Full text of Monthly Labor Review : November 1984, Volume 107, Number 11

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

T

■ .

U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
November 1984


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

in this issue:
Inflation and the business cycle
Unemployment of men and women
A century of wage statistics

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Janet L. Norwood, C om m issioner

The Monthly Labor Review is published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department
of Labor. Communications on editorial matters
should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief,
Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Washington, D.C. 20212.
Phone: (202) 523-1327.
Subscription price per year— $24 domestic; $30 foreign.
Single copy $4, domestic; $5 foreign.
Subscription prices and distribution policies for the
Monthly Labor Review (ISSN 0098-1818) and other Government
publications are set by the Government Printing Office,
an agency of the U.S. Congress. Send correspondence
on circulation and subscription matters (including
address changes) to:
Superintendent of Documents,
Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402
Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents.
The Secretary of Labor has determined that the
publication of this periodical is necessary in the
transaction of the public business required by
law of this Department. Use of funds for printing
this periodical has been approved by the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget
through April 30, 1987. Second-class
postage paid at Washington, D.C. and at
additional mailing addresses.

Regional Commissioners
for Bureau of Labor Statistics
Region I— -Boston; A n tho n y J. Ferrara
1603 John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Government Center,
Boston, Mass. 02203
Phone: (617) 223-6761
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Region II— New York: S am uel M. Ehrenhalt
1515 Broadway, Suite 3400, New York, N.Y. 10036
Phone: (212) 944-3121
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Region III— Philadelphia: A lvin I. M arg u lis
3535 Market Street
P.O. Box 13309, Philadelphia, Pa. 19101
Phone: (215) 596-1154
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Region IV— Atlanta: D o n a ld M. C ruse
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Ga. 30367
Phone: (404) 881-4418
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Region V — Chicago: W illiam E. R ice
9th Floor, Federal Office Building, 230 S. Dearborn Street,
Chicago, III. 60604
Phone: (312) 353-1880
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Region VI— Dallas: B ryan R ich e y
Second Floor, 555 Griffin Square Building, Dallas, Tex. 75202
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas

N ovem b er cover:
Details (front and back covers) from the oil on canvas study for the
mural, "Autumn in Iowa,” by John Sharp, photograph courtesy of
the National Museum of American Art.
Cover design by Melvin B. Moxley.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Regions VII and VIII— Kansas City: E lliott A. B ro w a r
911 Walnut Street, Kansas City, Mo. 64106
Phone: (816) 374-2481
VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Regions IX and X— San Francisco: Sam M. H irab a ya sh i
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017,
San Francisco, Calif. 94102
Phone: (415) 556-4678
IX
American Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
N O VE M B ER 1984
V O LU M E 107, N UM BER 11
Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chief
Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor

John F. Early and others

3

Inflation and the business cycle during the postwar period
At this stage of the economic expansion, the moderate rise in consumer prices
is consistent with the record for similar cyclical periods since World War II

L. DeBoer and M. Seeborg

8

The female-male unemployment differential
In 1982, jobless rate of men exceeded that of women for the first time since 1947;
trends suggest that the female unemployment rate may be lower in the future

H. M. Douty

16

A century of wage statistics: the BLS contribution
In its first century, the Bureau has developed a consistent body of information
on wages, as well as progressively more sophisticated techniques to analyze it

Edgar Weinberg

29

BLS and the economy: a centennial timetable
REPORTS

Thomas E. Weisskopf
Paul 0. Flaim
Denton Marks
Floyd A. Rabil
Steve Charnovitz


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

38
43
45
52
54

Use of hourly earnings proposed to revive spendable earnings series
Proposed spendable earnings series retains basic faults of earlier one
Incomplete experience rating in State unemployment insurance.
Average retail food prices: a brief history of methods
Caribbean Basin Initiative: setting labor standards
DEPARTMENTS

2
38
45
52
54
57
59
61
65

Labor month in review
Communications
Research summaries
Technical notes
Foreign labor developments
Major agreements expiring next month
Developments in industrial relations
Book reviews
Current labor statistics

f
JOB SAFETY. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported results of its annual
survey of job-related injuries and ill­
nesses. The data, collected during 1984,
indicate that occupational injuries and
illnesses declined slightly from 1982 to
1983. The survey shows that 7.6 injuries
and illnesses occurred per 100 full-time
workers in 1983, compared with 7.7 in
1982.
In addition, the latest survey shows
that corresponding incidence rates for
injuries and illnesses that resulted in lost
workdays also were nearly the same in
1983 (3.4) as in 1982 (3.5). Lost
workdays averaged 58.5 per 100 full­
time workers in 1983, essentially un­
changed from the previous year.
Fatalities. In workplaces with 11
employees or more, 3,100 job-related
deaths were recorded. Most of these
fatalities occurred in construction,
manufacturing, and transportation and
public utilities. As in 1982, over-theroad motor vehicle accidents accounted
for about 30 percent of occupational
deaths.
Over the past decade, the Bureau’s
surveys of injuries and illnesses show that
after a decline from 11.0 in 1973 to 9.1 in
1975, the incidence rate rose to 9.5 in 1979.
Since then, the rate has declined from 9.5
to 7.6 in 1983.
Occupational injuries. Job-related in­
juries occurred at a rate of 7.5 per 100
full-time workers in 1983. Incidence
rates ranged from 14.7 in construction
to 1.9 in finance, insurance, and real
estate and varied considerably within
these industry divisions.
Goods-producing industries (in­
cluding agriculture, forestry, and
fishing; mining; construction; and
manufacturing), as a whole, with about
35 percent of the private sector work
force, had a combined 1983 injury in­
cidence rate of 10.4 per 100 full-time
2

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

workers, compared with 7.5 for the total
private sector. About three-fifths of the
industries in this sector had rates which
ranged between 5.0 and 9.9. The lowest
rate in the goods sector was 3.9 in
nonmetallic mineral mining and the
highest, 18.1 in lumber and wood pro­
ducts manufacturing.
Service-producing industries (in­
cluding transportation and public
utilities; trade; finance, insurance, and
real estate; and services), with about 65
percent of the private sector work force,
had a combined incidence rate of 5.8 per
100 full-time workers, with about 40 per­
cent of the industries grouped between
5.0 and 9.9. The industry incidence rates
varied from 0.4 for legal services to 13.3
in trucking and transportation.
Injury rates tend to be lowest in the
very largest establishments (2,500
workers or more) and in establishments
with less than 20 workers. Injury in­
cidence rates were essentially unchanged
from 1982 to 1983 in private sector
establishments of all sizes except those
with 250 to 499 or 2,500 or more, in both
of which the rates dropped. There were
5.3 injuries per 100 full-time workers in
the very largest establishments. The rate
in establishments with fewer than 20
workers was 3.4. The incidence rate re­
mained highest in the 100-to-249 size
class (10.6). In this category, mining had
the largest decline, while agriculture,
forestry, and fishing had the largest in­
crease.
Occupational illnesses. An occupational
illness is any abnormal condition or
disorder, other than one resulting from
an occupational injury, caused by ex­
posure to environmental factors
associated with employment. The in­
cidence of occupational illnesses
measured by the survey refers to the
number of new illness cases occurring
during the year and does not measure
continuing conditions reported in

previous surveys. Thus, illnesses are
recorded only for the year in which they
are recognized as work-related.
About 106,000 occupational illnesses
were recorded in 1983. The number of
skin diseases and disorders associated
with repeated trauma (noise-induced
hearing loss and other conditions due to
repeated motion, pressure, or vibration)
together accounted for 3 of 5 illnesses.
From both statistical and procedural
points of view, occupational illness
estimates produced by the survey pro­
vide a valid measure of recognized acute
cases. However, the current statistics do
not adequately reflect the portion of oc­
cupational illnesses, such as cancers,
which are chronic and long-latent in
nature, because of problems of detection
and occupational relationship.
Background of survey. The Annual
Survey of Occupational Injuries and Ill­
nesses is a cooperative program in
which State agencies participate with the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. The data are
based on the records which employers
maintain under the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970. Response to the
survey is mandatory.
The sample for the Annual Survey of
Occupational Injuries and Illnesses ex­
cludes the self-employed; farmers with
fewer than 11 employees; private
households; railroad, coal, metal and
nonmetal mining employers; Federal,
State, and local government agencies;
and, for 1983, employers with fewer
than 11 employees in low-risk industries.
Approximately 280,000 private sector
employers were surveyed. To augment
private sector estimates of occupational
injuries and illnesses, the Mine Safety
and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, and the Federal
Railroad Administration, U.S. Depart­
ment of Transportation, provide BLS
data for those industries covered by
separate, legislation.
□

Inflation and the business cycle
during the postwar period
At this stage o f the economic expansion,
the moderate rise in consumer prices
is consistent with the record
fo r similar cyclical periods
since the end o f World War II
Jo h n F . E a r l y , M
and

T

homas

J. M

ary

L

ynn

Sc h m

id t ,

o s im a n n

Inflation in both retail and primary markets has remained
relatively low despite the rapid growth in economic output
since the trough of the last recession in November 1982. In
the ensuing 22 months of the current expansion, consumer
prices have advanced at a 3.6-percent seasonally adjusted
annual rate, with the 3 months ended in September increas:
ing at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.5 percent. In this
article, we describe the behavior of prices in the current and
previous business expansions and examine some of the major
factors associated with those changes. It is our objective to
provide historical context and perspective within which the
reader may evaluate current price behavior and forecasts.
In the post-World War II period, the U.S. economy has
undergone eight recessions in business activity.1While these
periods have evolved from different initial conditions, ex­
tended over varying periods of duration, and been subject
to different external shocks and economic policies, they
have been characterized by similarities in the qualitative
behavior of prices. Table 1 summarizes the behavior of
several measures of consumer price change for the recession
peaks and troughs, and at selected dates of the subsequent
business expansion. Tables 2 and 3 present selected changes
in producer prices and labor costs for the same times.2 The
John F. Early is the Assistant Commissioner for the Division of Consumer
Prices and Price Indexes, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Mary Lynn Schmidt
and Thomas J. Mosimann are economists in the same Division.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

first seven columns of the tables provide the data for each
of the first seven recessions and expansions in the postwar
era. The eighth column of data is the average of all seven
recessions and expansions prior to the most recent. The ninth
column is the average of the first six periods, because the
expansion after the 1980 recession was only 12 months long.
Consequently, the “ expansion” measures for that period
extend into the subsequent recession.
The 1981-82 recession. At the trough of the 1981-82
recession, the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Con­
sumers ( c p i - u ) was increasing at a seasonally adjusted an­
nual rate of 1.7 percent. (See table 1.) The deceleration in
prices had begun, in the fourth quarter of 1981, shortly after
the business cycle peak in July. This price slowdown, of
course, was not uniform, either among types of items or
stages of processing. Analysis of the recovery period since
November 1982 is complicated by the fact that the homeowner cost portion of the c p i - u was changed to a rental
equivalence basis in January 1983. To facilitate compari­
sons, we include in table 1 parenthetical data for the 1981—
82 recession based on the rental equivalence prototype. That
index ( c p i - u , x i ) essentially shows much less deceleration
during the recession but a further drop in inflation since
then. After 22 months of economic expansion, price changes
are still moderate. This is consistent with postwar experi­
ence.
3

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Inflation and the Business Cycle

T ab le 1.

T he C onsum er Price Index ( c p i - u ) and key categories, by selected phases of th e postw ar business cycle

[3-month seasonally adjusted annual rates]

Dates of recession trough
Index and cyclical stage

Oct.
1949

May
1954

Apr.
1958

Feb.
1961

Nov.
1970

Mar.
1975

July
1980

Cyclical
average,
Nov. 1948
to July 1980

Cyclical
Recession
average,
trough,
Nov. 1948 Nov. 1982
to Mar. 1975

All Items:
At prerecession business peak...........................
At recession trough ..........................................
22 months after trough......................................
24 months after trough......................................
30 months after trough.....................................

-4.3
-.6
-2.0
3.9
.2

1.5
-.8
.4
2.6
3.0

4.1
4.3
.8
2.3
2.7

2.3
.8
-.5
1.2
3.1

6.3
5.9
4.2
4.5
8.7

8.2
6.6
6.1
8.5
5.4

15.8
8.3
4.7
10.7
.0

4.8
3.5
2.0
4.8
3.3

3.0
2.7
1.5
3.8
3.9

-12.7
.0
-6.1
6.5
-2.3

1.0
-1.4
-1.0
5.6
3.9

10.4
11.4
-1.4
6.1
5.6

6.1
.4
-2.6
2.2
3.6

9.7
2.5
67
8.3
24.2

6.9
1.9
20
11.8
4.0

9.2
9.2
27
6.1
1.8

4.4
3.4
o
6.7
5.8

3.6
2.5
- .4
6.8
6.5

4.5
1.5
3.4

1.6
3.1
-.5
.0
1.0

1.5
3.4
2.3
1.8
3.2

1.8
.9
-.4
.4
.9

7.5
7.2
4.5
2.1
4.1

13.4
8.9
4.7
8.6
9.8

21.2
10.4
9.2
14.5
-5.0

7.8
5.7
3.3
4.6
2.3

5.2
4.7
2.1
2.6
3.8

20.8
-4.0
7.0

-3.9
-4.8
.9
1.3
.0

1.3
-.4
.8
.4
.4

1.5
10.1
9.9
8.6
9.1

31.4
10.8
18.5
7.6
8.2

33.8
6.3
-8.7
23.6
-6.6

12.8
4.4
4.3
8.3
2.2

7.6
3.9
7.5
4.5
4.4

-1.2
11.2
1.7

4.8
6.7
2.3
3.6
4.2

4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
4.6

10.2
7.4
6.3
7.3
4.9

6.4
7.1
5.0
5.7
4.6

4.5
6.9
4.4
4.9
4.4

11.0
4.9
4.8

11.7 (7.8)
1.7 (6.2)
4.5 (4.5)

Food:
At prerecession business peak . , .......................
At recession trough..........................................
22 months after trough.....................................
24 months after trough.....................................
30 months after trough . . . . . ' ...........................

Shelter:
At prerecession business peak...........................
At recession trough ..........................................
22 months after trough.....................................
24 months after trough......................................
30 months after trough.....................................

Energy:
At prerecession business peak...........................
At recession trough ..........................................
22 months after trough.....................................
24 months after trough.....................................
30 months after trough.....................................

All items less food, shelter and energy:
At prerecession business peak...........................
At recession trough ..........................................
22 months after trough.....................................
24 months after trough.....................................
30 months after trough.....................................

Commodities:
At prerecession business peak...........................
At recession trough ..........................................
22 months after trough.....................................
24 months after trough.....................................
30 months after trough.....................................

3.3
3.3

4.6
4.1
-.9
1.8
2.2

1.8
.4
-1.3
.4
3.0

6.4
5.0
4.7
5.0
11.7

6.8
5.9
4.9
8.3
3.7

14.2
7.0
2.2
11.3
1.2

6.8
4.5
1.9
5.0
4.2

4.9
3.9
1.9
3.8
4.8

6.2
3.0
2.3

2.8
3.9

4.3
4.2
4.0
4.0
2.4

4.0
1.9
1.4
2.3
2.3

6.4
7.4
3.0
3.3
4.2

11.4
7.7
8.3
8.6
8.3

17.9
10.3
8.1
9.8
-1.6

8.8
6.3
5.0
5.1
3.3

6.5
5.3
4.2
4.2
4.2

18.1
.1
7.0

Services:
At prerecession business peak...........................
At recession trough..........................................
22 months after trough.....................................
24 months after trough.....................................
30 months after trough.....................................

’ Numbers in parentheses are for the then experimental index with a rental equivalence measure for homeownership.

Consumer prices. Examining four major categories of the
CPI, we see that food prices moderated before prices of
shelter, energy, and a residual factor— all items less food,
shelter and energy. After “ double digit” increases in the
last 2 quarters of 1980, food prices decelerated in the first
quarter of 1981 and were increasing at only a 4.5-percent
rate at the peak of the business cycle in July 1981. At the
cyclical trough (November 1982), they were advancing at
a 1.5-percent rate. Despite the impact of the Federal payment-in-kind ( p i k ) farm program, the 1983 summer drought
and the early winter freeze in 1984, food prices have con­
tinued to register generally moderate increases.
Energy prices began to slow down after March 1981.
Prices for petroleum-based items had risen sharply in the
first quarter of 1981 due to announced price increases by
the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries ( o p e c )
and domestic price decontrol. These increases, combined
4

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

with a slowdown in economic activity, led to a reduction
in the demand for oil and an oversupply of petroleum and
generally lower prices for petroleum products. However,
prices for both natural gas and electricity were advancing
at “ double-digit” rates just prior to the recession. Charges
for electricity began to slow in the second quarter of 1982,
but natural gas prices continued to increase sharply through
the first quarter of 1983. By the trough of the recession,
however, the overall energy component had moderated.3 So
far in 1984, energy prices have continued to exert a mod­
erating effect on the overall c p i .
Shelter costs in the period prior to the recession trough
were dominated by the behavior of house prices and mort­
gage interest rates. The increase in house prices had slowed
early in 1981 and shelter costs were advancing only slightly
at the business cycle peak. Interest rates, however, had
continued to advance until 1982. A very sharp drop in mort-

T ab le 2.

K ey cate g o rie s of th e P roducer P rice Index by selected phases of th e postw ar business c y c le 1
Dates of recession trough
Index and cyclical stage

Oct.
1949

May
1954

Apr.
1958

Feb.
1961

Nov.
1970

Mar.
1975

July
1980

-1.1
-12.8
6.5
6.2
-10.4

-6.6
0.9
-2.8
2.0
5.5

3.3
3.3
-3.3
-3.3
-1.2

-3.3
0.3
0.4
-1.9
-1.5

8.5
-0.6
14.3
13.9
33.6

40.1
-9.1
1.7
8.6
0.0

13.2
9.4
-1.8
-4.1
-1.4

7.7
1.2
2.1
3.1
3.5

6.8
-3.0
2.8
4.3
4.3

10.8
-0.2
-0.5

-1.5
-4.2
-10.3
-7.1
-3.7

7.2
0.9
5.4
7.3
4.0

3.0
-1.3
.0
.0
-.8

.0
.0
-.8
-.4
.4

5.8
3.7
4.5
9.1
19.8

3.0
-2.4
7.0
7.2
4.8

18.3
9.8
-2.5
2.0
-0.6

5.1
0.9
0.5
2.6
3.4

2.9
- .6
1.0
2.7
4.1

4.3
1.2
-1.9

-5.3
-3.6
-4.1
.9
.5

2.9
2.8
2.3
6.2
8.0

3.6
1.3
1.7
3.9
2.1

3.9
-.4
-3.3
-2.1
.0

6.5
5.9
5.2
3.1
15.2

2.1
1.5
7.4
9.0
5.9

16.0
12.1
.0
5.4
.3

4.2
2.8
1.3
3.8
4.6

2.3
1.3
1.5
3.5
5.3

4.1
3.7
.0

Crude materials:
At prerecession business peak .............................
At recession trough..............................................
22 months after trough..........................................
24 months after trough..........................................
30 months after trough..........................................

Intermediate materials:
At prerecession business peak .............................
At recession trough..............................................
22 months after trough..........................................
24 months after trough..........................................
30 months after trough..........................................

Finished goods:
At prerecession business peak .............................
At recession trough..............................................
22 months after trough..........................................
24 months after trough..........................................
30 months after trough..........................................

Cyclical ~ Recession
Cyclical
averages,
trough,
averages,
Nov.
Nov. 1948 Nov. 1948
1982
to July 1980 to Mar. 1975

1Crude materials series shows the 12-month change; intermediate materials and finished goods series are 3-months seasonally adjusted annual rates.

gage interest in the fourth quarter of 1982 produced declin­
ing shelter costs at the end of the recession. As indicated
earlier, a major conceptual change in the treatment of homeowner costs, and consequently, shelter costs, was intro­
duced in January 1983.4 The new rental equivalence measure
of homeowner costs shows less volatility than the former
asset approach. Comparing the present official measure in
September 1984 with the former official measure overstates
the acceleration since the recession trough. A shelter com­
ponent with a rental equivalence measure was not available,
but homeowner costs (the only component within shelter
affected by the conceptual change) in the experimental c p i u, xi were increasing at a 7.6-percent rate in November
1982, compared with 7.3 percent in September 1984.
The residual group— all items excluding food, shelter,

and energy, referred to by some analysts as the underlying
rate of inflation— exhibits more classical price behavior than
the other groups. The maximum rate occurred at the peak
of the business cycle and the rate of increase decelerated
smoothly until turning slightly upward shortly after the trough
of the recession. As of September 1984, however, the rate
was still below that of the trough of the recession.
Producer prices. The Producer Price Index ( p p i ) is struc­
tured by stages of processing: crude materials, intermediate
materials, and finished goods. In July 1981, at the peak of
the business cycle, prices for crude materials were still rising
at double-digit levels, while those for intermediate materials
and finished goods had just decelerated from these levels.
Sixteen months later, at the trough of the cycle, prices for

T ab le 3. The w age and salary com ponent of the E m ploym ent Cost Index and unit labor costs, by selected phases of the
postw ar business cycle
[Quarterly change at an annual rate]

Dates of recession trough
Index and cyclical stage

Oct.
1949

May
1954

Apr.
1958

Feb.
1961

Nov.
1970

Mar.
1975

July
1980

7.8
7.8
7.5

9.7
8.8
7.5
4.6
4.9

10.0
11.1
7.7
7.7
5.0

9.6
14.9
8.1
9.4
1.6

Cyclical
Cyclical
averages,
averages,
Nov. 1948 Nov. 1948
to July 1980 to Mar. 1975

Recession
trough,
Nov.
1982

Employment Cost Index
Wages and salaries:
At prerecession business peak...............................
At recession trough..............................................
22 months after trough.........................................
24 months after trough.........................................
30 months after trough.........................................

8.2
7.3
3.5

Unit labor costs
Private business sector, all persons:
At prerecession business peak...............................
At recession trough..............................................
22 months after trough.........................................
24 months after trough.........................................
30 months after trough.........................................
N ote:

16.2
-3.0
9.9
-3.7
3.8

.0
5.4
5.4
10.0
3.4

3.3
3.2
3.2
.0
.8

.0
3.9
-3.0
.8
-3.7

8.5
2.4
.6
2.8
4.5

6.8
5.4
4.6
3.9
2.2

6.3
3.8
4.0
2.9
2.3

7.1
5.0
-2.0

Data refer to quarter preceding that of the recession period.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

5

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Inflation and the Business Cycle
crude materials were declining while prices for in­
termediate materials and for finished goods were advanc­
ing at less than the prerecession rate. Twenty-two months
into the expansion, crude material and intermediate
m aterial prices are now declining slightly (down 0.5 per­
cent and 1.9 percent, respectively) and finished goods
prices are stable.

