 0 .6 8 .6 6 .1 6 .0 6 .0 5.9 4.4 6 .8 5.1 3.4 10.9 5.9 8.3 5.8 7.0 8 .0 5.8 7.7 5.7 7.8 1 1 .2 1 0 .6 1 0 .6 1 2 .2 1 1 .0 5.7 5.2 6.5 4.4 6.5 4.7 3.3 5.3 4.8 5.9 4.5 5.1 4.8 5.6 4.6 5.6 5.5 5.8 3.6 6 .8 6 .2 6 .1 4.8 3.4 4.8 3.2 10.9 4.9 3.0 11.5 1 0 .6 1 1 .1 5.7 5.6 5.9 5.3 3.6 6.4 4.5 5.6 7.9 10.7 5.2 5.2 5.3 4.2 6 .8 4.2 2 .8 2 .8 1 0 .2 1 1 .0 Aggregate hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons as a percent of potentially available labor force hours. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 77 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: 8. Employment Data Unemployment rates by sex and age, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Civilian workers) Annual average Sex and age 1986 Total, 16 years and o v e r.................................................................. 16 to 24 years............................................................................... 16 to 19 years............................................................................. 16 to 17 years .......................................................................... 18 to 19 years .......................................................................... 20 to 24 years ............................................................................. 25 years and o ver.......................................................................... 25 to 54 years .......................................................................... 55 years and o v e r.................................................................... Mar. 17.0 10.7 5.4 5.7 3.9 1 2 .2 1 2 .8 1 2 .6 17.8 19.9 16.2 17.3 18.9 15.9 1 0 .2 1 0 .1 5.0 5.3 3.4 4.8 5.1 3.4 6 .2 6 .6 1 2 .6 13.2 19.0 20.3 17.9 6.4 13.1 18.7 17.8 2 0 .8 2 0 .2 17.7 16.0 9.9 4.8 5.0 3.5 5.4 5.6 4.1 7.1 6 .2 1 2 .8 11.7 15.9 18.0 14.3 9.4 4.8 5.1 3.0 17.6 19.6 16.3 10.3 5.5 5.9 3.6 May 6.3 16.9 19.1 15.2 9.7 4.8 5.0 3.3 6.9 13.7 19.0 1 1 .0 Apr. 6.5 6 .2 2 0 .2 Women, 16 years and o ve r....................................................... 16 to 24 years......................................................................... 16 to 19 years ...................................................................... 16 to 17 years ................................................................... 18 to 19 years ................................................................... 20 to 24 years ...................................................................... 25 years and o ver................................................................... 25 to 54 years ................................................................... 55 years and o v e r.............................................................. 9. 1987 7.0 13.3 18.3 Men, 16 years and o ve r.............................................................. 16 to 24 years .......................................................................... 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 over................................................................ 1987 2 1 .0 17.1 10.3 4.9 5.1 3.7 1 0 .2 5.1 5.3 3.6 June 6.3 12.5 17.6 2 1 .0 15.2 9.8 4.8 5.1 3.6 6.4 13.2 19.6 22.7 17.2 9.9 4.9 5.1 3.9 July Oct. Nov. Jan. Dec. Feb. Mar. 6 .0 6 .0 5.9 6 .0 5.9 5.8 5.8 1 2 .1 1 1 .8 1 1 .8 1 1 .8 1 1 .8 1 1 .6 1 1 .2 1 1 .6 1 1 .1 16.0 18.8 14.5 15.8 17.5 13.9 9.7 4.7 5.0 3.1 16.2 18.3 14.7 9.4 4.7 4.9 3.2 16.4 18.3 15.2 9.4 4.6 4.8 3.3 17.2 20.4 14.7 16.6 19.2 14.8 8.9 4.5 4.7 3.4 16.1 17.8 14.7 8.5 4.5 4.8 3.2 16.0 18.7 14.5 9.1 4.5 4.7 3.5 15.4 17.4 13.9 8.7 4.5 4.7 3.3 5.6 11.7 16.5 17.6 15.8 9.1 4.2 4.5 2.9 5.8 5.7 11.7 17.2 19.3 15.3 8.7 4.4 4.6 3.2 5.8 16.4 19.4 14.9 9.9 4.4 4.5 4.0 5.6 11.3 15.6 16.9 14.7 9.0 4.3 4.5 3.4 17.8 18.5 17.3 9.1 4.3 4.5 3.4 1 0 .0 4.7 4.9 3.2 6 .2 6 .0 6 .1 12.4 16.4 19.1 15.4 10.4 4.8 5.0 3.4 11.9 15.9 17.1 13.7 9.9 4.7 4.9 3.4 12.5 17.8 20.5 15.9 9.6 4.7 4.9 3.4 6.3 6 .2 6 .0 6 .1 1 2 .0 1 1 .8 15.9 16.6 14.7 1 0 .1 1 0 .0 15.6 19.1 13.1 9.7 4.7 5.0 3.0 11.7 15.5 18.4 13.6 9.6 4.5 4.9 11.7 15.7 18.0 14.1 9.5 4.7 5.0 2 .8 2 .6 4.8 5.1 2.9 Sept. Aug. 6 .1 6.5 12.4 16.6 19.6 14.3 5.0 5.3 3.0 1988 8 .8 4.6 4.8 3.1 5.8 6 .0 1 1 .0 14.4 16.0 13.4 9.0 4.7 5.0 2.9 5.9 1 2 .1 1 2 .1 1 2 .0 17.3 19.7 15.9 9.3 4.5 4.7 3.2 17.4 20.9 14.8 9.2 4.5 4.8 3.1 17.2 20.4 14.8 9.2 4.4 4.6 3.5 6 .1 6 .1 11.5 15.4 16.9 14.4 9.4 4.7 4.9 3.5 11.5 16.9 19.9 14.6 8.5 4.7 4.9 3.1 1 2 .2 5.9 10.7 14.8 16.2 14.1 8.4 4.7 4.9 3.3 6 .0 1 1 .2 16.0 17.9 14.7 8 .6 4.7 4.9 3.2 5.7 5.9 10.9 15.6 17.9 14.1 8 .2 4.6 4.9 2 .8 5.7 1 2 .1 5.9 5.5 11.3 15.2 16.6 14.2 9.1 4.1 4.4 2.3 1 0 .8 15.1 18.0 13.1 8.4 4.7 4.9 3.1 Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Numbers in thousands) On layoff................................................................ Other job losers....... ............................................ Mar. 1987 1986 1988 1987 Annual average Reason for unemployment Apr. May Aug. July June Sept. Nov. Oct. Jan. Dec. Mar. Feb. 3,554 919 2,635 959 1,980 854 3,529 916 2,613 989 1,930 844 3,389 874 2,515 992 1,969 855 3,313 820 2,493 981 1,908 882 3,388 944 2,444 960 1,845 914 3,307 878 2,429 926 1,974 855 3,200 856 2,344 946 1,945 909 3,209 2,320 1,082 1,917 885 3,207 884 2,323 961 1,951 864 3,139 899 2,240 1,075 1,756 887 48.4 12.5 35.9 13.1 26.9 48.4 47.0 46.8 1 2 .1 1 1 .6 35.8 13.6 26.5 1 1 .6 35.2 13.8 26.9 12.5 46.8 12.4 34.4 13.1 28.0 1 1 .6 34.9 13.8 27.3 11.9 47.7 13.3 34.4 13.5 26.0 12.9 45.7 1 2 .6 1 2 .2 47.9 12.3 35.7 12.4 26.5 13.3 33.5 13.5 27.8 13.0 45.2 12.5 32.7 15.3 27.0 12.5 45.9 12.7 33.3 13.8 27.9 12.4 45.8 13.1 32.7 15.7 25.6 12.9 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.9 2 .8 2 .8 2 .8 2.7 2.7 2 .6 2 .6 2 .6 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 1.7 1 .6 1.7 1.7 .7 1 .6 1 .6 1 .6 1.5 1 .6 1 .6 .8 .7 .8 4,033 1,090 2,943 1,015 2,160 1,029 3,566 943 2,623 965 1,974 920 3,791 1,003 2,788 996 2,078 952 3,705 963 2,742 955 1,965 918 3,612 924 48.9 13.2 35.7 12.3 26.2 12.5 48.0 12.7 35.3 13.0 26.6 12.4 48.5 49.1 1 2 .8 1 2 .8 35.7 12.7 26.6 36.4 12.7 26.1 1 2 .2 3.4 .9 3.0 .8 1 .8 1 .6 2 ,6 8 8 931 1,995 999 888 PERCENT OF UNEMPLOYED Other job losers.................................................. New entrants ........................................................ 1 2 .2 1 2 .1 PERCENT OF CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE .9 10. .8 .8 .8 .8 .7 .7 .7 .9 .9 1.5 .7 .8 1 .6 1 .6 .7 .7 Duration of unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Numbers in thousands) 1988 1987 Annual average Weeks of unemployment 1986 78 1987 Mar. Less than 5 weeks ........................................... 5 to 14 weeks .................................................. 15 weeks and o v e r........................................... 15 to 26 weeks .............................................. 27 weeks and o v e r........................................ 3,448 2,557 2,232 1,045 1,187 3,246 2,196 1,983 943 1,040 3,352 2,411 2,055 944 Mean duration in w eeks.................................... Median duration in weeks................................. 15.0 6.9 14.5 6.5 14.9 6.7 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1 ,1 1 1 Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 3,009 13.7 3,195 2,256 2,060 984 1,076 3,308 2,165 2,067 974 1,093 3,138 2,151 2,029 973 1,056 3,186 2,144 1,920 945 975 3,203 2,142 1,896 834 1,062 3,220 1,949 1,904 917 987 3,223 2,093 1,801 844 957 3,218 2,029 1,834 899 935 3,229 1,968 1,791 892 899 3,089 2,263 1,733 839 894 3,084 2,145 1,740 841 899 14.8 6.9 14.8 14.7 14.2 14.2 6 .6 14.2 5.8 14.0 6 .6 14.3 6.4 14.1 6 .6 6 .1 6 .0 14.4 6.4 14.4 6.4 6 .2 2 ,1 0 1 1,722 887 835 6 .6 11. Unemployment rates of civilian workers by State, data not seasonally adjusted S tate Feb. Feb. 1987 1988 1 0 .0 1 2 .0 C a lifo r n ia .................................................................. 7.8 9.3 6.7 State 5.7 8 .8 5.2 G eorgia ..................................................................... 6 .0 6 .0 Indiana ...................................................................... 4.2 10.9 8 3 7.5 I o w a ........................................................................... 6.4 6 .0 M a in e ......................................................................... M ic h ig a n .................................................................... M inne sota ................................................................ M is s is s ip p i................................................................ 11.5 14.4 5.9 5.4 3.9 8.9 6.4 1 2 .2 6 .8 3.1 3.3 9.1 4.0 4.8 9.6 5.6 5.6 6.3 4.4 4.2 6.4 O hio ......................................................................... O k la h o m a ............................................................... O re g o n ..................................................................... P e n n s y lv a n ia ......................................................... 9.1 8.7 7.4 6.4 4.7 7.1 6.7 7.2 5.9 4.3 S outh C a ro lin a ...................................................... S outh D a k o ta ........................................................ 6.3 4.7 5.6 4.2 8 .1 6 .6 Texa s ....................................................................... U tah ......................................................................... 9.2 7.6 8.7 6.3 V e rm o n t.................................................................. V irg in ia ..................................................................... W ashington ........................................................... W e st V irg in ia ......................................................... W is c o n s in ............................................................... 5.1 5.4 9.5 1 2 .6 4.0 4.1 7.8 13.2 8 .0 6 .8 1 1 .0 8 .6 8 .1 Florida ....................................................................... Idaho ......................................................................... 9.1 4.9 6 .6 5.8 3.6 4.8 5.8 5.0 8 1 Feb. 1988 9.7 5.9 6.4 2.7 7.7 1 1 .1 New J e r s e y ............................................................ 9.6 4.0 3.6 Feb. 1987 N orth C a rolina ...................................................... 8 2 8 .6 6.4 6.5 5.5 9.7 1 2 .1 5.2 5.1 3.8 8.9 5.5 9.7 6 .1 NOTE: Seme data in this table may differ from data published elsewhere because of the continual updating of the database, 12. Employment of workers on nonagricultural payrolls by State, data not seasonally adjusted (In thousands) State Alabama....................................................... Arizona......................................................... Arkansas...................................................... Colorado ...................................................... Connecticut .................................................. District of Columbia..................................... Illinois ........................................................... Louisiana...................................................... Minnesota .................................................... Mississippi.................................................... Missouri........................................................ Feb. 1987 Jan. 1988 1,467.9 199.3 1,369.8 808.9 11,417.1 1,507.1 196.5 1,402.9 833.1 11,819.9 1,395.9 1,597.0 304.4 636.8 4,771.9 1,392.6 1,644.5 321.0 652.6 5,020.0 2,708.2 451.6 320.4 4,817.3 2,216.4 2,764.6 463.3 331.3 4,900.2 2,314.0 1,071.9 978.7 1,276.9 1,459.4 476.4 1,108.3 996.4 1,327.9 1,486.1 503.6 1,952.6 2,976.7 3,668.1 1393.0 844.1 2,132.3 265.7 2,007.1 3,025.8 3,686.8 1'951.0 875.2 2,164.4 268.7 Feb. 1988p 1,510.8 Nebraska.................................................... 198.2 1,417.8 New Hampshire.......................................... 844.0 11,875.0 New Jersey ................................................. New Mexico ................................................ 1,393.0 New York.................................................... 1,642.5 North Carolina ............................................ 323.0 656.7 5,056.0 Oklahoma................................................... 2,778.3 Oregon........................................................ 466.2 332.5 4,914.3 2,312.7 South Dakota.............................................. 1,117.4 1,003.3 1,331.8 1,490.6 507.1 Virginia........................................................ 2,011.3 3,038.0 3,682.0 1,955.1 877.4 Wyoming..................................................... 2,173.1 Puerto R ic o ................................................. 268.3 p = preliminary NOTE: Some data in this table may differ from data published elsewhere https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis State Feb. 1987 Jan. 1988 Feb. 1988p 645.5 478.1 494.5 656.6 508.2 520.3 658.9 511.0 516.3 3,481.0 519.1 7,875.1 2,783.5 244.0 3,573.9 525.8 8,024.2 2,882.6 248.7 3,575.9 528.2 8,055.6 2,902.2 249.0 4,457.9 1,095.9 1,057.8 4,774.5 438.3 4,565.8 1,077.8 1,094.6 4,906.5 446.7 4,570.2 1,086.2 1,105.1 4,905.9 445.6 1,352.0 247.1 1,944.6 6,442.0 627.6 1,394.2 250.3 2,019.8 6,493.1 635.7 1,406.5 250.4 2,027.7 6,519.2 636.8 238.6 2,588.0 1,773.3 580.4 2 ,0 1 2 . 6 250.1 2,706.2 1,848.9 591.6 2,073.3 250.4 2,707.2 1,857.1 591.5 2,080.2 174.9 739.4 39.3 173.6 764.2 39.6 173.3 766.6 40.6 because of the continual updating of the database. 79 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data 13. Employment of workers on nonagricultural payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted (In thousands) Annual average 1986 1987 1987 Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.p Mar.p 85,049 101,329 84,352 101,598 84,560 101,708 84,677 101,818 84,787 102,126 85,106 102,275 85,229 102,434 85,386 102,983 85,795 103,285 86,072 103,612 86,341 103,827 86,560 104,344 87,040 104,606 87,253 24,681 783 457 24,884 741 425 24,749 722 408 24,759 729 416 24,752 735 420 24,761 738 425 24,850 744 430 24,886 751 434 24,917 759 439 25,064 764 443 25,169 759 439 25,259 756 436 25,205 746 430 25,342 749 432 25,426 755 437 Construction ................................ General building contractors...... 4,904 1,293 5,031 1,278 5,032 1,291 5,019 1,272 4,999 1,267 5,008 1,266 5,002 1,261 5,006 1,262 4,989 1,260 5,053 1,279 5,074 1,280 5,121 1,290 5,058 1,303 5,175 1,322 5,254 1,321 Manufacturing.............................. Production workers .................... 18,994 12,895 19,112 13,021 18,995 12,925 19,011 12,939 19,018 12,946 19,015 12,958 19,104 13,020 19,129 13,038 19,169 13,072 19,247 13,129 19,336 13,197 19,382 13,241 19,401 13,250 19,418 13,277 19,417 13,272 Durable goods............................ Production workers ..................... 11,244 7,432 11,237 7,457 11,176 7,399 11,175 7,406 11,175 7,409 11,176 7,421 11,195 7,425 11,248 7,475 11,268 7,494 11,319 7,530 11,367 7,568 11,403 7,597 11,403 7,588 11,412 7,606 11,414 7,606 Lumber and wood products ........ Furniture and fixtures................... Stone, clay, and glass products ... Primary metal industries .............. Blast furnaces and basic steel products...................................... Fabricated metal products........... 711 497 586 753 739 514 585 751 734 502 586 739 736 504 586 743 738 509 584 742 735 510 582 746 740 518 582 750 736 518 582 754 740 520 581 764 741 524 583 768 750 526 588 771 753 530 590 771 753 533 585 768 753 531 588 770 748 530 587 769 275 1,431 275 1,428 266 1,419 272 1,423 272 1,420 275 1,424 277 1,424 278 1,425 283 1,429 286 1,438 287 1,446 285 1,451 284 1,452 285 1,455 283 1,456 Machinery, except electrical........ Electrical and electronic equipment................................... Transportation equipment............ Motor vehicles and equipment .... Instruments and related products Miscellaneous manufacturing industries.................................... 2,060 2,039 2,015 2 ,0 2 2 2,025 2,028 2,033 2,044 2,053 2,064 2,074 2,085 2,097 2 ,1 0 2 2 ,1 1 2 2,123 2,015 865 707 2 ,1 0 1 2,099 2,092 2,087 2,080 2 ,0 1 1 2 ,0 1 0 2,118 2,016 835 701 2,128 2,018 832 701 2,130 2,005 820 702 2,131 2 ,0 1 1 2,096 2,018 837 695 2,128 2 ,0 2 2 2,095 2,028 848 695 2 ,1 1 1 2,015 842 696 2,088 1,995 814 695 2 ,0 0 1 2 ,0 0 0 362 369 366 364 366 368 370 371 372 374 377 376 378 380 378 Nondurable goods...................... Production workers...................... 7,750 5,463 7,875 5,564 7,819 5,526 7,836 5,533 7,843 5,537 7,839 5,537 7,909 5,595 7,881 5,563 7,901 5,578 7,928 5,599 7,969 5,629 7,979 5,644 7,998 5,662 8,006 5,671 8,003 5,666 Food and kindred products......... Tobacco manufactures ................ Textile mill products..................... Apparel and other textile products...................................... Paper and allied products ........... 1,617 59 705 1,636 57 730 1,635 57 725 1,642 56 724 1,633 57 727 1,634 57 729 1,644 57 736 1,632 56 732 1,631 55 735 1,635 55 736 1,645 56 738 1,645 56 739 1,661 57 736 1,660 56 738 1,653 55 736 1,106 674 1,113 678 1,103 678 1,104 677 1,107 677 1,108 676 1,130 678 1 ,1 1 0 1,117 681 1,123 678 1,128 680 1 ,1 2 1 677 681 1,117 681 1,115 682 1,115 681 Printing and publishing................. Chemicals and allied products..... Petroleum and coal products....... Rubber and mise, plastics products...................................... Leather and leather products ...... 1,457 1,023 169 1,501 1,027 165 1,485 1,017 164 1,493 1,018 164 1,497 1 ,0 2 2 164 1,498 1,014 164 1,504 1,026 164 1,508 1,031 164 1,509 1,031 166 1,514 1,035 167 1,522 1,041 167 1,525 1,047 167 1,530 1,048 167 1,538 1,050 166 1,543 1,052 166 790 151 818 151 807 148 809 149 809 150 810 149 815 155 819 152 824 152 833 152 840 152 845 153 847 154 847 154 848 154 SERVICE-PRODUCING ................. Transportation and public utilities......................................... Transportation.............................. Communication and public utilities......................................... 74,930 77,228 76,580 76,839 76,956 77,057 77,276 77,389 77,517 77,919 78,116 78,353 78,622 79,002 79,180 5,244 3,041 5,378 3,150 5,333 3,112 5,348 3,124 5,344 3,120 5,350 3,128 5,363 3,133 5,377 3,147 5,416 3,183 5,436 3,198 5,459 3,218 5,473 3,233 5,485 3,244 5,504 3,261 5,522 3,276 2,203 2,228 2 ,2 2 1 2,224 2,224 2 ,2 2 2 2,230 2,230 2,233 2,238 2,241 2,240 2,241 2,243 2,246 Wholesale trade .......................... Durable goods.............................. Nondurable goods........................ 5,735 3,383 2,351 5,797 3,419 2,379 5,766 3,397 2,369 5,772 3,397 2,375 5,775 3,401 2,374 5,781 3,405 2,376 5,797 3,418 2,379 5,807 3,422 2,385 5,815 3,431 2,384 5,831 3,444 2,387 5,851 3,456 2,395 5,871 3,473 2,398 5,884 3,481 2,403 5,903 3,494 2,409 5,920 3,510 2,410 Retail trad e................................... General merchandise stores....... Food stores.................................. Automotive dealers and service stations....................................... Eating and drinking places.......... 17,845 2,363 2,873 18,264 2,406 2,959 18,136 2,380 2,944 18,197 2,385 2,953 18,205 2,390 2,956 18,226 2,387 2,960 18,274 2,407 2,959 18,256 2,411 2,962 18,314 2,415 2,958 18,408 2,459 2,969 18,443 2,454 2,982 18,458 2,453 2,996 18,619 2,490 3,019 18,720 2,533 3,032" 18,724 2,503 3,045 1,943 5,879 1,987 5,994 1,979 5,964 1,978 5,962 1,978 5,976 1,983 5,982 1,985 5,985 1,985 5,992 1,988 6,018 2 ,0 0 0 6,032 2,003 6,047 2,013 6,064 2,023 6,083 2,040 6,097 2,055 • 6,115 Finance, insurance, and real estate........................................... Finance........................................ Insurance ...................................... Real estate................................... 6,297 3,152 1,945 6,526 3,256 1,248 6,558 3,272 2,032 1,254 6,576 3,276 2,037 1,263 6,586 3,280 2,037 1,269 6,608 3,291 2,043 1,274 6,624 3,293 2,050 1,281 6,629 3,292 2,054 1,283 6,650 3,296 2,068 1,286 6,657 3,301 2,069 1,287 6 ,6 6 8 1 ,2 0 0 6,589 3,278 2,044 1,267 3,301 2,082 1,285 6,684 3,309 2,086 1,289 6,687 3,301 2,093 1,293 6,694 3,295 2,096 1,303 Services........................................ Business services........................ Health services ............................ 23,099 4,781 6,551 24,137 5,097 6,879 23,842 5,020 6,773 23,926 5,044 6,800 24,025 5,083 6,822 24,083 5,086 6,853 24,214 5,105 6,887 24,279 5,133 6,923 24,295 5,152 6,943 24,406 5,194 6,987 24,493 5,195 7,023 24,612 5,217 7,063 24,683 5,228 7,085 24,884 5,296 7,131 24,967 5,310 7,157 Government ................................. Federal......................................... S ta te ............................................. Local............................................. 16,711 2,899 3,888 9,923 17,063 2,943 3,952 10,167 16,977 2,922 3,930 10,125 17,038 2,933 3,943 10,162 17,031 2,935 3,947 10,149 17,031 2,935 3,932 10,164 17,020 2,936 3,952 10,132 17,046 2,940 3,964 10,142 17,048 2,962 3,957 10,129 17,188 2,965 3,973 10,250 17,213 2,977 3,978 10,258 17,271 2,981 3,996 10,294 17,267 2,977 3,996 10,294 17,304 2,979 4,004 10,321 17,353 2,972 4,019 10,362 TOTAL ...................................... PRIVATE SECTOR ..................... 99,610 82,900 1 0 2 ,1 1 2 GOODS-PRODUCING .................... Mining ........................................... Oil and gas extraction ................ 854 694 2 ,0 2 2 847 694 843 693 842 693 p = preliminary NOTE: See notes on the data for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 80 1988 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2,019 838 697 818 704 822 703 14. Average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted Industry Annual average 1986 1987 1988 1987 Mar. Apr. June May July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.p Mar.p 34.8 34.6 PRIVATE SECTOR .......................................... 34.8 34.8 34.8 34.7 34.9 34.8 34.8 34.9 34.6 34.9 34.9 34.6 34.8 MANUFACTURING................................................ Overtime hours............................................... 40.7 3.4 41.0 3.7 40.9 3.6 40.6 3.5 41.0 3.8 41.0 3.7 41.0 3.8 41.0 3.8 40.6 3.6 41.3 4.0 41.2 3.9 41.0 3.8 41.2 3.9 41.0 3.7 40.9 3.7 Durable goods.................................................... Overtime hours............................................... Lumber and wood products................................ Furniture and fixtures.......................................... Stone, clay, and glass products......................... Primary metal industries..................................... Blast furnaces and basic steel products......... Fabricated metal products .................................. 41.3 3.5 40.3 39.8 42.2 41.9 41.7 41.3 41.5 3.8 40.6 39.9 42.3 43.1 43.6 41.5 41.5 3.7 40.9 40.0 42.5 42.6 42.3 41.5 41.2 3.6 40.6 39.1 41.9 42.3 42.4 41.2 41.6 3.9 41.0 39.9 42.3 43.1 43.3 41.6 41.5 3.8 40.6 40.0 42.0 43.1 43.5 41.5 41.6 3.8 40.6 40.0 42.2 43.4 44.1 41.4 41.6 4.0 40.4 40.1 42.1 43.5 44.0 41.5 41.0 3.7 39.4 39.3 41.9 43.4 45.2 40.8 41.9 4.1 40.4 40.0 42.6 43.7 44.3 42.0 41.9 4.0 40.8 40.0 42.5 43.7 44.0 42.1 41.5 3.9 40.4 39.8 42.5 43.6 44.3 41.7 41.7 4.0 40.1 39.4 42.0 43.5 44.0 41.9 41.5 3.8 40.4 39.5 42.3 43.2 44.0 41.4 41.5 3.8 40.0 39.0 42.6 43.3 43.8 41.5 Machinery except electrical ................................ Electrical and electronic equipment.................... Transportation equipment................................... Motor vehicles and equipment......................... Instruments and related products ...................... 41.6 41.0 42.3 42.6 41.0 42.2 40.9 42.1 42.3 41.4 42.0 40.9 42.3 42.9 41.3 41.8 40.6 41.9 42.1 41.0 42.2 40.8 42.2 42.5 41.5 42.2 41.1 41.9 42.0 41.5 42.4 41.1 41.7 41.9 41.6 42.2 41.0 41.9 41.9 41.7 41.6 40.4 41.3 41.3 41.1 42.6 41.1 42.5 43.0 42.1 42.7 41.0 42.4 43.1 41.7 42.5 40.9 41.4 41.4 41.3 42.8 41.2 42.3 42.4 41.9 42.6 40.9 42.0 42.5 41.3 42.4 41.1 42.0 42.6 41.2 Nondurable goods.............................................. Overtime hours............................................... Food and kindred products................................. Textile mill products............................................ Apparel and other textile products..................... Paper and allied products ................................... 39.9 3.3 40.0 41.1 36.7 43.2 40.2 3.6 40.2 41.9 37.1 43.4 40.1 3.5 40.0 42.1 37.0 43.0 39.7 3.3 39.8 41.4 36.1 43.0 40.2 3.7 40.1 42.0 37.2 43.5 40.2 3.6 40.1 42.1 37.1 43.3 40.3 3.7 39.9 42.4 37.3 43.5 40.3 3.7 40.3 42.1 37.4 43.4 40.1 3.6 40.2 41.3 36.3 43.8 40.5 3.8 40.5 41.9 37.4 43.7 40.4 3.8 40.6 41.8 37.1 43.5 40.3 3.7 40.6 41.7 37.2 43.2 40.4 3.8 40.8 41.7 36.9 43.6 40.2 3.6 40.4 41.7 37.0 43.3 40.1 3.5 40.2 41.3 37.0 43.3 Printing and publishing........................................ Chemicals and allied products............................ Petroleum and coal products.............................. 38.0 41.9 43.8 38.0 42.3 43.9 37.9 42.0 44.1 37.7 42.2 43.9 37.9 42.1 44.3 38.1 42.0 43.3 38.1 42.2 44.4 37.9 42.4 43.3 38.2 42.8 43.2 38.0 42.7 43.5 38.0 42.7 43.6 37.9 42.7 44.3 38.0 42.7 44.2 38.0 42.5 43.4 38.1 42.5 43.5 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES.... 39.2 39.1 39.0 39.0 39.2 38.8 39.2 39.3 39.1 39.3 39.1 39.0 39.4 39.0 38.6 WHOLESALE TRADE........................................... 37.7 37.5 38.1 38.2 38.3 38.2 38.1 38.3 38.0 38.4 38.3 38.1 38.2 38.3 38.0 RETAIL TRADE .................................................... 29.2 29.3 29.3 29.5 29.4 29.2 29.3 29.6 29.6 29.3 29.2 28.8 29.0 29.1 28.9 SERVICES ............................................................. 32.5 32.5 32.5 32.4 32.5 32.5 32.5 32.5 32.5 32.5 32.6 32.4 32.6 32.8 32.4 p = preliminary NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis benchmark adjustment. 81 M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data 15. Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry Industry Annual average 1987 1988 1986 1987 Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. PRIVATE SECTOR.............................................. Seasonally adjusted ......................................... $8.76 - $8.98 - $8.92 8.91 $8.91 8.91 $8.93 8.95 $8.92 8.94 $8.91 8.96 $8.94 9.02 $9.06 9.02 $9.09 9.08 $9.14 9.12 $9.13 9.11 $9.18 9.15 $9.18 9.13 $9.20 9.19 MINING............................................... 12.44 12.45 12.51 12.43 12.42 12.44 12.31 12.32 12.43 12.34 12.47 12.50 12.69 12.62 12.58 CONSTRUCTION............................................ 12.47 1 2 .6 6 12.59 12.55 12.60 12.61 12.57 12.67 12.77 12.79 12.80 12.78 12.93 12.76 12.82 MANUFACTURING................................................ 9.73 9.91 9.85 9.87 9.87 9.87 9.87 9.86 1 0 .0 0 9.95 Durable goods ........................................... Lumber and wood products...................... Furniture and fixtures......................................... Stone, clay, and glass products......................... Primary metal industries ............................. Blast furnaces and basic steel products......... Fabricated metal products ................................ 10.29 8.33 7.46 10.05 13.73 9.89 10.45 8.40 7.67 10.27 11.98 13.84 10.03 10.39 8.28 7.58 10.13 11.82 13.66 9.99 10.39 8.34 7.58 10.23 11.96 13.84 9.98 10.40 8.37 7.64 10.26 11.96 13.80 9.97 10.42 8.44 7.66 10.29 11.97 13.83 10.40 8.46 7.67 10.33 11.97 13.70 9.95 10.42 8.49 7.74 10.31 11.98 13.81 9.97 10.53 8.48 7.75 10.40 12.24 14.17 10.04 10.51 8.44 7.73 10.31 12.05 13.97 Machinery, except electrical ............................... 10.59 Electrical and electronic equipment.................... 9.65 Transportation equipment.................................... 12.81 Motor vehicles and equipment......................... 13.45 Instruments and related products ....................... 9.47 Miscellaneous manufacturing.............................. 7.54 10.77 9.90 12.96 13.57 9.74 7.74 10.72 9.84 13.49 9.67 7.66 10.70 9.82 12.80 13.40 9.67 7.67 10.70 9.83 12.85 13.42 9.69 7.72 13.47 9.70 7.74 10.74 9.89 12.83 13.36 9.74 7.72 10.76 9.90 12.90 13.43 9.78 7.70 10.81 9.98 13.07 13.69 9.80 7.76 Nondurable goods ............................... 8.94 Food and kindred products................................. 8.74 Tobacco manufactures ....................................... 12.85 Textile mill products............................. ............... 6.93 Apparel and other textile products..................... 5.84 Paper and allied products ................................. 11.18 9.16 8.92 13.81 7.18 5.95 11.42 9.09 8.93 13.80 7.12 5.93 11.27 9.14 8.95 14.28 7.12 5.94 11.37 9.13 8.96 14.53 7.13 5.89 11.40 9.11 8.91 15.57 7.15 5.91 11.41 9.16 14.85 7.14 5.89 11.48 9.12 8.80 14.20 7.16 5.90 11.41 9.28 8.92 12.89 7.23 Printing and publishing........................................ 9.99 Chemicals and allied products............................ 11.98 Petroleum and coal products.............................. 14.18 Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products..... 8.73 Leather and leather products ............................. 5.92 10.28 12.37 14.57 10.17 12.24 14.50 8.80 6.06 10.14 12.30 14.50 8.82 10.19 12.27 14.43 8.87 6.04 10.25 12.37 14.48 8.93 5.98 10.31 12.34 14.52 8.90 6 .1 2 10.19 12.31 14.52 8.84 6.05 1 2 .0 1 11.90 11.94 11.95 11.91 1 2 .0 0 1 1 .8 6 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES.... 11.70 8 .8 8 6.06 1 2 .8 6 1 0 .0 0 10.76 9.84 1 2 .8 8 8 .8 8 1 0 .0 1 10.08 10.07 10.06 10.08 10.57 8.49 7.73 10.34 12.08 13.97 10.15 10.63 8.45 7.79 10.33 12.15 14.03 10.24 10.62 8.52 7.82 10.37 10.63 8.47 7.80 10.36 13.92 10.17 10.61 8.53 7.76 10.35 12.08 13.98 10.17 1 0 .8 6 10.89 9.95 13.09 13.73 9.81 7.77 1 0 .0 0 13.18 13.82 9.87 7.81 10.96 10.05 13.26 13.90 9.88 7.91 10.92 10.03 13.19 13.90 9.97 7.97 10.04 13.20 13.92 9.98 7.90 9.24 8.96 13.44 7.31 9.30 9.05 13.56 7.33 1 0 .1 1 9.18 1 2 .1 0 6 .0 0 6 .0 1 11.50 11.54 9.30 9.05 13.70 7.36 6.04 11.52 10.42 12.52 14.66 8.91 6.09 10.39 12.56 14.75 8.93 10.44 12.62 14.72 9.00 10.39 12.56 14.83 8.97 6 .1 1 6 .1 1 12.09 12.17 12.17 8 .8 6 11.67 12.77 7.24 5.99 11.48 6 .0 1 10.48 12.56 14.71 8.98 6.09 12.04 12.09 6 .0 1 Feb.p Mar.p 1 0 .8 8 9.29 9.05 13.89 7.32 1 2 .1 2 13.99 10.19 10.91 10.09 13.25 14.03 9.93 7.92 11.49 9.31 9.06 14.15 7.34 6.04 11.49 6 .1 0 10.41 12.54 14.94 8.97 6.14 10.42 12.52 15.03 8.98 6.16 1 2 .1 1 12.17 12.16 6 .0 2 WHOLESALE TRADE.......................................... 9.35 9.61 9.53 9.53 9.57 9.57 9.57 9.62 9.67 9.67 9.74 9.74 9.79 9.80 9.82 RETAIL TRADE ........................................... 6.03 6 .1 2 6.08 6.09 6.09 6.08 6.07 6.06 6 .2 0 6.16 6.19 6.19 6.25 6.24 6.25 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE.... 8.35 8.76 8.72 8.71 8.72 8 .6 8 8.69 8.81 8.79 8.81 8.94 8.87 9.00 9.07 9.04 SERVICES .......................................... 8.16 8.47 8.41 8.40 8.38 8.35 8.33 8.40 8.55 8.61 8.71 8.73 8.79 8.79 8.80 Data not available. p = preliminary 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 PRIVATE SECTOR Seasonally adjusted.....................;.... ...... ...... Constant (1977) dollars .................................... MINING.................................................................. CONSTRUCTION.................................................. Apr. Mar. 1987 Durable goods ..................................................... Stone, clay, and glass products......................... Primary metal industries..................................... Fabricated metal products ........................... ...... Electrical and electronic equipment.................... Miscellaneous manufacturing.............................. Food and kindred products................................. Apparel and other textile products..................... Paper and allied products ................................... Printing and publishing..............................i......... Chemicals and allied products............................ Petroleum and coal products.............................. Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products.......................... .................... Leather and leather products............................. TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES............................................................. July June May Aug. Nov. Oct. Sept. Dec. Jan. Mar.p Feb.» $304.85 $312.50 $308.63 $308.29 $310.76 $312.20 $312.74 $315.58 $314.38 $317.24 $318.07 $318.64 $315.79 $316.71 $316.48 310.07 309.18 312.36 311.11 311.81 314.80 312.09 316.89 318.29 315.21 318.42 317.72 317.97 ” 171.07 169.28 169.48 168.28 169.17 169.21 169.14 169.76 168,30 169.38 169.64 170.03 167.97 168.19 _ _ 524.97 526.64 522.92 519.57 526.61 527.46 518.25 522.37 523.30 526.92 527.48 535.00 531.71 523.73 517.04 464.83 496.25 474.88 480.53 465.48 461.91 482.03 466.38 477.28 470.87 469.37 485.10 480.44 485.20 489.06 396.01 222.23 406.31 402.87 221.24 398.75 217.78 403.68 219.75 405.66 219.87 400.72 216.72 403.27 216.93 408.00 218.42 410.94 219.40 414.41 2 2 1 .0 2 421.34 224.83 412.87 219.61 409.44 217.44 412.27 2 2 0 .1 0 424.98 335.70 296.91 424.11 496.93 572.54 408.46 433.68 341.04 306.03 434.42 516.34 603.42 416.25 432.22 337.00 301.68 425.46 505.90 581.92 414.59 427.03 338.60 294.10 430.68 508.30 593.74 408.18 431.60 345.68 301.78 439.13 514.28 598.92 412.76 434.51 348.57 306.40 437.33 517.10 605.75 417.00 426.40 341.78 300.66 439.03 514.71 602.80 405.96 430.35 345.54 311.92 439.21 515.14 600.74 411.76 432.78 338.35 308.45 442.00 531.22 639.07 410.64 439.32 342.66 313.84 443.33 522.97 610.49 424.62 443.94 343.00 312.29 438.42 529.10 613.28 429.35 450.71 341.38 319.39 435.93 537.03 625.74 437.25 441.79 336.54 304.98 424.13 526.35 609.70 425.11 438.19 339.49 301.09 426.42 523.06 617.92 419.00 442.21 337.11 302.64 436.16 527.22 615.56 422.89 440.54 395.65 541.86 572.97 388.27 298.58 454.49 404.91 545.62 574.01 403.24 304.18 452.38 402.46 547.84 582.77 401.31 301.04 445.12 395.75 536.32 566.82 394.54 297.60 449.40 399.10 542.27 571.69 399.23 302.62 455.15 404.42 539.67 567.09 402.55 304.18 447.86 399.56 526.03 549.10 398.37 299.54 449.77 403.92 530.19 547.94 403.91 303.38 449.70 404.19 538.48 562.66 402.78 302.64 460.46 408.95 553.71 586.27 410.06 310.80 467.18 414.00 561.47 594.26 414.54 309.28 477.86 422.10 566.20 596.31 418.91 314.82 467.38 414.24 560.58 593.53 417.74 310.03 462.40 408.63 553.08 588.82 412.17 306.52 464.77 414,70 560.48 601.89 412.10 308.09 356.71 349.60 480.59 284.82 214.33 482.98 368.23 358.58 531.69 300.84 220.75 495.63 363.60 352.74 525.78 299.04 219.41 483.48 361.03 351.74 536.93 291.21 212.65 486.64 366.11 359.30 571.03 298.75 219.11 493.62 367.13 357.29 624.36 303.16 221.03 494.05 366.40 354.31 527.18 297.02 217.93 495.94 368.45 358.16 512.62 302.87 492.91 374.91 363.94 501.42 301.49 218.16 514.65 371.79 360.60 526.12 305.53 224.63 501.68 375.14 365.57 551.04 308.48 224.40 502.55 380.37 371.96 549.18 310.06 225.98 508.91 373.86 367.43 537.04 305.44 221.67 502.27 370.67 359.29 531.99 302.32 220.93 494.07 372.40 359.68 522.14 301.67 223.48 496.37 379.62 501.96 621.08 390.64 523.25 639.62 386.46 515.30 636.55 381.26 519.06 635.10 384.16 518.25 637.43 384.16 516.57 624.82 387.45 518.30 645.81 392.81 519.51 631.62 403.48 537.57 644.30 397.00 530.85 642.11 397.94 537.57 646.05 404.03 545.18 652.10 391.70 536.31 651.04 392.46 531.70 639.43 398.04 533.35 652.30 360.55 218.45 369.41 230.89 365.20 227.25 360.74 224.60 366.86 233.53 370.77 237.37 366.13 230.83 368.46 233.79 371.77 229.59 373.33 235.68 375.95 234.01 382.50 235.24 374.95 229.97 371.36 226.57 374.47 231.62 458.64 469.59 462.91 463.27 466.05 465.68 472.80 476.78 473.93 475.14 477.06 477.06 471.08 472.20 469.38 366.53 369.41 368.43 371.33 373.04 373.04 372.02 372.40 371.20 183.52 179.87 179.51 181.37 177.50 177.84 178.75 MANUFACTURING Constant (1977) dollars......................».............. 1988 1987 Annual average Industry 2 2 0 .6 6 WHOLESALE TRADE........................................... 359.04 367.10 361.19 363.09 366.53 367.49 RETAIL TRADE .................................................... 176.08 179.32 175.71 177.83 178.44 179.97 182.10 183.62 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE ................................................................ 303.94 317.11 316.54 316.17 316.54 315.95 314.58 320.68 316.44 318.92 324.52 319.32 326.70 330.15 322.73 276.36 277.02 279.83 283.08 282.85 284.80 286.55 284.24 SERVICES ............................................................. 265.20 275.28 272.48 271.32 271.51 Data not available. p = preliminary 272.21 273.22 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 Feb. 1988p Mar. 1987 Jan. 1988 PRIVATE SECTOR (in current dollars)......................... 172.3 176.8 177.0 Transportation and public utilities................................ Wholesale trade1 .......................................................... Retail trade .................................................................. Finance, Insurance, and real estate1 ........................... Services........................................................................ 181.4 153.0 174.6 174.4 175.8 159.4 187.0 179.3 185.0 156.9 177.5 177.2 180.3 163.1 193.8 187.3 184.9 155.2 177.8 178.4 180.5 163.3 195.2 187.3 PRIVATE SECTOR [In constant (1977) dollars] .......... 94.6 94.1 94.0 1 This series is not seasonally adjusted because the seasonal component is small relative to the trend-cycle, irregular components, or both, and consequently cannot be separated with sufficient precision. - Data not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Feb. 1988p Mar. 1988» Mar. 1987 Nov. 1987 Dec. 1987 Jan. 1988 177.3 172.2 175.8 175.7 176.4 184.8 156.0 178.1 178.3 181.0 163.8 194.8 187.6 _ _ _ - - - 153.8 174.3 174.6 159.0 179.0 156.6 176.6 177.1 162.3 185.2 154.4 176.9 177.4 ” 162.7 185.1 157.1 176.9 176.9 " 163.1 “ 186.4 155.8 177.5 177.7 “ 162.8 ” 186.0 156.8 177.8 178.4 - 94.4 93.8 93.6 93.7 93.6 Mar. 1988p 176.5 177.1 163.3 “ 187.3 - p = prelim inary. NO TE : See "N o te s on th e d a ta ” fo r a d e scrip tio n o f th e m ost re ce n t ben chm a rk revision. 83 M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data 18. Indexes of diffusion: industries in which employment increased, data seasonally adjusted (In percent) Time span and year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Over 1986 1987 1988 1-month span: ....................................................................... ....................................................................... ....................................................................... 53.2 53.5 60.0 48.1 56.8 62.2 48.1 58.6 55.7 53.5 58.4 - 52.4 58.6 - 46.8 55.7 - Over 1986 1987 1988 3-month span: .................................................. .................................................... ........................................................ 49.7 58.6 67.6 44.9 59.5 64.1 45.7 61.1 - 48.4 61.6 - 47.6 61.4 - 45.4 67.3 - 48.4 47.6 61.9 47.6 62.7 “ 43.0 58.9 - 43.2 67.3 - 45.4 67.6 - 43.2 62.2 “ 44.1 63.5 ” 46.2 67.3 “ 45.7 68.9 47.8 73.8 Over 6 -month span: 1986 ....................................................................... 1987 ....................................................................... 1988 ....................................................................... Over 1986 1987 1988 12-month span: ......................................................... ...................................................... ................................................. 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 52.4 Sept. Oct. Nov. 56.2 54.6 - 55.1 65.4 - 53.2 65.4 - 59.7 71.9 - 59.7 63.2 55.9 69.7 - 58.1 77.8 - 58.6 75.9 - 60.3 70.5 - 55.1 75.1 - 48.4 71.1 - 47.3 76.2 - 53.0 78.6 - 59.2 80.3 - 58.9 75.7 - 57.8 77.6 58.9 74.3 49.5 72.4 - 49.5 76.2 - 51.6 77.3 - 54.9 77.3 52.2 _ 55.1 56.5 - - - 6 8 .6 - 6 6 .2 spans. Data for the 2 most recent months shown in each span are preliminary. See the “ Definitions” in this section. See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 19. Annual data: Employment status of the noninstitutional population (Numbers in thousands) Employment status 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Noninstitutional population.................................... 166,460 169,349 171,775 173,939 175,891 178,080 179,912 182,293 184,490 Labor force: Total (number).................................................. Percent of population....................................... 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 65.1 119,540 65.6 121,602 65.9 100,421 60.3 1,597 100,907 59.6 1,604 102,042 59.4 1,645 101,194 58.2 1 ,6 6 8 102,510 58.3 1,676 106,702 59.9 1,697 108,856 60.5 1,706 111,303 61.1 1,706 114,177 61.9 1,737 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 3,179 103,971 109,597 3,163 106,434 112,440 3,208 109,232 Unemployed: Total (number)............................................ Percent of labor fo rc e ................................ 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 8,237 6.9 7,425 Not in labor force (number) ................................ 59,900 60,806 61,460 62,067 62,665 62,839 62,744 62,752 62,888 Employed: Total (number) ............................................. Percent of population .................................. Resident Armed Forces............................ Civilian Total ....................................................... Agriculture............................................ Nonagricultural industries..................... 6 .1 20. Annual data: Employment levels by industry (N um bers in thousand s) Industry 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Total employment.................................................................... Private sector......................................................................... Goods-producing ................................................................. Mining............................................................................. Construction .................................................................. Manufacturing................................................................. 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 90,200 74,330 23,334 952 3,948 18,434 94,496 78,472 24,727 966 4,383 19,378 97,519 81,125 24,859 927 4,673 19,260 99,610 82,900 24,681 783 4,904 18,994 1 0 2 ,1 1 2 Service-producing................................................................ Transportation and public utilities................................... Wholesale trade .............................................................. Retail trade ..................................................................... Finance, insurance, and real estate ............................... Services........................................................................... 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 6 6 ,8 6 6 4,954 5,268 15,613 5,468 19,694 69,769 5,159 5,555 16,545 5,689 20,797 72,660 5,238 5,717 17,356 5,955 2 2 ,0 0 0 74,930 5,244 5,735 17,845 6,297 23,099 77,228 5,378 5,797 18,264 6,589 24,137 Government................................................................... Federal...................................................................... State.......................................................................... Local ......................................................................... 15,947 2,773 3,541 9,633 16,241 16,031 2,772 3,640 9,619 15,837 2,739 3,640 9,458 15,869 2,774 3,662 9,434 16,024 2,807 3,734 9,482 16,394 2,875 3,832 9,687 16,711 2,899 3,888 9,923 17,063 2,943 3,952 10,167 NOTE: 84 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most Dec. 2 ,8 6 6 3,610 9,765 recent benchmark revision. 1987 85,049 24,884 741 5,031 19,112 21. Annual data: Average hours and earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry Industry 1979 1980 1981 1982 34.8 7.68 267.26 1984 1985 1986 1987 280.70 35.2 8.32 292.86 34.9 8.57 299.09 34.8 8.76 304.85 34.8 8.98 312.50 1983 Private sector Average weekly hours........................................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars)............................ ......... Average weekly earnings (in dollars) .................................... 35.7 6.16 219.91 235.10 35.2 7.25 255.20 Mining Average weekly hours ..................................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ................................ Average weekly earnings (in dollars)...... ........................ 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 11.98 519.93 42.2 12.44 524.97 42.3 12.45 526.64 Construction Average weekly hours ..................................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ................................ Average weekly earnings (in dollars)............................... 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 37.8 12.13 458.51 37.7 12.32 464.46 37.4 12.47 466.38 477.28 Manufacturing Average weekly hours ..................................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ................................ Average weekly earnings (in dollars)......... ,.................... 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 9.19 374.03 40.5 9.54 386.37 40.7 9.73 396.01 41.0 9.91 406.31 Transportation and public utilities Average weekly hours ..................................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ................................ Average weekly earnings (in dollars)............................... 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 1 1 .1 2 39.2 11.70 458.64 1 2 .0 1 438.13 39.5 11.40 450.30 469.59 Wholesale trade Average weekly hours ..................................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars)................................ Average weekly earnings (in dollars)............................... 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 38.5 8.89 342.27 38.4 9.16 351.74 38.4 9.35 359.04 38.2 9.61 367.10 Retail trade Average weekly hours ..................................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ................................ Average weekly earnings (in dollars)............................... 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 29.8 5.85 174.33 29.4 5.94 174.64 29.2 6.03 176.08 179.32 Finance, insurance, and real estate Average weekly hours ..................................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ................................ Average weekly earnings (in dollars)............................... 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 7.63 278.50 36.4 7.94 289.02 36.4 8.35 303.94 36.2 8.76 317.11 Services Average weekly hours ..................................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ................................ Average weekly earnings (in dollars)............................... 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 32.6 7.59 247.43 32.5 7.90 256.75 32.5 8.16 265.20 32.5 8.47 275.28 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 35.3 6 .6 6 35.0 8 .0 2 37.7 1 2 .6 6 39.1 29.3 6 .1 2 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: 22. Compensation and Industrial Relations Data Employment Cost Index, compensation,1 by occupation and industry group (June 1981 = 100) 1987 1986 1985 Percent change Series 133.0 133.8 135.0 135.9 137.5 138.6 0 .8 134.2 126.8 133.7 136.0 127.8 135.4 136.9 128.4 136.6 138.5 129.1 138.0 139.3 130.1 138.5 141.2 131.3 139.9 142.2 132.5 140.8 .6 126.9 127.7 132.9 138.8 136.8 131.9 128.1 128.7 133.7 139.4 138.0 132.8 128.8 129.3 135.6 142.4 140.6 134.6 129.5 130.1 136.5 143.6 141.6 135.4 130.2 130.7 138.1 145.2 144.1 136.9 131.1 131.5 138.9 145.8 144.7 137.8 132.2 132.7 140.8 149.2 146.4 139.6 133.5 134.1 141.7 150.6 127.5 128.9 129.9 130.8 131.6 132.9 133.8 135.1 129.8 - 131.3 - 132.5 - 133.5 - 134.3 - 136.1 - 137.0 - 124.4 129.5 125.7 130.9 126.3 131.1 127.2 132.3 127.8 133.5 128.4 134.7 129.5 - 125.3 126.0 129.4 - 126.7 127.7 130.8 - 127.8 128.7 131.6 - 128.6 129.3 132.7 - 129.2 130.1 133.5 * - - - - - - - - - - - - Nonmanufacturing ............................................................ 128.4 129.7 130.6 131.7 State and local government workers ............................... Workers, by occupational group: White-collar workers......................................................... Blue-collar workers........................................................... Workers, by industry division: Services ............................................................................ Hospitals and other services4 ....................................... Health services............................................................. Schools .......................................................................... Elementary and secondary......................................... Public administration3 ....................................................... 137.5 138.9 139.7 138.6 132.7 140.0 134.7 139.1 135.2 140.3 142.0 134.8 140.4 136.8 June Civilian workers 2 ................................................................... Workers, by occupational group: White-collar workers ........................................................... Blue-collar workers.............................................................. Service occupations............................................................ Workers, by industry division: Goods-producing.................................................................. Manufacturing ..................................................................... Service-producing ................................................................. Services.............................................................................. Health services................................................................ Hospitals.......................................................................... Public administration 3 ....................................................... Nonmanufacturing................................................................. 129.2 130.6 131.5 131.6 124.9 131.8 133.1 126.2 133.1 125.5 126.0 131.5 137.1 134.8 130.6 Private industry w o rke rs.................................................... Workers, by occupational group: White-collar workers......................................................... Professional specialty and technical occupations......... Executive, administrative, and managerial occupations Sales occupations........................................................... Administrative support occupations, including clerical............................................................................ Blue-collar workers........................................................... Precision production, craft, and repair occupation........ Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors ........... Transportation and material moving occupations.......... Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers .... Service occupations......................................................... Workers, by industry division: Goods-producing................................................................ Construction ..................................................................... Manufacturing................................................................... Durables .......................................................................... Nondurables.......................... .......................................... Service-producing ........................................ ..................... Transportation and public utilities.................................... Transportation.................................................................. Public utilities.................................................................. Wholesale and retail tra d e ............................................... Wholesale trade .............................................................. Retail trade ..................................................................... Finance, insurance, and real estate................................. Service.............................................................................. Health services................................................................ Hospitals ........................................................................ Sept. Dec. 3 months ended Mar. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Dec. 12 months ended Dec. 1987 - 141.5 143.0 136.8 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) and State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis .7 .9 3.6 3.9 3.2 3.1 .6 3.1 3.1 3.8 4.9 4.4 4.8 4.6 3.8 136.0 .7 3.3 138.5 - 139.3 - • .6 3.7 4.1 4.4 135.2 130.6 ' - ' 135.9 131.8 136.7 129.9 130.7 135.3 - 130.8 131.5 136.3 - 131.9 132.7 137.7 - 133.2 134.1 138.4 - - - - - ~ - - - - - - 1.3 5.2 4.3 4.9 132.4 134.1 135.1 136.4 137.1 .5 3.5 143.6 144.7 145.9 146.3 149.7 151.1 .9 4.4 140.5 136.3 145.0 138.5 146.0 139.5 147.2 140.8 147.5 141.3 151.2 143.3 152.7 144.3 1 .0 4.6 3.4 140.8 137.9 141.7 143.2 138.0 145.5 139.4 147.6 149.4 140.6 146.6 141.1 147.3 142.5 147.6 143.3 151.8 145.1 153.1 146.3 .9 - - 1 .0 1.1 .6 .9 1 .2 148.1 140.5 1 .2 1 .2 .9 .5 -.3 .9 .9 .8 1.3 .6 1 .2 4.1 3.1 3.1 3.4 2.9 1.1 2 .8 .6 2.4 1 .0 .1 3.1 3.7 3.1 2.7 3.8 3.7 3.0 2.7 3.3 3.0 4.0 2.5 .1 2 .0 .7 1.1 1 .0 1 .2 .5 .4 .2 .6 .2 .7 1 .0 1 .2 .7 .8 - - - - - 1.1 148.4 150.3 141.6 148.9 150.5 144.1 149.1 150.7 144.7 154.1 156.5 146.4 155.5 157.8 148.1 1 .2 .9 .8 4.4 3.7 4.7 4.8 5.0 4.6 Consist of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities. Includes, for example, library, social, and health services. - Data not available. 3 4 24. Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and area size (June 1981=100) Series Dec. Mar. Sept. June Percent change 1987 1986 1985 Dec. * Mar. June Sept. 3 months ended Dec. 12 months ended Dec. 1987 COMPENSATION Workers, by bargaining status 1 Union ..................................................................................... Goods-producing ................................................................. Service-producing................................................................ Manufacturing ..................................................................... Nonmanufacturing............................................................... 127.1 125.2 130.2 125.5 128.6 128.4 126.4 131.6 127.0 129.7 128.7 126.7 131.9 126.9 130.4 129.4 127.3 132.8 127.5 131.2 129.8 127.5 133.4 127.9 131.5 130.5 128.0 134.4 128.0 132.6 131.2 128.7 135.2 128.7 133.5 132.0 129.5 135.9 129.5 134.3 133.4 131.3 136.7 131.5 135.1 Nonunion................................................................................ Goods-producing................................................................. Service-producing................................................................ Manufacturing ..................................................................... Nonmanufacturing............................................................... 127.5 125.1 129.0 126.3 128.1 129.0 126.7 130.4 128.1 129.5 130.2 128.2 131.4 129.7 130.4 131.2 129.1 132.5 130.4 131.6 132.1 130.0 133.4 131.4 132.5 133.6 130.8 135.3 132.2 134.3 134.6 131.8 136.4 133.2 135.3 136.1 133.1 137.9 134.6 136.8 136.9 134.1 138.6 135.6 137.5 Workers, by region 1 Northeast............................................................................... South ..................................................................................... Midwest (formerly North Central).......................................... W est....................................................................................... 129.9 127.2 124.6 129.8 131.6 128.7 125.9 130.8 133.3 129.6 126.2 131.6 134.2 130.7 127.3 132.1 135.2 131.4 128.1 132.8 137.4 132.1 129.1 134.1 138.6 133.2 130.2 134.2 140.3 134.2 131.2 135.8 141.9 135.4 131.7 136.3 Workers, by area size 1 Metropolitan areas................................................................ Other areas............................................................................ 128.1 123.9 129.5 125.5 130.5 126.4 131.4 127.2 132.2 127.9 133.5 129.0 134.4 130.2 135.8 131.3 136.7 132.0 Workers, by bargaining status 1 Union ..................................................................................... Goods-producing................................................................. Service-producing................................................................ Manufacturing ..................................................................... Nonmanufacturing ............................................................... 124.7 122.7 127.8 123.3 125.9 125.6 123.4 129.0 124.2 126.9 126.1 124.1 129.3 124.6 127.4 126.9 124.5 130.5 125.0 128.5 127.2 124.8 130.9 125.5 128.7 127.7 125.0 131.7 125.6 129.5 128.3 125.8 132.2 126.2 130.1 129.1 126.5 132.9 127.0 130.8 130.5 128.5 133.6 129.3 131.5 Nonunion............................................................................... Goods-producing................................................................ Service-producing................................................................ Manufacturing ..................................................................... Nonmanufacturing ............................................................... 125.9 123.0 127.7 124.4 126.6 127.3 124.5 128.9 126.1 127.8 128.5 126.1 129.9 127.7 128.9 129.4 127.0 130.8 128.5 129.8 130.3 127.8 131.7 129.5 130.6 131.8 128.8 133.6 130.6 132.4 132.8 129.6 134.6 131.5 133.4 134.3 131.1 136.2 133.0 134.9 135.0 132.1 136.7 133.9 135.4 Workers, by region 1 Northeast............................................................................... South ..................................................................................... Midwest (formerly North Central).......................................... W est....................................................................................... 128.1 125.4 122.9 127.1 129.2 126.8 124.2 128.1 131.3 127.8 124.4 128.9 132.3 128.8 125.3 129.3 133.1 129.4 126.2 130.1 135.4 130.1 127.4 131.2 136.6 131.1 128.5 131.1 138.3 132.1 129.6 133.1 139.7 133.0 129.9 133.5 126.3 127.4 123.6 128.5 124.5 129.4 125.0 130.2 125.6 131.6 126.6 132.4 127.8 133.7 129.1 134.6 129.8 1.1 2 .8 1.4 .6 3.0 2.5 1.5 2 .8 .6 2.7 .6 3.6 3.2 3.9 3.2 3.8 .8 .5 .7 .5 1 .1 .9 .4 .4 .7 .5 5.0 3.0 2 .8 2 .6 3.4 3.2 WAGES AND SALARIES Workers, by area size 1 Metropolitan areas................................................................ Other areas............................................................................ 1 2 2 .0 1 The indexes are calculated differently from those for the occupation and industry groups. For a detailed description of the index calculation, see the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M onthly Labor Review Technical Employment Cost Index,” May 1982. Note, “ Estimation 1.1 1 .6 .5 2 .6 3.0 2 .1 1 .8 3.0 .5 2 .2 .5 .4 .7 .4 3.6 3.4 3.8 3.4 3.7 1 .0 5.0 .7 2 .8 .2 2.9 .3 2 .6 .7 .5 3.4 3.3 .8 procedures for the MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: 23. Compensation and Industrial Relations Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group (June 1981=100) 1985 1986 1987 Percent change Series Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. 3 months ended 12 months ended Dec. 1987 Civilian workers ’ ..................................... Workers, by occupational group: White-collar workers ................................. Blue-collar workers.................................... Service occupations................................... Workers, by industry division Goods-producing.......................................... Manufacturing ........................................... Service-producing ...................................... Services .................................... Health services............................... Hospitals........................................... Public administration 2 ................................ Nonmanufacturing ......................................... Private industry workers..................... Workers, by occupational group: White-collar workers................................... Professional specialty and technical occupations..... Executive, administrative, and managerial occupations................................................ Sales occupations............................................ Administrative support occupations, including clerical...................................................... Blue-collar w orkers................................. Precision production, craft, and repair occupations......................................... Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors....... Transportation and material moving occupations...... Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers........................................ Service occupations......................................... Workers, by industry division: Goods-producing............................................................. Construction .................................................................. Manufacturing................................................................. Durables...................................................................... Nondurables................................................................. Service-producing.................................. Transportation and public utilities........................ Transportation............................................ Public utilities...................................... Wholesale and retail trade.................... Wholesale trade .......................... Retail trade.................................. Finance, insurance, and real e state............. Services................................... Health services ........................ Hospitals.................................... Nonmanufacturing.............................. State and local government workers.................. Workers, by occupational group White-collar workers............................ Blue-collar workers........................... Workers, by industry division Services ................................... Hospitals and other services 3 .................. Health services ............................. Schools.......................................... Elementary and secondary .......................... Public administration 2 ................................ 127.0 128.3 129.3 130.7 131.5 132.8 133.£ 135.2 136.1 0.7 35 129.8 122.3 128.6 131.2 123.4 129.8 132.4 124.1 130.0 134.1 125.0 131.7 135.0 125.6 132.8 136.6 126.2 134.2 137.3 127.1 134.7 139.4 128.3 136.0 140.2 129.4 136.6 .6 .9 .4 39 3.0 2.9 123.1 123.8 129.4 134.8 124.4 125.3 130.7 136.4 125.6 126.5 131.5 137.0 126.3 127.2 133.4 139.9 _ 137.5 132.2 127.0 127.9 134.2 141.1 _ _ 127.8 128.7 135.8 142.7 _ 128.5 129.5 136.5 143.4 _ 129.8 130.8 138.5 146.8 131.0 132.2 139.2 148.2 138.1 133.0 140.5 134.5 141.0 135.2 142.6 137.1 143.8 137.8 .5 4.1 3.6 - 132.0 128.4 - _ 133.8 129.6 - _ 134.6 130.4 .9 1.1 .5 1 .0 1.1 .8 125.6 126.8 127.9 128.8 129.5 130.8 131.7 133.0 133.8 6 33 128.3 131.5 129.6 132.7 131.1 134.0 132.0 135.4 132.7 136.4 134.6 138.4 135.4 139.1 137.0 141.2 137.6 142.6 .4 3.7 1 .0 128.4 122.5 130.5 122.4 132.1 124.3 132.4 125.2 133.5 124.9 135.6 126.7 136.4 127.1 138.6 127.0 139.2 126.1 .4 -.7 4.3 127.9 129.6 130.8 131.7 132.7 134.3 135.5 137.1 138.1 .7 4.1 1 2 2 .0 123.1 123.7 124.5 125.1 125.6 126.6 127.7 128.9 .9 3.0 123.8 125.3 1 2 1 .6 1 2 2 .6 118.0 126.7 124.1 119.8 127.4 124.9 117.8 125.7 123.6 118.9 1 2 0 .1 127.9 125.5 120.5 128.8 126.7 121.5 130.2 127.5 122.3 131.1 129.2 122.9 .7 1.3 .5 2.9 3.4 23 119.8 126.6 120.3 128.0 120.9 128.9 121.4 130.1 121.9 131.4 1 2 2 .6 131.9 123.7 132.6 125.0 133.2 1.1 128.0 3.0 2.4 124.2 118.3 125.3 124.8 126.1 129.0 126.3 _ _ 124.5 129.7 122.5 126.6 136.2 _ 125.4 119.8 126.5 125.8 127.9 129.9 126.6 _ _ 125.8 131.2 123.7 128.0 136.9 _ 126.1 120.5 127.2 126.4 128.5 130.9 127.3 _ _ 126.8 127.5 121.7 128.7 127.7 130.5 133.4 128.1 128.3 122.7 129.5 128.7 131.0 134.3 129.3 129.6 123.8 130.8 129.7 132.8 135.7 130.0 130.8 124.7 132.2 131.1 134.1 136.2 130.2 122.9 117.9 123.8 123.4 124.6 127.8 125.2 - _ 123.7 128.3 121.9 126.5 134.1 _ 126.6 1 2 0 .0 127.7 126.5 131.8 124.4 129.0 138.2 - - 128.7 129.7 1 2 0 .8 127.9 127.2 129.3 131.6 127.5 _ 130.4 127.9 134.8 125.2 133.5 141.8 - 129.9 137.2 127.1 131.5 142.8 - 131.9 132.8 130.6 137.8 127.8 131.8 145.9 134.2 130.7 138.5 127.7 131.6 147.1 134.8 135.5 136.0 140.4 141.4 142.5 142.8 146.1 147.4 136.6 130.4 137.0 131.9 141.8 134.5 142.8 135.1 143.9 136.3 144.1 136.9 147.7 139.0 149.3 139.6 135.6 130.9 136.8 132.4 137.1 133.3 142.1 135.8 143.3 137.3 143.9 138.6 144.2 139.4 148.2 141.2 149.5 142.2 138.0 139.4 133.8 .9 .7 .4 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.1 3.7 3.5 .2 2 1 1.1 1.1 1 .0 .6 126.9 133.1 124.5 130.0 139.5 135.3 128.4 137.0 138.5 132.0 .5 .1 .5 -.1 144.1 145.7 137.5 145.1 146.4 138.1 145.5 146.5 140.5 145.6 146.6 141.0 150.3 152.0 142.6 151.8 153.4 143.8 -.2 1 .2 .8 1 .2 5.4 4.6 5.1 .4 3.4 4.2 .9 46 1.1 .4 3 .3 .9 .7 4.3 3.6 4.4 4.6 48 4.1 1 .0 .9 I Includes, for example, library, social and health services, - Data not available. 3 3.0 4.1 2 .6 1 .0 138.2 139.4 134.6 1 .0 2 134.2 Consists of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers) and State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers. 2 Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities. 88FRASER Digitized for https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 3.1 3.4 3.7 5.0 46 25. Specified compensation and wage adjustments from contract settlements, and effective wage adjustments, private industry collective bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or more (in percent) Quarterly average Annual average 1987 1986 Measure 1985 1986 I II III IV I IF IIP ivp 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 adjustment3 ......................... From settlements reached in period ................... Deferred from settlements reached in earlier periods................................................................ From cost-of-living-adjustments clauses............. 2 .6 1.1 0 .6 0.7 0.7 2.7 1 .6 1 .2 1 .6 1 .2 2.7 2.4 1.7 2.4 2.3 2.7 1 .2 .8 1.3 .8 2 .0 1 .8 1.5 2 .0 1.5 2 .1 3.3 .7 2.3 .5 1 .8 1.7 .4 .7 .2 .2 .6 (4) .7 .5 .5 .2 .1 .2 .5 .6 (4) 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. (4) 4.1 3.9 2.5 2 .1 3.4 2.4 1 .2 2 .6 2 .1 2.4 1 .8 2.9 2 .0 1 .8 .4 1 .0 .9 .8 .2 .2 .3 (4) .2 .3 .7 .6 .3 .1 .1 .2 .1 .2 Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts, Between -0.05 and 0.05 percent. p = preliminary. 3 4 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 endingM easure I II III IV I IF IVp IMP S p e cifie d to ta l co m p e n sa tio n adjustm en ts, s e ttle m e n ts coverin g 5,000 w o rke rs or m ore, all industries: First year o f c o n t r a c t..................... 2.3 2.5 Annual rate over life of contract 1.4 2 .0 0.9 1.4 1.1 1 .2 1.9 2 .8 3.1 1 .6 1.7 2 .1 2 .6 2 .6 S p e cifie d w a ge adjustm en ts, s e ttle m e n ts cove rin g 1,000 w o rke rs or m ore: All in dustries First year o f co n tra ct ...................................................................................... C o n tra cts w ith C O LA c la u s e s .................................................................. C o n tra cts w ith o u t C O LA cla uses ............................................................ A n nual rate o ve r life o f co n tra ct ................................................................ C o n tra cts w ith C O LA c la u s e s .................................................................. C o n tra cts w ith o u t C O LA cla uses ............................................................ M anufactu ring First year o f c o n tra c t ...................................................................................... C o n tra cts w ith C O LA c la u s e s .................................................................. C o n tra cts w ith o u t C O LA cla uses ............................................................ A n nual rate over life o f co n tra ct ................................................................. C o n tra cts w ith C O LA c la u s e s ................................................................... C o n tra cts w ith o u t C O LA cla uses ............................................................ N o nm a nufacturin g First year of co n tra ct ....................................................................................... C o n tra cts w ith C O LA c la u s e s .................................................................... C o n tra cts w ith o u t C O LA cla uses ............................................................. A n nual rate o ve r life o f c o n t r a c t ................................................................. C o n tra cts w ith C O LA c la u s e s .................................................................... C o n tra cts w ith o u t C O LA cla uses ............................................................. C o nstruction First year o f c o n t r a c t ....................................................................................... C o n tra cts w ith C O LA c la u s e s .................................................................... C o n tra cts w ith o u t C O LA cla uses ............................................................. A n nual rate o ve r life o f c o n t r a c t ................................................................. C o n tra cts w ith C O LA c la u s e s .................................................................... C o n tra cts w ith o u t C O LA cla uses ............................................................. D ata do n o t m eet pub lica tio n standards. 2 .0 1 .6 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 .6 1 .8 2 .2 1.5 .8 1.9 .9 2 .0 2 .2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2 .2 1.7 1 .8 1 .8 2.5 2 .0 1.7 1 .8 2 .1 1 .6 1 .8 1 .8 - 1 .2 1.3 - 2 .8 -1.5 1.3 -3.5 (2) - .8 1.1 2 .1 1.3 -2.7 .3 2 .1 2.4 1.3 1.3 .8 .1 - 1 .0 .8 1 .8 .7 -.4 1.4 - 2 .0 .3 2 .1 2 .0 1.1 .9 -.1 .9 1.5 .2 .9 -.2 1.5 2 .1 2 .2 1 .8 2 .1 2.3 1.4 2 .1 2 .2 2 .0 2 .2 2 .1 1.7 1.7 1.5 2 .2 2 .6 2 .6 .8 1 .0 1 .0 -.2 1 .2 2.1 2.4 1.9 2.5 2.7 2.7 2 .6 2 .1 3.4 2.4 3.3 2.7 1.9 2.3 2.5 2 .8 2 .6 2 .2 2.4 2 .6 2 .8 1 .6 2.3 2 .2 2.4 2 .2 2.4 2.5 2.3 1.4 2.4 2.7 3.7 2.7 2.9 3.8 2.9 1.1 2 .2 2.3 2.5 2 .1 2 .2 2 .1 2 .1 2 .0 2 .2 2 .0 2.4 2.7 2.3 2.4 2 .6 2 .8 2 .1 2 .2 2 .2 2.4 3.0 2 .8 3.0 2.9 1.4 2.3 2.5 1 .6 1 .2 1 .6 1 .6 2.4 2.5 1.4 2 .6 2 .6 2.5 2 .6 2 .6 1 .0 .8 2 .8 2 .8 -.1 -.6 3.5 2.7 3.0 3.6 (1) (1) (1) (1) 1.1 .9 (1) (1) (1) (1) 3.2 0 (’ ) 3.1 O (’ ) = prelim inary. Between -0.05 and 0.05 percent. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 89 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • 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 1986 1987 II III IV I IF IIP IVP For all workers:1 To ta l......................................... From settlements reached in period ... Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period ........... From cost-of-living-adjustments clauses............................. 2.9 .5 2.3 .5 2 .0 2 .2 2 .6 3.1 1 .8 1 .6 2.3 .5 1.7 .7 .2 .2 .1 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.................. 3.8 2.5 3.4 3.1 1.7 3.8 1 .6 1 .2 1 .0 3.9 3.7 3.5 2 .0 1 .0 1 .0 .6 1 .8 1 Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts. p .4 1.5 .3 .3 2.5 2 .8 1 1 .6 5 7 .4 1 8 .5 3.2 1.9 3.3 2.3 2 .8 36 29 33 2 .6 = preliminary. 28. Specified compensation and wage adjustments from contract settlements, and effective wage adjustments State and local government collective bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or more (in percent) Annual average Measure Specified adjustments: Total compensation 1 adjustments, 2 1986 4.2 5.1 6 .2 4.6 5.4 5.7 5.7 4.9 5.1 5.7 4.1 5.5 2.4 3.0 (4) 4.9 1987 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 adjustment3 ............... ■........... ;..... From settlements reached in period........................... Deferred from settlements reached In earlier periods From cost-of-living-adjustment clauses.......... ............ (4) 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. 4.9 4.8 6 .0 1 .6 1 29. 1985 2 .6 2 .2 (4) Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts. Less than 0.05 percent. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more Annual totals 1987 Measure 1986 Number of stoppages: Beginning in period.................... 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 ............................... 69 72 1987 46 51 Mar. Apr. 3 5 May 2 5 June 3 7 Digitized 90 for FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1988 Sept. ug- 8 6 12 14 3 11 7 15 Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.P Feb.P Mar.p 1 6 0 3 5 1 12 11 5 6 8 6 17.5 6.7 24.2 533.0 174.4 1 2 .2 2.7 7.0 16.1 14.1 18.4 45.9 1.3 1 1 .8 .0 7.2 899.5 377.7 16.2 8.9 13.9 25.8 31.1 36.0 71.9 53.7 2 2 .2 8.9 1 0 .8 2 1 .1 1,186.1 4,480.7 104.4 151.3 278.0 471.0 361.4 1,155.1 353.3 222.9 159.4 36.6 337.0 .05 .0 2 .05 .0 2 .0 1 .0 1 2 0 1 .2 .0 1 Agricultural and government employees are included in the total employed and total working time: private household, forestry, and fishery employees are excluded. An expla nation of the measurement of idleness as a percentage of the total time worked is found in '“ Total economy’ measure of strike idleness," M onthly Labor Review, October 1968, 1 July .0 1 .02 .0 2 pp. 54-56. p = preliminary .0 1 .0 1 .0 2 .0 2 203.6 .0 2 30. Consumer Price Indexes for All Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: U.S. city average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group (1982-84=100, unless otherwise indicated) Series 1988 1987 Annual average Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. 