Preceding recessions
1948-49 recession. The first post-World War II recession
followed a period of rapid expansion and inflation. In No­
vember 1947, the c p i was increasing at a 12.4-percent an­
nual rate, but 12 months later, in November 1948, the
prerecession peak, the c p i was declining at a 4.3-percent
annual rate. But the abatement of the boom did not bring
with it an accelerating decline in prices. At the trough, prices
were declining, but at a slower rate than 11 months earlier.
The recovery from this mild recession was dominated by
military developments. After the outbreak of the Korean
conflict in June 1950 and a return to a defense economy,
output rose sharply and inflationary pressures were evident.
Consumer price increases lagged behind raw material prices,
but by late 1950 they too were increasing at double-digit
rates. In January 1951, price and wage controls were im­
posed. The c p i included many items for which controls were
lacking, or were only partial, and while prices moderated,
all major components continued to advance. The largest
increases were in the service sector, reflecting increased
charges for rents and medical and transportation services.
1953-54 recession. The contraction after July 1953 was
largely in the nature of an inventory adjustment. Producer
prices peaked with the sharp increase in crude material prices
triggered by the Korean conflict and had either declined or
remained unchanged until 1955. Consumer price advances
had also been moderate, even after price and wage controls
had been lifted. At the prerecession peak in July 1953, the
c p i was advancing at an annual rate of only 1.5 percent.
Ten months later, at the trough of the recession, consumer
prices were declining slightly, largely because of a drop in
food prices. Increases in prices for nonfood commodities,
reflecting the adjustment to decontrol, advanced more than
those for services at both peak and trough periods. Twentytwo months into the recovery, prices were rising slightly.
However, by April 1956, after 23 months of recovery and
almost a year after the first sharp increase in producer prices,
the c p i accelerated. Advances in food prices, resulting from
a decline in meat supplies, and in prices for services were
primarily responsible.
1957^-58 recession. A 4-percent rate of increase in the c p i
was recorded for both the prerecession peak and trough
periods of the third postwar recession. Double-digit in­
creases in food prices, due to supply shortages resulting
from lower marketings of livestock and unfavorable weather
6


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

conditions, were the principal reasons for the relatively large
advances for these periods and the lack of a slowdown in
the overall c p i during the recession. At a point 22 months
past the trough, however, consumer prices were increasing
only slightly, as food prices finally began to slow substan­
tially. Prices in the service sector were increasing at a sig­
nificantly faster rate than those for commodities which were,
on average, unchanged. Despite an advance in food prices,
this was still the situation in April 1960, 24 months after
the trough of the 1957-58 recession as well as the 1960—
61 prerecession peak. Producer prices remained relatively
stable from early 1958 through the business cycle peak of
the following recession. Thirty-four months after the 1957—
58 recession trough, we were at the trough of the 1960-61
recession.
1960-61 recession. At the cyclical peak before the 196061 recession, the all-items c p i was increasing at an annual
rate of 2.3 percent. Food prices were rising at an annual
rate of 6.1 percent. Prices for commodities other than food
were declining, while service prices were rising at a 4percent rate. By the trough of the recession (February 1961),
consumer prices were increasing at an annual rate of less
than 1 percent. All major components of the c p i had slowed
substantially by the end of the recession. The ensuing re­
covery from this recession, the longest to date of the postwar
period, was marked by generally stable prices through 1965,
with only minor aberrations. Sharp increases in beef and
gasoline prices in September 1962 were largely responsible
for the seemingly high rate 22 months after the trough. These
increases were temporary, as both beef and gasoline prices
declined in the succeeding 12 months to a level lower than
that before the advance. Other than food, prices for com­
modities rose less than 1 percent annually from 1960 through
1965, while the service index was registering increases in
the 2-percent range. Prices at the producer level were uni­
formly well-behaved until early 1965.
1969-70 recession. Consumer prices rose 6.1 percent in
1969, the largest annual increase since 1947. The recession
which began late in 1969 caused the rate of inflation to
subside only partially. Nonfood commodities, which in the
past typically responded to a weakening of demand, con­
tinued to advance without abatement. The services index
also rose steadily until credit markets eased and mortgage
interest rates declined in early 1971. Sharply reduced rates
of increase in food prices were responsible for the modest
deceleration between peak and trough. Nine months after
the trough, on August 15, a wage and price freeze was
announced. The Phase I freeze and subsequent Phase II
controls were accompanied by lower inflation during the
rest of 1971 and 1972. Twenty-two months after the reces­
sion trough, prices had slowed to a 4.2-percent annual rate
of increase. Coincident with the subsequent easing of con­
trols and the Arab oil embargo, consumer prices started on

an upward spiral in late 1973, less than 3 years from the
bottom of the recession.
1973-75 recession. The business cycle peak of November
1973 followed on the heels of the relaxation of price controls
and the oil embargo. Consumer prices had advanced sharply
and were accelerating. From December 1973 through Jan­
uary 1975, double-digit increases were recorded by the c p i .
By the recession’s end in March 1975, the overall c p i was
rising at an annual rate of 6.6 percent. Although high by
historical standards, this was still below the prerecession
peak of 8.2 percent, not to mention the intervening double­
digit rates. During the recession, food, shelter, and energy
price increases all slowed. Prices for all other items, on
average, however, actually accelerated, reflecting in part
the time lag associated with producers passing on their higher
energy costs. Twenty-two months into the economic recov­
ery, prices were, on average, still moderating, but a few
months later a rapid rise in food prices and higher shelter
costs temporarily reversed the gains. The jump in food prices
reflected adverse winter weather and its effect on fruit and
vegetable supplies, as well as the delayed impact of the July
1975 freeze on the Brazilian coffee crop.
1980 recession. The 1980 recession coincided with un­
precedented peacetime inflation. At the prerecession peak
(January 1980), consumer prices were surging at a 15.8percent annual rate. While sharp increases were recorded
for energy, shelter, and food costs, the “ underlying rate of
inflation” was also advancing at double-digit rates. Six months
later, at the bottom of the recession, prices were increasing
at an 8.3-percent rate. This slowdown was only temporary,
as consumer prices continued to move up sharply until Oc­
tober 1981, shortly after the start of the next recession.

The current outlook
The first six expansionary periods since World War II
have, on average, shown a slowing of consumer price in­
creases during the first 22 months of recovery. By the 24th
month of recovery, prices have on average begun to rise

faster, returning to the rate of price change of the previous
cyclical peak. While the average experience is for price
acceleration to set in after 2 years of recovery, there is no
inevitability about the process. Note, for example, the ex­
pansions beginning in 1958 and 1961.
One reason for this dispersion in the historical record, of
course, is that the behavior of prices is not autonomous.
Business conditions play a major role in determining the
path prices take. Those factors which affect the costs of
production— such as material and labor costs— and demand
also shape the future pattern of price change. While crude
materials prices are currently down (0.5 percent) and prices
for intermediate materials are also down (1.9 percent), prices
for finished goods are unchanged.
Current measures of labor costs indicate a lack of im­
mediate pressure on prices. The wage and salary compo­
nent of the Employment Cost Index, peaking in 1980, dece­
lerated steadily through the second quarter of 1984. Al­
though the history of this series is short, its 3.5-percent rate
of increase is well below the experience of the last two
recoveries. Another variable, unit labor cost, which relates
changes in labor costs to changes in output, declined in the
second quarter of 1984. This variable had registered in­
creases of 7 and 5 percent at the 1981-82 recession peak
and trough periods. The deceleration between the recession
trough and 22 months into the recovery is typical, but the
magnitude— an actual decline in unit labor costs— occurred
only in the recovery from the 1960-61 recession. Recent
major collective bargaining agreements and the pressure of
foreign competition, derived in part from the rising value
of the dollar on foreign exchange markets, would appear to
preclude a sharp reversal in these trends.
However, in several recessions the runup in prices has
not been a continuous process, but rather a sharp jump in
response to rapid contextual changes. In two instances, mil­
itary conflicts coincided with the acceleration and in two
others, the vulnerability to a reduction in the supply of
petroleum triggered an inflationary spiral. Such events are,
of course, difficult to foresee.
□

■FOOTNOTES
'A s designated by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.,
the turning points for the eight postwar recessions are:

Recession
1948-49
1953-54
1957-58
1960-61

Peak (beginning
o f recession)
November 1948
July 1953
August 1957
April 1960

Trough (end of
recession)
October 1949
May 1954
April 1958
February 1961

1969-70
1973-75
1980
1981-82

December 1969
November 1973
January 1980
July 1981

November 1970
March 1975
July 1980
November 1982

2Unless otherwise specified, all annual rates are based on 3-month price


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

changes. The p p i for crude materials is highly volatile so annual rates for
it are based on full 12-month changes. The unit labor cost and Employment
Cost Index series are quarterly rates. Comparisons of turning points be­
tween series with different spans for calculating rates must be adjusted for
the midpoints of the different spans. The analysis in this article, however,
focuses on the comparison of each series to itself in different time periods
and so, generally, avoids this problem.
3The 3-month seasonally adjusted annual rate for November 1982— up
11.2 percent— is misleading. The change for the 12 months ended in
November was 2.1 percent and for the 12 months ended in November
1983, - 0 . 6 percent.
4 “ Changing the Homeownership Component of the Consumer Price
Index to Rental Equivalence,” The CPI Detailed Report, January 1983,
pp. 7 -1 1 .

7

The female-male unemployment differential:
effects of changes in industry employment
In 1982, the civilian jobless rate o f men
exceeded that o f women fo r the first time
since 1947, and industry employment trends
suggest that the fem ale unemployment rate
may be lower in the future
L a r r y D e B oer

and

M

ic h a e l

Se e b o r g

Over time, a significant change in the relationship between
male and female unemployment rates has occurred. Between
1970 and 1981, the female unemployment rate averaged 1.5
percentage points higher than the male rate. However, in
1982, the male unemployment rate (9.9 percent) exceeded
the female rate (9.4 percent) for the first time since such
data were recorded beginning in 1947. This reversal in un­
employment rates is the apparent culmination of a narrowing
of the differential that began in 1978.1 (See chart 1.)
Although male unemployment rates generally increase
more than female rates during recessions (see the shaded
areas in chart 1), the relative worsening experienced by men
during the 1981-82 recession was greater than in previous
downturns.2 (And, as noted, the female-male unemploy­
ment rate differential began to narrow prior to the recession,
which is inconsistent with historical patterns.) Are we wit­
nessing a long-term improvement in the unemployment sit­
uation of women relative to men? To what extent are the
observed changes due to trends in interindustry growth rates
in employment which may favor one sex over the other?
This article addresses these questions using a modified ver­
sion of shift-share analysis (see appendix A) to estimate the
effect that change in employment patterns among industries

has had on the female-male unemployment rate differential
since 1964, and to project likely future effects through 1995?
Shift-share analysis is commonly used to disagregate re­
gional employment change in an industry in order to identify
the components of that change. The application of shiftshare analysis in this article, however, is to disaggregate
annual changes in the male-female unemployment differ­
ential into three components.
Many researchers have observed the procyclical nature
of the female-male unemployment rate differential. Because
men tend to be concentrated in those industries which are
most sensitive to the business cycle (particularly manufac­
turing, construction, and mining), it is not surprising that
male unemployment rates rise relative to female rates during
recessions and fall during recoveries.4 But industries also
change their employment requirements in response to forces
other than the business cycle. For example, in recent years,
automobile and steel manufacturing employment has ex­
perienced a secular decline because of increased foreign
competition and laborsaving technological changes. Such
longer term trends have an impact on unemployment dif­
ferentials between men and women.
The effect that the growth (or decline) of a given industry
has on the female-male unemployment rate differential de­
pends on several factors, including:

Larry DeBoer is currently an assistant professor of agriculture economics
at Purdue University. When this article was being researched, he was an
assistant professor in the Department of Economics at Ball State University,
where Michael Seeborg is an associate professor.

• The rate of growth (or decline) of the industry;
• the percentage of total employment in the industry which
is female (or male);

8

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Chart 1. Unemployment rates for men and women, 1964-82
Percent

Percent

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3

2
1

• the interindustry mobility of men and women in response
to changes in employment opportunities in the industry;
and
• the labor force mobility of men and women in response
to changes in employment opportunities in the industry.
Information on the first two factors is presented in table 1.
It shows the average annual rate of growth of employment
in nine broadly defined industries during 1964-82. Clearly,
employment grew most rapidly in those industries which
employ the highest proportions of women, particularly ser­
vices, and finance, insurance, and real estate. This trend in
industry growth rates has contributed to the narrowing of
the female-male unemployment rate differential. However,
it is important to note that the mobility of men and women
between industries and into and out of the labor force must
be “ less than perfect” for changes in the industrial com­
position of employment to have an effect on the unemploy­
ment differential. Otherwise, an increase in unemployment


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

in an industry would quickly be offset by the movement of
unemployed workers to other industries (interindustry mo­
bility) or by an exit of unemployed workers from the labor
force (labor force mobility). Industry growth differentials
would then have no direct effect on male and female un­
employment rates. With perfect mobility, men who lose
their manufacturing jobs would quickly join the growing
service industries or drop out of the labor force. Research
has shown, however, that unemployed men and women do
not exhibit perfect interindustry and labor force mobility.5
In sum, it appears that the four factors previously cited
would tend to decrease the female-male unemployment rate
differential. First, female-dominated service-producing em­
ployment is growing faster than male-dominated goodsproducing employment. Second, because interindustry and
labor force mobility is less than perfect, variations in em­
ployment demand will influence unemployment rates. The
trend towards slower goods-producing growth rates relative
to services implies, then, that the recent reversal in the
9

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Female-Male Unemployment Differential
T ab le 1. E m ploym ent and average annual grow th rates of
em p lo ym en t, by selected industries

Industry

1982
Total
employment
(in thousands)

Average annual growth rate
Percent 1964-82 1964-73 1973-82
female

Total.................

89,596

42.1

2.42

3.11

1.73

Mining.....................
Construction............
Manufacturing..........
Transportation and
public utilities........
Wholesale and retail
trade.....................
Finance, Insurance,
and real estate . . . .
Services...................
Government..............

1,143
3,911
18,853

12.0
8.9
31.8

3.32
1.30
.49

.14
3.16
1.73

6.62
-.51
-.74

5,081

24.8

1.41

1.84

.97

20,401

44.3

2.92

3.52

2.31

5,340
19,064
15,803

57.1
62.9
43.7

3.43
4.48
2.81

3.73
4.49
4.06

3.13
4.47
1.57

female-male unemployment rate differential could be the
result of secular growth differentials among industries as
well as the severe recession.
The following section presents a shift-share technique
which is used to measure the effects of relative changes in
industry employment on the female-male unemployment
rate differential from 1964 to 1982. In a subsequent section,
this technique is applied to b l s employment projections to
predict how expected future trends in industry employment
growth would affect female-male unemployment rate dif­
ferentials. The appendices develop the methodology in greater
detail.

Components of change in differentials
Shift-share analysis has frequently been used to analyze
the sources of regional employment growth, but seldom to
disaggregate the components of change in unemployment
differentials.6 (See table 2.) The purpose of the shift:share
analysis is to dissect the year-to-year change in the femalemale differential into three components: national share ef­
fect, industry mix effect, and employment shift effect. The
sum of these effects equals the total change in the unem­
ployment differential. The analysis starts with very restric­
tive assumptions regarding labor force and interindustry
employment trends and proceeds to relax these assumptions
one at a time.
National share effect. This effect is computed by assuming
that male and female employment in each industry changes
at the same rate as total national employment. The male
and female labor forces are each assumed to grow at the
same rate as the total labor force. The national share effect
shows how the female-male unemployment rate differential
would have changed from year to year if: (1) the proportion
o f men and wom en in each industry rem ained un­
changed, (2) the proportion of men and women in the labor
force remained unchanged, (3) the share of each industry’s
employment in total employment was constant, and (4) total
employment and the labor force grew at their actual rates.
10


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Under these assumptions, male and female employment
and labor forces change at the same rate. Because the un­
employment rate is defined as:
^

number employed
number in labor force

this results in proportionate changes in male and female
unemployment rates. The national share effect on the
female-male differential is thus procyclical but trivial in
magnitude.
Industry mix effect. To calculate the industry mix effect,
the assumption that each industry grows at the national rate
is dropped. Employment in each industry is postulated to
grow at its actual rate, but it is assumed that the proportion
of men and women employed in each industry remains the
same as in the previous period. If employment in femaledominated industries is growing faster than employment in
male-dominated industries, as appears indicated in table 1,
the industry mix effect will reduce the unemployment rate
of women relative to that of men.
When employment increases in an industry, the additional
workers will be drawn into employment from the ranks of
the unemployed and from outside the labor force. Therefore,
an assumption is needed about how this effect changes the
labor force. It is assumed that men and women who “ enter”
employment as a result of the industry mix effect come from
the unemployment pool and from outside the labor force in
the same proportions as they actually did during the previous
year. Similarly, when the industry mix effect causes a de­
crease in employment, it is assumed that men and women
who exit employment leave the labor force or become un­
employed in the same proportions as they actually did during
the previous year. (This procedure is discussed in detail in

Tab le 2. S hift-share analysis of fem ale-m ale unem ploy­
m ent d ifferentials, 1 9 6 4 -8 2
Shift-share effects
Change
in
Male FemaleIndustry Employ­
National
male differential
ment
rate differential
share
mix
shift
effect
effect
effect

Year

Female
rate

1964........
1965........
1966........
1967........
1968........
1969........

6.22
5.54
4.85
5.17
4.78
4.68

4.62
3.97
3.20
3.08
2.87
2.79

1.60
1.57
1.64
2.09
1.92
1.89

-.03
.07
.45
-.17
-.03

.017
.012
-.009
.006
-.004

.046
.106
-.153
-.061
-.001

-.086
-.043
.603
-.123
-.022

1970........
1971........
1972........
1973........
1974........
1975........
1976........
1977........
1978........
1979........

5.88
6.91
6.64
6.00
6.74
9.30
8.64
8.18
7.18
6.82

4.37
5.34
4.96
4.17
4.87
7.89
7.06
6.28
5.27
5.14

1.51
1.56
1.67
1.84
1.88
1.41
1.58
1.90
1.91
1.68

-.38
.05
.11
.17
.04
-.47
.17
.32
.01
-.23

-.033
-.011
.001
.015
-.017
-.061
.012
.007
.018
.006

-.296
-.256
-.039
.075
-.242
-.849
-.092
.023
.035
.030

-.049
.322
.142
.074
.300
.444
.246
.297
-.042
-.265

1980........
1981........
1982........

7.41
7.92
9.42

6.94
7.39
9.89

0.47
0.53
-0.47

-1.21
.06
-1.00

-.027
-.008
-.014

-.412
-.259
-.558

-.780
.332
-.521

appendix A.) It is also assumed, in the computation of the
interindustry effect, that there is no net interindustry mo­
bility of labor.
The industry mix effect shows how differing industry
growth rates affect the female-male unemployment rate dif­
ferential when there are different percentages of men and
women in each industry. (See table 2.) When the effect is
negative, female-dominated industries are growing faster
(or declining less) than male-dominated industries, reducing
the female-male unemployment rate differential. When the
effect is positive, male-dominated industries are growing
faster (or declining less) than female-dominated industries,
thereby increasing the differential.
The industry mix effect appears to have both a cyclical
component and a secular trend.7 The cyclical component is
suggested by the industry mix effect always being negative
during recessions (for example, 1970-71, 1974-75, and
1981-82) and positive only during expansions. This is be­
cause employment is more cyclically variable in male-dom­
inated industries than in those which are female-dominated.
For example, the three industries that are most sensitive to
the business cycle (mining, construction, and manufactur­
ing) are very much male-dominated. (See table 1.)
The industry mix effect shows smaller positive changes
in each successive expansion and generally larger negative
changes in each successive recession, which suggests that
there may be a long-term trend which lowers female un­
employment rates relative to male rates. (See table 2.) To
determine whether there is a significant trend in the industry
mix effect which is independent of the business cycle, a
regression equation was estimated for the 1964-82 period
which predicts the impact of the business cycle (as measured
by the help-wanted advertising index) and trend variables
on changes in the industry mix effect over time.8 The regres­
sion results presented in appendix B, show that the trend
and the business cycle were both highly significant predic­
tors of change. After controlling for cyclical effects, the
female-male differential declined on average by about 0.2
percentage points per year. These results indicate that the
differential employment growth rates of industries have tended
to favor female-dominated industries and that this has caused
a narrowing in the female-male unemployment rate differ­
ential, even after accounting for the short-term effects of
the business cycle.
Employment shift effect. This effect is the change in the
male-female unemployment differential that remains after
accounting for the national share and industry mix effects.
Two factors determine the sign and the magnitude of this
effect. The first is the difference in the rates of growth in
the male and female labor force. The fact that the female
labor force has been expanding more rapidly than the male
labor force tends to cause unemployment rates of women
to be greater than those of men. The second factor which
determines the employment shift effect is the change in the


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

male-female employment composition within industries. If
an industry increases the proportion of women it employs,
the unemployment rate of women will decrease relative to
that of men. The following tabulation presents the propor­
tion of women employed in each industry during 1964 and
1982 and the average annual percentage change in that pro­
portion. These data show significant differences among in­
dustries in the rates at which the proportions of female
employment have increased.

In du stry

Total..................................
M ining......................................
Construction............................
Manufacturing........................
Transportation and public
utilities..................................
Wholesale and retail trade---Finance, insurance, and real
estate....................................
Services....................................
Government..............................

P e r c e n t fem a le
1982
1964

A v e ra g e
an n u al
p ercen t
ch a n g e

33.7
9.3
4.9
26.3

42.1
12.0
8.9
31.8

1.24
1.43
3.37
1.06

18.3
38.0

24.8
44.3

1.70
.86

50.3
51.0
38.7

57.1
62.9
43.7

.71
1.17
.68

The employment shift effect can be thought of as representing the ability of industries to respond to changes in
labor force participation rates of men and women by altering
the distribution of their employment between sexes. Perfect
accommodation to changes in labor force participation would
result in an employment shift effect which equals zero. How­
ever, if the share of female employment within industries
does not ri,;e by enough to accommodate the increase in
female labo; force participation, the employment shift effect
would be positive. This would tend to increase female un­
employment rates relative to the male rate. And finally,
where the share of female employment in the industry ad­
vances by more than enough to accommodate the increase
in female labor force participation, the employment shift
effect would be negative. This would tend to decrease the
female unemployment rate relative to the male rate.
We note that the employment shift does not exhibit the
same kind of cyclical behavior as the industry mix effect.
For example, during the 1970-71 and 1974-75 reces­
sions, the employment shift effect favored men, but
during the 1980 and 1981-82 recessionary period it favored
women. (See table 2.) This is a potentially important de­
velopment because it may represent a change in the ability
and willingness of individual industries to absorb women
into employment. Regression results show, however, that
on average, during the 1964-82 period, the employment
shift effect shows no significant trend or cyclical response.
(See appendix B.)
In recent years (1979-82), all three effects—the na­
tional share effect, industry mix effect, and employment
shift effect—contributed to reducing the female-male
unemployment rate differential. The industry mix effect
11

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Female-Male Unemployment Differential
T ab le 3. Projected average annual rates o f change in
em p lo ym en t by selected industry, 1 9 8 2 -9 0 and 1 9 8 2 -9 5
Industry

1982
Percent
female

1982-90

1982-95

Low Moderate High

Low Moderate High

Total.................

42.1

1.7

1.8

1.9

1.6

1.7

1.9

Farm.......................
Mining.....................
Construction............
Manufacturing..........
Transportation and
public utilities........
Wholesale and retail
trade...................
Finance, insurance,
and real estate . . . .
Services...................
Government............

19.5
12.0
8.9
31.8

-.8
.6
3.1
1.5

-.7
.7
'3.0
1.8

-.6
.3
3.2
2.1

-.9
1.0
2.7
1.4

-.9
1.2
2.9
1.5

-.6
1.0
2.9
1.8

24.8

1.3

1.4

1.6

1.2

1.4

1.5

44.3

1.7

2.0

2.1

1.6

1.8

1.9

57.1
62.9
43.7

2.2
2.5
.8

2.4
2.6
.7

1.5
2.8
1.0

2.0
2.4
.6

2.1
2.5
.7

2.2
2.8
.9

indicates that, as in previous recessions, the 1980 and
1981-82 downturns affected male-dominated industries more
severely than female-dominated ones. But there is also a
trend in the industry mix effect independent of the business
cycle. This means that long-term industry-specific employ­
ment trends have favored women’s employment because of
their greater concentration in those industries with the high­
est long-term growth rates. Finally, an examination of the
employment shift effect shows that since 1979 many in­
dustries more readily employed women entering the work
force, but that there has been no such long-term trend.

Employment projections
Will employment trends continue to improve the unem­
ployment situation of women relative to men? The preceding
analysis suggests that this will depend to a large extent on
the future growth rates of female- versus male-dominated
industries. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projections of
employment by industry make it possible to analyze the
probable impact of the industry mix effect on the future of
the female-male unemployment differential.9 Table 3 pre­
sents the average annual rates of change in projected em­
ployment between 1982 and 1990 and between 1990 and
1995. The b l s made three sets of projections for each time
frame: the first assumes low rates of economic growth; the
second, moderate growth rates; and the third, high growth
rates. Valerie A. Personick describes the moderate growth
scenario as follows;
This case is marked by a period of recovery from the 1982
recession, followed by stable economic growth through the mid1990’s. The civilian unemployment rate, which was 9.7 percent
in 1982, is projected to fall to 6.3 percent by 1995. Total em­
ployment is expected to rise from 102.3 million in 1982 to 127.6
million by 1995, a gain of more than 25 million new jobs.
Growth is projected to be faster in the earlier years, as industries
rebound from the recent economic downturn. Employment, which
expanded by 3.6 percent a year between 1975 and 1979, showed
very few gains during the business slump of 1980 or the brief
recovery period thereafter. The more severe recession of 198182 brought an additional 1.3-percent decline in total jobs. Em­
ployment is projected to rebound, averaging growth of 1.8 per­
cent a year from 1982 to 1990, then slow to 1.5 percent annually
through 1995.10
12

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Table 3 shows significant differences in projected employ­
ment growth rates among industries under each of the three
growth scenarios. It also indicates that, except for the con­
struction industry, women are currently overrepresented in
the high-growth-rate industries (for example, services and
finance, insurance, and real estate).Women represent only
25.5 percent of total employment in the five industries which
are projected in the moderate scenario to grow by 13.2
percent between 1982 and 1990. However, women consti­
tute 51.6 percent of employment in the four service-oriented
industries projected to increase by 18.9 percent. It appears
that future trends in employment will continue to favor a
reduction of the unemployment rates of women relative to
men’s.
What are the implications of these trends for the femalemale unemployment rate differential? The following tabu­
lation presents the results of a partial shift-share analysis of
changes in female-male unemployment rate differentials which
would occur between 1982 and 1990 and between 1982 and
1995 under each of the three economic growth scenarios:
G ro w th
sc e n a rio

N a tio n a l
g ro w th effect

In du stry
m ix effect

1982-90...........

Low
Moderate
High

-0 .0 1 7
-0 .0 1 8
-0 .0 2 2

-2 .0 7 7
-2 .1 0 3
- 1.986

1982-95...........

Low
Moderate
High

-0 .0 1 5
-0 .1 0 9
-0 .0 2 3

-2 .4 1 9
-2 .3 6 9
-2 .4 5 6

P e r io d

Because b l s does not project male and female employment
by industry, it is possible to calculate only the industry mix
effect. Its computation assumes that employment in each
industry grows at its projected rate and that the proportions
of men and women in each industry remain at the 1982
levels.11 Also, male and female labor force entry and exit
patterns are assumed identical to those of 1982. Under these
assumptions, the female unemployment rate would decrease
by about 2 percentage points relative to the male rate be­
tween 1982 and 1990 and would decrease by approximately
2.4 percentage points between 1982 and 1995. The industry
mix effect would continue its 1964-82 trend, exerting down­
ward pressure on the female-male unemployment rate dif­
ferential by about 0.2 percentage points per year.
It should be noted that the impact of the changing industry
mix on the differential is likely to be modified by several
factors which are not measured in the partial shift-share
analysis. First, the b l s projections of employment growth
between 1982 and 1995 do not allow for cyclical variation,
apart from the current recovery. The results for 1964-82
imply that the industry mix effect is strongly affected by the
business cycle, and thus the results reported in the tabulation
represent only the trend component of this effect. There will
undoubtedly be substantial year-to-year cyclical variation in
the female-male unemployment differential during 1982—
95. Second, male interindustry mobility may increase over
past rates as the relative secular decline in goods-producing

industries continues. Men may increase their employment
share in the rapidly growing industries, decreasing their
projected unemployment rate. Third, female labor force par­
ticipation rates will continue to rise during the next decade,
and women’s attachment to the labor force has also been
increasing.12 These factors would tend to boost female un­
employment rates over their industry mix levels. Both of
these trends— the possible rise in the male share of rapidly
growing industries, and the continuing increase in the female
participation rate— would be reflected in a positive em­
ployment shift effect over the 1982-95 period.
Still, the projected relative secular decline in goods pro-

ducing industries will tend to increase the male unemploy­
ment rate relative to the female rate at least in the near term.
There is no recent evidence that the employment shift effect
will offset this negative industry mix effect. On the contrary,
in 4 of the 5 years since 1978, the employment shift has
been negative. The most plausible scenario for the femalemale unemployment rate differential is for the male rate to
drop below the female rate during the current cyclical re­
covery, and for the female rate to again be lower than the
male rate in the next recession. Beyond that, it seems likely
that the female rate will remain below the male rate well
into the 1990’s.
□

FOOTNOTES
1The female unemployment rate continued to be less than the male rate
in 1983. The rate for men was 9.9 percent; for women, 9.2 percent.
2 See, for example, Nancy S. Barrett and Richard D. Morgenstem, “ Why
Do Blacks and Women Have High Unemployment Rates?” Journal of
Human Resources, Fall 1974, pp. 452-64; Janet L. Johnson, “ Sex Dif­
ferentials in Unemployment Rates; A Case for No Concern,” Journal of
Political Economy, pp. 293-303; Deborah P. Klein, “ Trends in employ­
ment and unemployment in fam ilies,” Monthly Labor Review, December
1983, pp. 2 1 -2 5 ; Joyanna Moy, “ Recent labor market developments in
the U .S. and nine other countries,” Monthly Labor Review, January 1984,
pp. 4 4 -5 1 ; “ The Female-Male Differential in Unemployment Rates,” In­
dustrial and Labor Relations Review, April 1974, pp. 331-50; Beth Niemi,
“ Geographic Immobility and Labor Force Mobility: A Study of Female
Unemployment,” in Cynthia B. Lloyd, ed., Sex, Discrimination and the
Division o f Labor (New York, Columbia University Press, 1975), pp. 6 1 89; Beth Niemi, “ Recent Changes in Differential Unemployment,” Growth
and Change, July 1977, pp. 22-30; and Sigurd R. Nilsen, “ Recessionary
impacts on the unemployment of men and wom en,” Monthly Labor Re­
view, May 1984, pp. 2 1 -2 5 .
3The year 1964 was chosen as the starting point because it was the first
year that male and female unemployment rates were reported for several
o f the industries included in the analysis.
4 Nilsen found that the increase in the male unemployment rate relative
to the female rate was especially pronounced during the 1980-82 downturn
largely because male-dominated industries were particularly hard hit. See
Sigurd R. Nilsen, “ Recessionary impacts.”
5See, for example, Niemi, “ Geographic Immobility,” pp. 7 2 -7 9 .
6 A technique similar to shift-share analysis was recently employed in
this journal by Sigurd R. Nilsen (see footnote 2) to explain changes in
male and female unemployment differentials between 1975 and 1982. One
difference between his methods and those applied in this article is that we
focus on trends in the distribution of employment between industries to
explain trends in male and female unemployment rates, while Nilsen fo­
cuses on the effects that changes in the labor force and in industry-specific
unemployment rates have on male and female unemployment rates.
For a detailed description of shift-share analysis and a discussion of its
strengths and weaknesses, see Benjamin H. Stevens and Craig L. Moore,

APPENDIX A:


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

— u',n

7The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ establishment survey data is used to
measure employment by industry. Total employment and labor force data
come from the Current Population Survey (households), so there is a
problem of data compatibility. The household employment total is larger
than the establishment total, as the former includes self-employed persons
and agricultural workers, among others. These additional employees were
treated as an “ industry” in the shift-share analysis. For a detailed dis­
cussion of the household-establishment employment difference, see Alex­
ander Korns, “ Cyclical Fluctuations in the Difference Between the Payroll
and Household Measures of Employment,” Survey o f Current Business,
May 1979, pp. 14-44.
8The regression equation estimated is: A Effect = a + b , (A Help —Wanted)
+ b2 (Trend), where “ A Effect” is the change in the industry mix effect
from one year to the next; “ Help —Wanted” is the change in the helpwanted advertising index; and “ Trend” is the linear trend.
9 For a discussion o f the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ industry employment
projections for 1990 and 1995, see Valerie A. Personick, “ The job outlook
through 1995: industry output and employment projections,” Monthly La­
bor Review, November 1983, pp. 2 4 -3 5 . For a methodological discussion
of the projections, see Howard N Fullerton, Jr. and John Tschetter, “ The
1995 labor force: a second look,” Monthly Labor Review, November 1983,
pp. 3 -1 0 . Male and female employment for 1982 was determined from
the household and establishment surveys.
10 “ The job outlook,” p. 25.
11 Male and female employment was calculated using the Bureau of Labor
Statistics’ Current Establishment Survey and Current Population Survey
data by sex for wage and salary and nonwage and salary employees. The
female-male proportions from the Current Population Survey were used
for private household employment.
12For example, Ronald G. Ehrenberg has shown that increasing adult
female unemployment rates over the 1967-77 period were due, in part,
to the decreasing likelihood o f leaving unemployment by exiting the labor
force. See Ronald G. Ehrenberg, “ The Demographic Structure of Un­
employment Rates and Labor Market Transition Probabilities,” in Ronald
G. Ehrenberg, ed., Research in Labor Economics: Volume 3 (Greenwich,
Conn., jai Press, Inc., 1980), p. 258.

Shift-share equations

This appendix develops the equations used to compute
the national share, industry mix, and employment shift ef­
fects.
The total female-male unemployment rate differential in
time t is;
dt =

“ A Critical Review o f the Literature on Shift-Share as a Forecasting Tech­
nique,” Journal o f Regional Science, November 1980, pp. 4 1 9 -3 7 .

where

= the female (/) unemployment rate at time v,
and
u f — the male (m) unemployment rate at time t.

The purpose of the shift-share analysis is to explain the
change in this differential from one period to the next (that
is, dt — dt_ ,). The shift-share analysis decomposes this
13

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Female-Male Unemployment Differential
change into three parts: the national share effect, the industry
mix effect, and the employment shift effect.
National share effect. This effect assumes that employ­
ment for men and women in each industry changes at the
national rate for total employment. Similarly, the male and
female labor force is assumed to change at the national rate
for the total labor force. Let:

where ustN

the national share (N) unemployment rate
for females (s =f) or males (j = m) for time
f,
employment for females (s= f) or males
EU,
(s = m) for time t —1;
female (s= f) or male (s = m) labor force
E si- i
for time t —1.
The terms in parentheses represent the rate of change in
total employment and the labor force from the preceding
year. The national share female-male unemployment rate
differential is:
d tN ~

U?tN

national share effect = d,N — d, _ y.
Industry mix effect. This is the effect on the female-male
unemployment rate differential of allowing employment in
each industry to grow at its actual rate while assuming that
the proportions of men and women in each industry remain
constant. This can be stated in equation form as:
Est, = ' ¿ E l ,
j= J

E js t - i

industry mix employment for females (s =f)
or males (s —m) at time r; and
female or male employment in industry j
( / = ! to n) at time t —1.

When the industry mix assumption is introduced, the meas­
ure of employment by sex changes by:

APPENDIX B:

Table A - l presents the results of a regression analysis
in which each of the three shift-share effects is regressed


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

where LstN

= the national share labor force by sex, which
is the denominator of equation 1; and
77 = the appropriate labor force proportion.

When AES, is negative, the labor force proportion tt is the
probability of moving from unemployment to out of the
labor force.
The industry mix unemployment rate is:

where ust, is the industrial mix unemployment rate for women
or men in time t. The industry mix differential is:
d„ = uft, - u'P,
and the industry mix effect is dtl - dtN.
The industry mix effect is thus the change in the femalemale unemployment rate differential caused by the intro­
duction of the actual industry growth rate assumption.
Employment shift effect. The employment shift effect is
that part of the year-to-year change in the female-male un­
employment rate differential which is not explained by either
the national share or industry mix effects. The actual dif­
ferential in year t is:
d, = u{ — u'p
so the employment shift effect is d, - d„.
Note that the sum of the three effects equals the total
annual change in the actual female-male unemployment rate
differential, that is:
dt

AE'i = Est, - E\IN

14

E su = L sin + n A E *

u 'tN

The national share effect is the change in the female-male
unemployment rate differential from the previous year that
results from national labor force and employment changes:

where Es„

where EstN is the national share employment by sex, which
is the numerator of equation 1.
The next step in developing the industry mix effect is to
establish an assumption governing how this employment
change will affect the labor force. When AEst is positive, it
is assumed that some of these “ new” employees come from
outside of the labor force and that the remainder come from
the pool of the unemployed. The proportion of new em­
ployees that come from outside the labor force is assumed
to be the proportion of the actual gross employment increase
for each year, by sex, which came from outside the labor
force. These proportions are calculated from the Annual
Employment Status Gross Change tables available from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. The industrial mix labor force
is:

d ,^j

(dt

dt/) + (dti

dtft) -I- (dt^

dt

Regression results

on a linear trend variable and a variable representing cyclical
change. The variable chosen to represent cyclical change is

Tab le A - 1 . Tim e series regressions for the three shiftshare effects1
Variable
Intercept..............
Help-wanted........
Trend...................
R2.......................
F test2 ................
DW.....................

National
share effect

Industry
mix effect

Employment
shift effect

-0.0055
(-2.14)
0.0839
(6.45)
0.0002
(0.36)
.713
22.15
1.89

-0.1718
(-6.09)
0.9947
(7.00)
-0.0061
(-1.08)
.774
30.02
2.01

0.0498
(0.62)
0.1055
(0.26)
-0.0160
(-0.99)
042
0.66
2.00

1The t ratios are in parentheses. Critical t value with 15 degrees of freedom at the
95-percent confidence level = 2.13.
Critical F with 15 degrees of freedom at the 95-percent confidence level = 3.68.

the index of the help-wanted advertising in newspapers in
first difference form. Because the dependent variables are
also first differences, the intercept may be interpreted as the
coefficient on a linear trend and the coefficient of the trend
variable can be interpreted in the same way as the coefficient
of a trend-squared variable in a regular time series regres­
sion. If there is a long-term trend in the female-male un­
employment rate differential caused by any of the three shiftshare effects, its intercept coefficient will be statistically
significant. Therefore, in table A -1 , the intercept represents


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

the average annual change in the shift-share effect, while
the trend coefficient measures the presence of acceleration
or deceleration in this annual change.
The national share effect shows both a significant negative
annual change (that is, intercept) and a significant positive
response to the business cycle, but the magnitude of this
effect is trivial. The industry mix effect is of greater interest.
The intercept indicates a significant negative trend in the
female-male unemployment rate differential. Apart from any
cyclical effect, this differential narrows by about 0.2 per­
centage points per year. Because this trend appears in the
industry mix regression and because there are no quanti­
tatively important trends in either of the other effects, the
cause of the narrowing unemployment differential is the
relatively rapid growth of employment in female-dominated
industries. This is the most important result of our study.
As expected, the industry mix differential varies procyclically. This is indicated by the positive and significant coef­
ficient on the help-wanted variable. In all of the regressions,
the trend coefficient indicates no significant acceleration or
deceleration in the year-to-year change of the differential.
Finally, the employment shift regression shows that there
is no significant trend or cyclical response in the employment
shift effect.

15

A century of wage statistics:
the BLS contribution
Knowledge o f the structure o f and trends in wages
is vital to appraisal o f the economic status
o f the working population; over its first century
o f life, the Bureau has developed a consistent
body o f information on wages, and progressively
more sophisticated techniques to analyze it
H.

M . D outy

Wage and salary rates of pay remain at the heart of the labor
bargain, although a new dimension has been created in
recent decades by the rise of various forms of supplements
to employee compensation. Information on the general
movement of wage rates, and on the structure of rates by
such characteristics as occupation, industry, region, union
status, and sex, provides crucial insight on the status and
well-being of the working population. In a complex indus­
trial society, the development with limited resources of use­
ful statistics in these areas, and more recently in the area
of supplementary compensation, has been a formidable un­
dertaking.
This article traces the work of the Bureau of Labor Sta­
tistics over the past century in the field of wage statistics,
including the attention that has been given since World War
II to the growth of wage supplements. An effort has been
made to place this work in broad historical perspective. This
account does not cover related Bureau programs, including
the extensive work on consumer prices1 and the important
series of average hourly and weekly earnings by industry
developed from employment statistics.2

H. M. Douty is a former Assistant Commissioner for Wages and Industrial
Relations, Bureau o f Labor Statistics.

16

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

19th century beginnings
The years 1875 to 1900 were in many ways a period of
extraordinary economic growth and change in the United
States. It was marked by the closing of the geographic
frontier. An impressive expansion of the transportation net­
work3 facilitated the settlement of the West, and contributed
to a large increase in farm output. At the same time, man­
ufacturing expanded at a rapid pace, accompanied in many
industries by larger scale operations, consolidations of firms,
and the growth of monopoly practices.
The last quarter of the century also saw substantial changes
in the size and industrial composition of the labor force.
Between 1880 and 1900, the number of “ gainful workers”
increased by almost 12 million. In 1880, the gainfully em­
ployed work force was about equally divided between ag­
ricultural and nonagricultural employments, but by 1900 the
agricultural share, while still rising in absolute terms, had
declined to approximately 37 percent of the total. The pro­
portion of employment in manufacturing, transportation,
and construction had increased significantly over the same
period.4
These changes were accompanied by economic fluctua­
tions of considerable magnitude, including an unusually
severe depression beginning in 1893. As a result, there arose
new currents of thought with respect to wage determination,

trade unionism, and the role of government in relation to
labor,5 and various comprehensive movements for social
reform emerged.6 In particular, the impulse toward collec­
tive action to defend or improve labor standards began to
acquire momentum among the growing wage-earning pop­
ulation. Of major although short-lived significance was the
meteoric rise of the Knights of Labor, the membership of
which reached about 700,000 in 1886 but declined precip­
itously thereafter. Of much greater long-run importance was
the formation of the American Federation of Labor ( a f l )
in 1881 as a permanent trade union center. The Federation
survived the long depression of the 1890’s, and union mem­
bership began to climb sharply toward the end of the de­
cade— rising from 447,000 in 1897 to 868,500 in 1900,
mainly in unions affiliated with the a f l . 7 (These figures
include Canadian members of labor unions with headquar­
ters in the United States.)
It was during this period that the Bureau of Labor Sta­
tistics was created, with a broad mandate to “ . . . collect
information upon the subject of labor, its relation to capital,
the hours of labor, and the earnings of laboring men and
women. . . . ” The creation of the new agency in 18£4
reflected a growing demand for information on labor con­
ditions to provide a basis for improved labor standards. With
respect to earnings or wages, there were few guides for the
work of the new Bureau. Some experience with wage sur­
veys had been accumulated by a few State agencies, notably
in Massachusetts.8 At the Federal level, the only important
previous effort to develop statistics of wages by occupation
was a special study conducted for the decennial census of
1880. This report, which was not published until 1886, gave
annual average wage rates by occupation for “ typical” es­
tablishments in 53 industries back, where possible, to 1860
or even earlier. The data, which were collected by mailed
questionnaires, were published in great detail.9
The new Federal Bureau was extraordinarily fortunate in
its first commissioner, Carroll D. Wright, who had headed
the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor since 1873.10
Wright would prove an authentic pioneer in the development
of labor statistics both here and abroad.11 With respect to
the collection and presentation of wage survey data, a num­
ber of general principles reflected his experience in Mas­
sachusetts and at the Federal Bureau. These related basically
to the compilation and presentation of data designed to throw
light on the structure of wages, although, as we shall see,
the new Bureau’s studies also would provide the basis for
most of our knowledge of the trend of wages well into the
present century.
With regard to the collection of wage data by occupation,
Wright felt strongly that the use of trained field agents rather
than mailed questionnaires was required to ensure the ad­
equacy and quality of response. In the absence of modem
sampling procedures and establishment universe informa­
tion, he favored the coverage of “ typical” or “ represen­
tative” establishments, which in practice meant those that


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

had been in business for some time. Concerning the pre­
sentation of wage statistics, Wright was insistent upon the
use of well-defined occupational classifications. In view of
the observed dispersion of wage rates within occupations,
he tended to favor presenting survey results in the form of
wage distributions, where feasible, rather than by occupa­
tional averages alone. “ Of late years,” he wrote in 1892,
“ the demand has been that employees should be classified
not only minutely as to occupations, but as to rates of pay
as well.” 12
Appropriately, in view of the times, the first annual report
of the Commissioner dealt with industrial depressions. It
included the results of the first occupational wage survey
conducted by the Bureau. The data related to 1885 and were
taken directly by Bureau agents from the payroll records of
582 establishments in about 40 industries overwhelmingly
in the manufacturing sector. The results were published in
the form of daily average wage rates by occupation, indus­
try, and State; estimates were presented separately for men,
women, and children and youths.13
The Commissioner’s fifth annual report ( 1889) on railroad
labor developed occupational wage statistics in great detail
for 60 carriers. The Bureau’s field agents found more than
a thousand job titles in the payroll records of these railroads.
Many of these involved similar duties. The most detailed
wage statistics were shown in table 11 of the report, where
distributions of daily rates or earnings by occupation were
presented, together with distributions of annual earnings.14
The claim was made that “ . . . the chief value of this report,
so far as time and wages are concerned, is to be found in
a thoroughly scientific classification, not only of the time
employed of each individual employee of the roads consid­
ered, but of rates by day and by year,” as shown by the
payrolls.15
These studies, together with two other extensive wage
surveys conducted during the early 1890’s ,16 provided the
Bureau with invaluable experience in occupational classi­
fication, data collection, and the presentation of survey re­
sults. They prepared the way for a highly fruitful survey
stemming from a Senate resolution of March 3, 1981, which
instructed the Committee on Finance to study the effects of
tariff legislation on wages and prices. In accordance with
the resolution, Senator Nelson W. Aldrich asked Wright to
undertake the task of developing wage and price statistics
for the years 1840-91.
The problem of locating establishments with payroll rec­
ords for all or most of this long period obviously was dif­
ficult. The study ultimately provided data for more than 500
occupational series in 22 industries, mainly in manufactur­
ing. Comparatively few of the establishments had usable
payroll records prior to 1860. The publication of the data
for two payroll periods in each year by industry, establish­
ment, and occupation, took up almost 1,300 pages of the
Senate Committee’s report.17 The Committee observed that
“ . . .n o other investigation has been made with so wide a
17

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • A Century o f Wage Statistics: BLS’ Contribution
scope, such a variety of detail, and covering so extensive
a period.” 18
The significance of this study for the Bureau’s work in
the field of wage statistics was twofold. It gave experience
in the collection of data over an extended period in the past,
and it provided the basis for measurement of changes in the
level of wages through the construction of wage indexes.
The latter represented an innovation of signal importance
for which credit must go to Professor Roland P. Falkner of
the University of Pennsylvania, who was employed by the
Senate Committee to analyze the survey data. Using 1860
as the base year, Falkner prepared indexes for each occu­
pation by establishment, for each of the 22 industries in­
cluded in the survey, and for the 22 industries combined.19
Despite its many limitations, the Bureau’s work for the
Aldrich Committee is the major source of information on
the structure and course of wages in this country from 1860
to 1890, and yields some insight for the years back to 1840.
The study’s wage trend estimates have been analyzed and
reworked a number of times, most recently by E. H. Phelps
Brown and Sheila V. Hopkins and by Clarence D. Long.20
The next major wage study undertaken by the Bureau
undoubtedly was influenced by experience gained in surveys
for the Aldrich Report, and foreshadowed the nature of work
to be done into the 20th century. This study provided av­
erage daily wage rates by year for each of 25 selected oc­
cupations in 12 major cities for the period 1870-98.21 The
occupations selected were those “ susceptible of accurate
definition, ’’ and the data were taken directly from the payroll
records of at least two establishments in each city for the
occupations covered. The report’s text tables showed av­
erage daily wages by year for all occupations combined,
and the percentage change since 1870 for each year from
1871 to 1898. The latter estimates were deemed to be “ quite
indicative” of the movement of wages generally. Similar
data were shown for three cities in Great Britain and for
one city each in France and Belgium. The foreign data were
compiled by the authorities in the countries concerned at
the request of the Bureau.
In short, during the last 15 years of the 19th century, the
Bureau accumulated considerable experience in the planning
and conduct of surveys of wages and standard hours of work.
The merits of data collection from payroll records by per­
sonal visit were established. Much insight was gained into
the difficult problem of job classification at a time when
formal job descriptions were uncommon and titles for the
same job could vary widely among establishments. Prob­
lems in the presentation of occupational wage data related
to the observed dispersion of rates of pay were recognized.
Finally, the introduction of index numbers in the Aldrich
Report provided a convenient means for measuring the
movement of wages over time. The development of so­
phisticated survey sampling techniques was, of course, far
in the future.