1 1 2 .1 112.7 337.7 113.1 338.7 113.5 340.1 113.8 340.8 114.4 342.7 1 1 2 .8 113.3 113.3 113.8 113.8 113.7 113.7 113.8 113.8 1986 1987 109.6 328.4 113.6 340.4 109.1 109.0 107.3 110.9 104.5 103.3 109.4 109.4 109.0 106.5 110.4 109.2 112.5 113.5 113.5 111.9 114.8 110.5 105.9 119.1 110.5 112.5 112.5 110.9 113.4 108.9 105.4 117.4 1 1 0 .8 1 1 0 .6 1 1 1 .0 110.7 109.0 109.8 115.9 112.9 110.7 108.0 108.5 113.3 116.1 113.3 Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 115.0 344.4 115.3 345.3 115.4 345.8 115.4 345.7 115.7 346.7 116.0 347.4 116.5 349.0 114.2 114.1 112.4 115.4 112.7 106.4 117.4 110.3 114.3 114.3 112.4 115.6 114.3 114.2 114.8 114.7 1 1 2 .1 1 1 2 .8 116.2 115.8 115.7 113.9 118.7 116.0 115.9 113.9 118.9 1 1 2 .0 1 1 1 .2 1 1 1 .0 1 1 0 .6 1 1 1 .2 106.9 117.8 106.9 117.4 116.8 110.3 106.7 123.4 115.7 115.7 114.1 118.1 107.3 124.7 107.2 123.0 1 1 0 .6 1 1 0 .2 1 1 0 .0 107.4 126.4 111.3 1 1 1 .8 1 1 2 .0 1 1 1 .6 1 1 1 .6 1 1 1 .0 1 1 2 .2 1 1 2 .2 1 1 2 .6 107.8 105.8 114.6 118.0 114.9 107.4 106.7 114.7 118.3 115.2 111.4 108.0 105.0 115.1 118.6 115.4 107.7 104.8 115.0 118.9 115.4 108.5 106.9 115.9 119.3 115.8 109.5 107.7 116.1 119.7 116.8 110.3 107.7 116.3 115.6 122.5 129.8 124.4 130.5 126.0 126.0 125.5 112.7 116.3 107.8 105.5 115.5 123.2 129.4 124.8 127.7 127.1 127.2 125.8 115.6 123.7 129.1 125.6 124.1 128.0 128.0 126.2 113.3 116.6 109.1 116.2 124.6 130.8 126.0 129.4 128.5 128.6 126.9 113.7 117.4 108.7 102.4 95.6 80.8 101.5 121.3 107.5 103.5 113.1 111.5 116.6 125.0 131.3 126.3 130.4 129.0 129.0 127.1 114.3 117.9 109.5 117.0 125.6 132.9 126.4 136.6 129.2 129.2 127.8 113.3 116.4 109.2 102.7 95.8 80.5 101.7 121.7 108.3 104.7 112.9 111.7 Sept. CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR ALL URBAN CONSUMERS: All items (1967=100) ...................................................................... Food and beverages..................................................................... Cereals and bakery products................................................. Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs................................................ Dairy products...................................................................... . Sugar and sweets................................................................ Food away from home ............................................................. Alcoholic beverages.................................................................... Housing .......................................................................................... Owners’ equivalent rent (1 2/8 2=1 0 0 ).................................. Household insurance (12/82=100)...................................... Maintenance and repair services .......................................... Maintenance and repair commodities.................................... Fuel oil, coal, and bottled g a s ............................................... Gas (piped) and electricity .................................................... Other utilities and public services............................................ Household furnishings and operations....................................... Housefurnishings...................................................................... Housekeeping supplies............................................................. Housekeeping services............................................................. Apparel and upkeep...................................................................... Men’s and boys’ apparel.......................................................... Women’s and girls’ apparel ..................................................... Infants’ and toddlers’ apparel.................................................. Apparel services.......................................................................... 1 1 1 .1 1 1 2 .1 1 1 2 .1 1 2 0 .1 1 2 1 .8 114.7 110.4 105.5 124.1 115.2 111.4 105.3 119.6 110.5 1 1 0 .2 1 1 0 .0 1 1 0 .8 1 1 1 .2 1 1 1 .1 108.5 108.0 113.4 116.4 113.6 107.8 106.8 113.7 116.8 114.0 108.4 105.9 114.1 117.2 114.4 115.3 111.9 105.7 117.4 110.4 111.3 108.3 105.9 114.8 117.5 114.7 113.6 120.5 127.3 122.3 127.1 124.0 124.1 123.0 114.3 1 1 0 .2 1 1 1 .1 112.3 107.5 113.7 107.8 104.9 114.7 121.3 129.3 123.0 132.8 124.4 124.4 124.5 113.2 116.8 108.4 105.0 100.4 77.1 107.6 120.5 107.2 103.6 111.7 113.2 1 2 0 .2 127.1 1 2 1 .8 1 2 2 .0 125.0 123.0 123.0 1 1 1 .8 1 1 1 .2 114.8 107.8 103.0 97.3 77.9 103.8 110.7 113.4 107.1 101.5 95.2 77.5 101.5 119.3 106.8 103.6 110.9 109.9 127.1 123.6 123.6 122.4 110.3 103.7 104.1 99.2 77.6 105.7 117.9 105.2 1 0 2 .2 108.2 108.5 1 2 0 .1 107.1 103.6 111.5 1 1 0 .6 105.9 104.2 106.2 104.0 1 1 0 .6 1 1 1 .8 1 1 2 .1 101.9 101.7 115.1 1 0 1 .2 108.8 77.1 77.0 110.3 115.1 96.3 118.8 117.0 1 2 2 .8 121.9 1 2 0 .8 Hospital and related services................................................... 123.1 Entertainment commodities ........................................................ Entertainment services............................................................... 107.9 116.8 Other goods and services ............................................................ 121.4 124.7 111.9 111.3 112.5 128.6 128.1 128.7 1 1 1 .6 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1 1 2 .6 114.6 109.6 105.7 119.6 126.4 1 2 2 .0 Personal and educational services......................................... 1 1 2 .0 1 1 2 .8 1 1 0 .6 Medical care commodities .......................................................... 111.3 114.3 108.6 105.3 114.2 121.3 128.1 123.1 127.4 124.8 124.8 124.0 1 1 0 .6 Maintenance and repair............................................................ Other private transportation..................................................... Other private transportation commodities............................. Other private transportation services.................................... Public transportation.................................................................... 1 1 2 .6 1 1 2 .8 110.9 115.8 121.9 118.3 118.6 119.4 119.4 119.2 107.9 102.3 Private transportation.................................................................. 108.1 107.5 113.8 117.0 114.1 335.9 108.9 109.1 110.4 105.1 108.0 119.6 1 2 2 .2 109.7 108.1 108.0 109.6 114.3 104.5 106.1 118.6 1 1 2 .8 107.2 101.3 94.7 77.5 1 0 2 .2 1 1 1 .1 96.1 77.1 102.5 119.8 107.1 103.5 111.7 110.3 1 1 0 .6 1 0 0 .8 119.7 107.2 104.0 111.5 1 1 1 .1 1 1 0 .0 109.2 109.5 109.9 1 1 2 .8 1 1 1 .2 114.1 105.8 105.9 118.6 1 2 0 .8 127.9 122.3 129.1 124.2 124.2 123.6 1 0 0 .8 77.2 108.1 119.4 107.1 103.5 111.9 110.5 109.3 107.6 109.0 107.6 113.1 106.5 105.8 119.3 1 1 0 .1 104.7 103.5 113.8 114.0 113.4 79.1 79.0 114.3 119.7 96.7 124.2 105.4 104.3 114.1 114.3 114.7 80.8 80.7 114.4 120.3 96.7 125.0 105.6 107.6 119.5 1 1 0 .8 107.3 105.3 107.8 104.2 107.7 103.4 108.2 1 2 0 .0 1 2 1 .1 1 2 0 .8 1 2 1 .2 107.3 103.8 111.5 110.9 107.5 103.9 1 1 1 .8 107.4 103.6 112.3 115.5 123.4 129.2 124.8 126.7 127.4 127.5 125.9 113.5 116.9 108.9 102.4 95.5 80.3 101.4 121.3 107.4 103.6 112.4 1 1 1 .0 1 1 1 .2 1 1 1 .2 109.4 107.6 108.3 108.4 109.0 104.2 109.3 119.8 113.3 1 1 1 .8 115.4 114.0 1 1 0 .6 1 1 2 .0 115.3 118.3 116.2 107.3 110.7 115.4 114.0 112.5 117.7 116.7 108.0 110.7 115.4 1 2 2 .2 130.1 123.8 133.3 125.4 125.4 125.1 112.9 116.5 108.2 105.9 101.4 77.8 108.7 1 0 1 .0 77.6 108.2 1 1 2 .8 116.4 108.1 103.2 96.9 78.5 103.3 1 0 2 .0 95.1 80.5 100.9 120.9 107.3 103.3 112.5 111.4 112.7 1 1 1 .0 110.7 1 1 2 .6 1 2 0 .8 1 2 1 .1 114.5 107.2 111.3 121.4 106.6 105.4 113.8 114.1 116.0 84.0 84.0 115.7 107.1 106.0 115.0 115.2 116.2 83.2 83.1 116.1 1 2 1 .1 1 2 2 .8 97.6 125.8 98.0 127.8 107.8 106.8 116.3 116.6 116.5 83.2 83.1 116.5 123.8 97.6 129.2 107.6 106.5 116.4 116.6 116.3 82.0 81.8 116.9 123.8 97.5 129.2 1 1 2 .1 105.7 110.3 119.9 1 0 2 .8 96.0 80.9 101.9 1 2 1 .8 107.7 103.7 113.2 1 1 1 .6 1 2 0 .2 117.4 114.3 112.7 110.4 108.6 109.0 108.2 113.6 106.1 112.9 108.3 109.1 107.8 111.4 105.8 113.1 1 2 1 .6 1 2 2 .0 1 2 2 .2 107.1 106.0 116.1 116.2 116.0 79.7 79.5 117.2 124.7 98.2 130.1 106.8 105.7 116.0 116.2 116.0 78.3 78.1 117.7 125.0 98.1 130.6 1 1 0 .2 1 1 1 .6 115.3 114.0 107.3 113.6 96.9 125.6 113.1 113.1 108.7 76.6 76.4 113.3 119.1 96.7 123.5 1 2 1 .1 1 2 1 .1 104.2 103.0 113.5 113.6 111.3 78.5 78.4 114.3 119.4 96.0 124.0 120.9 1 2 0 .6 1 2 0 .2 1 2 0 .2 106.5 105.4 114.0 114.4 115.5 84.3 84.3 115.1 120.7 96.8 125.5 121.5 1 2 2 .1 1 2 1 .2 1 2 2 .0 1 2 2 .1 1 2 1 .8 1 2 0 .8 106.5 105.4 115.7 116.0 116.1 77.5 77.3 118.5 124.9 98.3 130.3 121.4 130.1 131.0 130.0 128.8 131.6 128.1 128.5 128.0 126.6 129.1 128.7 129.0 128.7 127.5 129.7 129.2 129.9 129.0 127.9 130.1 129.9 130.8 129.6 128.8 130.6 130.7 131.6 130.4 129.5 132.0 131.2 132.2 131.0 130.0 133.0 131.7 132.7 131.5 130.7 133.3 132.3 133.5 132.0 131.2 134.2 132.8 134.2 132.5 131.5 135.4 133.1 134.9 132.7 131.8 135.9 134.4 135.4 134.1 133.2 137.6 135.5 136.1 135.3 134.5 139.0 136.3 137.0 136.1 135.4 140.0 115.3 110.5 113.9 109.6 114.5 109.9 114.8 110.3 115.4 110.7 115.6 116.9 117.4 1 1 1 .2 1 1 2 .2 1 1 2 .6 1 2 2 .0 122.5 116.1 110.7 123.5 124.5 124.3 124.3 118.1 112.9 125.4 118.3 112.9 125.7 119.0 113.4 126.5 128.0 135.0 115.3 114.3 116.2 136.9 136.5 137.2 128.5 135.3 115.6 114.1 116.8 137.7 136.7 137.9 131.1 135.9 116.0 114.7 117.2 142.1 141.3 142.3 131.6 136.3 116.2 114.9 117.4 142.8 142.3 143.1 131.8 136.5 116.3 115.0 117.5 143.1 142.3 143.4 132.1 137.0 116.5 115.0 117.9 143.4 142.4 143.6 133.4 140.8 117.3 116.1 118.4 143.9 144.6 144.0 134.2 142.2 117.8 116.4 119.1 144.7 146.3 144.8 134.6 142.8 118.1 116.8 119.2 145.0 146.2 145.1 105.4 104.2 114.4 114.6 113.1 80.2 80.1 114.8 1 2 0 .8 103.3 1 0 2 .0 1 2 2 .0 1 2 0 .1 1 2 1 .0 1 2 1 .2 114.9 110.3 121.4 128.5 133.6 115.1 113.9 116.2 138.5 138.1 138.7 126.3 131.3 113.9 112.9 114.8 135.8 136.0 136.0 126.6 131.6 114.2 113.2 115.1 136.1 136.2 136.3 126.9 131.8 114.9 113.7 116.0 136.3 136.4 136.5 127.2 132.4 114.9 113.7 116.1 136.7 136.5 136.8 106.0 104.9 114.4 114.7 115.4 82.2 82.1 114.5 1 2 0 .8 96.3 125.7 1 1 0 .6 117.3 91 M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: Price Data 30. Continued— Consumer Price Indexes for Ail Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: U.S. city average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group (1982-84=100, unless otherwise indicated) Series 1987 Annual average Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. 113.6 107.7 113.5 104.0 1 1 2 .1 112.7 107.2 114.4 108.2 113.8 104.6 99.4 108.1 97.3 107.2 98.3 107.7 113.5 107.7 113.8 103.8 100.7 107.6 99.6 108.2 113.8 107.6 113.7 103.8 1 0 1 .1 113.1 107.5 113.3 103.7 100.9 109.5 98.7 107.9 118.5 124.1 111.5 120.4 128.0 123.7 118.9 124.8 111.4 120.9 128.7 124.1 119.3 125.1 112.3 120.9 129.0 124.4 1 2 0 .1 1 1 2 .0 112.7 113.0 1986 1987 All ite m s............................................................................................ Commodities.................................................................................. Food and beverages................................................................... Commodities less food and beverages...................................... Nondurables less food and beverages .................................... Apparel commodities.............................................................. Nondurables less food, beverages, and apparel .................. Durables.................................................................................... 109.6 104.4 109.1 101.4 97.8 104.2 95.9 106.6 Services.......................................................................................... Rent of shelter (1 2 /8 2 -1 0 0 )..................................................... Household services less rent o f shelter (12/82—100)............. Transportation services............................................................... Medical care services.................................................................. Other services ............................................................................. 115.4 1 2 0 .2 1 2 0 .2 125.9 113.1 121.9 130.0 125.7 109.8 108.0 113.6 1 1 1 .6 1 1 0 .2 1 1 0 .8 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 .2 115.1 113.6 114.2 111.7 103.9 101.3 99.1 106.9 114.6 Special indexes: All items less food ...................................................................... All items less shelter .................................................................. All items less homeowners’ costs (12/82—100)....................... All items less medical ca re ......................................................... Commodities less fo o d ................................................................ Nondurables less food ................................................................ Nondurables less food and apparel ........................................... Nondurables................................................................................ Services less rent o f shelter (12/82 —1 00)............................... Services less medical c a re ......................................................... Energy.......................................................................................... All items less energy .................................................................. All items less food and energy ................................................... Commodities less food and energy............................................ Energy commodities ................................................................... Services less energy................................................................... 1 1 2 .8 116.3 121.9 119.4 108.8 101.7 98.5 96.9 103.5 118.7 114.6 108.9 99.5 108.2 106.4 112.5 1 0 2 .6 1 1 2 .6 1 1 1 .1 104.3 102.9 1 0 1 .8 1 0 0 .1 100.3 107.5 123.1 119.1 98.2 106.1 121.3 117.4 85.8 115.8 116.8 110.7 76.9 120.3 8 8 .2 8 8 .6 1 1 2 .6 117.2 118.2 113.5 108.6 77.2 116.5 1 1 1 .8 80.2 1 2 2 .0 1 1 2 .8 103.6 100.7 1 1 0 .0 1 2 2 .1 118.2 87.4 116.7 117.6 111.7 79.1 8 8 .6 88.4 29.5 8 8 .0 8 8 .0 29.4 89.1 29.8 CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR URBAN WAGE EARNERS AND CLERICAL WORKERS: All items ......................................................................................... All items (1967-100) ...................................................................... 108.6 323.4 112.5 335.0 1 1 1 .0 1 1 1 .6 330.5 332.3 Food and beverages ..................................................................... Food............................................................................................. Food at home ........................................................................... Cereals and bakery products................................................. Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs................................................ Dairy products........................................................................ Fruits and vegetables............................................................. Other foods at home.............................................................. Sugar and sweets................................................................ Fats and o ils ........................................................................ Nonalcoholic beverages...................................................... Other prepared foods.......................................................... Food away from home ............................................................. Alcoholic beverages.................................................................... 108.9 108.8 107.1 110.9 104.4 103.2 109.4 109.1 109.0 106.4 113.3 113.3 111.7 114.8 110.4 105.7 118.8 110.4 110.9 107.9 107.5 113.6 116.9 113.9 112.3 112.3 110.7 113.4 108.7 105.3 116.9 110.7 110.5 108.8 109.7 112.4 115.8 112.9 1 1 2 .6 Housing .......................................................................................... Shelter ......................................................................................... Renters’ costs (12/84—100)................................................... Rent, residential..................................................................... Other renters’ costs ............................................................... Homeowners’ costs (12/84—100)........................................... Owners’ equivalent rent (1 2/8 4=1 0 0 ).................................. Household insurance (12/84=100)...................................... Maintenance and repairs.......................................................... Maintenance and repair services .......................................... Maintenance and repair commodities.................................... Fuel and other utilities................................................................. Fuels ......................................................................................... Fuel oil, coal, and bottled g a s ............................................... Gas (piped) and electricity.................................................... Other utilities and public services............................................ Household furnishings and operations....................................... Housefurnishings...................................................................... Housekeeping supplies............................................................. Housekeeping services............................................................. 109.7 113.5 109.5 118.2 119.1 108.8 108.8 109.4 107.7 110.5 103.1 103.9 99.2 77.8 105.7 117.7 105.0 101.9 108.5 109.1 1 1 2 .8 111.4 117.1 113.3 121.7 125.6 Apparel and upkeep...................................................................... 105.8 Digitized for92 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1 1 1 .1 118.8 114.6 122.9 128.2 113.8 113.7 114.1 111.3 114.7 106.0 102.7 97.1 77.6 103.6 1 1 2 .1 1 1 2 .1 112.4 110.3 113.5 105.2 1 0 1 .2 113.5 111.7 115.1 112.5 104.1 101.4 100.3 107.4 123.2 119.0 90.7 116.9 117.7 111.4 80.6 121.4 1 2 1 .6 91.3 30.5 1 1 0 .0 1 1 2 .1 104.0 101.4 99.5 107.2 125.4 114.8 121.3 129.6 124.7 117.8 86.4 116.4 117.4 111.5 78.5 120.9 Purchasing power of the consumer dollar: 1982-84 = $1.00........................................................................... 1967 —$1.00................................................................................ 109.0 112.5 1988 29.6 112.5 1 1 1 .0 114.3 108.5 105.1 119.5 110.4 110.5 107.9 108.4 113.1 116.0 113.2 1 0 0 .6 1 0 2 .0 105.3 100.5 108.4 107.6 101.5 108.3 120.5 126.0 115.1 121.7 130.4 125.1 1 2 1 .2 113.8 126.9 115.8 1 2 2 .0 131.0 125.6 Jan. Feb. Mar. 115.4 109.5 114.3 106.5 104.3 114.0 115.4 109.3 114.8 105.7 103.1 115.7 109.2 115.7 105.1 1 1 1 .0 108.6 116.0 109.1 115.8 105.0 101.9 108.3 116.5 109.8 116.0 105.9 103.4 112.7 1 0 1 .8 1 0 1 .0 1 0 1 .0 109.6 101.5 109.5 1 0 1 .2 108.3 115.3 109.3 114.3 106.1 104.2 114.0 101.5 108.8 109.4 109.4 109.5 121.7 127.2 115.5 122.5 131.5 127.9 121.9 128.0 113.5 123.4 132.0 128.7 1 2 2 .0 1 2 2 .2 128.1 128.5 112.3 124.6 132.7 129.0 122.9 129.4 112.7 125.1 134.1 129.6 123.4 129.8 113.1 125.2 135.3 130.2 123.8 130.4 113.0 125.4 136.1 130.7 115.5 113.2 116.6 114.2 106.3 104.6 116.0 113.5 117.1 114.8 105.4 102.7 101.9 109.0 125.8 116.6 114.0 117.7 115.3 106.3 104.1 101.9 109.8 126.0 122.4 86.5 115.0 108.9 114.2 105.5 103.5 1 1 1 .8 1 0 1 .6 1 1 2 .6 124.5 132.5 128.8 1 0 2 .6 1 0 2 .0 1 0 2 .2 1 0 2 .1 107.3 123.7 119.4 91.1 117.1 118.0 108.1 124.2 109.0 124.9 109.4 124.6 1 2 0 .1 1 2 0 .6 1 2 0 .8 1 2 0 .8 1 2 1 .0 92.7 117.6 118.6 89.8 118.9 1 1 1 .2 1 1 1 .8 113.7 82.9 123.9 89.0 119.2 120.5 114.1 83.1 124.2 88.3 119.2 120.4 113.5 82.0 124.4 8 6 .6 1 0 2 .1 115.5 113.2 116.6 114.3 106.0 103.7 115.7 113.3 116.9 114.6 105.5 1 0 2 .1 101.9 109.1 125.3 121.7 87.4 119.7 109.1 124.6 1 0 2 .8 1 2 2 .1 1 2 2 .0 83.8 122.7 92.3 118.3 119.4 112.9 83.5 123.2 29.4 87.8 29.3 87.3 29.2 86.9 29.0 86.7 29.0 86.5 28.9 111.9 333.4 112.4 334.9 112.7 335.6 113.3 337.4 113.8 339.1 114.1 340.0 114.3 340.4 114.2 340.2 114.5 341.0 114.7 341.6 115.1 343.0 113.1 113.1 111.7 114.5 109.5 105.6 114.0 114.0 114.1 114.1 1 1 2 .2 1 1 2 .2 115.4 112.7 106.2 117.1 115.7 114.1 114.0 111.9 116.2 114.5 114.5 112.5 116.9 115.4 115.4 113.7 118.1 1 1 2 .0 1 1 1 .2 1 1 0 .1 1 1 0 .8 106.7 117.4 1 1 0 .2 106.7 117.5 110.5 107.1 125.7 111.3 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 .0 1 1 1 .2 108.2 105.9 113.9 117.0 114.2 111.5 107.6 106.0 114.4 117.9 114.6 1 1 1 .6 107.6 106.8 113.5 116.7 113.9 107.3 106.9 114.5 118.2 114.9 107.9 105.2 114.9 118.5 115.2 106.4 123.0 109.8 110.9 107.6 104.9 114.8 118.8 115.1 115.5 115.4 113.5 118.8 110.5 107.0 124.0 111.7 115.7 115.6 113.5 118.9 110.4 110.7 108.3 108.1 113.2 116.2 113.5 113.5 113.5 111.9 115.2 111.3 105.1 119.6 109.9 113.6 113.6 111.9 115.3 1 2 1 .1 113.6 113.6 112.3 114.8 110.4 105.3 123.9 112.9 118.2 114.2 113.2 118.8 115.3 1 2 2 .1 114.0 120.7 116.0 124.5 129.3 115.9 115.9 115.8 1 2 1 .2 1 1 0 .1 81.8 1 1 1 .8 1 1 2 .2 117.7 113.8 121.9 128.3 112.7 112.7 112.5 118.1 114.0 1 2 2 .2 1 2 2 .8 128.6 113.1 113.1 113.1 129.7 113.2 113.2 113.8 133.6 113.4 113.4 114.6 1 1 0 .2 1 1 0 .2 1 1 1 .0 1 1 2 .6 113.2 105.2 112.5 106.0 1 0 1 .0 1 0 1 .8 116.9 106.3 104.7 94.4 77.3 95.8 76.8 113.9 106.3 104.6 100.7 77.0 108.0 119.4 106.7 102.9 1 1 1 .8 105.5 117.3 110.3 111.3 108.1 106.0 114.6 117.4 114.4 114.0 119.6 116.0 123.6 134.2 114.3 114.3 115.1 112.4 116.6 106.2 105.6 101.3 77.5 108.6 1 0 0 .6 1 0 2 .2 119.7 106.7 103.0 1 1 2 .0 1 1 2 .1 1 1 2 .1 106.9 103.3 111.9 110.9 110.9 110.9 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 .2 110.4 109.5 111.4 110.9 109.1 107.1 109.1 1 1 1 .8 Dec. 1 0 1 .1 119.6 106.9 103.4 111.5 110.7 1 2 0 .1 Nov. 115.7 113.3 116.8 114.4 106.7 104.8 102.4 109.5 124.6 115.3 112.7 104.1 101.3 95.0 77.3 101.3 119.3 106.5 103.1 111.3 110.4 106.7 103.1 Oct. 115.1 113.0 116.5 113.9 105.7 104.0 1 1 1 .8 114.5 112.3 115.9 113.3 104.9 Sept. 1 0 0 .2 76.9 107.4 120.4 106.8 103.1 1 2 1 .0 114.1 1 2 0 .1 1 1 0 .1 1 1 2 .1 1 1 2 .2 116.4 105.8 105.2 116.0 106.3 113.9 120.9 115.9 124.6 128.1 116.2 116.2 115.9 112.7 116.5 106.9 1 0 2 .8 1 0 2 .0 1 0 0 .8 96.5 78.2 103.0 95.1 80.1 1 2 0 .0 116.2 124.2 132.2 114.8 114.8 115.5 1 2 0 .6 1 2 0 .8 1 2 1 .1 113.2 80.0 125.2 113.3 78.8 125.7 121.9 114.6 78.0 126.1 28.9 86.4 28.8 28.8 85.8 28.7 114.1 1 2 1 .2 1 2 1 .1 1 2 1 .2 107.0 103.1 1 1 2 .8 111.3 107.0 103.1 112.7 111.4 115.9 125.3 124.5 116.6 116.6 116.1 112.5 115.9 107.1 101.7 94.8 80.2 100.7 120.9 106.9 102.9 112.9 111.4 112.9 115.2 115.2 77.3 108.1 120.7 107.1 103.4 1 1 2 .2 1 0 1 .1 87.0 1 2 0 .0 8 6 .2 1 1 2 .1 1 1 2 .1 108.4 107.2 115.7 119.1 115.6 109.5 107.9 115.8 119.6 116.6 114.6 121.9 116.9 125.7 129.2 117.1 117.1 116.7 113.0 117.1 106.9 115.0 122.4 117.3 126.1 130.0 117.6 117.6 116.7 113.6 117.6 107.5 102.5 95.6 80.6 1 1 1 .1 106.9 1 2 2 .2 111.9 112.4 110.3 108.0 116.0 1 2 0 .0 117.3 115.4 122.9 118.4 126.2 136.9 117.8 117.8 117.2 1 1 2 .8 1 0 1 .2 1 0 1 .6 1 2 1 .2 1 2 1 .8 107.2 103.1 113.6 1 1 1 .6 107.1 103.0 113.5 111.7 1 1 1 .8 116.6 107.1 102.3 95.4 80.2 101.4 121.7 107.8 104.1 113.4 111.9 1 1 2 .6 110.3 1 1 0 .0 113.9 1 0 2 .0 95.2 80.4 30. Continued— Consumer Price Indexes for All Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: U.S. city average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group (1982-84=100, unless otherwise indicated) Series Apparel commodities.................................................................. Men’s and boys’ apparel.......................................................... Women’s and girls’ apparel ..................................................... Infants’ and toddlers’ apparel................................................... Footwear................................................................................... Other apparel commodities...................................................... Apparel services.......................................................................... 