18

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1900 to the Great Depression
The Bureau’s work in wage statistics during the first three
decades of the 20th century achieved a coherence that dis­
tinguishes it from its 19th century origins. This cohesion
was attained despite the great economic and social changes
that occurred during the period, including U.S. participation
in World War I. Between 1900 and 1930, gross national
product in constant dollars rose at an average annual rate
of 3.1 percent.22 The sharpest downturn in economic activity
was the comparatively short postwar recession beginning
toward the end of 1920. The civilian labor force grew by
about 20 million, with nonfarm workers accounting for ap­
proximately 77 percent of total employment by 1930. The
automobile began to provide greater mobility for both people
and industry. The growth in trade union membership that
had begun in 1897 continued with only minor pauses to
1920, when membership reached 5 million. A sharp decline
occurred during the postwar recession, but membership sta­
bilized at about 3.6 million by 1924.23 Finally, a substantial
body of protective social legislation was enacted at the State
level during this 30-year period, largely with reference to
work performed by women and children.
During the winter of 1900-01, the Bureau began a major
study of occupational wages by industry, with the data car­
ried back to 1890. The study was undertaken with the view
that “ . . . the constant demand for current data could be
met only by a very painstaking and complete investigation
which would result in thoroughly representative figures for
a period of years and which would serve as the basis for
the regular annual collection and presentation of data con­
cerning wages. . . .” 24 Due to staff limitations, the study
required several years for completion. Data for 1902 and
1903 were included in the final results of the investigation,
which appeared in 1905 as the Commissioner’s Nineteenth
Annual Report, a volume of almost a thousand pages.
The study was confined to “ the leading manufacturing
and mechanical industries” and to the “ distinctive occu­
pations which are considered representative of each indus­
try,” and covered payroll periods most nearly representing
“ normal conditions” of operations for each establishment
during each year.25 In all, 67 industries, 519 occupations,
and 3,475 establishments were surveyed. Industry coverage
was largely confined to manufacturing and the building trades.
Each year from 1890 to 1903, the Commissioner’s Annual
Report presented average rates of pay by occupation, in­
dustry, and region, and for selected occupations, by city
and State. Complete wage distributions also were given for
the occupations included in the city and State tabulations.
An outstanding achievement was the presentation in a text
table of an overall index of hourly rates, computed from
averages of industry relatives weighted by aggregate wages
paid by each industry as shown by the census of 1900.26
As Paul H. Douglas pointed out in his great study of real
wages in the United States from 1890 to 1926, the Bureau’s

index computations were for some years the preferred sta­
tistical basis for generalizing on the trend of wages.27 (Ac­
tually, the correspondence between the Bureau’s wageweighted index and Douglas’ own wage rate index for man­
ufacturing, which was prepared from the same data but
differently constructed, is strikingly close. For example,
both indexes show wages in 1903 to be 16 percent higher
than the average for 1890-99.28)
The general format of the 1890-1903 study was followed
in annual surveys during the next 4 years. The results of
these studies were reported in the Bureau’s bimonthly bul­
letin.29 The surveys again were confined largely to manu­
facturing, but their scope was limited to industries in which
wages paid amounted to $10 million or more as shown by
the 1900 census. The 1904 survey, for example, covered
350 selected occupations, 3,732 establishments, and 42
industries. The 1904 wage index for all industries was linked
to the general index for 1890-1903 on the basis of changes
in those establishments studied in both 1903 and 1904, and
this chaining procedure was followed for subsequent years
to 1907.
After 1907, there was a 4-year interruption in the Bureau’s
wage survey program. This was due primarily to the pressure
of other work, notably a large investigation into the con­
ditions of women and child wage earners and a study of
wages, hours, and working conditions in the iron and steel
industry, both of which were published as Senate docu­
ments. The program was resumed in 1912 with two series
of surveys. The first consisted of studies based on payroll
records of rates of pay (or of earned rates for incentive
workers) in selected occupations in 12 industries: cotton,
wool, and silk textiles; lumber, millwork, and furniture;
boots and shoes; hosiery and knit goods; cigars; clothing;
iron and steel; and building and repairing of steam railroad
cars. Except in the case of cigars and clothing, data were
carried back to 1907. Within the next few years, five of
these industries (silk, millwork, furniture, cigars, and car
building) were dropped while slaughtering and meatpacking
was added. The industries that remained in the program
were surveyed approximately every 2 years until 1933.
The 1912 survey of cotton-goods manufacturing and fin­
ishing illustrates the essential nature of this group of stud­
ies.30 Bureau agents obtained data for the “ principal
occupations” directly from mill payroll records. An inno­
vation was the publication of job descriptions in the survey
report. The coverage of establishments was considerably
broader than in earlier studies of cotton-goods manufactur­
ing, and the data, as previously noted, were carried back
to 1907. Distributions of workers by hourly rates of pay at
1-cent intervals were shown by occupation for the industry
as a whole and by State. The Bureau’s continued interest
in the trend of wages was manifest by the linkage of annual
wage changes during 1907-12 to the existing 1890-1907
index for cotton textiles.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

The second group of studies begun in 1912 were con­
cerned with union wage scales and standard hours of work
in the building industry, newspaper printing, book and job
printing, marble and stone work, metal trades, baking, and
millwork. In all, 49 crafts were surveyed in 39 cities. The
initial report states that the data were “ . . . in every case
furnished by officials of the local unions to special agents
of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and wage scales, written
agreements, and trade union records were used wherever
possible.” 31
As with the payroll studies, the union wage data were
extended back to 1907. Wage scales were shown by trade
and city for each year from 1907 to 1912, and indexes of
the movement of scales back to 1890 were computed for
many of the crafts in the industries covered. These studies,
with some changes in industry coverage, were to continue
on an annual basis for almost 80 years.
These payroll and union wage studies had the great virtue
of providing a large measure of consistency in the Bureau’s
occupational wage survey program over a period of roughly
two decades. They also provided a measure of continuity
with the major survey that had produced the 1890-1903
report on occupational wages and with the annual surveys
of 1904-07. They developed data on the structure of wages
by skill and sex for manual jobs in a variety of relatively
low-wage and high-wage industries. Data provided by lo­
cality and State yielded a measure of insight into interarea
wage differences.
As previously mentioned, these surveys were the source
for the manufacturing and building components of the sem­
inal Douglas study of money and real wages from 1890 to
1926. Shortly after World War I, the Bureau itself ventured
to put together an annual general index of wages in response
to inquiries that ” . . . have generally related to recent years
but . . . frequently ask for an index that shall compare Civil
War changes with those during and following the late World
W ar.” 32 The index was prepared (with some hesitation)
from “ all sources available,” and was published initially
for the period from 1840 to 1920. It was later extended in
several stages to 1934.33
Two additional observations should be made concerning
the Bureau’s work in wage statistics during this period. The
first is that World War I had minimal impact on the gen­
eration of wage data. Although several Government agen­
cies were established to deal with wartime labor problems,
there was no effort, as there would be during World War
II, to impose comprehensive wage controls. Wage adjust­
ment efforts for particular industries (such as shipbuilding)
tended to focus on those made necessary by rising living
costs, which led to the establishment of the Bureau’s Con­
sumer Price Index. Toward the end of the war, the War
Industries Board asked the Bureau to undertake wage sur­
veys in a number of industries for use in the solution of
labor problems and to provide a record of industrial con-

19

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • A Century o f Wage Statistics: BLS’ Contribution
ditions at the height of the war effort. These surveys, with
occupational wage data for 28 industries, were not com­
pleted until after the war, and the results were published in
1920.34
The second observation is that, while generally contin­
uing the group of payroll studies begun in 1912, the Bureau
extended its wage survey activity to additional industries
during the 1920’s. A number of these were manufacturing
industries essentially new to the 20th century, including
m otor vehicles, rubber tires, synthetic textiles, and
airplane and aircraft engines. Several nonm anufactur­
ing industries also were added to the program , most
notably bituminous coal mining and air transport.
This major phase of the Bureau’s work in wage statistics
came to an end about 1932. Although the surveys of the
period were confined to manual jobs and largely to selected
industries in the manufacturing sector, they provided a rea­
sonably consistent body of data on both the structure and
trend of wages for industrial workers. They undoubtedly
also played a role in private wage determination through
collective bargaining and employer personnel administra­
tion. In their absence, we should know much less than we
do about economic conditions during the first three decades
of this century.

Depression and war, 1930-45
The Great Depression began toward the end of 1929.
Unemployment, which was estimated at 3.3 percent of the
civilian labor force during the years 1923-29, rose to an
estimated 25 percent in 1933. Recovery was only partial
during the remainder of the decade; even in 1940, the un­
employment rate was estimated at 14.6 percent. However,
the steady expansion of war production and of the Armed
Forces after mid-1940 brought the rate to 1.2 percent by
1944.35
The singular decade of the 1930’s witnessed the beginning
of an unprecedented and continuing involvement of the Fed­
eral Government with the economy.Aside from social in­
surance programs, this development expressed itself with
respect directly to labor in two major forms. The first was
machinery through the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 and the
Walsh-Healey Act of 1936 for the establishment of wage
standards for workers employed by contractors or subcon­
tractors on public construction or in the provision of ma­
terials and supplies to the Federal government, and, by the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, for minimum wages for
most workers engaged in or producing goods for interstate
commerce. The second, embodied in the National Labor
Relations Act, protected the right of workers to join unions
and imposed upon employers the duty to bargain collectively
over wages and other terms of employment. Partially as a
result of this latter act, U.S. union membership, which had
declined to 2.7 million by 1933, reached 14.3 million by
1945.36 and collective bargaining was extended to many
strategic sectors of the economy. During the same year that
20

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

the act was passed, however, a deep split occurred in the
trade union movement, a breach that was not to be closed
for 20 years.
By the time the United States became involved in World
War II as a combatant on December 7, 1941, the economic
impact of the conflict had already begun to be felt and
measures to deal with its consequences had emerged. One
group of measures designed to contain the inflationary con­
sequences of resource diversion to war production was com­
prehensive control of changes in wage rates and prices.37
This had a decisive effect on the Bureau’s wartime wage
statistics program, and postwar consequences as well.
The early 1930’s had seen the end of the relatively small
but systematic program of payroll-based industry wage sur­
veys that had been conducted during the previous two de­
cades. The annual survey of “ common labor entrance rates”
was discontinued in the early 1940’s in large part because
of the increasing ambiguity of the concept of “ unskilled”
or “ common” labor.38 Dropped also, in 1934, was the
occasional publication of the broad annual wage index that
had first been published in 1920, having been pieced to­
gether from such data as were available.39 Its discontinuance
appears to have been related to the institution in 1932 of
the Bureau’s average employment and payroll reporting sys­
tem.
Between 1932 and the beginning of the defense buildup
in 1940, the Bureau’s wage survey activity was largely,
although not entirely, geared to the informational needs of
the new Federal agencies concerned with labor standards.
Thus, a number of studies were undertaken for use in
the adm inistration o f the short-lived National Industrial
Recovery Act o f 1933 which provided by industry for
“ codes o f fair com petition” containing minimum wage
and maximum hour provisions. At the direct order of
the President, an especially noteworthy study was made
in the cotton textile industry covering pay periods in
1933 and 1934, following a general strike in that in­
dustry in 1934. Several surveys were undertaken in
cooperation with the W orks Progress Adm inistration.
W ork was done also in connection with prevailing
minimum wage determinations under the Walsh-Healey
(Public Contracts) Act o f 1936, which covered work
perform ed by Federal government contractors.40
The pace of survey activity accelerated after the passage
of the Fair Labor Standards Act (1938), which initially
provided for Federal minimum wage determination (above
a statutory level) on an industry basis. During 1938 and
1939, about 45 industry wage surveys were conducted for
use in minimum wage proceedings. Most of these studies
developed data on the distribution of workers by pay rates
or straight-time hourly earnings, without occupational de­
tail. They typically related to relatively low-wage consumergoods industries. In a few cases, they provided the basis
for appraisal of the wage and employment effects of mini­
mum wage orders before these effects were masked by the
upsurge of economic activity associated with the war.

Concern with minimum wage determinations faded as the
defense program got underway in mid-1940. With expan­
sion of the defense effort, unemployment declined, short­
ages of skilled workers began to appear, and the incidence
of strikes rose sharply during the first half of 1941. In March
of that year, a tripartite National Defense Mediation Board
was appointed to assist in the settlement of labor disputes;
this agency was superseded in January 1942 by the National
War Labor Board, which was given the additional function
of stabilizing rates of pay as part of a comprehensive eco­
nomic stabilization effort.
As a consequence of these developments, the Bureau’s
wage survey activity shifted initially from consumer-goods
industries to heavy industries essential to war production.
Occupational wage studies were undertaken in such indus­
tries as shipbuilding, aircraft, rubber, nonelectrical ma­
chinery, and the mining, smelting, and refining of nonferrous
metals. Beginning in 1941, special studies were also re­
quested for use in the settlement of specific labor disputes
in industries vital to the war effort.
With the beginning of comprehensive wage stabilization
under the War Labor Board, the governmental need for wage
statistics increased manyfold. This led to a substantial ex­
pansion of Bureau staff and the establishment of regional
offices to parallel those set up by the Board. For the most
part, two types of wage information were provided for Board
use. The first involved data on wage rates or straight-time
earnings by occupation, industry, and labor market for Board
decisions in thousands of claims for increases on interplant
wage inequity grounds,41 together with some studies in con­
nection with specific labor disputes. The second was a gen­
eral wage rate index to measure the effectiveness of the
wage stabilization program.
The surveys for use in Board decisions in inequity cases
involved special procedures to expedite data collection and
presentation. These included the development of patterns
of “ key” jobs by industry, the preparation of uniform job
descriptions, and the standardized presentation of survey
results. Altogether, job patterns, each typically including
from 10 to 20 occupations, were prepared for more than
120 manufacturing and nonmanufacturing industries. It was
reported in 1945 that, under this crash program, data on
pay rates in key occupations had been collected from more
than 100,000 establishments, and that some 8,000 reports
on an industry-locality basis had been transmitted to the
Board.42 This was an extraordinary achievement over a pe­
riod of little more than 2 years, and represented a vital
contribution to the wartime wage stabilization program.
The second Bureau contribution to the wage stabilization
effort was the construction of an occupationally based index
of urban wage rates. Because the War Labor Board sought
to stabilize basic rates of pay rather than earnings, such an
index was needed to provide some measure of its effective­
ness. A properly constructed index can eliminate many of
the factors that affect earnings rather than rates, including
premium pay for overtime and late-shift work, interindustry


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

employment shifts, and changes in occupational skill ratios.
The urban wage index was based on data for key occu­
pations in about 6,000 establishments, and covered selected
manufacturing and nonmanufacturing industries in some 69
labor markets, It was issued semiannually beginning in April
1943, but was estimated back to January 1941 for the man­
ufacturing sector.43 Discontinued largely for budgetary rea­
sons in 1947, this index would have been a valuable tool
for the analysis of postwar wage movements. Its final pub­
lication gave estimates of wage-rate change for manufac­
turing between January 1941 and September 1947, and for
selected nonmanufacturing industries between April 1943
and April 1947.44

Postwar program adjustment, 1945-47
For more than 3 years, almost all of the Bureau’s ex­
panded resources for wage survey purposes had been de­
voted to data needs for wage stabilization and labor dispute
settlement. By the beginning of 1945, the pressure of these
needs had eased substantially. The war was coming to an
end, and problems of industry reconversion to peacetime
production were being discussed. It was now necessary to
devise an interim program to meet anticipated requirements
for wage statistics during the immediate postwar period.
The most significant Bureau decision with regard to the
wage program was to conduct a large number of nationwide
occupational wage surveys on an industry basis, with re­
gional and locality breakdowns whenever possible. Between
1945 and mid-1947, such studies were made in no fewer
than 70 manufacturing and 11 nonmanufacturing industries.
Each presented data on rates of pay for selected occupations
and rate distributions for all plant workers on a national and
regional basis, and virtually all contained occupational data
for specific localities. Information typically was shown on
occupational earnings by size of establishment, size of com­
munity, method of wage payment, and unionization, and
for such plant practices as scheduled hours of work, shift
differentials, paid vacations and sick leave, and insurance
and pension plans. Most of the studies also contained data
on salaries for a few office occupations.
This large group of nationwide studies were issued in a
special series of wage structure reports in mimeographed
form. Unfortunately, few were published in the Bureau’s
series of numbered bulletins, but many summary articles
based on the surveys appeared in the Monthly Labor Re­
view’.45
During this period, the Bureau continued its annual sur­
veys of union wage scales in building, printing, and several
other industries. Of great importance in subsequent survey
planning were studies of clerical salaries on a cross­
industry basis in a few local labor markets. A variety of
special studies relating to such issues as guaranteed wage
plans in the United States, the economic status of
registered nurses, and the experience of workers in
various industrial reconversion situations also were con­
ducted.
21

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • A Century o f Wage Statistics: BLS’ Contribution
Particular notice should be given to the rise of a broad
analytical capability within the Bureau during this period.
This, no doubt, was a function of staff size stimulated by
the exceptional volume of statistical information generated
during 1945-47. Several notable studies were produced,
including an analysis of changes in wage differentials by
skill for manual workers between 1907 and 1947 in man­
ufacturing and the building trades.46 This pioneer study pointed
up striking changes that had occurred in supply-demand con­
ditions in the labor market over the four decades. A companion
study, confined to manufacturing, dealt with the course of
regional wage differentials during the same period.47 Other
studies relating to the immediate postwar period dealt with
such topics as shift differentials in manufacturing, vacation
practices in major industry groups, and the prevalence of in­
surance and pension plans.

Reshaping wage programs, 1947-70
In mid-1947, the Bureau experienced a sharp reduction
in its budget— in effect a postwar readjustment— although
its resources remained substantially above the prewar level.
With respect to wage statistics, this budget reduction, to­
gether with other factors, led to a major reexamination of
programs.
A basic question was whether continued concentration on
nationwide industry surveys represented the best use of the
available resources. Experience during the war had indicated
the great importance of data at the level of the local labor
market, where most wage decisions occur. It was clear,
moreover, that the white-collar segment of the labor force
had shown impressive growth and would continue to ex­
pand. In pay determination for most types of white-collar
workers, the importance of the local labor market was, if
anything, greater than for manual workers. Most whitecollar jobs are found in a great variety of industries, sug­
gesting the need for some type of cross-industry survey for
this type of employment.
Other influences also were at work. The rapid spread of
trade unionism in the 1930’s and during the war, and the
“ rounds” of wage increases during the years immediately
following the war, produced great interest in the dynamics
of wage adjustment. Another influence was the spread of
supplementary benefits, public and private, representing in­
come to workers and cost to employers. Aside from the
existence of a broad demand for data for use in private wage
decisions and for public policy purposes, great academic
research interest also had developed.48
A general factor that contributed importantly to program
development during this period was the emergence during
the late 1940’s of efficient modes of probability sampling
in government statistical surveys.49 With relation to the Bu­
reau’s studies of occupational wages, pathbreaking work
was done in adapting probability sampling to universes of
establishments.50 The use of probability sampling, rather
22

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

than purposive sampling, permitted a more efficient use of
survey resources, the more reliable calculation of population
values, and the estimation of sampling errors.
The essential problem in 1947 was to devise, with limited
resources, a program that would throw as much light as
possible on the structure of occupational wages and salaries,
on supplementary forms of compensation, and on the dy­
namics of wage development. Considerable thought and
experimentation suggested that two occupational wage sur­
vey systems were needed, together with several other types
of recurring reports.51 The principal ingredients of the re­
vised program are summarized below.
Cross-industry labor market surveys. In 1948, pilot stud­
ies on the collection of salary data for office clerical oc­
cupations on a cross-industry basis were undertaken in a
few large labor markets.52 These were successful techni­
cally, and the response from users of wage data in the
markets covered was encouraging. In 1949, experimental
surveys were made in a number of smaller cities. The oc­
cupational coverage was broadened in these studies to in­
clude selected skilled and relatively unskilled manual jobs
that were not unique to particular industries. The skilled
manual occupations were drawn primarily from those in­
volved in plant maintenance, and the unskilled from material
movement, warehousing, and custodial work. Out of this
experimental effort grew the concept of the community wage
survey.53
As it happened, this exploratory work was coming to a
close at the outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950, which
called forth another wage stabilization effort. The National
Wage Stabilization Board, formed in September 1950 to
administer wage controls, concluded that community wage
studies were well suited for use in its work. It provided
resources for the conduct of such studies in a large number
of labor markets, with occupational coverage extended to
jobs peculiar to major industries in each area surveyed. The
results of these and other Bureau wage studies and reports
were extensively used in Board decisions,54 and provided
the basis for a series of analyses of interarea differences in
the level of wages, occupational differentials, fringe ben­
efits, extent of unionization, and the formalization of wage
structures.55
Wage Stabilization Board budgetary support for the labor
market survey program ended after the Korean emergency.
The Bureau’s own resources could provide for only about
20 community surveys annually, with coverage limited to
cross-industry occupations. It was decided as a matter of
policy to conduct these surveys in the same metropolitan
areas each year. This decision was based largely on the fact
that the use of survey data in wage determinations by em­
ployers and unions depends on its currency. Extensive sup­
port developed for the surveys in the communities in which
they were made. Numerous requests for community surveys
in other areas had to be firmly rejected.

In light of the widespread interest in the cross-industry
type of survey, a rational basis was sought for a more elab­
orate program. The result was a proposal for annual surveys
in a sample of metropolitan areas (approximately 80 of the
183 then existing), selected to represent all such areas. The
sample was designed to include all metropolitan areas with
employment of 250,000 or more. This would permit esti­
mates of the level and distribution of wages for a significant
group of white-collar and manual jobs for all metropolitan
areas— in effect, for the urban economy. It would provide
a basis for national estimates, separately for office and plant
workers, of scheduled hours of work, holiday and vacation
provisions, the incidence of private insurance and pension
plans, and collective bargaining coverage. Wage compari­
sons among areas and broad regions also could be made.
The budgetary requirements for this program were met
toward the end of the 1950’s when an urgent Federal need
developed for national data on white-collar salaries in pri­
vate industry to implement a comparability pay policy for
the 1.7 million Federal white-collar and postal employees.
An interagency technical committee concluded that the an­
nual 80-area survey design was an appropriate survey ve­
hicle, with additional data collected from a subsample of
establishments for selected professional, managerial, and
technical jobs.56 The Congress approved funds for this pro­
gram, and for expansion of other aspects of wage survey
activity, for fiscal 1960 (then beginning July 1959). When
Congress passed the Federal Salary Reform Act of 1962,
this cross-industry survey system had been tested in 2 years
of operation.57
With some changes in the design and size of the sample,
refinements in occupational definitions, the inclusion of a
number of additional occupations, and modifications of data
collection procedures, this survey system has continued on
an annual basis for more than two decades.
Industry wage surveys. Occupational wage studies on an
industry basis were not abandoned with the development of
the community wage survey program. Such studies re­
mained highly important for insight into the structure of
wages and benefits for nonsupervisory workers in estab­
lishment groupings differentiated by product, technology,
labor force composition, extent of unionization, and other
factors. Partly for economy in the use of resources, there
was a shift in emphasis during the late 1940’s from the
industrywide surveys of the 1945-47 period to surveys in
major areas of industry concentration. The intent behind this
industry-locality program was the annual study of wages
and related benefits in some 25 manufacturing and non­
manufacturing industries, together with less frequent in­
dustrywide studies in a few industries where wages were
determined on a national basis. The long-term program of
union scale studies in a few industries was continued.
During the 1950’s, the Bureau also undertook under con­
tract many surveys, largely of the wage distribution type,
for use in appraisal of the effects of minimum wage actions

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and as a basis for
decisions on minimum wage policy. These studies continued
into the 1960’s as minimum wage coverage was extended
to retail trade, service industries, and other areas of em­
ployment.
The industry wage studies program was enlarged and
systematized as part of the planning process that produced
the 80-area community wage survey proposal. Provision
was made for recurring studies in approximately 50 man­
ufacturing and 20 nonmanufacturing industries, either na­
tionally or in areas of major concentration.58 Most of these
industries were scheduled for survey on a 5-year cycle, with
others, predominately in textiles and apparel, on a 3-year
cycle. The few studies based on union scales rather than
employer payroll records would continue on an annual basis.
Altogether, about 20 surveys would be planned for each
year.
At the time of their selection, the 70 industries included
in the program accounted for about three-fifths of manu­
facturing and a third of nonmanufacturing employment. The
3- or 5-year periodicity for most of these studies was not
ideal, but industry wage structures (that is, relative rates of
pay) tend to change slowly. These surveys developed data
for selected jobs, such as plant maintenance, that cut across
industry lines, and also for selected processing jobs peculiar
to each industry. Data for the distribution of rates of pay
or straight-time hourly earnings for all production or non­
supervisory workers were collected, together with infor­
mation on establishment practices, such as shift work, and
supplementary benefits provisions.
Thus, .by the end of the 1950’s, two well-articulated oc­
cupational wage survey programs had been developed, one
on a local labor market and the other on an industry basis.
The latter program also provided for a considerable amount
of information by labor market or region. Together, they
shed much light on the level and structure of wages and
salaries in the U.S. economy, and provided data for a variety
of governmental uses, private wage and salary decisions,
and research.
Supplementary remuneration surveys. Beginning in the
second half of the 1930’s, a variety of supplements to basic
rates of pay began to assume significance in the U.S. wage
structure. These supplements, some legally required and
others established through collective bargaining or employer
personnel policy, provided additional money income, paid
leisure, or income security for workers, and represented a
cost to employers.
It was clear by 1950 that benefits supplementary to basic
wages would continue to account for an increasing share of
worker compensation. In 1951, with close industry coop­
eration, a study was made of supplementary expenditures
in basic steel. In 1953, a methodological study of problems
in the measurement of employer expenditures on major ben­
efits in manufacturing was undertaken.59 This was followed
in 1956 by a study of benefit expenditures in the electric
23

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • A Century o f Wage Statistics: BLS’ Contribution
and gas utility industry, conducted as part of an industry
wage survey, and by a 1958 survey of the composition of
payroll hours for factory workers.
Finally, in 1959, a continuous program was launched.
The initial study measured employer expenditures on ben­
efits for production workers in manufacturing. Data were
developed by major industry group, region, level of wages,
size of establishment, collective bargaining coverage, met­
ropolitan or nonmetropolitan location, and the composition
of payroll hours.60 This broad-based study was repeated in
1962, following benefit expenditure surveys in the mining
and finance, insurance, and real estate industries. At the
request of the Civil Service Commission, a special survey
was made in 1963 of benefit expenditures for white-collar
workers in metropolitan areas in a broad segment of U.S.
industry. During the following 2 years, numerous studies
were conducted in individual manufacturing and nonman­
ufacturing industries.
In 1966, an initial survey was made of compensation
expenditures in the entire private nonfarm economy.61 Data
were shown separately for manufacturing and nonmanufac­
turing, by establishment size, and, for nonoffice workers,
by union status. This study, in essence, rounded out more
than a decade of experimental work and studies in limited
industrial sectors. Future surveys were to be conducted bien­
nially for the entire private nonfarm economy, with studies
in selected industries in the intervening years.62
Current wage changes. During the years immediately fol­
lowing World War II, enormous interest developed in changes
in wage rates and employee benefits in major collective
bargaining situations. This reflected the growth of collective
bargaining as a mechanism for wage determination, and the
influence that major settlements might have on the wage
bargain— union and nonunion— in other firms and indus­
tries.
To facilitate response to inquires, the Bureau began pub­
lication of a monthly report entitled Current Wage Devel­
opments in January 1948. This report, available on a
subscription basis, sought to list general wage changes and
changes in benefit provisions in all collective bargaining
settlements covering 1,000 workers or more. Because the
report was based largely on secondary sources, the names
of the unions and employers concerned in the settlements
were identified.
This monthly periodical has become a major source of
information on current wage behavior. The year 1954 saw
the inclusion for the first time of quarterly and annual sta­
tistical summaries of newly negotiated wage rate changes.63
During the mid-1960’s, procedures were devised for esti­
mating the cost of supplementary benefits, and since 1966,
data have been presented on the total change in compen­
sation in bargaining settlements affecting 5,000 workers or
more. In 1968, statistics were developed on wage adjust­
ments p u t in to e f f e c t from (1) settlements during the year;

24

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

(2) deferred changes under agreements negotiated in earlier
years; and (3) provisions for adjustments geared to changes
in the cost of living. The coverage of the report was extended
in 1979 to State and local government collective bargaining
settlements involving 5,000 workers or more.
Somewhat related to the monthly report on current wage
developments was the inauguration, also in 1948, of a series
of reports on changes in wages and supplementary benefits
in a limited number of key collective bargaining situations.
Through periodic supplements, these wage chronologies
summarized the history of wage and benefit changes re­
sulting from negotiations between unions and such major
employers as United States Steel, General Motors, and
Lockheed Aircraft. The bargains covered were important in
themselves and were thought in many cases to have signif­
icant pattern-setting effects in wage determination. By the
beginning of the 1970’s, about 35 chronologies were being
maintained.64

Wage rate trends
Several of the survey systems devised after 1947 pro­
vided, as a byproduct, data on the trend of wages for im­
portant groups in the working population.
From the m onthly reports on current wage
developments, annual median and mean adjustments
and wage indexes were developed for workers in the
universe o f m ajor collective bargaining agreements,
thus providing the basis for index com putation. On the
basis of the occupational surveys by labor m arket, an­
nual indexes of wage change were constructed for office
workers, skilled maintenance workers, unskilled plant
workers, and industrial nurses in all m etropolitan areas,
nationwide and by region, over the period 1961-74.65
These indexes were discontinued in 1974 (with the last
report published in 1975) when the m ethod o f com­
puting wage changes in the separate labor markets was
revised and a more comprehensive wage rate index,
described in the following section, was introduced. The
annual report on salaries for selected professional, ad­
ministrative, technical, and clerical jobs has provided
the basis since 1961 for developing measures o f salary
trend for these occupational groups.
In the early 1950’s, the Bureau also began to issue a
series of reports on the trend of salaries for important groups
of government employees. The initial report for white-collar
Federal workers covered the period 1939-50; for city public
school teachers, 1925-49; and for firemen and policemen,
1924-50. These reports were based on Congressional salary
actions for classified employees in the Federal service; on
reports on teacher salaries published by the National Edu­
cation Association; and on several data sources for firemen
and policemen.
The reappraisal of the Bureau’s work in wage statistics
that began in 1947 produced over two decades a multidi­
mensional program that sought to meet, within the budget

constraints under which it operated, a wide variety of gov­
ernmental and private needs for information. It provided
significant insight into (1) the structure of wage and salary
rates of pay for major groups of workers, manual and whitecollar; (2) the rise of and expenditures for supplementary
benefits as part of compensation for work; and (3) the dy­
namics and trend of wage developments.

The turbulent years, 1970-84
The 1970-84 period provided a turbulent backdrop for
developments in wage statistics programs. Wide cyclical
swings in the economy, coupled with Federal activities—
wage and price controls and guidelines, minimum wage
adjustments, and réévaluation of pay setting for Federal
employees— affected Bureau wage programs. The number
and scope of such programs grew substantially through
1978, but then contracted abruptly and leveled off in the
face of Federal budget constraints.
Employment Cost Index. During the early 1970’s, Federal
wage and price controls highlighted a major shortcoming in
the Nation’s economic intelligence system. Information was
lacking on changes in employers’ compensation costs (or
labor costs), free from influences unrelated to cost change,
such as employment shifts among occupations and industries
with different labor cost levels. Without such information,
it was virtually impossible to gauge the effects of wage
controls in the same way that price controls were assessed
on the basis of the Bureau’s Consumer Price Index. (A
similar need had been addressed when the Bureau developed
the short-lived, occupationally based “ urban wage rate in­
dex” to measure the War Labor Board’s effectiveness in
stabilizing wage rates during World War II.)
During the 1971-74 controls period, policymakers trying
to track wage rates or compensation costs were faced with
a wide array of Bureau information, all useful for some
purposes,including estimates of average hourly compensa­
tion and average hourly and weekly earnings, data on col­
lectively bargained wage adjustments, and surveys of
occupational pay levels. The various wage measures, un­
fortunately, gave mixed and incomplete signals about de­
velopments in wage and compensation costs.
It was in this climate that the Bureau began a long-range
effort to develop the Employment Cost Index ( e c i ) , initially
called the “ general wage index.” The e c i was designed to
be a timely and comprehensive measure of labor cost change,
covering all types of workers and industries in the economy
and all elements of compensation costs (wages, salaries,
and employer costs for employee benefits).86
A critical feature of the e c i design was the use of fixed
employment weights by occupation and industry. This fea­
ture specifies measurement of labor cost changes in much
the same way that the Bureau’s Consumer Price Index mea­
sures changes in the prices of a fixed market basket of goods


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

and services. Like the c p i , the e c i also yields subindexes
(by broad occupational group, industry, union or nonunion
status, and so forth) to provide insights into forces under­
lying overall wage and compensation cost trends.
The e c i was developed in stages to meet its design ob­
jectives. Quarterly measures of wage and salary change for
workers in the Nation’s nonfarm economy were first pub­
lished in 1976. The series was broadened to cover changes
in total compensation costs (employee benefit costs in ad­
dition to wages and salaries) in 1980. The following year,
the e c i was further expanded to cover State and local gov­
ernment workers. Over the 1976-84 period, the number of
e c i subindexes increased from 21 to 85.
The e c i — designated as a “ Principal Federal Economic
Indicator” in October 1980— now provides measures of
quarterly compensation cost changes for 78 million privatesector workers and 13 million State and local government
employees. It currently excludes farm, household, and Fed­
eral workers, although coverage may be extended to these
groups in the future.
Prior to 1970, the Bureau conducted a wide
range of surveys designed to shed light on the impact (or
potential impact) of changes in the minimum wage and
maximum hours provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act
( f l s a ). The surveys, which developed data on employee
wages and weekly hours of work, were narrowly focused
on industries and areas judged to be most heavily affected
by changes in the Federal minimum wage, such as men’s
and boys’ shirt manufacturing, southern sawmills, retail
trade, and nonmetropolitan areas of the South and North
Central regions.
The focus broadened in 1970 with the first Bureau study
of distributions of hourly earnings and weekly hours of work
for nonsupervisory employees in the private nonfarm econ­
omy. With this study— designed to estimate the number of
workers whose wage rates would be raised in response to
potential changes in the Federal minimum, and the conse­
quent increases in establishm ent wage bills—
began a period of accelerated Bureau survey activity related
to f l s a and funded by the Labor Department’s Employment
Standards Administration ( e s a ). Subsequent years saw sev­
eral increases in the Federal minimum wage— from $1.60
to $2 an hour in May 1974 (the first adjustment since 1968),
followed by a series of six adjustments that brought the
minimum to $3.35 an hour on January 1, 1981.
During the mid-1970’s, the Bureau conducted surveys of
industries and occupations exempt from f l s a minimum wage
and overtime coverage (including small newspapers; truckdrivers and helpers in local cartage; and executive, admin­
istrative, and professional employees).Survey results were
used by e s a in judging whether an exemption should be
continued, based on the effect it had on wages and hours
of work for affected employees. In the case of executive,
administrative, and professional employees, the survey was

FLSA s u r v e y s .

25

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • A Century o f Wage Statistics: BLS’ Contribution
used to assist e s a in setting minimum salaries as one test
for f l s a exemption.
The 1977 f l s a Amendments created a Minimum Wage
Study Commission to help “ resolve the many controversial
issues that have surrounded the Federal minimum wage and
overtime requirements since their origin in the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.” 67 The responsibility for research
on f l s a amendments shifted to the Commission in 1978.
The Commission’s request for Bureau surveys, which con­
tinued to be funded by e s a , resulted in broad-based studies
similar to the 1970 survey of nonsupervisory employees in
private industry. Also at the request of the Commission, the
Bureau developed a panel study of establishments with which
to gauge the effects of changes in the minimum wage on
employee benefits within individual firms.
The Bureau’s work on f l s a surveys and the panel study
ended in 1981, as did the life of the Commission.
Federal pay comparability. As shown earlier, the adoption
by the Congress in 1962 of a comparability pay policy for
Federal white-collar employees led to the conduct by the
Bureau of an annual nationwide occupational survey of sal­
aries in private industry for use in policy implementation.
The 1962 Act was amended by the Federal Pay Compara­
bility Act of 1970. Under the amended act, the Bureau’s
annual study of Professional, Administrative, Technical,
and Clerical Pay (the p a t c survey) continues to provide a
statistical basis for policy considerations. Its results are used
by the President’s Pay Agent (the Secretary of Labor and
the Directors of the Office of Management and Budget and
the Office of Personnel Management) in making annual
recommendations to the President on pay adjustments needed
to make salaries of Federal white-collar employees com­
parable to those of their private-sector counterparts.
The Federal pay determination process, including the p a t c
survey, is large, complex, and highly controversial.68 It now
affects the pay of more than 3 million employees (including
the military) and has substantial impact on the Federal bud­
get; every 1-percent increase in Federal pay scales costs
about $1 billion. The magnitude of the costs involved and
the controversy surrounding the determination process have
triggered no fewer than six procedural reviews and evalu­
ations.
Review of the process began with a General Accounting
Office audit in 1972. Subsequent evaluations were con­
ducted by the President’s Panel on Federal Compensation
(the Rockefeller Panel) in 1975, the Personnel Management
Project (the Carter Administration’s task group on Federal
Government reorganization) in 1977, the Grace Commission
in 1982-83, the General Accounting Office again in 1983,
and the Reagan Administration’s Cabinet Council on Man­
agement and Administration in 1984. The reviews generated
a variety of recommendations for improving the pay deter­
mination process, including:
26

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

• Expansion of the p a t c survey to cover smaller estab­
lishments and more private-sector industries;
• Amendment of the 1970 Act to include State and local
government workers in comparability surveys;
• Determination of Federal white-collar pay compara­
bility on an area, rather than a national, basis for certain
types of occupations, such as technical and clerical
jobs; and
• Consideration of employee benefits as well as pay in
comparability determination.
The recommendations from the 1972-77 reviews have
already had direct impact on the Bureau’s p a t c survey. To
date, improvements to the study include the establishment
of national training programs for Bureau field representa­
tives, and expansion of coverage to the mining and con­
struction industries and to smaller establishments in a number
of manufacturing industries.
Pressure to consider employee benefits as well as pay
in the comparability process grew as private-sector
benefit costs approached 30 percent of total compensa­
tion costs in the late 1970’s. In 1978, the Bureau began
construction o f a comprehensive data base on employee
benefits in private industry.69 Developed from a survey
o f detailed employee benefit plan characteristics, the
data base has been used experimentally by the Office of
Personnel Management in estimating the effect o f im­
plementing a Total Compensation Com parability con­
cept in the determ ination o f Federal employee
renum eration.70
The annual survey of employee benefits was first con­
ducted in 1979, and has become one of the richest sources
of employee benefit data ever developed. It is nationwide
in scope and covers the same industries and establishment
size groups as the p a t c survey. Data are collected on em­
ployee participation rates and detailed plan provisions for
such benefits as paid leave, short- and long-term disability
benefits, health and life insurance, and retirement plans.
Shifting program priorities. Expansion and contraction of
the Bureau’s wage statistics programs during 1970-84 fol­
lowed patterns of the past: Growth in periods during which
the Federal Government had pressing need for more eco­
nomic intelligence or for data to administer Federal law,
and cutbacks when dictated by budget constraints. Difficult
priority decisions on cutbacks in wage programs included
elimination of the biennial survey of employer expenditures
for employee compensation; wage chronologies for about
30 major collective bargaining situations; union wage sur­
veys in construction, printing, local transit, local trucking,
and grocery stores; municipal government wage surveys in
the Nation’s 27 largest cities (initiated during the early 1970’s);
and f l s a surveys. However, the period also brought de­
velopment and growth of the quarterly e c i series, construc­
tion of a rich data base on employee benefits, and expansion
of the p a t c survey— all contributing to a better understand-

ing of wages and compensation of the Nation’s working
men and women.

In retrospect
There are many omissions in this review of 100 years of
work by the Bureau in the compilation of wage statistics.
But the main lines of development have been made clear,
and it may not be inappropriate to recap briefly the signif­
icance of this effort.
Without the Bureau’s surveys and studies, with all their
limitations, we would know far less than we do about the
money return for work during the past century in our highly
complex and dynamic economy. The Bureau has provided
a reasonably consistent body of information available from

no other source. This reflects an underlying consistency and
continuity of program, despite adaptations necessitated by
fluctuating budgetary levels, special governmental require­
ments for survey data, changes in the industrial composition
of the working population, and the increasing complexity
of the wage bargain.
In substantial measure, the wage statistics program has
been shaped by Federal Government needs for information
for administrative and policy purposes. But, in line with
general Bureau policy, the results of surveys and studies
consistently have been made available to the public. They
have found extensive use over the years in wage determi­
nation through collective bargaining and employer personnel
action, and in university and other private research.
□

■FOOTNOTES
A c k n o w l e d g m e n t : The author thanks George L. Stelluto, currently
Associate Commissioner for Wages and Industrial Relations, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, for a careful review of the manuscript and for drafting
the account o f the Bureau’s work in wage statistics between 1970 and
1984.

1See The Consumer Price Index: Concepts and Content Over the Years,
Report 517 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, May 1978).
2 For a description o f the early development of the average hourly and
weekly earnings by industry series, see Hours and Earnings in the United
States, 1 9 3 2 -4 0 , Bulletin 697 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1942), pp. 3 4 46.
I Railroad mileage more than doubled between 1880 and 1900, reaching
198,694 miles in the latter year. See U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical
Abstract, 1919, p. 797.
4U .S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics o f the United States:
Colonial Times to 1970, Series D 152-166 (Washington. U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1975), p. 138.
5See particularly Francis A. Walker, The Wages Question (New York,
Henry Holt & C o., 1876).
6Leo Wolman, Ebb and Flow in Trade Unionism (New York, National
Bureau o f Economic Research, 1936), table 5, p. 16.
7Joseph Dorfman, The Economic Mind in American Civilization (New
York, Viking Press, 1949), voi. 3, chap. vi.
8 Prior to 1884, about a dozen States had established labor bureaus, but
few o f these had made any significant effort to compile wage statistics.
9 Joseph D. Weeks, “ Report on the Statistics of Wages in Manufacturing
Industries,” Tenth Census, 1880, voi. XX (Washington, U .S. Government
Printing O ffice, 1886).
l0For a general account of Wright’s work, see James Leiby, Carroll D.
Wright and Labor Reform: The Origin o f Labor Statistics (Cambridge,
M ass., Harvard University Press, 1960). See also Wendell D. Macdonald,
“ Carroll D. Wright and His Influence on the b l s , ” Monthly Labor Review,
January 1955, pp. 3 -1 0 .
II Lombardi goes so far as to say of Wright that “ largely as a result of
his personal contacts with European statisticians at the sessions of the
International Statistical Congress, of which he was a member, and through
the influence of his reports, which were widely circulated, every European
and Australian state created labor bureaus before the opening of the twen­
tieth century.” John Lombardi, Labor’s Voice in the Cabinet (New York,
Columbia University Press, 1942), p. 48. See also E. H. Phelps Brown
and M. H. Browne, “ Carroll D. Wright and the Development of British
Labour Statistics,” Economica, August 1963, pp. 277-86.

^Commissioner of Labor, Fifth Annual Report, 1889, Railroad Labor,
table 11, pp. 514-791.

15I b id , p. 75.
l6These studies were published as the Sixth and Seventh Annual Reports
of the Commissioner of Labor, 1890 and 1891, and dealt with the cost of
production in a number of industries, including iron and steel, coal, textiles,
and glass.
17For the 1840-91 wage series compiled by the Bureau for the Aldrich
Committee, see Wholesale Prices, Wages, and Transportation, Report by
Aldrich, 52d Cong., 2d sess., Report 1394, Mar. 3, 1893, parts 2, 3, and
4, table XII, pp. 293-1560. The Bureau also compiled wage rate data for
15 specified occupations in a large number of cities, and for important
occupations in a few industries, for the 28-month period June 1889-September 1891. For these data, see Retail Prices and Wages, Report by
Aldrich, 52d Cong., 1st sess., Report 986, July 19, 1892, part 3, table
IV, pp. 1903-2009, and table V, pp. 2010-39.
18Aldrich Report, Mar. 3, 1893, part 1, p. 11.
19Ibid., pp. 110-77.
20E. H. Phelps Brown and Sheila V. Hopkins, “ The Course o f Wages
in Five Countries, 1860-1939,” Oxford University Papers, June 1956,
pp. 226-95; Clarence D. Long, Wages and Earnings in the United States,
1860-1890 (Princeton, N .J., Princeton University Press, 1960).
21 Wages in the United States and Europe, 1870-1898, Bulletin 18
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 1898).
22 Bureau of the Census, Long Term Economic Growth, 1860-1965
(Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966), appendix table
A l, p. 166.
23Wolman, Ebb and Flow, table 5, p. 16.
24Commissioner of Labor, Nineteenth Annual Report, 1904, Wages and
Hours o f Labor.
25Ibid., p. 9.
26Ibid., p. 20.
27 Paul H. Douglas, Real Wages in the United States, 1890-1926 (Boston
and New York, Houghton Mifflin C o., 1930), p. 75.
28 For the Douglas index, see ibid, table 24, p. 108. The Douglas series
on real, but not money, wages in manufacturing for the period 1890-1914
has been effectively revised by Albert Rees, Real Wages in Manufacturing,
1890-1914 (Princeton, N .J., Princeton University Press, 1961).
29 See Wages and Hours of Labor in Manufacturing Industries, 1890 to
1904, Bulletin 59 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, July 1905); similar articles
for 1905, 1906, and 1907 appeared in Bulletin 65, July 1906; Bulletin 71,
July 1907; and Bulletin 77, July 1908.

12Carroll D. Wright, “ The Evolution of Wage Statistics,” Quarterly
Journal o f Economics, January 1892, pp. 158-59.

30 Wages and Hours o f Labor in the Cotton, Woolen, and Silk Industries,
1 890-1912, Bulletin 128 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1913).

13Commissioner o f Labor, First Annual Report, 1886, Industrial
D epressions, text table, pp. 143-74; appendix A, pp. 295-410.

31 Union Scale o f Wages and Hours o f Labor, 1907 to 1912, Bulletin
131 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1913).


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

27

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • A Century o f Wage Statistics: BLS’ Contribution
32 “ Index Numbers o f Wages per Hour, 1840 to 1920,” Monthly Labor
R eview , February 1921, pp. 7 3 -7 4 .
33 “ Index Numbers of Wages per Hour, 1840-1934,” Monthly Labor
Review, August 1935, pp. 4 2 9 -3 0 .
34Industrial Survey in Selected Industries in the United States, 1919,
Bulletin 265 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1920).
35 Bureau o f the Census, Historical Statistics o f the United States: Co­
lonial Times to 1970, series D-86 (Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1975), p. 135. The data on the civilian labor force apply to persons
14 years o f age and over.
36Handbook o f Labor Statistics, 1975-Reference Edition, Bulletin 1865
(Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1975), table 158, p. 389.
37See H. M. Douty, “ The Development of Wage-Price Policies,” in
Problem s and Policies o f Dispute Settlement and Wages Stabilization Dur­
ing World War II, Bulletin 1009 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1950), pp. 104—
54.
38The final publication in this series appears to have been Hourly En­
trance Rates o f Common Laborers in Large Cities, Spring and Summer
o f 1943, Bulletin 775 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1944).
39No description o f the precise composition o f this index has thus far
been located.
40The 1936 edition o f the Handbook o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin 616
(Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1936), pp. 8 73-1090, contains brief sum­
maries o f Bureau and other wage studies published between 1931 and
1935. Similar summaries will be found in the 1941 edition o f the Handbook,
Bulletin 694, vol. II, pp. 2 1 -3 6 9 , for the years 1936-40.
41 For Board policy on interplant inequities, see The Termination Report
o f the National War Labor Board, vol. I (Washington, U .S. Government
Printing Office, 1947), pp. 2 2 6 -3 9 . See also Robert J. Myers and Harry
Ober, “ Statistics for Wage Stabilization,” Journal o f the American Sta­
tistical Association, December 1943, pp. 4 25-37; and Activities o f the
Bureau o f Labor Statistics in World War 11 (Washington, U .S. Government
Printing Office, 1947), pp. 8 6 -9 4 .
42Fact Finding Activities o f the Bureau o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin 831
(Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1945), p. 14.
43Robert J. Myers, Harry Ober, and Lily Mary David, “ Wartime Wage
Movements and Urban Wage Rate Changes,” Monthly Labor Review,
October 1944, pp. 6 8 4 -7 0 4 . For the use of the index in appraisal of the
wage stabilization program, see The Termination Report o f the National
War Labor Board, vol. I, pp. 537-59.
■^Frances Jones Clerc and Eleanor K. Buschman, “ Trends in Urban
Wage Rates, September 1947,” Monthly Labor Review, January 1948,
pp. 4 5 -5 0 .
45 Because o f their publication in mimeograph form, the full reports on
industry wage studies during the immediate postwar period are almost
fugitive materials. They are on file at the Bureau and may perhaps be
found in some university and public libraries. They are listed in A Catalogue
o f the Wage Studies oj the Bureau o f Labor Statistics, January 1945-June
1948, a Bureau publication in mimeographed form prepared by Edward
K. Frazier.
46Harry Ober, “ Occupational Wage Differentials, 1907-1947,” Monthly
Labor Review, August 1948, pp. 127-34.
47 Joseph W. Bloch, “ Regional Wage Differentials, 1 9 0 7 -4 6 ,” Monthly
Labor Review, April 1948, pp. 371 -7 7 .
48 The heightened academic interest in wage research is reflected in a
conference report by Lloyd G. Reynolds on Research in Wages (New
York, Social Science Research Council, 1948). The conference was at­
tended by leading academic students of wages and by Bureau officials
responsible for the wage statistics program.
49See Joseph W. Duncan and William C. Shelton, Revolution in United
States Government Statistics, 1926-1976 (Washington, U .S. Government
Printing Office, 1978), pp. 3 2 -7 0 .
50 Major credit for the adaptation of probability sampling to universes
o f establishments for occupational wage survey purposes belongs to Samuel
E. Cohen, then statistician in the Bureau’s Wage Analysis Branch.
51 Some o f the thinking that went into the new program is reflected in

28


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

H. M. Douty, “ Conceptual Problems in the Development of an Adequate
Program of Occupational Wage Statistics,” Proceedings, Industrial Re­
lations Research Association, 1950, pp. 220-30.
52
The results of these studies were summarized in Salaries o f Office
Workers in Selected Large Cities, Bulletin 943 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1949).
53See H. M. Douty and Toivo P. Kanninen, “ Community Approach to
Wage Studies,” Monthly Labor R eview, October 1949, pp. 1-6.
54For an account of the Bureau’s work for the wage stabilization effort
during the Korean war, see Wage Stabilization Board, Wage Stabilization
Program, 1950-1953, vol. II (Washington, Economic Stabilization Agency,
1953), pp. 181-99.
55 See Wage Differentials and Rate Structures Among 40 Labor Markets,
1 9 51-52, Bulletin 1135 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1953). Summary
statistics for the 40 areas surveyed will be found in Wages and Related
Benefits, 40 Labor Markets, 1951-52, Bulletin 1113 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 1952).
56The report of the interagency committee may be found in House
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, Hearings on Revision o f
M ajor Federal Salary Systems, part I, 87th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 7 9 -1 2 5 .
57 The summary report on the first round of surveys in the expanded
labor market program appeared as Wages and Related Benefits, 60 Labor
Markets, 19 5 9 -6 0 , Bulletin 1265-62 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1961).
Coverage was expanded to 80 areas in the following year. For the initial
report designed for use in Federal salary determination, see National Survey
o f Professional, Administrative, Technical, and Clerical Pay, Winter 195960, Bulletin 1286 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1960).
58See Toivo P. Kanninen, “ New Dimensions in b l s Wage Survey Work.”
Monthly Labor Review, October 1959, table 2, p. 1083, for a tentative list
of the industries included in the survey proposal.
59Problems in Measurement o f Expenditures on Selected Items o f Sup­
plementary Employee Remuneration, Manufacturing Establishments, 1953,
Bulletin 1186 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1956).
60Employer Expenditures fo r Selected Supplementary Remuneration
Practices fo r Production Workers in Manufacturing Industries, 1959, Bul­
letin 1308 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1962).
61 Employee Compensation in the Private Nonfarm Economy, 1966, Bul­
letin 1627 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1969).
62See Alvin Bauman, “ Measuring employee compensation in U.S. in­
dustry,” Monthly Labor Review, October 1970, pp. 17-23.
63 The annual statistical summary of wage changes in major agreements
has become quite elaborate. See William M. Davis and Joan D. Borum,
“ Wage Adjustments Under Major Bargaining Agreements At All-Time
Low in 1983,” Current Wage Developments, April 1984, pp. 4 5 -6 9 .
64As an example of a wage chronology, see Wage Chronology: The
Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. and the B. F. Goodrich Co. (Akron Plants)
and the Rubber Workers, ¡9 3 9 -1 9 7 9 , Bulletin 2011 (Bureau o f Labor
Statistics, 1979).
65 See Area Wage Surveys: Metropolitan Areas, United States and Re­
gional Summaries, 19 7 3 -7 4 , Bulletin 1795-29 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1976), table A-28, pp. 8 7 -8 8 .