1986 1987 104.2 105.9 103.8 113.5 108.8 108.5 110.3 114.0 105.5 107.4 119.2 1 0 2 .1 1 0 1 .6 115.0 June July Aug. 107.9 107.0 109.4 116.2 105.0 105.6 118.4 109.9 108.3 113.0 115.9 106.1 105.5 118.4 109.4 109.0 111.4 115.3 106.7 105.1 118.9 107.4 108.2 107.7 111.7 105.8 107.0 119.1 105.3 106.9 104.4 109.7 103.9 107.3 119.5 107.4 107.7 108.2 105.1 104.3 113.7 114.0 114.7 80.9 80.8 114.7 118.5 96.6 1 2 2 .8 106.3 105.5 113.5 114.0 115.5 84.5 84.4 115.4 118.7 96.7 123.1 108.6 108.6 108.2 115.2 106.8 108.3 108.7 107.9 113.3 106.4 117.6 118.7 108.6 110.5 120.7 106.9 106.1 114.5 114.9 116.1 83.3 83.2 116.3 1 2 0 .8 106.4 105.5 113.3 113.8 115.9 84.1 84.1 116.0 119.1 97.3 123.4 121.4 131.4 131.3 131.4 130.2 132.4 1 1 0 .6 104.7 108.2 119.3 1 1 2 .6 116.4 108.0 112.4 1 1 1 .1 114.9 116.0 107.7 1 1 0 .6 1 1 2 .2 1 1 2 .0 1 1 2 .8 120.9 1 2 1 .1 121.5 1 2 1 .6 107.6 106.7 115.9 116.2 116.4 83.3 83.2 116.7 107.3 106.4 116.1 116.3 116.2 82.0 81.9 117.0 1 2 1 .0 1 2 2 .0 1 2 2 .0 97.7 125.8 120.7 97.2 127.1 1 2 1 .2 106.4 105.6 115.7 116.0 116.0 78.3 78.1 117.8 123.2 98.0 128.5 120.4 106.2 105.3 115.3 115.7 116.1 77.5 77.3 118.6 123.1 98.1 128.2 1 2 1 .2 97.4 127.1 121.3 106.8 105.9 115.8 115.9 115.9 79.7 79.5 117.4 122.9 98.1 128.0 132.0 131.9 132.0 130.9 132.8 132.6 132.6 132.6 131.4 133.7 133.0 133.4 133.0 131.7 134.9 133.4 134.1 133.2 132.0 135.4 134.6 134.7 134.6 133.4 136.9 135.8 135.4 135.8 134.7 138.4 136.5 136.1 136.6 135.5 139.3 130.8 130.9 130.8 129.6 131.4 1 1 1 .0 114.8 114.4 110.5 114.5 110.5 115.0 110.9 116.9 117.4 1 1 2 .6 1 1 2 .8 1 2 1 .1 1 2 1 .2 1 2 1 .8 1 2 2 .2 116.3 111.3 124.3 1 1 2 .2 1 2 0 .8 115.6 110.9 123.2 116.7 1 1 0 .0 1 2 1 .8 113.4 109.6 119.8 115.1 107.8 116.5 124.1 124.0 124.9 117.6 112.9 125.2 118.2 113.5 126.0 114.8 135.5 136.0 135.7 125.9 131.7 114.1 113.1 115.0 135.9 136.2 136.1 126.2 131.8 114.7 113.6 115.9 136.1 136.3 136.3 126.6 132.5 114.8 113.6 116.0 136.4 136.4 136.7 127.5 135.1 115.1 114.1 116.2 136.7 136.4 137.0 128.0 135.4 115.4 114.3 116.7 137.4 136.6 137.7 130.3 136.0 115.8 114.6 117.1 141.8 140.7 142.1 130.8 136.5 116.1 115.0 117.3 142.4 141.8 142.7 131.0 136.7 116.2 115.0 117.4 142.8 141.8 143.1 131.3 137.2 116.4 115.1 117.8 143.0 141.9 143.3 132.7 141.0 117.1 116.0 118.3 143.4 143.9 143.6 133.6 142.3 117.5 116.2 118.9 144.3 145.3 144.5 134.0 143.0 117.7 116.5 119.0 144.6 145.2 144.8 1 1 1 .0 1 1 1 .6 105.9 112.3 106.7 112.4 107.3 113.6 103.4 100.4 107.4 99.3 106.6 112.7 107.3 113.5 103.5 100.4 105.3 100.3 106.9 113.3 107.9 113.6 104.3 113.8 108.5 114.0 105.1 103.1 111.5 101.5 106.9 114.1 108.9 114.1 105.7 103.8 113.9 101.3 107.4 114.3 109.1 114.1 106.0 104.0 113.9 114.2 108.9 114.5 105.4 114.7 108.7 115.5 104.5 101.4 108.3 100.5 107.9 115.1 109.3 115.7 105.3 102.7 112.4 100.4 108.0 119.3 113.5 105.7 119.7 114.0 105.9 120.9 115.2 106.3 122.5 117.5 103.9 124.4 135.8 129.0 118.0 103.8 124.5 136.6 129.5 Entertainment................................................................................ Entertainment commodities ........................................................ Entertainment services................................................................ Other goods and services ............................................................. Tobacco products ....................................................................... Personal care............................................................................... Toilet goods and personal care appliances............................. Personal care services............................................................. Personal and educational expenses........................................... School books and supplies...................................................... Personal and educational services.......................................... 120.9 124.8 111.9 All ite m s............................................................................................ Commodities.................................................................................. Food and beverages................................................................... Commodities less food and beverages...................................... Nondurables less food and beverages .................................... Apparel commodities.............................................................. Nondurables less food, beverages, and apparel .................. Durables.................................................................................... 108.6 103.9 108.9 1 1 1 .2 1 1 2 .6 128.5 127.8 128.6 1 1 0 .6 127.8 133.7 115.0 113.9 116.1 138.2 137.9 138.4 1 2 2 .0 1 1 1 .1 110.4 113.9 111.5 118.2 118.6 107.9 110.4 120.3 119.7 120.9 1 2 1 .8 113.9 1 1 2 .0 111.5 109.8 115.2 113.9 106.0 109.8 119.4 Mar. 130.0 130.1 130.0 128.9 130.0 1 2 2 .6 113.2 113.3 111.3 78.5 78.5 114.6 117.5 95.7 Feb. 120.3 1 2 2 .2 112.9 104.4 103.4 113.5 113.7 113.4 79.2 79.1 114.6 117.8 96.4 Jan. 129.3 129.1 129.3 128.1 129.5 1 2 2 .0 103.8 1 0 2 .8 Dec. Nov. 120.3 113.8 96.3 117.1 116.8 1 0 2 .8 Oct. 128.8 128.2 128.9 127.6 129.1 1 1 0 .6 105.1 104.1 114.0 114.3 113.1 80.3 80.2 115.1 119.0 96.7 123.4 120.4 1 0 1 .8 Sept. 1 2 0 .2 1 2 2 .0 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis May 128.1 127.7 128.1 126.7 128.5 Medical c a re .................................................................................. Medical care commodities.......................................................... Medical care services.................................................................. Professional services................................................................ Hospital and related services ................................................... Purchasing power of the consumer dollar: 1982-84-$1.00........................................................................... 1967—$1.00................................................................................ Apr. 130.2 130.2 130.3 129.0 131.1 101.7 100.9 110.4 110.4 108.8 77.1 76.9 Special indexes: All items less food ...................................................................... All items less shelter .................................................................. All items less homeowners’ costs (12/84—100)....................... All items less medical care......................................................... Commodities less fo o d ................................................................ Nondurables less food ................................................................ Nondurables less food and apparel ........................................... Nondurables................................................................................ Services less rent of shelter (12/84 = 100)................................ Services less medical c a re ......................................................... Energy.......................................................................................... All items less energy ................................................................... All items less food and energy ................................................... Commodities less food and energy............................................ Energy commodities ................................................................... Services less energy................................................................... Mar. 105.8 104.9 113.9 114.4 115.4 82.3 82.2 114.9 118.9 96.3 123.4 119.7 Transportation ................................................................................ Private transportation................................................................... New vehicles............................................................................. New ca rs................................................................................ Used c a rs ................................................................................. Motor fuel ................................................................................. Gasoline................................................................................. Maintenance and repair............................................................ Other private transportation..................................................... Other private transportation commodities............................. Other private transportation services.................................... Public transportation................................................................... Services.......................................................................................... Rent of shelter (12/84—100)..................................................... Household services less rent of shelter (12/84—100).............. Transportation services............................................................... Medical care services.................................................................. Other services ............................................................................. 1988 1987 Annual average 1 1 2 .8 108.7 76.6 76.5 113.7 117.4 96.5 121.4 125.6 131.4 113.8 1 1 2 .8 114.0 1 0 2 .0 103.0 98.9 107.9 96.8 105.4 1 0 0 .2 109.9 97.9 106.0 111.9 107.0 113.1 103.3 100.4 109.4 98.4 106.4 118.7 130.3 124.7 117.7 112.5 102.5 119.2 128.1 122.7 118.1 113.0 102.4 119.7 128.9 123.2 118.5 113.4 103.2 119.8 129.3 123.5 108.5 107.4 1 1 2 .2 1 1 0 .6 111.3 1 1 1 .0 109.5 104.9 1 1 0 .1 105.5 1 1 0 .0 1 1 0 .6 1 1 1 .0 103.3 103.6 1 0 0 .8 1 0 1 .0 1 0 1 .0 1 0 1 .1 98.7 106.6 109.5 116.9 85.8 115.3 116.0 110.5 78.6 99.2 106.9 109.9 117.4 1 0 0 .0 1 0 1 .0 107.2 118.1 90.1 115.7 116.3 110.5 80.7 107.2 111.5 118.5 90.5 115.9 116.6 110.3 82.0 1 2 1 .2 102.3 99.6 97.8 105.8 109.2 116.5 85.1 114.7 115.3 109.6 76.9 119.6 1 2 0 .6 1 2 1 .1 89.0 29.9 90.1 30.3 1 0 0 .8 97.3 104.2 95.3 104.9 114.7 109.0 103.9 115.4 1 2 2 .0 1 0 2 .8 107.8 1 0 1 .2 98.0 96.4 103.3 107.1 113.9 87.4 111.5 112.3 107.6 77.2 115.8 92.0 30.9 112.5 107.3 113.3 103.6 1 0 0 .8 108.8 99.2 106.6 119.4 114.0 104.0 1 2 0 .8 106.4 111.5 103.9 101.4 1 0 0 .0 107.2 1 1 0 .8 118.2 8 8 .0 116.0 116.8 1 1 0 .8 80.3 1 1 2 .6 1 2 0 .1 89.6 30.1 1 1 0 .8 1 0 1 .8 107.4 101.4 106.8 1 2 0 .2 1 2 0 .6 130.0 123.7 130.8 124.1 120.4 114.9 106.6 120.7 131.4 124.6 1 1 1 .6 1 1 2 .1 112.4 113.1 110.5 105.9 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 .2 1 1 1 .8 106.4 111.5 103.7 106.6 111.7 103.8 107.1 112.3 104.6 102.4 101.9 107.9 8 6 .8 115.6 116.3 110.7 79.2 120.4 89.3 30.0 1 1 1 .1 88.9 29.9 88.7 29.8 1 2 1 .2 132.0 126.9 113.7 112.4 107.7 112.9 105.4 103.6 107.9 1 2 1 .1 1 2 1 .2 115.9 104.2 122.5 132.6 127.7 116.1 103.4 123.5 133.0 127.8 121.3 116.4 103.1 123.6 133.2 127.9 117.1 103.5 124.1 134.6 128.5 114.0 114.3 112.7 108.0 113.3 106.3 104.4 114.1 112.5 107.8 113.2 105.6 103.3 1 0 2 .2 1 0 1 .8 1 2 2 .0 114.4 109.2 108.8 1 1 2 .2 1 1 2 .2 1 1 2 .8 119.9 1 2 0 .1 120.7 1 2 1 .1 8 8 .6 8 6 .8 1 1 2 .6 83.8 122.4 118.0 119.1 113.1 83.2 123.4 87.8 118.0 119.0 82.1 123.7 118.5 119.3 112.3 80.0 124.3 86.3 118.7 119.6 112.4 78.7 124.8 87.8 29.5 87.6 29.4 87.4 29.4 87.5 29.4 87.3 29.3 87.2 29.3 29.2 1 1 1 .8 1 1 2 .6 107.8 113.1 105.9 104.2 101.9 109.2 114.2 112.7 108.0 113.4 105.0 102.4 101.5 108.8 1 2 2 .8 1 1 2 .2 84.1 8 8 .2 1 0 0 .8 108.0 119.9 89.3 117.7 118.7 112.7 83.0 123.1 1 1 0 .8 29.6 1 0 1 .2 108.0 101.4 108.7 113.2 1 0 2 .0 108.8 112.5 119.7 91.8 117.1 117.9 1 2 1 .8 1 0 1 .6 1 0 2 .8 115.0 113.2 108.6 114.0 105.7 103.4 101.4 109.4 113.4 121.4 85.8 119.3 120.3 113.5 77.9 125.2 119.2 92.2 116.4 117.2 1 1 2 .0 1 1 1 .1 114.5 108.8 115.4 104.7 101.7 108.6 1 2 0 .8 1 1 2 .8 108.1 113.6 104.9 1 0 2 .2 8 6 .8 93 M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 . Current Labor Statistics: 31. Price Data Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and available local area data: all items (1982-84=100, unless otherwise indicated) All Urban Consumers Area1 Pricing Other sche index dule2 base U.S. city average . Region and area size3 Northeast urban.................. Size A - More than 1 ,2 0 0 , 0 0 0 Size B - 500,000 to 1, 200,000 Size C - 50,000 to 500.000 ............................ North Central urban ........... Size A - More than 1 .200.000 ............................... Size B - 360,000 to 1, 200,000 Size C - 50,000 to 360.000 ............................ Size D - Nonmetro politan (less than 50,0000 .................... South urban....................... . Size A - More than 1 200.000 Size B - 450,000 to . ............... 1 , 200,000 M Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Mar. Apr. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 1 1 2 .1 112.7 115.4 115.4 115.7 116.0 116.5 1 1 1 .0 1 1 1 .6 114.3 114.2 114.5 114.7 115.1 - 114.2 115.0 118.3 118.3 118.9 119.2 119.6 113.3 114.1 117.4 117.4 117.9 118.1 118.4 - 114.9 115.7 119.3 119.4 1 2 0 .0 119.9 120.4 113.2 114.1 117.7 117.8 118.1 118.0 118.5 - 112.4 113.3 116.1 115.6 116.2 117.0 117.5 111.4 112.3 115.0 114.5 115.1 116.0 116.4 113.7 110.3 113.8 110.9 116.0 113.5 116.2 113.3 117.1 113.4 117.2 113.7 117.2 114.3 116.1 108.4 116.1 109.0 118.6 111.7 118.8 111.4 119.6 111.5 119.8 1 1 1 .8 119.8 112.3 M - 1 1 1 .0 111.5 114.4 113.9 114.1 114.7 115.1 108.5 109.1 1 1 1 .8 111.4 1 1 1 .6 1 1 2 .1 112.5 M - 1 1 0 .0 1 1 1 .1 113.0 113.0 113.3 113.5 114.2 107.5 108.4 110.7 110.7 110.9 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 .8 M - 1 1 0 .1 1 1 0 .6 113.9 113.6 113.4 113.4 114.6 109.1 109.5 1 1 2 .8 1 1 2 .6 112.4 112.3 113.4 M M - 108.5 110.5 114.1 110.9 114.0 114.1 110.5 114.4 1 1 1 .1 108.5 110.9 110.5 113.6 110.7 113.5 110.4 113.6 1 1 0 .6 114.8 108.0 110.5 1 1 0 .2 1 1 1 .1 108.9 111.5 1 1 0 .6 “ 113.8 114.2 M - 1 1 1 .8 112.4 115.2 114.9 114.9 115.2 115.5 110.9 1 1 1 .6 114.4 114.2 114.1 114.4 114.7 M - 111.7 1 1 2 .1 114.5 114.5 114.8 115.1 115.8 109.9 110.3 112.7 112.7 112.9 113.0 113.6 M - 110.5 110.7 113.1 1 1 2 .8 113.3 113.4 114.0 1 1 0 .8 1 1 1 .1 113.5 113.3 113.6 113.8 114.3 M M - 109.5 113.0 109.6 113.7 1 1 2 .6 1 1 2 .6 1 1 2 .8 116.2 116.7 112.7 117.5 110.3 116.0 112.7 116.9 1 1 0 .2 ” 111.9 1 1 2 .6 113.4 114.8 113.3 115.0 113.5 115.5 113.4 115.6 113.4 116.2 M - 114.1 114.8 117.0 117.2 117.9 118.2 118.9 1 1 1 .8 112.5 114.5 114.8 115.3 115.6 116.2 M - 111.5 112.3 114.8 115.0 115.8 115.6 115.9 111.7 112.5 115.0 115.2 116.0 115.7 116.0 112.9 113.3 115.9 116.0 116.0 115.9 116.2 112.3 112.7 115.3 115.4 115.3 115.3 115.6 105.0 115.0 114.5 112.9 105.3 115.2 114.6 113.1 105.7 115.8 115.1 113.5 1 1 1 .0 1 1 1 .6 1 1 0 .1 1 1 0 .8 111.7 109.9 1 1 2 .0 1 1 0 .2 114.3 113.3 114.7 113.0 114.2 113.2 114.6 113.1 114.5 113.6 114.8 113.2 114.7 113.8 114.9 113.4 115.1 114.3 115.4 113.7 M M M M 1 2 /8 6 1 0 1 .6 1 0 2 .2 111.5 111.4 109.7 111.7 104.8 114.6 114.3 1 1 0 .0 1 1 2 .6 104.7 114.5 114.2 112.7 1 1 2 .2 M - 112.3 1 1 2 .8 115.7 115.7 115.3 116.6 116.9 109.0 109.5 1 1 2 .2 1 1 2 .2 111.9 112.9 113.2 M - 115.5 116.0 118.2 118.5 118.9 119.7 1 2 0 .6 1 1 2 .8 113.3 115.4 115.7 115.9 116.6 117.5 M M - 115.8 114.0 116.6 115.5 120.5 118.6 1 2 0 .6 118.9 121.3 119.3 1 2 1 .1 “ 121.5 119.6 114.4 113.8 115.3 115.3 119.1 118.6 119.1 119.0 119.6 119.3 119.3 119.0 119.7 119.5 M - 113.7 114.8 117.3 117.4 118.4 117.9 119.1 1 1 2 .8 113.9 116.2 116.4 117.5 117.0 117.9 1 112.3 115.9 111.4 110.7 110.7 114.5 “ 115.7 119.9 114.5 113.8 113.1 118.5 - 116.8 _ 117.7 1 1 1 .8 _ 1 2 0 .1 - 1 2 2 .1 115.8 106.7 109.9 - _ _ _ _ 117.3 1 “ “ 2 - - 1 1 2 .2 - 113.9 - 1 1 1 .2 1 1 2 .6 - - 106.4 - - 1 1 0 .8 - 107.3 113.0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 - Area is the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA), exclu sive of farms and military. Area definitions are those established by the Of fice of Management and Budget in 1983, except for Boston-Lawrence-Salem, MA-NH Area (excludes Monroe County); and Milwaukee, Wl Area (in cludes only the Milwaukee MSA). Definitions do not include revisions made since 1983. 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. 1 94 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1988 Apr. ” Size classes: A ..................................... B ..................................... C ..................................... D .................................... Dallas-Ft. Worth, T X . Detroit, M l................ Houston, T X ............ Pittsburgh, P A ......... 1987 M M Baltimore, MD ............... Boston, MA ................... Cleveland, O H ............... Miami, F L ...................... St. Louis, MO-IL............ Washington, DC-MD-VA Urban Wage Earners 1988 M M Size C - 50,000 to 450.000 ............................. Size D - Nonmetro politan (less than 50,000) ...................... West urban.......................... Size A - More than 1.250.000 .......................... Size B - 330,000 to 1.250.000 .......................... Size C - 50,000 to 330.000 ............................ Selected local areas Chicago, ILNorthwestern IN .............. Los Angeles-Long Beach, Anaheim, C A ...... New York, NYNortheastern N J .............. Philadelphia, PA-NJ.......... San FranciscoOakland, C A ..................... 987 Mar. M M 1 113.9 114.5 113.4 118.3 “ 119.3 114.0 113.7 108.0 113.3 115.1 115.1 114.2 119.2 - 1 1 0 .2 - 113.6 111.7 108.6 106.1 106.4 _ _ - - - - - - 115.3 119.9 109.9 113.1 112.7 117.9 _ - - 116.2 _ 1 2 0 .2 _ 109.3 113.8 113.0 117.6 _ - 113.8 109.8 107.4 108.6 _ _ - 113.8 110.9 108.1 108.9 1 2 1 .8 1 1 0 .2 114.3 113.8 118.5 _ _ - 3 Regions are defined as the four Census regions. - Data not available. NOTE: Local area CPI indexes are byproducts of the national CPI pro gram. 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 Sta tistics strongly urges users to consider adopting the national average CPI for use in escalator clauses. 32. Annual data: Consumer Price Index, U.S. city average, all items and major groups (1982-84 = 100) Series 1979 1980 1981 1982 Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All items: 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 72.6 11.3 82.4 13.5 90.9 10.3 96.5 6 .2 99.6 3.2 103.9 4.3 107.6 3.6 109.6 1.9 113.6 3.6 79.9 10.7 86.7 8.5 93.5 7.8 97.3 4.1 99.5 2.3 103.2 3.7 105.6 2.3 109.1 3.3 113.5 4.0 70.1 12.3 81.1 15.7 90.4 11.5 96.9 7.2 99.5 2.7 103.6 4.1 107.7 4.0 110.9 3.0 114.2 3.0 84.9 4.3 90.9 7.1 95.3 4.8 97.8 1 0 0 .2 1 0 2 .1 105.0 2.5 1.9 2 .8 105.9 .9 1 1 0 .6 2 .6 70.5 14.3 83.1 17.9 93.2 97.0 4.1 99.3 2.4 103.7 4.4 106.4 102.3 -3.9 105.4 3.0 67.5 9.2 74.9 82.9 10.7 92.5 1 0 0 .6 106.8 130.1 1 1 .6 8 .8 6 .2 113.5 6.3 1 2 2 .0 1 1 .0 7.5 6 .6 76.7 6.7 83.6 9.0 90.1 7.8 96.0 6.5 1 0 0 .1 103.8 3.7 107.9 3.9 1 1 1 .6 115.3 3.3 68.9 7.2 75.2 9.1 82.6 9.8 91.1 10.3 1 0 1 .1 107.9 6.7 114.5 121.4 1 1 .0 73.1 11.4 82.9 13.4 91.4 10.3 96.9 99.8 3.0 103.3 3.5 106.9 3.5 Food and beverages: Housing: Apparel and upkeep: Transportation: 1 2 .2 2 .6 Medical care: Entertainment: 4.3 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 6 .0 6 .1 3.4 6 .0 108.6 1 .6 4.4 128.5 5.8 112.5 3.6 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: Price Data 33. Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing (1982 = 100) Annual average 1987 1988 Grouping Finished goods .......................................... Finished consumer goods ........................ Finished consumer foods....................... Finished consumer goods excluding foods ..................................................... Nondurable goods less food ............... Durable goods ..................................... Capital equipment..................................... Intermediate materials, supplies, and components............................................... Materials and components for manufacturing .......................................... Materials for food manufacturing........... Materials for nondurable manufacturing . Materials for durable manufacturing....... Components for manufacturing.............. Materials and components for construction.............................................. Processed fuels and lubricants................. Containers................................................. Supplies..................................................... Crude materials for further processing ... Foodstuffs and feedstuffs ....................... Crude nonfood materials......................... Special groupings Finished goods, excluding fo o d s................. Finished energy goods ................................ Finished goods less energy........................ Finished consumer goods less energy....... Finished goods less food and energy ........ Finished consumer goods less food and energy......................................................... Consumer nondurable goods less food and energy......................................................... 1986 1987 Apr. May June July Aug. 103.2 101.4 107.3 105.4 103.6 109.5 105.1 103.2 109.2 105.4 103.7 105.5 103.9 1 1 0 .6 1 1 0 .6 106.0 104.4 110.9 105.9 104.3 109.5 98.5 93.3 108.9 109.7 100.7 94.8 111.5 111.7 100.3 94.3 111.4 100.3 94.4 1 0 0 .6 1 0 1 .2 94.8 1 1 1 .2 1 1 1 .2 95.7 111.3 1 1 1 .6 1 1 1 .6 111.4 99.1 101.5 1 0 0 .2 100.9 1 0 2 .2 105.3 104.0 Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 105.7 104.2 110.5 106.2 104.4 109.7 106.3 104.5 109.8 105.7 103.9 108.8 106.2 104.3 106.2 104.3 1 1 0 .6 105.9 104.0 109.4 1 1 0 .0 1 0 1 .8 1 0 1 .1 1 1 0 .0 101.9 95.9 113.0 112.5 101.4 95.6 1 1 1 .6 96.6 110.9 111.7 101.9 95.8 113.4 112.5 112.4 101.3 95.3 112.5 112.7 101.3 95.4 112.5 112.9 101.4 95.4 112.7 113.2 101.5 1 0 2 .1 102.5 102.7 103.1 103.4 103.7 104.2 104.1 104.6 105.1 102.3 102.5 104.9 108.5 105.5 102.7 106.3 107.2 101.9 104.5 107.5 106.2 108.7 108.2 99.8 105.4 112.9 109.8 109.3 1 0 2 .6 105.8 101.5 102.9 107.1 108.8 107.0 114.4 110.3 109.5 101.9 107.6 113.9 110.7 110.4 101.7 109.5 114.5 114.2 69.7 117.5 96.1 1 1 1 .2 1 0 0 .8 1 0 0 .1 107.5 102.3 106.2 108.8 100.9 103.3 108.4 104.6 102.7 101.3 104.5 108.5 108.1 72.7 110.3 105.6 109.8 73.3 114.5 107.7 108.7 71.2 114.0 106.7 108.9 72.5 114.0 107.3 109.3 74.5 114.2 107.6 109.8 76.0 114.2 107.8 77.3 114.4 107.8 110.7 75.9 115.4 108.2 87.7 93.2 81.6 93.7 96.2 87.9 92.4 96.9 85.5 94.8 1 0 1 .6 95.1 99.7 86.4 8 8 .0 96.0 98.4 90.3 96.5 97.1 91.8 101.9 63.0 109.7 109.7 103.7 61.7 103.7 61.6 112.4 1 1 2 .1 1 1 2 .6 1 1 2 .8 113.0 104.3 63.4 112.7 113.1 113.3 1 1 2 .6 112.9 103.9 62.5 112.3 112.7 112.9 104.7 64.9 112.3 1 1 0 .6 104.0 61.8 112.3 112.5 113.3 113.4 1 1 1 .1 114.2 113.7 113.7 113.7 114.2 113.1 116.3 115.5 115.6 115.7 98.4 98.1 1 0 1 .2 1 1 2 .0 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 .2 74.6 116.1 108.8 111.9 74.4 116.5 109.5 112.5 73.3 116.1 113.5 71.2 116.7 1 1 0 .1 1 1 0 .6 113.7 70.2 116.9 110.5 95.7 96.6 90.8 95.3 96.1 90.5 94.7 95.3 90.1 94.3 95.8 89.1 93.4 96.9 87.1 94.6 99.6 87.3 94.1 99.7 86.4 104.2 63.4 112.4 113.1 105.1 62.4 113.1 113.4 114.5 105.1 62.5 113.2 113.4 114.5 104.7 60.9 112.9 113.1 114.5 104.7 59.0 113.8 114.2 115.0 104.8 58.4 113.6 113.9 115.3 105.0 58.1 114.0 114.3 115.6 114.3 114.1 115.6 115.6 115.6 116.3 116.7 117.0 116.5 116.9 117.3 117.4 117.6 118.3 119.2 119.8 1 2 0 .2 103.8 101.9 73.0 104.2 101.7 70.0 1 0 2 .0 1 1 0 .0 104.2 103.1 70.9 110.9 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 .8 1 1 0 .2 100.4 96.9 71.0 106.1 100.9 100.4 72.2 106.7 1 0 1 .6 1 0 2 .2 100.7 74.1 107.1 100.7 75.7 107.4 102.7 99.6 77.0 107.7 104.9 107.8 106.6 107.0 107.5 107.9 Crude energy materials................................ Crude materials less energy ....................... Crude nonfood materials less energy......... 71.8 95.4 103.1 75.0 74.1 99.4 108.1 74.5 103.5 110.5 75.6 77.8 102.4 115.7 115.6 113.5 104.9 1 0 2 .0 109.5 101.7 99.2 73.1 107.3 1 0 2 .8 103.4 108.1 109.0 1 0 0 .6 109.3 99.3 96.2 72.6 104.5 1 0 0 .8 1 0 2 .8 1 1 2 .2 1 1 0 .2 Intermediate materials less foods and fe e d s........................................................... Intermediate foods and feeds..................... Intermediate energy goods ......................... Intermediate goods less energy.................. Intermediate materials less foods and energy......................................................... Digitized96 for FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Sept. 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 .1 1 0 2 .8 103.2 1 0 1 .0 1 0 0 .6 75.6 108.3 74.4 109.1 103.6 101.4 74.1 109.5 108.2 108.7 109.6 1 1 0 .1 110.7 111.7 111.9 1 1 2 .8 78.9 102.3 118.7 76.7 103.0 122.9 75.4 103.6 126.4 74.7 103.1 127.1 73.5 103.5 127.0 70.7 104.8 128.6 70.5 107.2 130.6 107.9 132.8 104.8 69.4 6 8 .8 34. Producer Price indexes, by durability of product (1982 = 100) 1986 1987 1988 1987 Annual average Grouping Apr. May Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 111.7 98.6 1 1 2 .0 1 1 2 .6 1 1 2 .8 98.8 111.4 98.5 98.3 98.5 98.5 113.2 98.7 105.1 109.7 100.5 105.1 109.7 100.4 105.8 110.9 100.7 106.0 106.5 1 1 2 .0 1 1 2 .1 107.0 112.5 100.9 105.9 111.5 100.5 106.5 1 1 1 .1 1 0 1 .0 1 0 1 .0 1 0 1 .6 96.2 125.7 94.7 95.9 130.9 94.3 94.9 137.3 92.9 94.7 138.0 92.6 94.5 137.8 92.4 94.1 139.5 92.0 94.2 143.4 91.9 93.8 145.7 91.4 Sept. July 1 1 0 .0 1 1 0 .2 99.0 Total durable g oods........................ ............ Total nondurable goods............................... 107.5 94.8 109.9 97.5 109.1 96.5 109.2 97.6 109.3 98.2 109.7 98.8 Total manufactures...................................... Durable...................................................... Nondurable ......... ....................................... 101.7 107.5 96.0 104.4 109.6 99.2 103.5 109.0 98.1 104.0 109.1 98.9 104.3 109.1 99.5 104.8 109.4 Total raw or slightly processed goods ....... Durable...................................................... Nondurable .................. .................... ......... 92.3 107.8 91.5 94.2 122.5 92.9 93.1 1 1 2 .1 94.8 114.6 93.8 95.4 118.6 94.2 92.2 Oct. Aug. June 1 0 0 .1 96.2 1 2 1 .8 95.0 35. Annual data: Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing (1982 = 100) Index 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 103.7 103.3 105.2 104.7 103.8 107.5 103.2 101.4 109.7 Finished goods: T o ta l.................................................................... Consumer goo d s............................................. Capital equipment ........................................... 69.8 69.4 71.3 Intermediate materials, supplies, and components: T o ta l.................................................................... Materials and components for manufacturing................................................. Materials and components for construction .... Processed fuels and lubricants...................... Containers....................................................... Supplies........................................................... 69.5 78.4 90.3 98.6 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .6 103.1 102.7 99.1 72.0 76.5 49.9 71.0 72.9 80.9 84.2 61.6 79.4 80.2 91.7 91.3 85.0 89.1 89.9 98.7 97.9 1 0 0 .0 1 0 1 .2 104.1 105.6 95.7 105.9 104.1 103.3 107.3 92.8 109.0 104.4 1 0 2 .2 108.1 72.7 110.3 105.6 Crude materials for further processing: T o ta l.................................................................... Foodstuffs and feedstuffs............................... Nonfood materials except fuel ....................... Fuel .................................................................. 73.4 87.3 57.5 48.2 85.9 95.3 104.6 84.6 69.4 95.8 94.8 96.9 102.7 87.7 93.2 81.6 92.2 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 77.6 77.5 77.5 1 0 0 .0 69.6 57.3 8 8 .0 8 8 .6 85.8 96.1 96.6 94.6 1 0 0 .0 1 0 1 .6 1 0 0 .0 101.3 1 0 0 .0 1 0 2 .8 1 0 0 .0 1 0 2 .8 1 0 0 .6 1 0 0 .0 96.7 96.9 1 0 0 .0 95.4 100.4 1 0 0 .0 1 0 1 .8 103.0 103.9 1 0 0 .0 101.3 1 0 0 .0 1 0 1 .8 103.5 104.7 1 0 1 .8 1 0 0 .0 84.8 1 0 0 .0 100.7 105.1 105.1 1 0 2 .2 97 M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: Price Data 36. U.S. export price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification (June 1977=100, unless otherwise indicated) Category 1974 SITO ALL COMMODITIES (9/83 = 100).................................................... Food (3 /83=100).................................................................. Meat (3 /8 3 = 10 0 )....................................................... .... Fish (3 /8 3 = 1 0 0 )............................................................... Grain and grain preparations (3/80=100) ............................................ Vegetables and fruit (3/83=100) ......................................................... Feedstuffs for animals (3/83 = 100)............................................ Misc. food products (3/83—100)........................................................ Beverages and tobacco (6/83 = 100)...................................................... Beverages (9 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ).............................................................. Tobacco and tobacco products (6 /8 3 = 1 0 0 )........................................... Crude materials (6 /8 3 =10 0 )...................................... Raw hides and skins (6/80-100) ..................................................... Oilseeds and oleaginous fruit (9 /7 7 =10 0 ).......................................... Crude rubber (including synthetic and reclaimed) (9 /8 3 = 1 0 0 )............... W ood......................................................................... Pulp and waste paper (6/83 = 100) ....................................... .................. Textile fibers..................................................... Crude fertilizers and minerals................................................................... Metalliferous ores and metal scrap .......................................................... 0 01 03 04 05 08 09 1985 June Sept. 1986 Dec. Mar. June 1987 Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. 100.2 102.8 97.5 96.5 96.7 97.0 96.7 95.1 96.2 97.2 99.9 94.0 104.7 103.6 90.3 90.2 106.1 93.6 90.5 111.5 77.2 81.2 82.6 126.9 75.7 108.1 87.1 118.9 83.4 107.7 82.1 115.3 88.5 106.0 89.5 114.7 106.2 79.1 125.8 85.5 104.7 59.0 131.4 90.2 106.6 64.8 131.9 87.4 108.2 79.8 123.4 118.5 62.9 130.8 85.7 108.6 83.4 129.0 122.9 66.5 130.8 93.7 110.0 79.6 127.9 126.3 62.1 124.4 92.4 109.4 88.5 117.8 135.4 72.3 125.4 111.5 109.3 99.7 95.6 101.9 95.1 96.5 103.0 95.9 96.3 102.2 101.6 99.5 98.6 100.9 98.4 95.8 102.9 101.4 101.7 104.7 101.4 104.0 104.8 104.0 104.4 104.4 104.5 105.7 105.6 105.7 92.5 139.9 63.9 106.0 128.1 92.7 97.7 165.5 78.7 95.8 138.9 66.9 106.0 128.7 98.8 92.3 138.0 64.5 105.3 129.7 119.8 74.7 164.3 84.6 94.8 148.3 62.9 104.4 135.5 92.2 162.8 80.7 97.1 168.8 60.4 106.2 139.0 133.0 99.7 155.6 82.2 106.3 191.2 168.0 83.4 95.6 148.9 65.8 106.1 128.7 109.7 98.6 166.1 80.5 107.5 146.2 138.7 115.0 155.1 90.7 109.1 189.1 64.3 109.0 174.0 142.6 119.2 149.8 99.7 114.4 200.3 73.6 112.9 179.9 146.6 114.4 149.8 103.8 120.2 68.6 109.2 1 100.1 11 105.3 12 99.6 2 96.8 21 126.2 22 71.2 112.2 102.6 101.8 102.2 101.8 122.0 122.6 111.2 116.9 23 24 25 26 27 28 106.3 125.7 96.1 105.8 167.9 82.0 93.3 129.0 64.2 107.1 124.5 93.8 103.6 169.4 80.1 3 99.2 97.6 96.6 91.9 86.7 85.7 84.7 85.6 84.4 85.6 84.7 Animal and vegetables oils, fats, and waxes......................................... Fixed vegetable oils and fats (6 /8 3 = 1 0 0 )............................................... 4 42 144.5 164.8 114.5 128.8 101.4 108.7 90.8 95.4 84.4 95.3 76.5 80.8 86.8 87.0 88.9 89.1 94.5 94.7 94.1 94.3 98.4 100.4 Chemicals (3/83 = 100)............................................................. Organic chemicals (12/83 = 100) ................................................. ......... Fertilizers, manufactured (3/83—100)...................................................... 5 51 56 96.8 96.5 87.9 97.1 97.1 89.8 96.6 95.4 90.0 96.5 93.5 95.4 89.3 84.0 93.1 77.4 92.2 89.4 68.7 96.6 99.5 75.4 103.1 114.3 80.4 104.1 88.6 111.1 88.0 108.6 115.8 93.9 Intermediate manufactured products (9 /8 1 =10 0 )................................. Leather and furskins (9 /7 9 =10 0 )................................................. Rubber manufactures ...................................................... Paper and paperboard products (6 /7 8 = 1 0 0 ).......................................... Iron and steel (3/82 = 100) ........................................... Nonferrous metals (9/81 = 100) .................................. Metal manufactures, n.e.s. (3/82 = 100) ................................................... 6 99.2 79.2 149.0 151.6 95.3 79.6 105.2 99.2 75.9 148.3 149.6 95.9 79.8 105.4 99.1 78.5 148.7 148.2 98.2 78.2 104.4 100.3 77.8 151.0 152.2 98.4 80.2 105.3 101.2 102.2 102.7 61 62 64 67 82.5 150.0 158.7 99.4 79.1 105.5 84.2 150.4 165.3 151.3 167.9 79.4 105.6 78.8 105.7 104.4 96.3 152.1 174.4 101.5 80.3 105.7 153.9 177.7 101.5 90.1 105.6 108.5 99.7 155.2 182.3 102.4 94.6 106.2 109.6 97.2 155.6 184.6 104.5 95.3 106.7 142.9 167.4 155.7 155.1 152.0 133.3 116.1 133.9 196.6 143.1 167.1 156.0 156.3 152.4 99.9 134.1 115.3 133.8 199.3 143.3 167.5 156.2 158.4 152.2 99.4 134.5 113.8 135.0 200.7 144.0 169.1 155.5 159.0 152.3 99.9 136.5 115.1 135.5 203.3 144.2 169.2 154.7 158.9 153.3 99.2 137.0 114.2 136.4 206.8 144.6 169.5 155.0 160.4 154.4 98.9 137.8 114.4 136.5 207.4 145.5 171.4 155.7 161.8 155.3 98.1 139.7 114.9 137.9 209.7 146.2 173.0 154.7 165.0 157.7 96.1 141.3 117.0 138.0 211.4 146.7 171.7 155.9 165.8 157.8 96.0 140.8 117.4 138.5 214.7 147.2 173.4 156.5 167.8 157.9 95.5 141.2 117.6 138.9 215.7 148.0 174.3 157.1 168.3 159.3 95.4 142.1 119.1 139.1 218.7 100.4 104.7 178.3 100.3 105.0 178.7 100.3 105.3 178.8 _ 104.3 110.0 105.3 107.3 107.7 108.4 84 87 182.1 183.8 183.8 184.8 186.4 188.5 190.2 191.9 88 129.1 127.5 128.5 131.6 132.9 132.7 132.0 133.4 133.1 129.5 128.2 89 93.1 93.1 92.4 95.6 95.6 97.6 97.7 98.1 102.1 103.0 103.8 971 75.4 77.4 77.5 81.8 82.2 97.5 94.5 98.2 108.4 110.0 117.1 Mineral fuels.............................................................................. Machinery and transport equipment, excluding military and commercial aircraft (12/78=100) .............................. Power generating machinery and equipment (12/78 = 100) .................... Machinery specialized for particular industries (9/78=100) .................... Metalworking machinery (6/78=100) ................................ General industrial machines and parts n.e.s. 9/78 = 100).................. Office machines and automatic data processing equipment ................... Telecommunications, sound recording and reproducing equipment....... Electrical machinery and equipment........................................... Road vehicles and parts (3/80—100)............................ .............. Other transport equipment, excl. military and commercial aviation ....... Other manufactured articles................................................. Apparel (9 /8 3 = 1 0 0 )..................................................... Professional, scientific, and controlling instruments and apparatus........ Photographic apparatus and supplies, optical goods, watches and clocks (12/7 7=1 0 0 )............................................. Miscellaneous manufactured articles, n.e.s.......................... Gold, non-monetary (6 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ).................................... - Data not available. Digitized for98 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 68 69 7 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 8 100.0 101.6 102.6 _ 103.4 _ 88.0 121.2 88.0 100.2 100.1 104.1 68.6 106.8 101.1 _ 37. U.S. import price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification (June 1977=100, unless otherwise indicated) Category 1974 SITC Dec. 1987 1986 1985 Mar. June Sept. Dec. 86.0 Mar. June 96.8 98.7 142.9 118.9 174.4 105.5 142.0 122.3 175.2 165.2 125.4 128.6 49.3 161.2 124.5 128.0 48.3 168.3 131.2 125.3 51.5 170.8 171.5 174.1 174.6 174.4 175.6 175.9 177.8 105.6 84.5 112.7 97.8 120.3 108.6 89.4 119.2 105.9 97.3 102.9 113.6 91.6 95.3 94.2 88.5 83.2 83.9 Food (9 /7 7 -1 0 0 )........................................................................................ M e a t........................................................................................................... Dairy products and eggs (6/81-100) .................................................... Fish............................................................................................................. Bakery goods, pasta products, grain and grain preparations (9/77-100) .............................................................................................. Fruits and vegetables ............................................................................... Sugar, sugar preparations, and honey (3/82—100)................................. Coffee, tea, cocoa..................................................................................... 0 102.8 01 131.2 02 100.5 03 132.7 113.4 122.7 106.7 139.3 104.7 118.5 107.1 144.8 109.1' 126.9 109.4 149.6 105.3 134.4 111.5 157.1 132.1 116.8 161.6 135.9 119.6 167.4 04 05 06 07 141.9 131.3 111.9 64.6 146.9 119.4 124.6 85.9 149.2 119.4 69.2 154.0 127.1 123.9 71.8 155.3 125.5 124.3 61.0 161.0 120.5 126.0 50.9 Beverages and tobacco............................................................................ Beverages ................................................................................................. 1 11 2 162.1 159.1 163.2 161.8 165.5 163.9 165.8 165.5 ^ 8 .0 168.2 91.2 73.2 99.4 75.8 95.3 75.5 106.3 79.9 98.1 76.9 109.4 Crude materials.......................................................................................... Crude rubber (inc. synthetic & reclaimed) (3/84—100)........................... Wood (9/81-100) .................................................................................... Pulp and waste paper (1 2 /8 1 -1 0 0 )........................................................ Crude fertilizers and crude minerals (12/83—100) .................................. Metalliferous ores and metal scrap (3 /8 4 -1 0 0 )..................................... Crude vegetable and animal materials, n.e.s............................................. 23 24 25 27 28 29 90.1 102.5 94.2 78.8 104.3 74.9 101.5 94.5 103.6 Fuels and related products (6 /8 2 -1 0 0 )................................................. Petroleum and petroleum products (6/82—100) ...................................... 3 33 79.1 80.1 Fats and oils (9 /8 3 -1 0 0 ).......................................................................... Vegetable oils (9/83—100)....................................................................... 4 42 Chemicals (9 /8 2 -1 0 0 )............................................................................... Medicinal and pharmaceutical products (3/84—100) .............................. Manufactured fertilizers (3/84—100)........................................................ Chemical materials and products, n.e.s. (9/84—100).............................. Intermediate manufactured products (12/77-100) .............................. Leather and furskins................................................................................. Rubber manufactures, n.e.s....................................................................... Cork and wood manufactures .................................................................. Paper and paperboard products ............................................................... Textiles....................................................................................................... Nonmetallic mineral manufactures, n.e.s................................................... Iron and steel (9/78—1 00 )....................................................................... Nonferrous metals (12/81—100) .............................................................. Metal manufactures, n.e.s.......................................................................... Machinery and transport equipment (6 /8 1 -1 0 0 )................................. Machinery specialized for particular industries (9/78—100) .................... Metalworking machinery (3/80—100) ...................................................... General industrial machinery and parts, n.e.s. (6/81—100) .................... Office machines and automatic data processing equipment (3 /8 0 -1 0 0 )............................................................................................. Telecommunications, sound recording and reproducing apparatus (3 /8 0 -1 0 0 )............................................................................................. Electrical machinery and equipment (12/81—1 00 ).................................. Road vehicles and parts (6/81 —100)...................................................... Mlsc. manufactured articles (3 /8 0 -1 0 0 )................................................. Plumbing, heating, and lighting fixtures (6/80—100) ............................... Furniture and parts (6/80—100) ............................................................... Clothing (9/77=100) ................................................................................ Footwear.................................................................................................... Professional, scientific, and controlling instruments and apparatus (12/79—100)........................................................................... Photographic apparatus and supplies, optical goods, watches, and clocks (3 /8 0 -1 0 0 ).................................................................................. Misc. manufactured articles, n.e.s. (6/82—1 00)...................................... Gold, non-monetary (6/82—100).............................................................. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Dec. 100.2 102.0 102.8 ALL COMMODITIES (9 /8 2 -1 0 0 )............................................................... 121.6 Sept. 86.0 98.5 78.5 107.2 92.8 95.6 104.4 100.4 98.2 104.8 95.4 104.7 103.1 79.1 115.0 100.5 99.5 98.0 113.4 55.3 54.7 37.5 36.1 33.6 32.1 38.4 37.9 49.7 49.9 54.8 55.2 56.4 57.3 55.2 56.2 50.6 48.9 41.4 39.3 39.3 37.4 35.5 33.5 51.6 50.0 50.8 49.2 54.5 52.6 61.3 59.4 64.5 62.5 5 54 56 59 94.2 96.7 78.5 97.8 94.6 102.9 79.2 99.9 93.3 104.9 79.7 100.3 110.0 110.1 77.4 79.7 101.0 102.8 93.4 93.2 95.9 116.2 81.8 104.3 98.7 120.3 83.6 105.0 99.5 118.8 98.8 108.2 104.4 123.3 124.2 6 133.4 141.3 138.1 124.0 156.5 128.1 162.2 118.3 80.4 134.0 141.6 136.5 130.8 157.1 131.2 164.2 117.3 79.4 124.4 135.6 143.0 137.7 134.3 157.1 132.9 169.6 118.1 78.9 127.8 138.8 147.4 138.1 137.4 157.5 135.1 178.2 119.0 83.5 129.1 139.4 143.3 138.1 142.7 164.8 135.3 180.2 118.5 81.6 129.1 142.2 149.5 140.8 144.3 165.2 138.8 183.1 122.3 82.4 133.4 147.4 156.6 140.5 151.6 165.0 140.4 190.3 127.1 90.9 134.5 152.8 159.6 138.0 156.3 174.6 142.8 195.1 132.1 97.5 136.0 157.9 167.5 139.8 157.6 177.7 147.6 199.3 138.9 101.9 139.4 111.5 105.0 103.8 115.3 115.4 107.7 109.0 118.1 120.2 120.1 121.0 110.7 115.7 112.8 113.9 123.9 127.5 122.4 120.5 126.1 130.0 126.1 123.3 126.4 130.0 129.8 122.4 129.4 136.9 135.0 128.7 61 62 63 64 65 66 68 67 102.1 69 121.6 7 72 73 74 107.2 104.9 98.1 98.0 112.1 100.0 100.2 112.0 104.6 98.5 100.0 111.2 111.9 98.7 113.3 118.5 110.1 75 93.7 96.9 101.3 102.5 102.4 103.2 106.4 106.8 109.1 76 77 78 88.6 83.1 117.8 89.4 84.5 123.4 91.6 87.5 127.1 93.7 89.5 129.8 93.9 91.7 133.2 94.6 93.6 137.0 95.5 94.8 139.2 95.9 94.2 139.6 97.3 96.5 141.7 8 100.8 103.3 81 82 84 85 115.0 142.7 134.5 142.7 147.0 133.4 147.0 104.8 123.5 142.2 135.3 142.2 109.5 125.5 145.8 137.8 145.8 109.6 125.5 146.9 139.1 146.9 114.3 125.5 148.9 145.5 148.9 118.1 130.6 153.3 150.9 153.3 119.8 131.1 156.1 153.8 156.1 123.8 137.5 161.2 154.5 161.2 87 102.4 106.4 112.5 118.3 118.0 125.6 129.5 127.0 132.4 88 94.5 97.9 99.3 102.1 103.2 103.4 106.9 112.3 111.0 114.4 89 116.9 121.8 113.2 124.6 118.9 132.2 971 101.0 106.7 107.3 126.9 123.3 128.0 141.5 143.5 152.8 120.1 107.6 111.8 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: 38. Price Data U.S. export price indexes by end-use category (September 1983 = 100 unless otherwise indicated) Category Foods, feeds, and beverages ....................................................... Raw materials................................................................................ Raw materials, nondurable......................................................... Raw materials, durable................................................................ Capital goods (12/82=100).......................................................... Automotive vehicles, parts and engines (12/82—100) ................ Consumer goods............................................................................ Durables ...................................................................................... Nondurables................................................................................ 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 1985 1986 Dec. Mar. 77.5 95.9 97.9 91.0 106.6 109.2 101.4 99.5 103.3 June 75.5 96.0 97.5 92.5 107.4 109.5 103.7 1987 Sept. 74.7 94.9 96.1 91.9 107.5 110.4 104.5 Dec. 66.0 93.3 93.7 92.5 107.7 101.8 101.8 110.8 104.5 102.1 105.5 107.2 106.9 Mar. 68.4 94.8 95.4 93.2 108.3 111.8 105.7 102.7 108.5 June 67.1 98.2 99.4 95.1 108.9 111.9 106.9 103.9 109.8 Sept. 71.3 103.1 104.7 99.2 109.4 112.1 107.1 103.6 110.5 68.0 105.9 106.1 105.3 109.8 112.5 107.5 104.3 110.5 Dec. 75.6 108.1 108.4 107.3 110.7 112.6 108.1 105.3 110.9 U.S. import price indexes by end-use category (December 1982=100) Category Foods, feeds, and beverages ....................................................... Petroleum and petroleum products, excl. natural g a s .................. Raw materials, excluding petroleum ............................................. Raw materials, nondurable......................................................... Raw materials, durable................................................................ Capital goods................................................................................. Automotive vehicles, parts and engines....................................... Consumer goods............................................................................ Durable........................................................................................ Nondurable.................................................................................. 40. Percentage of 1980 trade value 7.477 31.108 19.205 9.391 9.814 13.164 11.750 14.250 5.507 8.743 1985 1986 Dec. Mar. June 106.0 80.5 93.9 91.8 96.2 115.8 55.4 94.5 91.1 98.1 111.4 102.4 100.7 104.7 115.6 104.5 103.4 106.0 100.0 Sept. 108.2 36.8 94.0 89.7 98.7 106.7 119.0 106.5 106.5 106.6 102.8 1987 Mar. Dec. 112.3 32.6 95.3 89.5 101.4 109.4 121.0 110.1 111.2 109.2 38.3 94.9 89.7 100.3 110.7 123.9 110.6 111.6 108.6 109.2 June 104.7 50.5 96.9 91.8 102.3 115.3 126.2 114.3 114.8 113.7 Sept. Dec. 106.6 55.8 100.5 94.5 106.8 117.9 128.0 117.5 117.5 117.6 118.2 127.9 119.1 119.0 119.3 Sept. Dec. 107.5 57.9 103.5 95.4 112.0 U.S. export price indexes by Standard Industrial Classification 1 1985 1986 1987 Industry group Dec. Manufacturing: Food and kindred products (6/83=100) .......................... Lumber and wood products, except furniture (6 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ).................................................................... Furniture and fixtures (9/83=100) ............................. Paper and allied products (3/81 = 1 0 0 )............................. Chemicals and allied products (12/84=100).................... Petroleum and coal products (12/83 = 1 00)...................... Primary metal products (3/82 = 100) ................................. Machinery, except electrical (9 /7 8 = 1 0 0 )......................... Electrical machinery (12/80=100) ........................... Transportation equipment (12/7 8=1 0 0 )........................... Scientific instruments; optical goods; clocks (6 /7 7 = 1 0 0 )............................................................... 1 SIC - based classification. 100FRASER Digitized for https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June 98.1 97.0 95.0 95.2 97.6 99.0 104.1 103.6 113.4 101.2 101.2 108.4 92.1 99.2 99.1 87.9 140.5 101.5 109.2 95.7 98.9 93.5 89.8 140.6 100.1 113.0 114.0 116.7 106.3 137.2 116.9 123.2 97.4 141.2 115.3 171.2 100.1 112.6 85.8 101.0 167.4 83.5 91.7 141.0 115.2 170.0 133.1 114.1 120.3 107.6 87.1 165.1 105.7 110.4 108.7 95.9 82.2 89.9 140.7 113.6 169.4 109.8 113.4 113.7 164.1 109.7 101.5 98.3 83.1 89.8 140.3 112.3 167.1 102.1 110.1 141.4 115.8 172.3 142.0 116.8 173.9 156.7 159.7 161.2 161.5 162.3 163.3 164.6 164.7 165.4 111.2 112.6 106.1 96.2 83.1 90.7 140.5 112.6 86.8 109.9 56.8 106.7 97.9 116.1 122.3 129.7 122.1 122.2 121.9 41. U.S. import price indexes by Standard Industriai Classification 1 1985 1986 1987 Industry group Dec. Manufacturing: Food and kindred products (6/77-100) ................................. Textile mill products (9 /8 2 -1 0 0 )............................................. Apparel and related products (6/77—100).............................. Lumber and wood products, except furniture (6/77-100) ............................................................................ Furniture and fixtures (6 /8 0 =10 0 )........................................... Paper and allied products (6/77—100).................................... Chemicals and allied products (9/82-100) ............................ Rubber and miscellaneous plastic products (1 2 /8 0 -1 0 0 ).......................................................................... Leather and leather products ................................................... Primary metal products (6/81 =100) ....................................... Fabricated metal products (12/84 = 100)................................. Machinery, except electrical (3 /8 0 = 1 0 0 )................................ Electrical machinery (9 /8 4 -1 0 0 )............................................. Transportation equipment (6/81—100) .................................... Scientific instruments; optical goods; clocks (1 2 /7 9 -1 0 0 ).......................................................................... Miscellaneous manufactured commodities ( 9 /8 2 -1 0 0 )............................................................................ Mar. 115.1 June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. 117.7 104.7 133.4 115.6 106.4 135.1 118.0 107.1 137.8 122.4 108.0 139.3 122.7 111.7 146.0 125.9 113.6 150.9 128.5 116.2 153.9 115.8 98.2 137.4 95.8 122.1 101.2 124.8 103.5 139.4 127.9 105.4 142.2 103.8 127.9 105.6 150.3 102.4 134.5 109.6 154.0 104.7 135.0 155.7 105.7 141.3 111.5 162.9 106.1 136.3 113.1 167.6 97.5 144.0 82.6 102.1 104.9 159.8 96.0 118.1 114.2 104.0 133.2 104.4 151.8 85.4 115.5 119.1 105.7 136.5 105.8 156.2 91.3 116.2 95.8 119.6 100.9 145.8 82.0 104.9 105.5 97.0 123.9 106.9 138.4 106.6 138.7 108.8 164.0 100.3 119.9 128.1 108.7 141.2 98.8 103.9 109.1 113.7 113.7 119.1 122.1 120.4 124.6 98.7 99.9 101.7 106.9 108.1 110.3 113.8 116.4 118.8 101.8 134.4 137.6 98.6 102.6 100.0 102.1 100.6 144.6 82.4 108.5 109.0 101.9 147.7 84.9 110.3 112.5 128.0 130.4 100.2 148.7 84.0 111.1 102.6 110.2 122.2 129.8 120.8 154.5 110.8 122.6 1 SIC - based classification. 42. indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs, quarterly data seasonally adjusted (1977 = 100) Quarterly Indexes Item 1985 II 1986 III IV I II 1987 III IV 109.7 182.2 101.3 166.2 163.9 165.4 109.6 183.6 101.4 167.5 165.7 166.9 109.6 185.2 107.7 181.3 Business: Output per hour of all persons............................. Compensation per hour........................................ Real compensation per h o u r................................ Unit labor costs .................................................... Unit nonlabor payments....................................... Implicit price deflator ............................................ 107.2 174.6 98.6 162.8 160.4 162.0 108.2 177.0 99.4 163.6 161.8 163.0 107.9 179.3 99.7 166.1 160.2 164.0 165.0 163.1 164.3 Nonfarm business: Output per hour of all persons............................. Compensation per h our........................................ Real compensation per h o u r................................ Unit labor costs .................................................... Unit nonlabor payments ....................................... Implicit price deflator ............................................ 105.7 174.1 98.3 164.7 161.5 163.6 106.4 176.2 98.9 165.7 163.4 164.9 105.9 178.3 99.2 168.3 160.8 165.7 107.7 180.0 99.7 167.2 164.7 166.4 168.4 165.2 167.3 107.5 182.6 100.9 169.8 167.0 168.8 Nonflnancial corporations: Output per hour of all employees........................ Compensation per hour........................................ Real compensation per h o u r................................ Total unit co sts..................................................... Unit labor costs .................................................. Unit nonlabor costs............................................ Unit profits............................................................. Unit nonlabor payments ....................................... Implicit price deflator ............................................ 107.7 171.8 97.0 164.3 159.5 178.7 132.2 162.5 160.5 109.2 173.8 97.6 163.7 159.1 177.5 142.5 165.2 161.2 108.9 175.7 97.7 166.0 161.4 179.4 128.7 161.6 161.5 109.8 177.2 98.2 166.3 161.5 180.7 129.7 162.8 161.9 109.7 178.4 99.1 167.2 162.6 180.6 129.5 162.7 162.7 Manufacturing: Output per hour of all persons............................. Compensation per h our........................................ Real compensation per h o u r................................ Unit labor costs .................................................... 124.1 176.1 99.5 142.0 125.3 178.0 99.9 142.1 126.1 180.2 127.6 181.0 100.3 141.9 100.2 142.9 109.5 180.7 100.1 I II III IV 187.3 100.3 170.2 168.6 169.6 111.3 189.1 100.3 169.8 172.2 170.7 111.1 100.2 109.1 187.9 99.6 172.2 173.0 172.5 109.0 189.5 99.6 173.8 171.9 173.1 110.1 169.0 162.4 166.7 109.7 185.8 100.7 169.4 166.0 168.2 107.5 184.4 107.6 184.9 171.5 163.9 168.8 171.8 167.4 170.3 108.0 186.3 99.7 172.5 169.2 171.4 109.9 179.5 99.2 168.5 163.2 184.2 130.6 165.4 164.0 110.5 181.0 99.3 168.7 163.8 183.2 127.7 163.7 163.8 109.7 180.8 98.0 169.7 164.8 184.1 132.2 165.9 165.2 109.9 182.0 97.4 170.9 165.6 186.6 132.9 167.8 166.3 110.8 - 183.3 97.2 171.0 165.5 187.3 142.1 171.4 167.5 _ 128.4 182.1 129.3 183.1 129.8 184.3 141.8 141.7 142.0 130.8 183.9 99.6 140.5 132.9 184.8 98.9 139.0 134.1 185.4 98.3 138.2 100.8 101.6 101.2 100.2 101.2 101.2 101.2 190.5 171.4 171.2 171.3 _ _ _ _ _ - 134.1 186.3 97.9 138.9 - Data not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 101 M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: Productivity Data 43. Annual indexes of multifactor productivity and related measures, selected years (1977 = 100) Item 1960 1970 1973 1976 1978 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 P riv a te bualnesa Productivity: Output per hour of all persons........... ,.............. Output per unit of capital services..................... Multifactor productivity....................................... O utput................................................................... Inputs: Hours of all persons........................................... Capital services .................................................. Combined units of labor and capital in p u t........ Capital per hour of all persons............................. 78.1 55.3 88.4 101.9 92.9 80.2 95.9 105.3 99.1 93.0 98.4 97.2 98.0 94.5 100.8 102.0 101.2 82.2 54.2 70.8 65.9 90.8 78.7 86.3 86.7 96.9 88.3 93.8 91.1 96.1 97.2 96.5 101.2 89.2 96.4 106.0 99.6 92.9 98.5 97.3 98.1 94.4 86.8 96.3 87.6 93.3 91.0 95.8 97.0 96.2 101.3 62.2 102.5 71.9 52.5 80.8 98.6 85.2 78.6 93.4 111.4 97.9 96.3 97.1 96.2 96.8 93.1 84.4 51.2 73.0 60.7 97.3 79.7 92.2 82.0 103.1 86.4 98.4 83.8 95.9 96.7 96.1 100.9 67.3 102.1 100.6 92.4 97.7 108.9 100.3 86.7 95.3 105.4 103.1 88.4 97.7 109.9 105.7 92.8 105.8 99.2 94.2 97.4 106.6 119.2 124.0 109.7 92.8 103.4 128.1 105.0 103.8 104.5 98.8 107.5 113.1 109.4 105.3 108.2 117.8 111.5 108.8 105.2 121.7 110.7 115.7 106.7 124.4 112.8 128.5 118.1 113.9 115.2 133.6 121.3 116.0 116.8 138.0 123.8 118.2 100.8 101.2 98.7 93.4 96.9 106.6 99.6 91.1 96.7 108.4 99.1 85.1 94.1 104.8 102.5 87.3 97.0 110.1 104.7 91.3 99.9 119.3 105.9 90.8 100.5 123.7 107.6 90.5 101.4 127.6 108.0 114.1 108.8 119.0 105.6 109.4 105.7 123.2 111.4 116.5 107.4 126.1 113.5 117.4 114.0 130.6 119.4 114.6 116.8 136.3 123.1 116.7 118.5 141.0 125.8 119.0 101.4 91.2 98.7 103.2 103.6 89.2 99.8 104.8 105.9 81.8 99.2 98.4 112.0 118.1 95.7 124.2 97.8 117.0 122.5 128.8 99.3 120.6 101.7 113.1 104.5 101.1 92.9 120.3 99.2 129.4 93.5 99.5 99.7 129.0 104.7 123.5 98.7 125.3 104.8 127.0 97.8 126.8 104.4 129.7 112.6 116.6 107.6 92.8 101.0 102.2 P riv a te n o n fa rm bualnesa Productivity: Output per hour of all persons.......................... Output per unit of capital services.................... Multifactor productivity....................................... O utput................................................................... Inputs: Hours of all persons........................................... Capital services .................................................. Combined units of labor and capital inp u t......... Capital per hour of all persons............................. 70.7 103.6 80.9 54.4 77.0 52.5 67.3 68.2 102.8 93.7 79.9 89.6 77.8 85.3 101.9 106.0 105.1 104.0 104.7 98.9 110.0 112.2 M an u factu rin g Productivity: Output per hour of all persons.......................... Output per unit of capital services..................... Multifactor productivity....................................... O utput.................................................... .............. Inputs: Hours of all persons........................................... Capital services .................................................. Combined units of labor and capital inputs....... Capital per hour of all persons............................. 102 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 101.5 102.1 101.7 106.0 104.4 103.7 104.2 99.4 111.2 117.5 105.0 116.2 86.9 105.1 104.7 112.2 117.5 120.6 122.8 125.9 44. Annual Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years 1978 1980 1981 . 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1 0 0 .8 99.3 131.5 96.7 132.5 118.7 127.6 100.7 143.7 95.7 142.7 134.6 139.8 100.3 154<9 97.3 154.5 136.6 148.1 103.0 161.5 98.2 156.7 146.4 153.0 105.6 168.0 98.0 159.1 156.5 158.2 107.5 175.9 99.1 163.6 160.3 162.4 109.5 182.8 110.5 188.2 100.3 170.2 169.5 170.0 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 97.2 156.0 136.5 149.2 102.5 161.5 98.2 157.6 148.3 154.3 104.6 167.8 97.9 160.4 156.4 159.0 105.8 175.2 98.7 165.6 161.3 164.1 169.3 165.2 167.8 99.1 131.1 96.4 133.4 132.3 136.7 85.2 118.6 127.6 99.6 143.3 95.5 147.7 143.8 159.1 98.1 137.8 141.7 100.4 154.3 96.9 159.5 153.8 176.4 78.5 142.1 149.8 103.5 159.9 97.3 159.5 154.5 174.3 110.9 152.1 153.7 106.0 165.8 96.7 160.8 156.5 173.6 136.5 160.6 157.9 108.2 172.8 97.4 164.4 159.7 178.3 133.9 162.7 160.7 109.9 178.9 98.9 167.7 162.8 182.2 129.3 163.7 163.1 101.4 132.4 97.4 130.6 97.8 103.6 145.2 96.7 140.1 1 1 2 .0 1 2 1 .0 131.8 105.9 157.5 98.9 148.7 114.0 138.6 162.4 98.8 145.0 128.5 140.2 118.1 168,0 98.0 142.2 138.6 141.2 124.2 176.9 99.6 142.4 134.7 140.2 128.8 182.7 100.9 141.8 137.9 140.7 1960 1970 1973 1976 Business: Output per hour of all persons............................. Compensation per hour........................................ Real compensation per h o u r................................ Unit labor costs .................................................... Unit nonlabor payments....................................... Implicit price deflator ............................................ 67.6 33.6 68.9 49.7 46.4 48.5 88.4 57.8 90.2 65.4 59.4 63.2 95.9 70.9 96.7 73.9 72.5 73.4 98.3 92.8 98.7 94.3 93.3 94.0 Nonfarm business: Output per hour of all persons............................. Compensation per h our........................................ Real compensation per h o u r................................ Unit labor c o s ts .................................................... Unit nonlabor payments ....................................... Implicit price deflator............................................ 71.0 35.3 72.3 49.7 46.3 48.5 89.3 58.2 90.8 65.2 60.0 63.4 96.4 71.2 97.1 73.9 69.3 72.3 98.5 92.8 98.8 94.3 93.0 93.8 1 0 0 .8 Nonfinanclal corporations: Output per hour of all employees........................ Compensation per h our........................................ Real compensation per h o u r................................ Total unit costs..................................................... Unit labor costs .................................................. Unit nonlabor co sts ............................................ Unit profits............................................................. Unit nonlabor payments ....................................... Implicit price deflator ............................................ 73.4 36.9 75.5 49.4 50.2 47.0 59.8 51.5 50.7 91.1 59.2 92.4 64.8 65.0 64.2 52.3 60.1 63.3 97.5 71.6 97.6 72.7 73.4 70.7 65.6 68.9 71.9 98.4 92.9 98.9 94.8 94.3 96.2 89.4 93.8 94.2 1 0 0 .6 Manufacturing: Output per hour of all persons............................. Compensation per hour........................................ Real compensation per h o u r................................ Unit labor costs .................................................... Unit nonlabor payments....................................... Implicit price deflator ............................................ 62.2 36.5 74.8 58.7 60.0 59.1 80.8 57.4 89.5 71.0 64.1 69.0 93.4 93.8 73.7 70.7 72.8 97.1 92.1 98.1 94.9 93.5 94.5 Item 6 8 .8 108.5 1 0 0 .8 107.6 106.7 107.3 108.6 100.9 107.7 105.6 107.0 108.4 100.7 107.3 107.8 105.7 1 0 2 .0 104.4 106.6 101.5 108.2 100.5 106.6 101.9 105.2 1 1 1 .8 - Data not available. 45. Unemployment rates, approximating U.S. concepts, in nine countries, quarterly data seasonally adjusted 1986 A n nual average 1987 C o untry 1986 1987 II III IV I II III IV T o ta l lab o r fo rc e basis U nited S t a t e s ............................................. C a nada ........................................................ A u stra lia ...................................................... Japa n ............................................................ 6.9 9.5 8.0 2.8 F rance ......................................................... G e rm a n y ...................................................... Italy \ 2 ........................................................ S w eden ....................................................... U nited K in g d o m ........................................ 10.4 7.1 6.2 2.6 11.2 6.1 - - _ - - - 7.1 9.5 7.7 2.8 6.9 9.6 8.2 2.9 6.8 9.4 8.3 2.9 6.5 9.6 8.3 3.0 6.2 9.0 8.1 3.1 5.9 8.8 8.0 2.8 5.8 8.0 7.9 2.7 10.4 7.2 6.2 2.6 11.2 10.6 7.0 5.9 2.6 11.2 10.6 6.9 6.5 2.6 11.1 10.9 7.0 6.6 2.0 10.9 11.0 7.0 6.6 1.9 10.5 10.8 7.1 6.6 1.9 10.0 10.6 7.1 6.9 1.7 9.4 7.2 9.6 7.8 2.8 7.0 9.7 8.3 2.9 6.8 9.4 8.4 2.9 6.6 9.6 8.3 3.0 6.3 9.1 8.2 3.1 6.0 8.8 8.0 2.8 5.9 8.1 8.0 2.8 10.7 7.3 6.3 2.6 11.2 10.8 7.2 6.0 2.6 10.8 7.0 6.6 2.6 11.2 11.2 7.1 6.7 2.0 11.0 11.2 7.2 6.7 1.9 10.6 11.1 10.8 7.3 7.0 1.7 9.5 Civilian lab o r fo rc e basis U nited S t a t e s ............................................. C a n a d a ........................................................ A u stra lia ...................................................... Japa n ............................................................ 7.0 9.6 8.1 2.8 Fra n ce ......................................................... G e rm a n y ...................................................... Ita ly ’ , 2 ......................................................... S w eden ....................................................... U n ited K in g d o m ........................................ 10.7 7.2 6.3 2.7 11.2 6.2 - - _ - Quarterly rates are for the first month of the quarter. Major changes in the Italian labor force survey, intro duced in 1977, resulted in a large increase in persons enu merated 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 about 1 2 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 11.3 7.2 6.8 1.9 10.0 double the Italian unemployment rate shown. - Data not available. NOTE: Quarterly figures for France, Germany, and the United Kingdom are calculated by applying annual adjust ment factors to current published data and therefore should be viewed as less precise indicators of unemployment under U.S. concepts than the annual figures. 1 0 1 .0 166.9 163.8 165.8 107.5 182.0 1 0 0 .6 108.4 187.1 99.8 172.6 170.4 171.8 - 133.0 185.1 98.7 139.1 - “ MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW May 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: International Comparison Data 46. Annual data: Employment status of the civilian working-age population, approximating U.S. concepts, 10 countries (Numbers in thousands) 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 108,670 11,904 6,810 56,320 22,930 26,650 21,320 5,520 4,327 26,590 110,204 11,958 6,910 56,980 23,160 26,700 21,410 5,570 4,350 26,740 111,550 12,183 6,997 58,110 23,130 26,650 21,590 5,600 4,369 26,790 113,544 12,399 7,133 58,480 23,290 26,760 21,670 5,620 4,385 27,180 115,461 12,639 7,272 58,820 23,340 26,980 21,800 5,710 4,418 27,370 117,834 12,870 7,562 59,410 23,480 27,180 21,990 5,760 4,437 27,540 63.8 64.1 62.1 62.6 57.2 53.2 48.2 50.2 66.9 62.5 63.9 64.8 61.9 62.6 57.1 52.9 48.3 51.4 64.0 64.1 61.7 62.7 57.1 52.6 47.7 51.2 64.4 64.8 61.5 62.7 56.6 52.4 47.3 50.5 6 6 .8 6 6 .8 62.2 62.3 64.0 64.4 61.4 63.1 56.6 52.3 47.5 50.9 66.7 62.1 64.8 65.2 61.8 62.3 56.2 52.6 47.2 50.7 66.9 62.7 65.3 65.7 63.0 62.1 56.2 53.0 47.5 50.8 67.2 62.7 99,303 10,708 6,284 54,600 21,330 25,750 100,397 11,006 6,416 55,060 4,980 4,226 24,670 100,834 10,734 6,300 56,550 21,170 24,750 20,320 4,890 4,218 23,600 105,005 25,560 20,280 5,010 4,219 23,800 99,526 10,644 6,415 55,620 21,240 25,140 20,250 4,980 4,213 23,710 6,490 56,870 20,980 24,790 20,390 4,930 4,249 24,000 107,150 11,311 6,670 57,260 20,900 24,950 20,490 5,110 4,293 24,310 109,597 11,634 6,952 57,740 20,970 25,210 20,610 5,200 4,319 24,450 Employment status and country 1978 1979 1980 Labor force United S tates........................................................ Canada .................................................................. Australia................................................................. Japan ..................................................................... France ................................................................... Germany................................................................ Italy........................................................................ Netherlands........................................................... Sweden.................................................................. United Kingdom..................................................... 102,251 10,895 6,443 54,610 22,460 26,000 20,570 5,010 4,203 26,260 104,962 11,231 6,519 55,210 22,670 26,250 20,850 5,100 4,262 26,350 106,940 11,573 6,693 55,740 22,800 26,520 63.2 62.7 61.9 62.8 57.5 53.3 47.8 48.8 63.7 63.4 61.6 62.7 57.5 53.3 48.0 49.0 Participation rate1 United S tates........................................................ Canada ................................................................. Australia................................................................. Japan .................................................................... France .................................................................... Germany................................................................ Italy........................................................................ Netherlands........................................................... Sweden.................................................................. United Kingdom.................................................... 2 1 ,1 2 0 5,310 4,312 26,520 1981 6 6 .1 6 6 .6 62.8 62.6 Employed United S tates........................................................ Canada ................................................................. Australia................................................................. Japan .................................................................... France.................................................................... Germany................................................................ Italy........................................................................ Netherlands........................................................... Sweden.................................................................. United Kingdom.................................................... 96,048 9,987 6,038 53,370 21,250 25,130 19,720 4,750 4,109 24,610 98,824 10,395 54,040 21,300 25,470 19,930 4,830 4,174 24,940 Employment-population ratio2 United S tates........................................................ Canada .................................................................. Australia................................................................. Japan .................................................................... France .................................................................... Germany................................................................ Italy........................................................................ Netherlands........................................................... Sweden.................................................................. United Kingdom.................................................... 59.3 57.5 58.0 61.3 54.4 51.5 45.9 46.3 64.6 58.8 59.9 58.7 57.8 61.4 54.0 51.7 45.9 46.4 65.3 59.2 59.2 59.3 58.3 61.3 53.5 51.7 46.1 47.0 65.6 58.1 59.0 59.9 58.4 61.2 52.8 50.8 45.9 46.6 65.1 55.7 57.8 57.0 57.3 61.2 52.3 49.6 45.2 45.8 64.7 55.3 57.9 56.7 55.3 61.4 51.8 48.6 44.7 44.5 64.4 54.7 59.5 57.4 56.0 61.0 51.0 48.5 44.5 44.3 64.5 55.3 60.1 58.4 56.6 60.6 50.4 48.7 44.4 45.4 65.0 55.7 60.7 59.4 57.9 60.4 50.2 49.1 44.6 45.9 65.4 55.7 6 ,2 0 2 6,137 836 408 1,170 1,370 780 920 270 7,637 865 409 1,140 1,470 770 920 330 8,273 898 394 1,260 1,730 1,090 1,040 510 108 2,790 10,678 1,314 495 1,360 1,920 1,560 1,160 590 137 3,030 10,717 1,448 697 1,560 1,960 1,900 1,270 710 151 3,190 8,539 1,399 642 1,610 2,310 1,970 1,280 690 136 3,180 8,312 1,328 602 1,560 2,440 2,030 1,310 600 125 3,060 8,237 1,236 610 1,670 2,510 1,970 1,380 560 118 3,090 7.6 7.5 5.8 9.7 1 1 .0 9.6 11.9 7.5 11.3 9.0 7.2 10.5 8.3 7.0 9.6 Unemployed United S tates........................................................ Canada .................................................................. Australia................................................................. Japan .................................................................... France ................................................................... Germany................................................................ Italy........................................................................ Netherlands........................................................... Sweden.................................................................. United Kingdom.................................................... Unemployment rate United S tates........................................................ Canada .................................................................. Australia................................................................. Japan .................................................................... France ................................................................... Germany................................................................ Italy........................................................................ Netherlands........................................................... Sweden.................................................................. United Kingdom.................................................... 104 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1 2 908 405 1,240 1 ,2 1 0 870 850 260 94 1,650 6 .1 6 ,1 1 1 2 0 ,2 0 0 88 86 1,420 1,850 5.8 7.4 6.3 7.1 7.5 8.3 6.3 2.3 5.4 3.3 4.1 5.2 3.0 4.4 5.3 6 .2 2 .2 2 .1 2 .0 6.3 5.4 7.0 6 .1 2 1 ,2 0 0 2 .1 2 .0 2 .2 6 .0 6.4 2.9 4.4 7.5 4.1 4.9 9.2 2.5 10.5 Labor force as a percent of the civilian working-age population. Employment as a percent of the civilian working-age population. 7.2 2.4 8.3 5.8 5.4 1 0 .6 3.1 11.3 1 0 .0 2.7 8.5 7.1 5.9 12.7 3.5 11.9 6 6 .6 62.6 1 1 ,0 0 0 8 .1 2 .8 2 .6 2 .8 9.9 7.4 5.9 12.3 3.1 11.7 10.4 7.5 2 .8 10.7 7.2 6.3 9.7 2.7 1 1 .2 1 1 .2 6 .0 10.5 47. Annual indexes of manufacturing productivity and related measures, 12 countries (1977 = 100) Item and country 1960 1970 1973 Output per hour United S tates....................................................... Canada ................................................................ Japan .................................................................... Belgium.................................................................. Denmark................................................................ France ................................................................... Germany................................................................ Italy........................................................................ Netherlands.......................... ................................ Norway.......................:........................................... Sweden................................................................. United Kingdom.................................................... 62.2 50.7 23.2 33.0 37.2 36.4 40.3 35.4 32.4 54.6 42.3 55.9 80.8 75.6 64.8 60.4 65.6 69.6 71.2 72.7 64.3 81.7 80.7 80.4 93.4 90.3 83.1 78.8 83.3 82.3 84.0 90.9 81.5 94.6 94.8 95.5 Output United S tates........................................................ Canada .................................................................. Japan .................................................................... Belgium.................................................................. Denmark................................................................ France................................................................... Germany............................................. .................. Italy........................................................................ Netherlands........................................................... Norway................................................................... Sweden.................................................................. United Kingdom.................................................... 52.5 41.3 19.2 41.9 49.2 35.4 50.0 36.4 44.8 55.1 52.6 71.2 78.6 73.5 69.9 78.6 82.0 73.3 96.3 93.5 91.9 96.4 95.9 8 8 .6 78.0 84.4 86.9 92.5 95.0 96.1 90.5 95.8 99.5 100.3 104.8 97.3 97.2 107.9 130.2 125.1 105.3 121.7 107.4 131.2 106.4 114.6 118.1 103.1 103.6 110.7 122.3 115.2 107.7 114.4 99.6 117.6 105.1 105.7 109.8 15.1 18.8 8.4 12.5 15.8 14.7 15.1 57.4 47.9 33.9 34.9 36.3 36.5 48.0 26.1 39.0 37.9 38.5 31.3 Unit labor costs: National currency basis United States ........................................................ Canada .................................................................. Japan .................................................................... Belgium.................................................................. Denmark................................................................ France................................................................... Germany................................................................ Italy........................................................................ Netherlands........................................................... Norway................................................................... Sweden.................................................................. United Kingdom.................................................... 58.7 54.2 38.4 41.7 33.8 41.5 46.6 23.7 38.5 29.0 34.8 27.1 Unit labor costs: U.S. dollar basis United S tates........................................................ Canada ................................................................. Japan .................................................................... Belgium.................................................................. Denmark ................................................................ France ................................................................... Germany................................................................ Italy........................................................................ Netherlands........................................................... Norway.................................................................. Sweden.................................................................. United Kingdom.................................................... 58.7 59.4 28.5 30.0 29.5 41.6 25.9 33.7 25.1 21.7 30.1 43.6 Total hours United S tates........................................................ Canada ................................................................. Japan .................................................................... Belgium.................................................................. Denmark................................................................ France................................................................... Germany................................................................ Italy........................................................................ Netherlands........................................................... Norway................................................................... Sweden.................................................................. United Kingdom..................................................... Compensation per hour United S tates........................................................ Canada .................................................................. Japan .................................................................... Belgium.................................................................. Denmark................................................................ France ................................................................... Germany................................................................ Italy........................................................................ Netherlands........................................................... Norway.................................................................. Sweden................................................................. United Kingdom.................................................... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 84.4 81.4 82.7 127.1 132.4 97.2 123.8 1 0 2 .8 138.4 1 0 1 .0 124.4 127.3 36.5 27.5 8.9 13.8 1 2 .6 8 6 .6 1975 1976 92.9 97.1 94.8 94.3 95.3 98.2 95.1 96.5 98.9 95.8 99.7 101.7 99.1 8 8 .6 87.7 86.5 94.6 88.5 90.1 91.1 8 6 .2 96.8 1 0 0 .2 94.9 84.9 89.9 8 6 .2 92.7 95.0 90.0 91.0 86.9 92.7 1 0 1 .0 106.1 96.3 93.1 96.5 94.8 99.7 99.6 96.1 98.0 97.9 99.0 101.4 106.1 98.2 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 101.4 98.2 122.7 119.2 112.3 103.6 102.9 127.2 127.6 114.2 114.0 105.9 98.3 135.0 135.2 114.6 1 1 2 .0 1 1 1 .0 1 1 2 .6 124.8 116.9 107.0 113.2 107.0 129.6 119.4 109.8 116.5 113.5 118.1 116.8 152.5 154.4 118.6 129.0 123.6 144.4 140.5 123.9 131.0 129.8 124.2 119.7 163.7 159.0 118.3 133.0 128.7 146.6 145.1 125.2 136.1 134.7 128.8 119.4 168.2 163.1 119.9 135.6 130.6 148.3 144.7 124.4 136.4 139.5 104.8 107.4 129.8 105.7 106.6 102.9 104.9 115.1 106.7 97.7 98.4 93.6 137.3 122.5 125.9 123.9 182.1 108.3 104.0 102.4 113.4 105.0 97.4 1 0 0 .6 1 0 0 .1 1 0 0 .0 101.4 1 0 2 .0 1 0 0 .0 114.8 111.9 106.5 109.7 108.2 110.5 112.3 107.1 110.9 102.5 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 1 .2 1 0 1 .0 1 0 1 .6 1 0 0 .0 95.4 107.6 104.3 105.9 101.5 99.0 103.3 101.7 104.3 99.0 1 0 0 .0 60.0 55.1 53.5 56.1 52.1 67.5 43.7 60.5 54.5 54.2 47.5 85.1 78.9 84.2 79.0 81.0 76.5 84.5 70.2 82.2 77.2 77.3 76.0 92.1 90.3 90.7 89.5 90.4 88.7 91.3 84.2 91.9 1 0 0 .0 8 8 .8 91.5 88.3 71.0 63.4 52.3 57.8 55.4 52.5 67.4 36.0 60.7 46.4 47.7 38.9 73.7 66.5 66.4 67.9 67.4 63.4 80.3 48.1 74.3 57.6 57.2 49.8 91.7 89.1 96.0 91.2 85.6 86.5 93.8 77.1 95.4 79.7 77.1 80.2 94.9 95.3 96.2 93.9 92.1 93.3 94.6 85.1 96.0 89.1 90.0 89.1 71.0 64.5 39.1 41.7 44.4 46.7 42.9 50.6 41.2 34.5 41.1 53.5 73.7 70.6 65.6 62.7 67.2 70.2 70.4 73.1 65.6 53.4 58.7 70.0 91.7 93.1 86.7 89.1 89.6 99.3 88.7 104.3 92.8 81.4 83.2 94.9 102.7 86.9 87.2 91.5 96.1 87.3 90.5 89.1 86.9 92.3 92.1 1 0 2 .0 1979 1 0 0 .0 91.4 101.5 98.2 107.1 100.4 101.7 6 8 .8 95.9 1977 108.1 108.5 113.9 104.1 105.4 105.3 106.6 108.6 106.1 100.3 103.6 100.5 1 1 0 .6 108.6 116.9 113.9 106.7 112.7 1 0 1 .8 103.2 103.6 124.1 106.8 1 1 0 .1 104.6 106.6 115.4 106.6 98.8 104.0 91.7 1 2 2 .0 105.4 142.3 148.2 1 2 0 .2 125.2 119.2 135.7 127.5 117.2 125.5 123.2 104.7 99.6 148.2 114.8 115.6 103.8 103.6 111.5 107.0 97.2 105.2 88.9 117.5 114.9 165.4 117.5 119.7 104.0 106.4 116.2 113.3 99.5 98.3 108.5 76.1 100.9 80.6 85.9 76.2 93.5 94.5 104.2 77.5 96.2 82.9 86.9 82.2 83.9 82.9 83.9 72.2 80.5 80.6 82.8 85.1 71.2 109.6 75.4 104.3 77.7 85.6 80.5 79.9 84.0 84.7 70.7 1 1 0 .1 8 6 .2 86.4 92.9 95.2 101.7 81.4 94.5 85.2 91.0 87.5 1 0 2 .6 111.5 92.5 1 2 1 .2 179.3 119.9 123.4 103.3 1 2 2 .0 126.7 103.0 1 1 0 .1 1 1 2 .8 118.0 116.0 105.2 115.3 95.2 121.9 117.3 107.0 115.2 96.2 98.7 97.8 103.8 108.3 74.8 105.7 75.9 86.4 82.2 81.1 106.5 106.3 99.3 93.0 99.0 95.9 98.5 98.2 94.4 93.6 93.4 98.0 101.7 105.5 1 0 1 .1 1 0 1 .2 1 0 2 .0 89.6 98.0 94.6 98.1 98.7 93.6 92.6 92.3 90.1 82.8 93.4 90.3 94.6 92.2 91.2 91.3 88.9 80.6 1 0 0 .0 118.6 118.6 113.4 117.5 123.1 128.4 116.1 134.7 117.0 116.0 1 0 0 .0 1 2 0 .1 1 0 0 .0 137.4 132.4 131.3 120.7 130.4 135.9 148.5 125.6 160.2 123.6 128.0 133.6 167.4 145.2 151.1 129.8 144.5 149.7 172.0 134.5 198.4 129.1 142.8 148.1 193.9 157.5 167.0 136.6 150.7 162.9 203.9 141.0 238.3 137.5 156.0 158.9 209.3 162.4 177.2 140.7 159.7 174.2 225.2 148.3 282.8 144.0 173.5 173.3 224.4 168.0 185.5 144.9 173.0 184.4 247.3 155.5 314.5 150.0 188.3 189.7 238.8 176.9 194.7 152.0 184.9 196.1 267.3 164.9 347.3 157.7 204.8 212.4 254.6 182.7 202.3 157.3 191.8 207.7 279.2 172.5 362.1 161.5 224.6 228.1 273.5 1 0 0 .0 117.0 116.2 98.8 105.0 115.7 117.0 107.3 121.9 104.1 108.2 108.3 134.1 130.6 133.7 98.4 109.4 140.1 146.7 148.7 170.0 1 0 2 .0 1 0 1 .2 142.2 158.8 95.0 113.2 131.1 151.0 142.4 162.6 92.9 116.3 165.7 200.9 128.1 236.9 108.7 163.5 156.1 189.0 141.8 169.4 93.5 117.6 173.2 205.9 132.1 244.1 118.6 164.5 111.4 142.2 167.2 125.2 184.0 115.2 142.1 136.3 184.4 145.0 168.1 98.9 107.8 144.9 179.9 124.4 208.4 113.0 148.0 138.1 182.2 117.0 105.4 121.3 128.3 132.0 135.2 135.9 129.5 127.4 113.8 112.9 163.1 130.6 121.5 116.8 134.3 129.0 156.4 147.9 141.4 134.1 129.3 125.3 219.2 142.4 126.5 104.3 70.2 93.9 141.8 129.5 148.7 94.3 128.4 146.2 141.3 144.5 111.9 129.8 104.9 164.9 1 0 0 .0 1 0 1 .8 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .6 1 0 0 .0 104.6 101.4 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 2 1 .0 134.3 115.7 137.0 108.5 1 2 0 .0 104.3 1 2 1 .2 158.9 110.4 133.4 130.9 181.2 140.1 130.0 123.8 109.6 110.3 136.4 124.9 123.2 108.9 123.6 115.4 2 1 0 .2 8 8 .0 8 8 .6 148.7 146.3 108.8 87.2 102.3 124.9 119.7 119.9 105.8 117.1 96.9 184.8 145.0 144.9 111.5 75.5 95.1 116.1 113.1 1 2 1 .1 97.1 107.9 80.4 158.3 8 6 .1 1 1 2 .1 155.4 191.6 125.8 217.8 106.8 152.0 144.8 183.9 142.2 130.3 107.2 69.5 90.1 107.8 1 0 1 .2 1 1 0 .0 1 0 2 .6 1 0 1 .1 109.5 81.6 99.1 78.2 140.9 109.6 80.4 101.3 81.1 140.5 8 6 .0 84.5 69.0 1 1 1 .6 180.5 167.3 196.1 105 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: Injury and Illness Data 48. Occupational injury and illness incidence rates by industry, United States Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers2 Industry and type of case1 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 PRIVATE SECTOR3 Total cases................................................................................................. Lost workday ca ses.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ 106 9.7 5.3 160.2 8.4 4.8 145.3 7.4 4.1 125.9 14.8 6.3 118.2 15.5 6.9 128.1 15.2 128.9 15.2 6.9 134.5 15.4 6.9 121.3 15.2 14.9 120.4 122.7 122.4 14.9 6.4 131.7 14.5 6.3 127.3 14.7 6.3 132.9 15.8 7.1 130.1 15.4 7.0 133.3 15.6 7.2 140.4 1 0 .6 7.6 3.4 58.5 3.7 63.4 1 1 .6 11.7 5.7 83.7 11.9 5.8 82.7 12.3 5.9 82.8 1 1 .8 11.9 1 2 .0 6 .1 6 .1 90.8 11.4 1 1 .2 1 1 .6 6 .8 6.5 163.6 146.4 10.5 5.4 137.3 15.7 6.5 117.0 15.1 6.3 113.1 14.6 115.7 15.1 1 1 1 .2 15.5 6.5 113.0 16.6 6.7 123.1 16.3 6.3 117.6 16.0 6.9 124.3 15.5 6.7 118.9 13.3 5.9 90.2 1 2 .2 150.5 16.0 6.4 109.4 120.4 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 8.4 4.5 125.1 7.7 3.5 58.7 11.5 6.4 143.2 See footnotes at end of table. 5.6 93.6 8.3 3.8 61.7 Mining Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday ca ses.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Durable goods Lumber and wood products: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday cases ................................................................................... Lost workdays............................................................................................ Furniture and fixtures: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday ca ses.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Stone, clay, and glass products: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday ca ses................................................................................... Lost workdays............................................................................................ Primary metal industries: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday ca ses................................................................................... Lost workdays............................................................................................ Fabricated metal products: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday ca ses.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Machinery, except electrical: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday ca ses................................................................................... Lost workdays............................................................................................ Electric and electronic equipment: Total cases................................................................................................. Lost workday cases................................................................................... Lost workdays............................................................................................ Transportation equipment: Total cases................................................................................................. Lost workday ca ses.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Instruments and related products: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday ca ses................................................................................... Lost workdays............................................................................................ Miscellaneous manufacturing industries: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday ca ses.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ 1 1 .2 90.7 11.4 5.7 91.3 8.7 4.0 65.2 5.4 80.7 Manufacturing Total cases................................................................................................. Lost workday cases................................................................................... Lost workdays............................................................................................ 7.9 3.6 65.8 9.5 4.3 67.7 Agriculture, forestry, and fishing3 Total cases................................................................................................. Lost workday ca ses.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Construction Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday ca ses.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ General building contractors: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday ca ses.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Heavy construction contractors: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday ca ses................................................................................... Lost workdays............................................................................................ Special trade contractors: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday ca ses................................................................................... Lost workdays............................................................................................ 7.9 3.6 64.9 9.4 4.1 63.5 15.9 6.3 105.3 16.6 6 .2 110.9 15.8 6 .6 1 1 1 .0 13.2 5.6 84.9 2 2 .6 16.2 6 .8 16.3 6 .8 20.7 1 1 .1 1 0 .8 178.8 175.9 17.5 6.9 95.9 17.6 7.1 99.6 16.8 7.8 126.3 16.8 17.0 7.5 123.6 8 .0 133.7 17.3 8 .1 134.7 6 .2 14.4 107.1 1 1 2 .0 113.0 6 .6 15.2 14.7 6 .6 6 .2 119.3 118.6 14.8 6.4 119.0 11.5 5.1 82.0 1 0 .2 1 0 .0 1 0 .6 5.4 86.7 4.4 75.0 4.3 73.5 4.7 77.9 10.4 4.6 80.2 4.7 85.2 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 18.5 9.3 171.4 18.9 9.7 177.2 15.1 13.9 5.5 85.6 14.1 5.7 83.0 15.3 6.4 101.5 15.0 6.3 100.4 15.2 6.3 103.0 13.0 13.1 13.6 6 .1 6 .0 6 .6 1 1 2 .2 1 1 2 .0 1 2 0 .8 13.9 6.7 127.8 13.6 6.5 126.0 12.4 5.4 103.4 13.3 1 2 .6 13.6 5.7 113.8 125.5 6 .6 6 .2 97.6 91.9 15.0 7.1 128.1 14.1 6.9 1 2 2 .2 15.2 7.1 128.3 14.4 6.7 121.3 1 0 1 .6 18.5 15.3 6.4 102.5 9.8 3.6 58.1 10.7 4.1 65.8 7.4 3.1 48.4 6.5 2.7 42.2 2 .6 2 .8 41.4 45.0 9.8 4.6 78.1 9.2 4.0 72.2 8.4 3.6 64.5 9.3 4.2 6.5 2.7 39.2 5.6 2.3 37.0 5.2 2 .1 35.6 37.5 37.9 10.7 4.4 68.3 9.9 4.1 69.9 9.9 4.0 66.3 10.5 4.3 70.2 9.7 4.2 73.2 12.9 5.1 74.9 8.7 3.3 50.3 8 .6 8 .0 3.4 51.9 3.3 51.8 11.5 5.1 78.0 1 1 .6 1 0 .6 5.5 85.9 4.9 82.4 6.9 7.2 6 .8 2 .6 2 .8 37.0 40.0 2.7 41.8 10.9 4.4 67.9 115.3 6 6 .0 13.7 5.5 81.3 10.7 4.2 15.1 6 .1 96.5 14.7 5.9 83.6 8 .0 12.4 5.4 6 .2 16.1 6.7 104.9 14.4 5.4 75.1 11.7 4.7 67.7 15.4 6 .8 106.0 6 .0 118.4 4.5 66.4 6 .2 6 .8 15.1 5.8 113.1 16.0 14.9 112.4 1 1 .8 6 .0 14.1 5.9 17.5 7.5 109.9 8 .0 8 6 .0 6 .1 19.9 8.7 124.2 19.3 5.9 8 .0 6 .1 6.3 16.3 6.9 6 .1 16.0 6 .8 1 1 0 .1 115.5 1 0 .8 4.2 69.3 10.7 4.2 72.0 6.4 2.7 45.7 6.4 2.7 49.8 9.0 3.9 71.6 9.6 4.1 79.1 5.4 5.2 2 .2 2 .2 5.3 2.3 42.2 6 .8 6 8 .8 1 0 .2 4.3 70.9 48. Continued— Occupational injury and illness incidence rates by industry, United States Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers2 Industry and type of case1 1978 Nondurable goods Food and kindred products: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday ca ses.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Tobacco manufacturing: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday ca ses.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Textile mill products: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday ca ses.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Apparel and other textile products: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday ca ses.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Paper and allied products: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday ca ses.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Printing and publishing: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday ca ses.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Chemicals and allied products: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday ca ses.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Petroleum and coal products: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday ca ses.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday ca ses.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Leather and leather products: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday ca ses.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Transportation and public utilities Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday ca ses.................................................................................. Lost workdays .......................................................................................... 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 19.4 8.9 132.2 19.9 9.5 141.8 18.7 9.0 136.8 8.7 4.0 58.6 9.3 4.2 64.8 1 0 .2 9.7 3.4 61.3 9.1 3.3 62.8 8 .8 7.6 3.2 59.2 2 .8 53.8 51.4 6 .0 3.4 61.5 6.5 6.5 16.7 8 .0 129.3 16.5 7.9 131.2 131.6 138.0 137.8 8 .1 8 .2 3.8 45.8 3.9 56.8 7.2 3.2 44.6 6.5 3.0 42.8 7.7 3.2 51.7 7.3 3.0 51.7 6.7 2.5 45.6 7.4 8 .0 2 .8 3.0 54.0 7.5 3.0 57.4 7.8 3.1 59.3 6.4 2.4 40.6 6.7 2.5 40.9 6.7 44.1 6.7 2.7 49.4 10.4 4.7 93.8 4.7 94.6 10.5 4.7 99.5 8 .1 2 .2 2 .2 2 .2 34.9 35.0 13.5 5.7 103.3 13.5 12.7 5.8 112.3 1 1 .6 1 0 .6 1 0 .0 108.4 5.4 103.6 4.9 99.1 4.5 90.3 7.0 2.9 43.8 7.1 3.1 45.1 6.9 3.1 46.5 6.7 3.0 47.4 6 .6 6 .6 2 .8 45.7 2.9 44.6 6.5 2.9 46.0 6.3 2.9 49.2 6.5 2.9 50.8 7.8 3.3 50.9 7.7 3.5 54.9 6 .8 6 .6 3.1 50.3 3.0 48.1 5.7 2.5 39.4 5.5 2.5 42.3 5.3 2.4 40.8 5.1 2.3 38.8 6.3 2.7 49.4 7.9 3.4 58.3 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 5.1 2.4 49.9 7.1 3.2 67.5 17.1 13.0 13.6 6.4 104.3 13.4 6.3 107.4 118.2 10.5 4.7 94.4 10.3 4.6 88.3 10.5 4.8 83.4 17.1 6 .0 2 .1 36.4 15.5 7.4 118.6 14.6 7.2 117.4 6 .0 6 .2 100.9 101.4 11.7 4.7 72.5 11.5 4.9 76.2 11.7 5.0 82.7 11.5 5.1 82.6 9.9 4.5 86.5 4.4 87.3 1 0 .1 1 0 .0 9.0 5.3 8 .2 4.7 94.9 5.2 105.1 5.0 107.1 4.8 1 0 0 .6 8.5 4.9 96.7 8 .6 5.9 107.0 9.4 5.5 104.5 8 .8 5.7 102.3 7.9 3.2 44.9 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 7.4 3.2 50.7 7.7 3.3 54.0 8.9 3.9 57.5 8 .8 8 .2 4.1 59.1 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 7.2 3.5 59.8 7.2 3.6 62.5 7.1 2.9 41.1 7.2 2.9 42.6 7.3 3.0 46.7 7.5 3.2 48.4 7.5 3.1 47.0 7.8 3.2 50.5 2 .0 2 .0 2 .0 .9 15.4 .9 17.1 5.4 45.4 5.3 2.5 43.0 8 .2 1 0 .0 8 .2 Finance, Insurance, and real estate Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday cases .................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ 2 .1 2 .1 2 .0 1.9 2 .0 .9 13.3 .8 .8 12.5 1 2 .2 1 1 .6 .9 13.2 1 2 .8 1.9 .9 13.6 Services Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday ca ses.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ 5.5 2.4 36.2 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 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1 0 .2 127.1 8 .1 12.7 2 .6 125.5 7.1 2.9 44.5 workdays per 1 0 0 full-time workers and were calculated as: (N/EH) X 200,000, where: N = number of injuries and illnesses or lost workdays. 8 .0 34.1 7.7 3.1 44.7 Total cases include fatalities. 16.5 2 .2 39.7 1 8 .1 32.4 Wholesale and retail trade Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday ca ses.................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Wholesale trade: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday cases .................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ Retail trade: Total cases................................................................................................ Lost workday cases .................................................................................. Lost workdays............................................................................................ 2 The incidence rates represent the number of injuries and illnesses or lost 16.7 8 .6 6.3 16.7 1986 130.7 6.4 17.8 1985 7.5 2 .8 .8 8 .0 .9 2 .6 14.0 6 .6 1 0 2 .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. Where to Find Information on Employment and Unemployment Employment and Earnings: Monthly periodical containing labor force and establishment data. National, State, and area figures on employment, unemployment, hours, and earnings. Order E m ploym ent and Earnings from Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Includes text, statistical tables, and technical notes. Electronic News Release: Quickest. Accessible electronically immediately at release time through BLS news release service. Write the Office o f Publications, Bureau of Labor Statistics, W ashington, D.C. 20212, or call (202) 523-1913. Employment Situation News Release: Copies of this national statistical m onthly release reach the public about a week after the release date. Write: Inquiries and Correspondence, Bureau of Labor Statistics, W ashington, D.C. 20212. Telephone: Quick summary on 24-hour recorded message. Key numbers, plus other BLS indicators and upcoming release dates. Call (202) 523-9658. Machine-Readable Form: Labor force data from the household survey and employment, hours, and earnings data from the establishment survey are available on both com puter tape and diskette. For inform ation, write the Office of Publications, Bureau of Labor Statistics, W ashington, D.C. 20212 or call (202) 523-1090. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review: Employment and unemployment statistics included in monthly 47-page summary o f BLS data and in analytical articles. Available from the Superintendent o f Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis U,S. D e p artm en t o f Labor Bureau o f Labor S t a tis tic s W a sh in g to n , D.C. 20212 Second Class Mail Postage and Fees Paid U.S. Department of Labor ISSN 0098-1818 O ffic ia l Busine ss Penalty for private use, S300 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MLR L IB R A 4 4 2 L L IB R A R Y FED RESERVE PO BOX S A IN T IS S D U E 0 1 1 R BANK OF ST 442 L O U IS MÜ 63166 U n ite d t e a r s tí/ S ta te s ’ W o r k in g f o r D e p a r tm e n t ^ ß t f ^ ^ A m e r i c a ' s of L a b o re r f iit u r e L O U IS 1
@FedFRASER