66The Employment Cost Index is published quarterly in news
releases that are typically issued in January, April, July, and October.
It also appears in Current W age D evelopm en ts and the M o n th ly
L a b o r R eview , monthly publications of the Bureau.
67Report o f the Minimum Wage Study Commission, vol. 1, May 1981,
Preface, pp. XIII-XIV.
68See George Stelluto, “ Federal pay comparability: facts to temper the
debate,” Monthly Labor R eview , June 1979, pp. 18-28.
69See Robert Frumkin and William Wiatrowski, “ b l s takes a new look
at employee benefits,” Monthly Labor Review, August 1982, pp, 4 1 -4 5 .
70 Dollar costs were calculated by o p m using mathematical and actuarial
models that took account of the demographic characteristics of the Federal
work force. See “ Total Compensation Comparability: Background, Method,
Preliminary Results” (U .S. Office of Personnel Management, July 1981).

BLS and the economy:
a centennial timetable
Edgar W

e in b e r g

Celebration of the b l s Centennial affords an opportunity to
review the growth and development of the Bureau’s work
in relation to changes in the American economy and society.
Shifts in Bureau leadership, changes in objectives, and the
evolution of programs following the Bureau’s inception are
narrated in a study to be published by the Bureau in 1985.
In what follows, pertinent facts and dates are presented in
a Timetable of History, a format of a long span of years.
It is intended to present briefly the historical context in which
the Bureau has developed.
The table presents events over the past 100 years under
three headings: first, the commissioners and their terms of
office, including the presidents who nominated them; sec­
ond, major activities of the Bureau of Labor Statistics; and
third, selected economic and historic milestones.
Among the major themes that emerge from this overview:
increasing use of b l s programs in the administration of
private and public stabilization programs, such as adjust­
ment of incomes to consumer price changes, allocation of
public funds for unemployment assistance, and the regu­
lation of working conditions; the pursuit of economic sta­
bility through government intervention; the shift away from
government action on the side of employers to a more neutral
position in labor-management relations; and the persistence

Edgar Weinberg, a consulting economist, formerly was Deputy Assistant
Commissioner, Office of Productivity and Technology. William T.M oye,
o f the Office o f Publications, assisted in the preparation of this historical
timetable.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

and creativity of collective bargaining in dealing with prob­
lems of change.
In addition to the forthcoming historical study, the time­
table draws on several other b l s publications for the sections
on the Commissioners and Major Activities of the b l s : b l s
Handbook o f Methods, Vol. I (Bulletin 2134-1, 1982); In­
formation Processing at BLS (Report 583, 1980); The Monthly
Labor Review, and selected Bulletins. The Annual Reports
of the Secretary of Labor, 1915-83, were also consulted.
Other useful sources included: Ewan Clague, The Bureau
o f Labor Statistics (New York, Frederick A. Praeger, 1968)
and Joseph W. Duncan and William C. Shelton, Revolution
in United States Government Statistics, 1926-1976 (Wash­
ington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978).
The main sources for economic and historic milestones
were: Richard B. Morris, ed., Encyclopedia o f American
History, Sixth Edition (New York, Harper and Row,
1982); Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., general editor, The Al­
manac o f American History (New York, G. P. Putnam’s
Sons, 1983); Lawrence Urdang, ed., The Timetables of
American History (New York, Simon and Schuster, Inc.,
1981). The dates of business cycle turning points are from
the article by Geoffrey H. Moore, “ Business Cycles’’ in
Douglas Greenwald, editor-in-chief, Encyclopedia o f Eco­
nomics (New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1982) and the
U.S. Department of Commerce’s Business Cycle Digest.
Also consulted were Brief History o f the American Labor
Movement ( bls Bulletin 1000, 1976) and Harold S. Roberts,
Robert’s Dictionary of Industrial Relations (Washington,
The Bureau of National Affairs, 1971).
29

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • BLS and the Economy: a Centennial Timetable

T erm s of com m ission ers

M ajor

bls

activities

C a r r o l l D. W r ig h t ,

1885-89.
1884. Bureau of Labor is established in the
Nominated by Chester A. Arthur.
Department of the Interior. Officers appointed
in 1885.
1886.

Bureau publishes its first annual report,

In d u s tria l D e p re s s io n s , with data on the

United States, Great Britain, France, Belgium,
and Germany.

E conom ic and historic m ilestones
1884-85. Recession and wave of wage reduc­
tions spark strikes, especially on railroads.
1886. American Federation of Labor is orga­
nized by 25 trade unions with Samuel Gompers as president. Violence in Chicago’s
Haymarket Square hurts 8-hour-day move­
ment and sets back the Knights of Labor.
1887. Congress establishes Interstate Com­
merce Commission to regulate railroad freight
rates.

1888. Bureau becomes Department of Labor,
independent but without Cabinet status.
C a r r o ll D. W r ig h t ,

1889-93.
Renominated by Grover
Cleveland.

1889. Jane Addams and Ellen Gates Starr
found Hull House in Chicago to experience,
investigate, and improve conditions faced by
immigrants. Cabinet-level Department of Agri­
culture is established.
1890. United Mine Workers of America is es­
tablished. Congress passes Sherman Anti­
trust Act.
1891. Bureau begins surveys for Senate Fi­
nance (Aldrich) Committee study of imports
and tariffs. Report published as R e ta il P ric e s
a n d W a g e s (1892) and W h o le s a le P ric e s ,
W a g e s , a n d T ra n s p o rta tio n (1893).
1892. Recession begins, lasting 17 months
before a short recovery. Violent confrontation
erupts at Carnegie steel mill at Homestead,
PA.

C a r r o ll D. W r ig h t ,

1893-97.
1893. Wright is appointed Superintendent of
Renominated by Benjamin Harri­
the Census.
son.
1894.

Bureau annual report, T he S lu m s o f B a l­
tim o re , C h ic a g o , N e w York, a n d P h ila d e lp h ia ,
includes data on crime, literacy, nativity,
health, and crowding, as well as occupations
and earnings.

1894. Federal troops break Pullman strike.
President appoints investigating commission
with Wright as chairman. “Coxey’s Army” of
unemployed march on Washington to demand
a national public works program.

1895. Bureau publishes first issue of the bi­
monthly Bulletin of the Department of Labor.
1896. Supreme Court declares “separate but
equal” doctrine in P le s s y v. F e rg u s o n .
C a r r o ll D. W r ig h t ,

1897-1901.
Renominated by Grover Cleve­
land.

1897.

Annual report, W o rk a n d W a g e s o f M e n ,
W o m e n a n d C h ild re n , was authorized by

Congress to answer the question, “Are
women and children replacing men?”
1898.

Annual report, H a n d a n d M a c h in e L a ­
b o r, was authorized by Congress to deter­
mine if the introduction of machinery
depressed wages or caused widespread un­
employment.

30


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1897. “ Klondike Stampede” begins for Alas­
kan gold.

1898. Erdman Act passed, providing mediation
and conciliation in railroad disputes by the
Commissioner of Labor and the chairman of
the Interstate Commerce Commission. U.S.
fights war with Spain. In peace treaty, Spain
cedes the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and
Guam.

T erm s of com m ission ers

M ajor

bls

activities

1900. Law annexing Hawaii directs the Bureau
to conduct periodic surveys of economic con­
ditions.

C a r r o ll D. W r ig h t ,

1901 -05.
Renominated by Theodore
Roosevelt. Retired in 1905.

E conom ic and historic m ilestones
1900. Business, labor, and civic leaders orga­
nize National Civic Federation to promote
conciliation and arbitration between capital
and labor.
1901. Elbert H. Gary, financed by J. P. Mor­
gan, buys out Carnegie interests and com­
bines other firms to form the U.S. Steel Corp.

1902. Bureau begins publication of the Whole­
sale Price Index with data covering 1890 to
1901.

1902. Strike by Pennsylvania anthracite coal
miners sparks Presidential concern and es­
tablishment of Anthracite Coal Strike Commis­
sion, with Wright as recorder. Permanant
Bureau of the Census is established, then
transferred to the Department of Commerce
and Labor in 1903.

1903. President signs bill establishing the De­
partment of Commerce and Labor, with the
Bureau of Labor as a part. Bureau presents
data from massive retail price and budget
studies, beginning the series on retail price of
food.
1904.

Annual report, W a g e s a n d H o u rs o f L a ­
b o r, presents data on 519 occupations ob­

tained from 3,475 establishments in 67
industries.

1904. Supreme Court declares unconstitutional
maximum hours law for bakery workers
(L o c h n e r v. N e w Y ork).

C h a r le s P. N e il l ,

1905-09.
Nominated by Theodore
Roosevelt.
1906. Upton Sinclair exposes conditions in
Chicago meatpacking plants in The J u n g le .
The President sends Neill to investigate.
American Association for Labor Legislation is
founded.
1907. Bureau begins investigation of working
conditions experienced by women and chil­
dren, resulting in a 19-volume study.
1908. Secretary assigns Bureau its first admin­ 1908. Supreme Court holds boycott by Dan­
istrative duties, arising from the Federal
bury Hatters Union a restraint of trade prohib­
Workmen’s Compensation Act, the first such
ited under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
system to operate in this country.
Supreme Court also upholds Oregon 10-hour
law for women in M u lle r v. O re g o n , as de­
fended in the “ Brandeis brief.”

C h a r le s P. N e il l ,

1909-13.
Renominated by Theodore
Roosevelt.

1910. Bureau publishes study of phosphorus
poisoning, leading to the elimination of white
phosphorus in the manufacture of matches.

1910. Strike at Bethlehem Steel is investigated
by the Bureau, which then undertakes a study
of conditions in the iron and steel industry.
1911. Triangle Shirtwaist Co. destroyed by
fire, causing the death of 146 workers and
leading to establishment of the New York
State Factory Investigating Commission.

C h a r le s P. N e il l ,

1913.
Nominated by William H. Taft.
Nominated by Woodrow Wilson.
Resigned in 1913.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1912.

Bureau publishes A c c id e n ts a n d A c c i­
d e n t P re v e n tio n (Vol. IV of Report on Condi­

tions of Employment in the Iron and Steel
Industry), marking the birth of continuing an­
nual series in the iron and steel industry.

1912. Congress creates Children's Bureau. In­
dustrial Workers of the World leads success­
ful strike at textile mills of Lawrence, m a .
Bureau of Labor investigates.

31

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • BLS and the Economy: a Centennial Timetable

T erm s of com m issioners
1913-17.
Nominated by Woodrow
Wilson, following a 3-month in­
terim during which G. W. W.
Hanger served as acting com­
missioner.

R o yal M eeker,

M ajor

BLS

activities

1913. Congress establishes the Cabinet-level
Department of Labor, with the Bureau of La­
bor Statistics, Bureau of Immigration, Bureau
of Naturalization, and the Children’s Bureau.

E conom ic and historic m ilestones
1913. Ford establishes moving assembly line
system to mass produce M o d e l T ’s. Sixteenth
Amendment, income tax, is ratified. Federal
Reserve System is established.
1914. Clayton Act, “ Magna Carta of Labor,” is
enacted, exempting unions from Sherman An­
titrust Act. Violent strike of coal miners in Lud­
low, co. leads to Federal troops and the
appointment of a Presidential Commission.
World War I begins in Europe. Start of a 44month business expansion.

1915. Bureau publishes revised series on re­
1915. La Follette Seaman’s Act is passed reg­
tail and wholesale prices, and a report, “The
ulating conditions of employment of maritime
Making and Using of Index Numbers,” by
workers. National Safety Council is founded.
Wesley C. Mitchell (reprinted in 1921 in Bulle­
tin 284). First survey of unemployment is con­
ducted in New York City. First issue of
M o n th ly R e v ie w is published (renamed
M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w in 1918).
Agreement is signed with New York
State to collect data on factory employment,
hours, and payrolls from employers. Bureau
publishes national series on monthly basis.

1916.

R o y a l M e e k e r , 1917-20.

Renominated by Woodrow
Wilson. Resigned in 1920.

1916. Four-year study of the status of labormanagement relations and the causes of in­
dustrial unrest is released by the Commission
on Industrial Relations. Adamson Act passed
establishing 8-hour day on interstate rail­
roads.

1917. Two year study begins on income and
1917. United States enters war. Railroads are
expenditures of urban wage earners and cleri­
nationalized. Production is subjected to con­
cal workers to construct cost-of-living indexes
trols imposed by War Industries Board, Food
(first published in 1919).
Administration, and Fuel Administration. Su­
preme Court upholds “yellow-dog” contracts.
1918. Business and labor leaders at Presi­
dent's Labor-Management Conference agree
to maintain industrial peace for duration. The
National War Labor Board is created to deal
with disputes. U.S. Employment Service
opens field offices. Armistice is signed in No­
vember.
1919. President’s Industrial Conference ends
without agreement on right-to-organize. Presi­
dent establishes coal commission to arbitrate
miners’ strike.
1920. 19th Amendment (women’s suffrage) is
ratified. Congress establishes Women’s Bu­
reau in the Department of Labor.

1920-25.
Recess appointment by
Woodrow Wilson. Nominated by
Warren G. Harding.

Ethelbert S tew art,

1921. Bureau takes over series on building
permits in major cities from U.S. Geological
Survey.
1922. Bureau expands cooperative program
with States in collecting employment statis­
tics.

1921. President's.,Gonference on Unemploy­
ment recommends local responsibility for un­
employment relief. “Guesses” of
unemployment range from 3.5 to 5 million.

1923. Steel industry agrees to eliminate the 12hour day, following pressure from the Harding
Administration.
1924. William Green becomes president of the
AF of L. Restrictive immigration legislation is
adopted.
32

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Term s of com m ission ers

M ajor bls activities

E conom ic and historic m ilestones

Ethelbert Stewart,1925-29.
Renominated by Calvin
Coolidge.

1926. First annual indexes of labor productivity 1926. Railway Labor Act is enacted requiring
are issued for autos, steel, and other selected
employers to bargain collectively. Ford an­
industries. First edition of H a n d b o o k o f A m e ri­
nounces 8-hour day, 5-day week.
c a n T ra d e U n io n s is published. American Sta­
tistical Association Committee reports on
Employment Statistics for the United States.
1928.

Bureau publishes H is to ry o f W a g e s in
th e U n ite d S ta te s from C o lo n ia l Tim es. Con­

gress appropriates $100,000 to support ex­
panded work in employment statistics.
Ethelbert Stewart, 1929-32.
Renominated by Herbert
Hoover. Retired in 1932 be­
cause of age. Charles A. Bald­
win served as acting
commissioner.

1929. Series on labor turnover in manufactur­
ing is taken over from Metropolitan Life Insur­
ance Co.

1929. Prices on New York Stock Exchange
collapse. Great Depression begins.

1930. President Hoover establishes Advisory
Committee on Employment Statistics.

1930. Tariffs are raised substantially, by Hawley-Smoot Act. Bureau of Census conducts
census of unemployment, April 1930.

1931. Bureau publishes special reports on un­ 1931. Congress passes Davis-Bacon Act re­
employment benefit plans in the United States
quiring prevailing wages on Federal construc­
and abroad.
tion.
1932. Norris-LaGuardia Act is enacted, re­
stricting Federal antiunion injunctions and out­
lawing “yellow-dog” contracts. Wisconsin
adopts first unemployment insurance law. Re­
construction Finance Corp. is set up for emer­
gency financing of banks, insurance, and
other failing companies. Bonus march on
Washington is dispersed.
Isador L ubin, 1933-38.
After recess appointment by
Franklin D. Roosevelt, nomi­
nated in 1934.

\


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1933. b ls is designated agent to collect wage
1933. Unemployment is estimated at 25 per­
and hour data for formulating n r a codes. Av­
cent. Congress enacts recovery and relief leg­
erage hourly earnings and average weekly
islation, and establishes Tennessee Valley
hours are published for the first time by indus­
Authority. U.S. Employment Service is reorga­
try and for total manufacturing.
nized under Wagner-Peyser Act. National In­
dustrial Recovery Act sparks union organizing
drive.
1934. Congress appropriates money for new
survey of income and expenditures towards
revision of the cost-of-living index, the first
since its introduction.

1934. New Deal legislation is enacted includ­
ing Home Owners Loan Act, Securities Ex­
change Act, National Housing Act. Division
(later Bureau) of Labor Standards is estab­
lished in Labor Department to assist States.
U.S. membership in ilo is approved.

1935. Study of company unions is conducted
by newly organized Industrial Relations Divi­
sion. Bureau establishes Machine Tabulation
Division to centralize data processing.

1935. Social Security Act and National Labor
Relations Act are enacted into law. Commit­
tee for (later Congress of) Industrial Organiza­
tions is formed, with John L. Lewis as
chairman, to organize mass production indus­
tries. Work Projects Administration ( w p a ) is
created.
1936. Public Contract Act (Walsh-Healey) is
enacted.
33

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • BLS and the Economy: a Centennial Timetable

T erm s of com m ission ers

M ajor

bls

activities

E conom ic and historic m ileston es
1937. Sit-down strikes in auto, rubber, steel,
textiles, and other industries. United Auto
Workers is recognized by General Motors;
Steelworkers by U.S. Steel.

1938-42.
Renominated by Franklin D.
Roosevelt. After Lubin’s assign­
ment to the White House in
1940, the Bureau was super­
vised by A. Ford Hinrichs who
served as acting commissioner.

I s a d o r L u b in ,

1938. Commissioner plays leading role in or­
ganizing investigation of industrial concentra­
tion by the Temporary National Economic
Committee of Congress, with the Bureau con­
ducting several special studies.

1938.

Fair Labor Standards Act is passed.

1939. World War II begins in Europe. Regular
transatlantic air service is inaugurated. Con­
gress extends Social Security Act to provide
survivors benefits.
1940. b ls introduces revised cost-of-living in­
dex, now released monthly. Congressional
resolution authorizes continuing studies of la­
bor productivity by new Division of Productiv­
ity and Technological Development.
Occupational Outlook Service is established.

1940.

First peacetime draft is introduced.

1941. Lend-lease is started. U.S. enters the
war in December, a f l and cio give no-strike
pledge for duration. President creates Com­
mittee on Fair Employment Practices by exec­
utive order.
1942-46.
Renominated by Franklin D.
Roosevelt. Resigned irr 1946.

I s a d o r L u b in ,

1942. Regional offices are set up to serve
emergency agencies, w p a sample survey of
labor force is transferred to the Census Bu­
reau.

1942. Little Steel formula allowing 15-percent
cost-of-living raise is adopted.

1943. Withholding of income taxes started.
Government temporarily takes over railroads
and coal mines to end strikes.
1944. Servicemen’s Readjustment Act (gi Bill)
providing education, homeownership, small
business, and other benefits is passed.
1945. Bureau renames cost-of-living index,
1945.
“Consumers’ Price Index for Moderate In­
come Families in Large Cities.” Foreign Labor
Problems Branch is organized for assistance
to other countries in improving labor statistics.
Expansion of employment statistics to provide
State estimates is begun in regional offices.
1946-50.
Nominated by Harry S Truman.

1946. Wave of strikes breaks out as wartime
wage and salary controls end. Employment
Act is passed committing government to pro­
mote “maximum employment and purchasing
power” and creating the Council of Economic
Advisors.

E wan C lague,

34

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

End of World War II.

1947. First meetings of the Labor Research
Advisory Committee and the Business Re­
search Advisory Committee, appointed by the
Commissioner, are held. Report, 1 9 5 0 F u ll
E m p lo y m e n t P a tte rn s , based on input-output,
is published.

1947. Congress passes National Labor Rela­
tions Act (Taft-Hartley) over President's veto.
Independent Federal Mediation and Concilia­
tion Service is set up, with “preventive media­
tion” role.

T erm s of com m ission ers

M ajor

bls

activities

1948. Bureau publishes first City Worker’s
Family Budget.

E conom ic and historic m ilestones
1948. First major contract with cost-of-living
adjustment based on c p i is signed by General
Motors and u a w . European Recovery Plan
(Marshall Plan) is launched.

1949.

First edition of the O c c u p a tio n a l O u tlo o k
H a n d b o o k is published. All States are now

cooperating with Bureau’s cooperative em­
ployment statistics program.
1950-54.
Renominated by Harry S
Truman.

E w an C la g u e ,

1950.

Korean conflict begins.

1953. Bureau introduces revised Consumer
Price Index.

1953.

Armistice negotiated in Korea.

1954. b l s , Census, and Bureau of Employ­
ment Security establish procedure to release
a unified monthly statement on the employ­
ment-unemployment situation. Bureau
launches Federal-State cooperative program
to collect statistics of labor turnover. First In­
terstate Conference on Labor Statistics is
held.

1954. Supreme Court declares school segre­
gation a violation of equal protection clause of
Constitution.

1951. Bureau introduces interim adjustments
to the Consumer Price Index to prepare for
wartime pressures and stabilization uses.

1955-59.
Renominated by Dwight D.
Eisenhower, after almost a year
interim, during which Aryness J.
Wickens served as acting com­
missioner.

E w a n C la g u e ,

1955. a f l and cio are merged, with George
Meany as President. UAW-Ford agreement
provides supplementary unemployment bene­
fit plan financed by the employer.

1958. Bureau installs first generation electronic 1958. Welfare and Pension Plan Disclosure
computer ( ibm 650).
Act, requiring financial reports on health, pen­
sion, and supplementary unemployment ben­
efits, is passed.
1959-63.
Renominated by Dwight D. Ei­
senhower.

E w a n C la g u e ,


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1959. Full program and financial responsibility
for “Monthly Report on the Labor Force” is
assigned to Bureau; data collection, to Cen­
sus. Bureau publishes its first estimates of
real output per man-hour in the private econ­
omy using the constant dollar gross national
product.

1959. Labor-Management Reporting and Dis­
closure Act is adopted. Joint plans for job se­
curity and improvements are negotiated at the
Kaiser Steel and Armour Co.

1960. First Professional, Administrative, Tech­
nical and Clerical pay survey is conducted.
1961. Report of Price Statistics (Stigler) Re­
view Committee is issued. Bureau sets firm
release dates a full year in advance following
criticism in 1960 election.

1961. Beginning of record 106-month business
expansion. President’s Advisory Committee
on Labor-Management Policy is appointed to
deal with trade, tax, and related issues.

1962. Committee to Appraise Employment and 1962. Guideposts for noninflationary wage and
Unemployment Statistics (Gordon) reports its
price decisions based on productivity are pro­
findings supporting Bureau’s integrity and rec­
claimed by Council of Economic Advisers.
ommending improvements.
Manpower Development and Training Act is
passed. Federal Salary Reform Act is
adopted, linking salaries to those paid in pri­
vate industry as surveyed by the Bureau.

35

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • BLS and the Economy: a Centennial Timetable

Term s of com m ission ers
1963-65.
Renominated by John F.
Kennedy. Retired in 1965.

Ewan C lague,

M ajor

bls

activities

1964. New series of studies of collective bar­
gaining agreements including prevalence of
different provisions is begun (Bulletins 14251-20). Revised c p i is published, based on
1960-61 survey of consumer expenditures.

A r th u r M. R o s s ,

1965-68.
Nominated by Lyndon B.
Johnson. Resigned in 1968.

E conom ic and historic m ilestones
1964. “War on Poverty” is declared in Eco­
nomic Opportunity Act, providing work, educa­
tion, and loan programs for the
disadvantaged. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
bars discrimination in hiring, employment, and
apprenticeship.
1965. United States sends troops to South
Vietnam.
1966. Report of the National Commission on
Technology, Automation, and Economic Prog­
ress is issued after 2-year study. Health In­
surance of the Aged and Disabled (Medicare)
is enacted.

1967. Bureau is reorganized (1966-67) follow­
ing study by management consultants. Data
collection and processing are centralized.
1968. Age Discrimination in Employment Act
covering persons 40 to 65 is approved.
G e o ffr e y H. M o o r e ,

1969-73.
Nominated by Richard M. Nixon
after 8-month interim during
which Ben Burdetsky served as
acting commissioner. Resigned
in 1973.

1969. Bureau publishes employment projec­
1969. Two astronauts walk on the moon. Mine
tions based on National Industry-Occupational
Safety and Health and Blacklung Acts are ap­
matrix, for use in developing State and local
proved.
projections. Experimental job openings and
labor turnover survey is started (ended in
1974).
1970. The Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970 is enacted. Secretary of Labor as­
signs Bureau broad responsibility for safety
and health statistics.
1970. Recession with sharp price rise ends
long expansion.
1971. Joint Economic Committee starts
monthly hearings on employment situation
with Commissioner and staff.

1971. Ninety-day wage and price freeze is im­
posed. Pay Board and Price Commission are
set up (ended in 1974).

1972. Technical responsibility for developing
concepts and methods for States to use in
estimating unemployment rates is assigned to
the Bureau. Consumer Expenditure Survey
now conducted by Census for the Bureau, is
shifted from annual to quarterly basis.
1973-77.
Nominated by Richard M. Nixon,
following a 4-month interim dur­
ing which Ben Burdetsky served
as acting commissioner.

J uliu s S h is k in ,

1973. Federal Government Productivity Mea­
1973. Comprehensive Employment and Train­
surement Program is authorized on a continu­
ing Act ( c e t a ) is passed to consolidate train­
ing basis.
ing programs, with funds allocated by formula
using b l s unemployment figures.
1974. c p i rises a record 12 percent following
the 1973 oil embargo and worldwide food cri­
sis. President Ford calls “summit conference”
to plan fight against inflation.
1975. U1-U7 array of unemployment mea­
sures first appears. Bureau adopts third gen­
eration computer system.

36

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1975. U.S. withdraws from Indo-China. Unem­
ployment peaks in May (9.2 percent) during
the steepest recession since World War II.
First automatic adjustments pegged to the c p i
are made in social security benefits.

T erm s of com m ission ers

M ajor

bls

1976. Bureau publishes initial Employment
Cost Index as measure of change in the price
of purchased labor services. Bureau also be­
gins the first comprehensive revision of the
Wholesale Price Index (renamed the Pro­
ducer Price Index).
1977-78.
Renominated by Jimmy Carter
but dies in office.

J uliu s S h is k in ,

J a n e t L. N o r w o o d ,

1979-83.
Nominated by Jimmy Carter.

E conom ic and historic m ilestones

activities
1976.

U.S. celebrates its 200th birthday.

1977.

Department of Energy is established.

1978. Bureau issues the revised c p i series, the 1978. Full Employment and Balanced Growth
Act establishes policy goals. Airline deregula­
new cpt-u for all urban consumers and the
tion is approved.
traditional c p i - w for wage-earners and clerical
workers.
1979. Bureau launches Continuing Consumer
Expenditure Survey. National Commission on
Employment and Unemployment Statistics
(Levitan) issues report, as does the National
Academy of Sciences Panel to Review Pro­
ductivity Statistics (Rees).

1979. Congress establishes Department of Ed­
ucation separate from the Department of
Health and Human Services. Administration
and a f l - c io sign “ national accord” on eco­
nomic policies. Congress guarantees loans to
Chrysler Corp.

1980. c p i reaches peak (13.5 percent) in se­
1980. Bureau publishes five experimental
ries of double-digit annual increases, led by
measures of homeownership, including the
oil price rise.
so-called c p i - x 1 or “ rental equivalence” mea­
sure. Expert Committee on Family Budget
Revisions makes its report.
1981. Economic Recovery Tax Act reduces in­
come and corporate taxes and provides for
automatic adjustment of tax brackets based
on the c p i in 1984 tax year. Strike by air
traffic controllers ends with dismissals.

J a n e t L. N o r w o o d ,

1983— .
Renominated by Ronald
Reagan.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1982. In appropriations reductions, 19 pro­
grams are cut or reduced, including labor
turnover, family budgets, and analysis of la­
bor-management agreements and the union
directory.

1982. Job Training and Partnership Act
passed to replace c e t a . Recession causes
highest unemployment rates since 1941 (10.7
percent). Antitrust suit against a t &t settled,
with breakup of “Ma Bell” ordered. U.S. drops
13-year antitrust suit against ib m .

1983. Bureau publishes first measures of mul­
tifactor productivity (Bulletin 2178), and intro­
duces rental equivalence measure for
homeowners’ costs in the c p i - u . It also starts
new revision program for the c p i and accepts
managerial responsibility for Federal/State la­
bor market information programs.

1983. Annual inflation rate, as measured by
the c p i , reaches lowest level (3.0 percent) in
over 10 years.

37

Communications

Use of hourly earnings proposed
to revive spendable earnings series
Thom as

E.

W

e is s k o p f

In 1982, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced the dis­
continuation of its statistical series on ‘‘real spendable weekly
earnings of workers with three dependents,” which had long
been used as an indicator of trends in the purchasing power
of U.S. workers. This monthly series covered all production
and nonsupervisory workers in the private nonfarm econ­
omy, and was based on data from the Bureau’s establishment
survey and information on Federal income tax and social
security contribution rates.
According to the series, workers’ real spendable earnings
grew rapidly from 1948 through the mid-1960’s, oscillated
around a very slightly increasing trend for the next decade,
and finally dropped sharply in the late 1970’s. By 1981, the
last year for which data were published, average real spend­
able earnings had fallen to levels recorded during the late
1950’s. The implication that the average worker was no
better off in the early 1980’s than in the late 1950’s was
profoundly troubling to many economists. Evidence based
on other statistical indicators (such as real per capita dis­
posable personal income, or the gross weekly earnings of
male full-time workers age 25 and older) suggested no stag­
nation, let alone decline, in workers’ purchasing power.
Economic statisticians were moved to scrutinize more care­
fully the real spendable earnings series, which had already
begun to meet criticism during the early 1970’s, and they
identified a number of apparently serious shortcomings.

Criticism of the old series
The chief concerns of the critics were summarized by
economist Paul Flaim in a January 1982 article in the
Monthly Labor Review.1
• Since the mid-1960’s, there has been a significant shift
in the composition of the U.S. labor force, with both
women and young workers accounting for an increasing
share of the total. Both of these groups hold part-time
bls

Thomas E. W eisskopf is a professor of economics at the University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor.

38

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

•

•

•

•

jobs with much greater frequency than older male work­
ers, and tend to have lower paying jobs as well. As a
result, a series based on average weekly earnings for all
workers understates the rate of growth of (a) average
hourly earnings, because hours worked per week have
tended to decline; and (b) earnings of any given subgroup
of workers (in particular male family breadwinners), be­
cause these better paid workers constitute a declining
fraction of the labor force.
Many of the assumptions made by the b l s in calculating
the Federal income taxes paid by the “ typical” worker
were no longer appropriate. Most importantly, the typical
worker is no longer the head of a household with three
noneaming dependents. Moreover, a sizable minority of
workers itemize deductions on their tax returns, rather
than taking the standard deduction as assumed in the
calculation of the b l s spendable earnings series.
The b l s did not make any allowance for State and local
income taxes paid by workers, deducting from gross earn­
ings only an estimate of Federal income taxes and social
security contributions.
The b l s Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage and Cler­
ical Workers ( c p i - w ) , used to deflate current-dollar earn­
ings, was a misleading indicator of the impact of inflation
on workers’ purchasing power, especially (but not exclu­
sively) because of its treatment of housing costs.
The whole concept of “ spendable” earnings was inad­
equate. In addition to take-home pay, one should include
in a measure of a worker’s economic well-being an es­
timate of the (not immediately spendable) benefits accru­
ing from (a) em ployer-provided medical insurance
coverage and private pension plans; (b) social security
benefits; and even (c) public services provided by Fed­
eral, State, and local governments.

Some of the criticisms levied at the old spendable earnings
series are no doubt justified. But others are far from com­
pelling. Following a discussion of the possible relevance of
each of the points noted above, this article presents a new
spendable earnings series that avoids the genuine shortcom­
ings of the discontinued b l s series.
It is an indisputable fact that adult male workers constitute
a decreasing fraction of the U.S. labor force. But the im­
plication that one should ignore declines in the average

worker’s purchasing power that result from such a com­
positional shift (as opposed to declines in the average pur­
chasing power of particular subgroups of workers) strikes
me as mistaken. While for certain purposes one may wish
to inquire into the changing economic status of particular
subgroups of workers, it is certainly a matter of general
interest to know what has been happening to the purchasing
power of the average worker, however the characteristics
of that worker may be changing in other respects.
Nevertheless, there has been a gradual decline in average
weekly hours of work for production and nonsupervisory
workers in the U.S. economy, in part because of the chang­
ing composition of the labor force, and trends in weekly
earnings therefore do not accurately reflect trends in hourly
earnings. Because workers presumably derive greater ben­
efits from the same income if it is received for fewer hours
of work, having thereby more time available for other pur­
suits, it would appear to make more sense to base a measure
of workers’ purchasing power on hourly rather than weekly
earnings.
There are also problems in using tax formulas applicable
to a household with one earner and three dependents, when
the structure of the typical U.S. household has changed so
much in recent decades. And it would be desirable to avoid
the rather arbitrary assumptions about the Federal income
tax return of the typical worker that b l s made in its cal­
culations. Thus, there is a clear need for an alternative
approach to measuring the fraction of workers’ earnings that
is paid in Federal income taxes. One would also want to
take into account the State and local income taxes paid by
workers, given the increasing importance of these taxes both
in absolute terms and relative to Federal income taxes.
There is continuing debate about the relative merits of
the c p i - w and alternative deflators, such as the Personal
Consumption Expenditure ( p c e ) deflator from the U.S. Na­
tional Income and Product Accounts, as a measure of trends
in the purchasing power of a dollar of wages.2 The c p i - w
has been criticized for its treatment of housing costs; but it
does have an advantage over the p c e series as a deflator for
production and nonsupervisory workers’ earnings in that its
“ market basket” of goods and services is designed to rep­
resent the purchases of the typical worker of this kind rather
than the typical consumer. This issue might best be ad­
dressed by presenting and comparing estimates of workers’
real purchasing power calculated with alternative deflators.
Finally, criticism of the whole concept of spendable earn­
ings as an inadequate measure of a worker’s economic well­
being has undeniable merit. It should be noted, however,
that once one opens up this welfare economist’s Pandora’s
Box, there are a host of other considerations that begin to
suggest themselves. Deferred income or benefits in kind do
not exhaust the factors that contribute to the overall eco­
nomic well-being of a worker; it would be impossible to
enumerate all the relevant factors, let alone measure their
significance with any accuracy. Under the circumstances,


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

it would appear most desirable to track certain measurable
indicators— such as spendable earnings— while keeping quite
clearly in mind their meaning and their limitations. This 1
propose to do here; estimating the average worker’s nonspendable earnings or benefits of any kind is beyond the
scope of this article.

A new spendable earnings series
To chart trends in the purchasing power of U.S. workers,
I have developed a new annual time series measuring the
average real spendable hourly earnings of production and
nonsupervisory workers in the nonagricultural private busi­
ness sector. The new series is not prone to the bias inherent
in a weekly earnings series because it focuses on hourly
earnings; it avoids the problems encountered by the b l s
statisticians in working with Federal income tax formulas
for typical families by making use of direct estimates of the
actual effective rate of income taxation on earners of the
relevant income size class; and it includes a (rough) allow­
ance for State and local income taxes. The basic series is
deflated using the c p i - w but, for purposes of comparison,
an alternative series obtained using the fixed-weight p c e
deflator also is presented.
The basic annual series is calculated by deflating the b l s
series on average gross hourly earnings of production and
nonsupervisory workers in all private nonagricultural estab­
lishments by the c p i - w to obtain the corresponding average
gross real hourly earnings series.3 The real earnings series
is then multiplied by (1 -TRSS-TRFI-TRSI), where TRSS is
the estimated effective social security tax rate on the average
worker’s annual earnings; TRFI is the estimated effective
Federal income tax rate on the average worker’s annual
earnings; and trsi is the estimated effective State and local
income tax rate on the average worker’s annual earnings.
The above tax rates are estimated as follows. First, the
average worker’s annual earnings are estimated by multi­
plying the b l s series on workers’ average gross hourly earn­
ings by 52 times the corresponding b l s series on average
weekly hours. Then:
• TRSS is first set equal to the social security personal con­
tribution rate for each year (expressed as a fraction of
unity). The average worker’s annual earnings are then
compared with the maximum taxable wage for social se­
curity contributions; in years for which the former exceeds
the latter, TRSS is set equal to the social security personal
contribution rate multiplied by the ratio of the latter to
the former.4
• trfi is set equal to the effective Federal income tax rate
on a taxpayer with an adjusted gross income equal to the
average worker’s annual earnings. This tax rate is deter­
mined using published Internal Revenue Service ( i r s ) data
on sources of income, deductions, and tax items by size
of adjusted gross income (for taxable returns only). “ To­
tal income tax” (after credits) is expressed as a fraction
of “ adjusted gross income” (less deficit) for each income
39

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Communications
size class, and the effective tax rate for the average work­
er’s annual earnings level is determined by interpolation
between the tax rates for each income size class (attributed
to the midpoints of the respective classes).5
TRSI is roughly approximated by multiplying TRFl by the
ratio of total annual State and local government income
tax receipts to total annual Federal government income
tax receipts.6

•

The resulting annual real spendable hourly earnings series
from 1948 to 1981 is presented alongside the original b l s
annual real spendable weekly earnings series in table 1. To
facilitate comparison, an index (1948 = 100) is also shown
for each series, and the two indexes are plotted against time
in chart 1. According to the chart, the two series are not
all that dissimilar. In both cases, spendable earnings rise
rapidly from 1948 to 1965, oscillate around a much more
modestly rising trend until 1977 (peaking in 1972), and then
drop sharply from 1977 to 1981. By 1981 (the last year for
which data are available in both series), the new series has
fallen lower than at any time since 1963, and the old series
is at its lowest level since 1958. The main difference is that
the new series rises slightly more rapidly over the postwar
period as a whole. About half of this difference is attributable
to the fact that workers’ average weekly hours declined fairly

Tab le 1. bls w eekly spendab le earnings series and new
h ourly spendab le earnings series, 1 9 4 8 -8 1
bls weekly

Year

1948 . . .
1949 . . .

spendable
earnings series
Index
1977 dollars
(1948 = 100)

New hourly spendable
earnings series
Index
1977 dollars
(1948 = 100)

$122.19
126.56

100.00
103.58

$2.83
2.98

100.00
105.14

1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...

131.08
130.05
132.12
136.76
137.05
143.46
146.92
145.93
144.88
149.40

107.28
106.43
108.13
111.92
112.16
117.41
120.24
119.43
118.57
122.27

3.07
3.03
3.07
3.23
3.30
3.43
3.55
3.58
3.60
3.67

108.28
107.05
-*■ 108.54
113.92
116.45
121.03
125.22
126.42
127.13
129.67

1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...

149.20
150.77
154.29
155.56
161.27
166.28
165.41
164.90
165.99
165.27

122.10
123.39
126.27
127.31
131.98
136.08
135.37
134.95
135.85
135.26

3.72
3.76
3.85
3.87
4.01
4.14
4.13
4.18
4.22
4.22

131.34
132.89
135.90
136.76
141.46
146.03
145.90
147.60
149.00
148.84

1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...

163.65
168.31
176.35
173.78
165.37
164.02
166.00
169.93
167.95
162.49

133.93
137.74
144.32
142.22
135.34
134.23
135.85
139.07
137.45
132.98

4.25
4.37
4.54
4.48
4.31
4.26
4.34
4.43
4.40
4.26

149.97
154.46
160.23
158.18
152.19
150.53
153.38
156.46
155.48
150.53

1980 . . .
1981 . . .

151.65
147.05

124.11
120.35

4.03
3.93

142.39
138.65

40

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

steadily from 40.0 in 1948 to 35.2 in 1981.7
The new spendable earnings series thus paints just as
troubling a picture of recent trends in purchasing power as
the discontinued b l s series. The fact that the average U.S.
worker has suffered a significant decline in real spendable
earnings cannot be dismissed as a statistical illusion attrib­
utable to deficiencies in the b l s methodology; rather, it
reflects a genuine deterioration in an important element of
the average worker’s economic well-being.

Some additional data
Developments over time in the statistical series under­
lying the new spendable earnings series also are of interest.
First, chart 2 plots real gross hourly earnings against real
spendable hourly earnings (gross earnings less estimated
taxes). Note that the gross earnings series displays a pattern
similar to that of the spendable earnings series, except that
the slowdown after the mid-1960’s and the decline after
1973 are not as marked. This is clearly due to the fact that
the ratio of spendable to gross earnings fell significantly
from the mid-1960’s on.
Chart 3 shows trends in the three effective tax rates t r s s ,
t r f i , and TRSI, as well as the total of the three, between
1948 and 1981. The steady rise of the effective social se­
curity contribution rate is clearly evident. The effective Fed­
eral income tax rate oscillates around a more-or-less constant
rate after rising during the Korean War, but the correspond­
ing State and local income tax rate shows a distinct longrun upward trend (especially from the mid-1960’s on).8
Finally, chart 4 compares the time pattern of the basic
new spendable earnings series with that of an alternative
spendable earnings series deflated by the fixed-weight p c e
deflator rather than the c p i - w . 9 The overall shape— and the
turning points— of the two series plotted in the chart are
very similar. However, the PCE-deflated series does not turn
down quite as sharply after 1972 and after 1977. As a result,
it peaks in 1977 rather than in 1972, and its 1981 value is
the lowest since 1969, rather than since 1963. Because the
fixed-weight p c e deflator did not rise nearly so rapidly over
the past decade as the c p i - w , its use in calculating a real
earnings series yields a smaller decline in purchasing power
since 1972. But the alternative series still conveys a very
discouraging impression of the trend in workers’ purchasing
power in recent years.

Conclusion
The new annual time series for the average real spendable
hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory workers
in the nonagricultural private business sector of the U.S.
economy avoids some of the shortcomings for which the
discontinued b l s series has been criticized. And, over the
postwar period, it displays a slightly more rapid rate of
growth in workers’ purchasing power. However, like the
old b l s series, the new one indicates that purchasing power
declined sharply through the late 1970’s to reach a 1981

Chart 1. Indexes of real spendable
earnings, BLS series and new
series, 1948-81

Chart 2. Gross and spendable real
hourly earnings, 1948-81
1977 dollars

(1948 = 100)

Chart 3. Trends in effective rates of
taxation on gross earnings, 1948-81
Percent


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Chart 4. Trends in the new spend­
able earnings series using alter­
native deflators, 1948-81
(1948=100)

41

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Communications
level roughly comparable with that recorded some two dec­
ades earlier.
There are a number of respects in which the new series
could be improved. First, it would clearly be desirable to
have the values available on a monthly as well as an annual
basis, as in the case of the old b l s series. To calculate
monthly values for the new series, one would only have to
deflate b l s monthly estimates of workers’ average gross
hourly earnings by the c p i - w . The resulting monthly ob­
servations could then be multiplied by the ratio of spendable
to gross earnings (1 - t r s s - t r f i - t r s i ) applicable to the
year in question.10
Second, the new procedure suffers from its dependence
on published i r s Federal income tax data for the estimation
of t r f i and t r s i . Because these data, even in preliminary
form,11 are usually available only after a lag of 1 to 2 years,
it is not possible to provide monthly observations on the
same current basis as the old b l s series. To minimize this
problem, it would be necessary to develop a more approx­
imative procedure for estimating the current effective Fed­
eral income tax rate on the average worker’s annual earnings.
This could be done by extrapolating from the most recently
available annual observation using data on legislated rates
of Federal income taxation, thus borrowing from the old
b l s methodology for the purpose of providing timely pre­
liminary figures.
Third, there are some problems in using the effective
Federal income tax rate on the average worker’s annual
earnings to calculate t r f i . For example, if the typical worker
has some non wage income in addition to his or her wages,
the effective tax rate on that worker’s total income will be
understated because of the progressivity of the tax structure.
Also, if there are among the tax returns in the relevant
income size bracket some that have been filed jointly by
two-earner couples, the effective tax rate on that income
class will understate the tax rate that would be applicable
to workers who are sole wage-earners in their taxpaying
unit. (The latter rate is the relevant one for the purpose at
hand.12) Thus, the procedure I have used to estimate t r f i
is subject to a slight downward bias, and spendable earnings
are correspondingly overestimated. However, given the very
modest progressivity of the Federal income tax structure and
the relatively small fraction of workers for whom the above
considerations are likely to apply, the bias is surely very
minor.
Fourth, the method I have used to estimate the impact of
State and local income taxation is very rough. A detailed
examination of State income tax data might yield improve­
ment upon my simplifying assumption of proportionality
between Federal and State and local income taxation across
all income classes. However, the evidence in chart 3 in­
dicates that t r s i is substantially less significant than either
TRSS or TRFI\ thus, any bias due to the rough methodology
is unlikely to have much of an impact on the spendable
earnings series.
42

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Finally, as one can tell by comparing the two series shown
in chart 4, the choice of an appropriate earnings deflator
is an important one for a real purchasing power series—
especially for assessing trends during periods of rapid in­
flation such as the 1970’s. Because both the c p i - w and the
p c e deflator have their weaknesses, further efforts to develop
a better deflator for evaluating workers’ real spendable earn­
ings are clearly warranted.13
Q

----------FOOTNOTES---------A ck n o w led gm en t:
The author thanks Samuel Bowles and David M.
Gordon, who contributed significantly to the development of this article
in the context of joint research on the U.S. economy.
'Paul O. Flaim, “ The spendable earnings series: has it outlived its
usefulness?” Monthly Labor Review, January 1982, pp. 3 -9 .

2
For recent contributions to this debate, see Daniel J.B. Mitchell, “ Does
the C P I exaggerate or understate inflation?” Monthly Labor Review, May
1980, pp. 31-33; Jack E. Triplett, “ Does the c p i exaggerate or understate
inflation? Some observations,” Monthly Labor Review, May 1980, pp. 3 3 35; and Janet L. Norwood, “ Two Consumer Price Index issues: weighting
and homeownership,” Monthly Labor Review, March 1981, pp. 5 8 -5 9 .
’ Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent references to “ workers”
will be understood to apply to production and nonsupervisory workers in
private nonagricultural establishments.
The b l s series on workers’ average gross hourly earnings is published
on a monthly basis in the Monthly Labor Review and in Employment and
Earnings', an annual series starting in 1947 is reported in the 1983 Economic
Report o f the President (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office),
table B -3 8 . The C P i - w is published in both its monthly and annual forms
in the Monthly Labor Review and in the annual supplement to Employment
and Earnings.
4 Both the social security contribution rate and the maximum taxable
wage are available on an annual basis from the U.S. Bureau of the Census,
Statistical Abstract o f the United States (Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office), and other sources.
’ The required data are published annually in Internal Revenue Service,
Statistics o f Income: Individual Tax Returns (Washington, U.S. Govern­
ment Printing Office). In the 1980 volume, sources of income are given
in table 1.3, tax payments in table 3.6, and the effective tax rate in table
1. 1.
6The required tax receipt data are reported in U.S. Office of Business
Economics, U.S. National Income and Product Accounts (Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office), tables 3.2 and 3.3.
’ These data are from the 1983 Economic Report o f the President, table
B -3 8 . The 12-percent drop in average weekly hours compares with a
1948-based index number in 1981 that is 25 percent higher for the new
series than for the b l s series.
8It is interesting to note that, although production and nonsupervisory
workers in the private nonagricultural sector are taxed at a lower average
rate than taxpayers as a whole, the rate differential has not been very great.
Data from the n i p a on personal income taxes paid to the Federal Govern­
ment (U.S. National Income and Product Accounts, table 3.2) and on total
personal income (table 2.1) show that the average overall Federal income
tax rate was generally from 1.1 to 1.15 times the estimated effective rate
for the relevant workers. The existence of the differential is of course due
to the progressivity of the Federal income tax system; its small size is an
indicator of the modest nature o f this progressivity, for the workers’ average
annual earnings have remained well below the average per capita personal
income of all U .S. taxpayers.
9Because n i p a fixed-weight deflators are available only from 1959 on,
I spliced the fixed-weight deflator (from U.S. National Income and Product
Accounts, table 7.2) onto the implicit deflator (from table 7.1) at 1972 to
obtain a complete series from 1948 to 1981. This seemed a reasonable
choice, because 1972 is the base year for all the n i p a price indexes and
there was relatively little inflation prior to 1972.
10If and when the social security contribution rate changes during the

course of a year rather than at the end, it would be easy to make the
corresponding changes for the relevant months according to the procedure
outlined above for estimating t r s s .
"Roughly a year before publishing the final annual volume. Statistics
o f Income: Individual Tax Returns, the Internal Revenue Service issues
preliminary estimates of adjusted gross income, income tax paid, and so
forth, in its quarterly publication, the sot Bulletin. But these preliminary
estimates are for all returns, not taxable returns only. The latter are clearly
preferable for the purpose at hand; if tax rates are to be estimated from
the former, they must therefore be adjusted to control for the slight dif­
ferential that is observable between estimates based on all returns and on
taxable returns only. On the basis of such preliminary tax rate estimates,
the 1982 figure for the basic new hourly spendable earnings series is
approximately $3.96 (in 1977 dollars).
12Workers receiving the average wage who are in two-earner households
filing jointly will have returns appearing in a higher income class bracket,
but they will pay taxes at roughly the same rate as workers who are sole
wage-earners in the lower income size class.
13The recent change of the homeownership component of the b l s index
to a rental-equivalence measure surely represents a step in the right direc­
tion.

Proposed spendable earnings series
retains basic faults of earlier one
P a u l O . F l a im

On the surface, the new spendable earnings series proposed
by Professor Weisskopf appears to be a considerable im­
provement over the series published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics until 1981. Upon close scrutiny, however, the
proposed series is found to share some of the basic defi­
ciencies that led to the discontinuation of the old one.
Because the proposed series uses gross hourly earnings
as its principal ingredient, it is certainly free of much of the
downward pressure on earnings levels that the secular de­
cline in the length of the workweek had applied to gross
weekly earnings averages, the backbone of the old spendable
earnings series. The fact that Professor Weisskopf attempts
to account for average deductions for State and local income
taxes— in addition to those for Federal income taxes and
social security contributions— marks another departure from
the old series.
Because of these changes— and, 1 suspect, primarily be­
cause of the first one— Professor Weisskopf s series does
show a somewhat steeper upward trend in spendable earn­
ings over the 1950’s and 1960’s than did the discontinued
b l s series. To this extent, the new series would appear to
yield a more accurate picture of the actual trend in earnings
for the average full-time worker than was given by the old
series, which was being held down by the expansion of the
part-time work force.
Of more interest, however, is what the two series tell us
about the changes in spendable earnings after both turned
downward from their 1972 peaks. Specifically, while the
Paul O. Flaim is Chief of the Division of Data Development and Users’
Services, Office of Employment and Unemployment Statistics, Bureau of
Labor Statistics.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

old b l s series showed a decline of 16.6 percent in real
spendable earnings during the 1972-81 period, Professor Weiss­
kopf’s new series shows a somewhat comparable decline of
13.5 percent over the same period. (See chart 1, p. 41 .)The
fairly parallel movement of the two series over this period
can lead to only one conclusion. If the old series was biased
downward in portraying the trend in spendable earnings for
the average worker during the 1970’s— and there was ample
evidence indicating a large bias— then the new one, al­
though constructed differently, must also be seriously biased
downward for the period in question.
It must be remembered that the 1970’s were a period
during which the age-sex composition of the work force
was changing significantly, with the proportions accounted
for by women and youth growing very rapidly. The fact
that many of these newcomers to the job market took only
part-time jobs had an obvious dampening effect on the weekly
earnings average for all workers. But the hourly earnings
average was also affected— in similar direction, if not in
similar magnitude— by the changing mix of workers and
by the growing proportion receiving lower, entry-level wages.
The extent to which the changing mix of workers affected
the overall earnings average is difficult to quantify. How­
ever, some notion of its impact can be obtained merely by
comparing the earnings trends for all workers with the sep­
arate trends for men and women. The tabulation below
shows the percent changes— in constant dollar terms— over
the 1972-81 period both for the payroll-derived series on
gross weekly and hourly earnings' (which do not provide
any information by sex) and for the household survey-de­
rived series on weekly earnings,2 which are available with
some age-sex detail:
P e rc e n t ch a n g e,
1 9 7 2 -8 1

Payroll series:
Mean gross weekly earnings ............................
Mean gross hourly earnings..............................

—14.3
-9.9

Household series:
Median usual weekly earnings of full-time
workers:
Total ................................................................

—8.6

Men, age 25
Women, age
Men, age 16
Women, age

and o v er...................................
-2.8
25 and o v er..............................
- 1.4
to 2 4 ............................................
—11.6
16 to 2 4 ....................................
—12.6

While all of these earnings trends point downward for
the period in question, the gross weekly earnings series,
which was the cornerstone of the b l s spendable earnings
series, shows a drop that far exceeded the decline in weekly
earnings among most full-time workers as measured in the
household survey. And the decline in gross hourly earnings,
although somewhat smaller, also appears to overestimate
by a considerable amount the true decrease in real earnings
among most workers.
While the household series on median weekly earnings
for all full-time workers did show a decline almost as large
43

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Communications
as that found in the payroll series on gross hourly earnings,
such was not the case for the medians for workers age 25
and over. For these workers— who still make up the bulk
of the U.S. work force, and who are still visualized as the
“ typical” or “ average” workers— real median weekly
earnings showed only minimal declines over the 1972-81
period. Only for persons 16 to 24 years of age, who are but
a small portion of the full-time work force, was the drop
in weekly earnings of the same magnitude as the changes
shown by the two payroll series.
The above comparisons raise serious questions as to whether
an earnings average for all worker groups combined is a
good indicator of the long-term trend in the earnings of most
workers, particularly over periods when the composition of
the labor force is changing rapidly. The problem is that the
changes in the earnings averages for a given group o f work­
ers are not always representative of the changes in the earn­
ings o f the “average worker” in the group.
To illustrate, take the following example of a group of
workers, consisting initially of five persons and expanding
subsequently to six, with their individual earnings behaving
as follows:
E a rn in g s in —
In d iv id u a l
w o rk e rs

No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.

1
2
3
4
5
6

In itia l
p e r io d

S u b seq u en t
p e r io d

$5.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00

$5.50
4.40
4.40
4.40
3.30

—

2.00

P e rc e n t
ch a n g e

10.0
10.0

10.0
10.0
10.0
—

in the earnings of the average worker.)
The use of aggregate numbers is the basic problem with
Professor Weisskopf’s analysis, but it is not the only issue
complicating the analysis of earnings trends and the com­
putation of a “ spendable earnings” series. The fact that
more and more of a worker’s remuneration—or an em­
ployer’s labor cost4— is in the form of fringe benefits which
are not captured in most earnings data renders the meaning
of any “ spendable earnings” series ever more difficult to
conceptualize and explain. And the anchoring of such series
to the earnings information from the establishment survey—
which is the case for the proposed series as it was for the
old one— handicaps them with yet other limitations. For
example, the computation of the tax burden is seriously
hindered by the lack of any information on family com­
position and total family income. And coverage would be
limited to production and nonsupervisory workers in the
private sector— a still large but gradually declining pro­
portion of the work force.
A better alternative to such series is now available in the
form of the studies of “ after-tax money income” initiated
recently by the Bureau of the Census. These studies, based
on microdata from the Current Population Survey, provide
very detailed estimates of the year-to-year changes in the
purchasing power of U.S. workers and of the differences
in purchasing power among the principal population groups.5
While these studies do not yet provide us the historical
perspective on spendable earnings that Professor Weiss­
kopf’s series attempts to give us, they are built on much
more solid foundations.
□
----------FOOTNOTES----------

Average

$4.00

$4.00

In this case, the earnings average for this group of workers
has not changed at all between the two periods. But could
we say the same with regard to the earnings of the average
worker in this group? Would we not have to conclude that
the average worker enjoyed a 10-percent increase in earnings
regardless of what is shown by the average for the group?3
(Incidentally, an analogous situation could well develop in
those industries where, on the basis of recently concluded
contracts, newly hired workers are brought on at wages
much lower than those received by workers already on board.
In other words, the institution of a two-tier wage system
may bring down the earnings average for the industry with­
out a decline in the earnings of any of the individual workers.)
S u m m i n g u p , in examining earnings trends it is important
to go beyond the overall averages and to disaggregate the
data as far as possible. While we cannot actually track the
earnings of individual workers (except in isolated experi­
ments), disaggregation of the data by sex, age, or other
characteristics becomes vital when we are dealing with long­
term trends spanning decades. (Where such disaggregations
are not possible, we should be careful not to automatically
equate the changes in earnings averages with the changes

44

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1The “ payroll” data on earnings are derived from a monthly b l s survey
o f about 200,000 establishments. They relate to earnings on jobs held by
“ production and nonsupervisory workers in the private nonfarm sector.”
These jobs make up about two-thirds of all nonfarm payroll jobs in the
United States.
2The “ household” data on weekly earnings are obtained through ques­
tions currently asked monthly in one-fourth o f the 60,000 households which
make up the sample for the Current Population Survey ( c p s ) . These data—
which relate to wage and salary workers in all sectors of the economy—
are then accumulated into quarterly averages for publication and analysis.
Prior to 1979, these data were obtained only once a year, each May, but
from the entire c p s sample. With regard to this series, the numbers in the
text tabulation relate to the changes between the medians for May 1972
and those for the second quarter of 1981.
3This illustration could be made even more dramatic by assuming, in
addition, that one of the original workers— say, number 4— was replaced
through normal attrition by a new worker who was also brought on board
at $2 an hour. In this case, the group’s average hourly earnings would
actually decline by 10 percent, to $3.60, although all the survivors o f the
original group of five would have obtained a 10-percent increase.
4 The Bureau of Labor Statistics is now publishing a quarterly report on
the trends in the total costs per hour worked for employing labor. This
report on the “ Employment Cost Index” ( e c i ) traces percent changes not
only in wages and salaries but also in total compensation, which includes
the employer costs for employee benefits in addition to the wage and salary
expenses. And, to the extent that the e c i is a fixed-weight index, it is not
affected as much as other earnings series by changes in the industrial or
occupational mix of the work force.
5 See, for example, After-Tax Money Income Estimates o f Households:
1981, Series P -2 3 , No. 132 (Bureau of the Census, February 1984).

Research
Summaries

Incomplete experience rating
in State unemployment insurance
D enton M

arks

By now it is well established that the existence of unem­
ployment insurance (ui) affects decisions on both the supply
and demand sides of the labor market. Theoretical work on
such effects has appeared within the past decade, and em­
pirical tests of the basic theoretical propositions have ap­
peared more recently.1 On the supply side, the tendency of
the availability of ui benefits to extend the duration of nom­
inally involuntary unemployment and perhaps to increase
labor force participation and improve the success of job
search as evidenced by wage gains of job changers has been
examined and supported by recent research.2
A link between the existence of ui and labor demand has
been demonstrated by examination of the system of expe­
rience rating— or incomplete experience rating— used to
finance benefits in most States. In the United States, States
finance ui benefits through a payroll tax on covered em­
ployers. In the context of such a financing system, expe­
rience rating is the use of payroll tax rates that change
inversely with the stability of an employer’s labor demand,
where that stability is indicated by a measure such as a
“ reserve ratio” — the employer’s accumulated contributions
to the system less his accumulated liability in the form of
paid-out benefits, with the difference expressed as percent­
age of his average taxable payroll over some period. In­
complete experience rating limits the allowable tax rates to
a relatively narrow range; for example, no State tax rate
currently exceeds 10 percent of taxable payroll, and most
States have a nonzero minimum rate.
The intuitive argument about the effect of incomplete
experience rating on labor demand, or more particularly
layoff rates, begins with the realization that many employers
assigned either the minimum or the maximum ui payroll
tax rate have a zero marginal tax cost of an extra layoff.
Those assigned the minimum rate will be contributing to

Denton Marks is a professor with the Faculty of Commerce, Policy Analysis
Division, at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

pa d i
a
a

a

o

the system regardless of their benefit liability. To the extent
that they accumulate reserves beyond those required to
maintain their minimum rate assignment, they may have an
incentive to draw down the excess through extra layoffs, or
“ ui holidays.” Employers already at the maximum rate
cannot be further penalized for additional layoffs; thus, they
may also have an incentive to provide ui holidays as part
of their contract (implicit or explicit) with their workers.
Any resulting benefit liability that exceeds their own con­
tributions is paid from the net contributions of other em­
ployers (cross-subsidization).
While this connection has been well established theoret­
ically, empirical support has been scarce because of a lack
of data. However, the three studies that have been published
support the existence of such a relationship.3 Indeed, the
most recent of these finds that the increase in temporary
layoff unemployment resulting from the implicit cross-sub­
sidization that incomplete experience rating allows is not
only larger but also statistically more significant than the
“ supply side” unemployment effect of the level of the ben­
efits. The author of that study concludes that, “ without
changing benefit levels available to unemployed workers, a
significant reduction in layoff unemployment could be
achieved by changing the incentives offered by current ui
[financing] laws.” 4 Moreover, he finds that “ the impact of
the unemployment insurance subsidy on layoff unemploy­
ment is powerful— the imputed subsidy accounts for more
than a quarter of all layoffs in the data. . . .’’ Unfortunately,
none of the recent studies considers the incentive that em­
ployers assigned the minimum rate have to increase their
layoffs, although there is some unpublished evidence sug­
gesting that this effect is small or nonexistent.5
The growing body of evidence that incomplete experience
rating does increase the amount of layoff unemployment
leads one to ask what proportion of employers are subject
to the layoff incentives of such cross-subsidization, and,
perhaps more importantly, how long particular employers
remain at tax rates that allow them to be implicitly subsi­
dized? These issues are important, for persistent subsidi­
zation of some employers indicates that the employment
stabilization incentives built into the ui system are not work­
ing, and it may lead to distortions in the industrial and
occupational structure of a State’s economy.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Research Summaries
To address these questions, I analyzed fiscal 1975-78 ui
data for a random sample of more than 17,000 New Jersey
employers.6 The results, presented below, show that, at any
time, large proportions of employers are assigned the min­
imum and maximum tax rates. More importantly, most of
these employers have a low probability of moving to any
other rate category over time'. Indeed, most of them can be
assumed to be assigned a limiting rate permanently, thus
precluding their effective experience rating.7

Distribution of employers by rates
Table 1 shows the distribution of employers in the sample
by tax rate category for each of the study years. “ Graded”
employers are firms for which the State had sufficient payroll
and turnover information to assign a ui tax rate. The group
consists of employers at the minimum rate (1.2 percent of
taxable payroll); those at the maximum rate (6.2 percent);
and those taxed at one of a range of rates in between the
two limits. “ Other” employers are those to which a rate
could not be assigned in the usual manner, either because
of inadequate data or their lack of experience in the system.
“ Inactive accounts” are employers that were not in business
during a given year.
Mid-rate employers, the third category of graded units,
are the only ones that might be considered truly experience
rated, in that their tax rate assignments can respond in either
direction to changes in their turnover behavior; all other
employers are at least temporarily immune to changes in
their payroll tax rate.8 Given this characterization of the
system, the imposition of employment stabilization incen­
tives through experience rating is remarkably incomplete.

Tab le 1. D istribution of em ployees by tax rate category,
fiscal 1 9 7 5 -7 8
Tax rate category

Fiscal
1975

Fiscal
1976

Fiscal
1977

Fiscal
1978

Total employers . . . .
Percent ..........

17,252
100.0

17,252
100.0

17,252
100.0

17,252
100.0

Graded employers..............

10,163

11,317

12,483

12,858

Minimum-rate employers . .
Percent of total ..........
Percent of graded
employers..............

3,863
22.4

4,212
24.4

4,284
24.8

4,168
24.2

38.0

37.2

34.3

32.4

Mid-rate employers1 ........
Percent of total ..........
Percent of graded
employers..............

5,432
31.5

5,838
33.8

6,336
36.7

6,564
38.0

53.4

51.6

50,8

51.0

Maximum-rate employers. .
Percent of total ..........
Percent of graded
employers..............

868
5.0

1 267
7.3

1,863
10.8

2,126
12.3

8.5

11.2

14.9

16.5

“ Other” employers.........
Percent of total ........
“ Inactive accounts" .
Percent ot toiai........

5,057
29.3
2,032
11.8

5,935
34.4
20
0.0

4,490
26.0
279
1.6

3,159
18.3
1,235
7.2

1These employers were assigned one of the following rates between the maximum
(6.2 percent) and the minimum (1.2 percent): 1.6, 1.9, 2.3, 2.7, 3.0, 3.4, 3.7, 4.1,
5.5, and 5.9 percent.
2Value is zero because the random sample of employers was drawn from the fiscal
1976 universe of active accounts.

46

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

In each study year, fewer than 41 percent of the active
accounts fell into the mid-rate category; moreover, table 1
indicates that only about half of the graded employers could
be considered effectively experience-rated.
Because the tax rate reflects an employer’s recent history
of labor turnover, patterns of experience ratings should lag
the business cycle by 1 to 2 years. Between 1973 and 1976,
business conditions were increasingly recessionary, and thus
experience ratings should be rising over the years covered
in this study. This is, in fact, the story told by table 1. The
proportion of graded employers at the maximum tax rate
increased steadily from 8.5 percent in fiscal 1975 to 16.5
percent in fiscal 1978, while the proportion at the minimum
rate decreased steadily from 38.0 percent to 32.4 percent.
However, there is a surprising regularity in these data for
consecutive years, for, while there was a clear shift of pro­
portions from the minimum to the maximum rate as the
unemployment rate rose, the proportion of graded employers
assigned the middle rates remained at about half throughout
the period, regardless of business conditions.
In addition to this consideration of the likelihood of find­
ing an employer on the responsive portion of the tax sched­
ule at a point in time, it is necessary to examine the amount
of time employers remain in experience rating categories.
An effective experience rating system should induce em­
ployers to minimize their labor turnover, and employers
paying the maximum tax rate should have a special incentive
to avoid such a tax. However, the recent theoretical work
on the effects of incomplete experience rating suggests that
this is a naive prediction. In particular, theory suggests that
employers have very little incentive to avoid the maximum
tax rate.
An approach to determining the effectiveness of an ex­
perience rating system is to observe the movement of em­
ployers among the assignable tax rates. One method of
determining this involves the use of Markov analysis.
We know that the movements of employers among tax
rates can be described by a transition matrix— in the current
context, a 5-by-5 matrix composed of the three graded cat­
egories plus “ other” and “ inactive accounts.” Any cell of
the matrix indicates the proportion of employers assigned
the particular tax category given along the vertical axis who
move into a tax category given along the horizontal axis in
a particular year. The proportion in each cell is thus a tran­
sition probability. Moreover, the transition probabilities found
along the diagonal of the matrix represent the proportion of
employers who remain in a particular category from one
year to the next.
A “ simple” Markov model would assume that the move­
ment of employers among the tax rates can be fully described
by a single matrix of transition probabilities which applies
to all employers— in this case, that all employers in a rate
assignment category have the same probability of making
a given transition to another category between periods. A
mover-stayer model, on the other hand, is appropriate when

employers in a given category can be either movers, whose
rate assignments follow a regular transition matrix, or stay­
ers, who remain in their category permanently, that is, with
a probability of l .9 In that case, there are two applicable
transition matrixes: a conventional one for movers; and an­
other for stayers, having 1 in the cells along its diagonal
and zeros elsewhere.
The importance of determining which of these two pro­
cesses better describes the movement of employers should
be clear. That is, is it reasonable to assume that some em­
ployers are permanently either immune to or subject to the
employment stabilization incentives of the experience rating
system by staying in particular categories of ratings, or is
it more accurate to assume that all employers are movers?
Evidence that there are stayers in the nonresponsive mini­
mum- and maximum-rate categories and that they represent
a large proportion of employers would affect an assessment
of the system’s degree of experience rating: larger propor­
tions of stayers in nonresponsive categories are evidence of
less effective experience rating.
To decide which of the two models is more appropriate
for the New Jersey data, I tested the statistical significance
of the difference between the proportion of employers who
actually remained in a category for the 4-year period and
the proportion who would remain in that category if only a
simple Markov process of average transition probabilities
were operating.
Let d, represent the difference between the fraction of
employers in category i in the initial period who remain in
that category through the terminal year of the data ( / ) and
the expected value of the fraction under the null hypothe­
sis.10 Thus,
di = fi ~ Pn

If the null hypothesis is rejected, the mover-stayer model
is more appropriate.
Following are the ratios of d j to its variance for each
assignment category, as well as the summary test statistic
for the null hypothesis:
C a te g o r y

Minimum-rate ........................................................
Mid-rate ..................................................................
Maximum-rate........................................................
“ Other” ..................................................................
“ Inactive accounts” .............................................
Total ................................................................

R a tio va lu e

100.478
40.968
75.524
613.389
3.824
834.183

The value for “ total” leads one to reject the null hypothesis
of a simple Markov process at the .005 level of significance.
Moreover, the relative values of the category ratios are
interesting. Given that a higher ratio implies a more sig­
nificant deviation of a category’s actual stayers from the
expected proportion, one should note that the ratios for
minimum- and maximum-rated units are much higher than
that for mid-rated employers. This suggests that there is a
much stronger tendency for the former employers to stay in
their categories relative to the Markov process than is found
among mid-rated employers. This tendency in these cate­
gories which do not impose employment stabilization in­
centives on employers weakens the effects of experience
rating, as does the stronger tendency for mid-rated em­
ployers to move out of the responsive part of the tax sched­
ule, as evidenced by their relatively low ratio.12
Because the mover-stayer model is more appropriate, I
estimated (1) the proportions of stayers (s,) in each category
and (2) the transition probabilities (my) of a Markov matrix
for movers only. Leo Goodman suggests using the following
approximations to maximum likelihood estimators of these
parameters when the sample size is large and there are a
number of periods of data:13

where
n

= the number of transitions in the data (in
this case, n = 3); and

E w»d)

1=i____
,3

E

t=l

WM
wu(t)

wXt)

the average probability of staying in a
category for one period under the as­
sumption of a Markov process; with
= the number of employers in category / in
period t who are also in category i in
period t + 1; and
= the number of employers in category i in
period t.

=

The square of dt divided by its variance (sj) 11 is distributed
X2 with one degree of freedom. The sum of the ratios for
the five categories is distributed x 2 with five degrees of
freedom. It is used to test the null hypothesis that there is
no significant difference between the number of employers
remaining in a category over the 4 years and the number
that would remain according to the simple Markov process.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

the proportion of employers in experience rating class
i in the initial period who remain in that class for the
next n periods (n = 3 here); and
m y = the average number of employers in experience rating
category i in one period who are in category j in the
following period divided by the average number of
employers in category i over all periods but the last,
for all i and j (both averages calculated after deleting
the estimated number of stayer employers from cate­
gory i).
Sj =

Estimates of s, shown below indicate that large propor­
tions of employers stay in their category over time:
P e rc e n t
A ssig n m e n t c a te g o r y

Graded employers at:
Minimum rate................................................................
Mid rates .......................................................................
Maximum rate ..............................................................
“ Other” employers ..........................................................
“ Inactive accounts” ........................................................

sta y e rs

55.9
57.1
66.1
30.0
0.0
47

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Research Summaries
Among the graded employers, the proportion of stayers
is always more than one-half. The important result here is
that the proportions of stayers in the minimum- and maxi­
mum-rate categories are so high: in particular, almost twothirds of the maximum-rated employers remain in their cat­
egory throughout the period. While the virtually permanent
assignment of the maximum rate to such a large proportion
of employers could be at least partly attributable to factors
such as the naturally higher turnover rates of some industries
(for example, construction) relative to others (such as bank­
ing), it is also consistent with the conclusion that incomplete
experience rating actually induces higher layoff rates.14
Estimation of the transition matrix for movers (my) in­
dicates that, with the exception of the “ inactive accounts’’
category, movers are more likely to stay in their current
category than to move between periods. (See table 2.) More­
over, among the graded employers, the highest such “ re­
tention” rate is for the maximum-rate category, where almost
two-thirds of the movers remained in the category from
period to period. Thus, even for employers designated as
movers, transition between categories seems slow, espe­
cially among the nonresponsive maximum-rate group.

Interpreting the results
The significance of these results is probably best under­
stood in light of some related findings regarding the extent
of cross-subsidization in the New Jersey ui system. Avail­
able data allow one to estimate the average surplus or deficit
per employee-year experienced by each covered employer
since its ui account was opened.15 A surplus position in­
dicates that, on average over the life of the business, an
employer has contributed more to the system than his laidoff employees have drawn in benefits; a deficit position
indicates that the employer, through laid-off employees, has
been receiving a net subsidy from the system. The calcu­
lations for the sample of employers studied here show that,
as of the end of 1975 and 1976, those assigned the maximum
tax rate had net deficit positions per employee-year of $844
and $728, respectively, or about 9 percent of the State’s
1975 annual gross wage for a production worker in man­
ufacturing.16 Taken with the finding that about two-thirds
of the employers at this tax rate can be assumed to be
“ stayers,” this suggests that the majority of employers at
the maximum rate have been receiving an annual payroll

T ab le 2. P eriod-to-period transitio n probabilities am ong
rate assig nm ent categories fo r “ m overs”

subsidy of about 9 percent of their gross wages. While these
calculations are admittedly crude, they do hint at the mag­
nitude of the cross-subsidization that incomplete experience
rating can allow.
These results also help one understand the explanatory
power of the minimum and maximum tax rates in layoff
equations. Studies by Joseph Becker and Frank Brechling
indicate that narrower bounds on assignable tax rates result
in a larger proportion of employers being assigned the lim­
iting tax rates.17 The preceding discussion indicates that,
for a given rate schedule, most employers assigned to a
limiting tax rate tend to stay there even as business con­
ditions change, and those that move away from such cat­
egories do so only very slowly. Thus, a State’s maximum
and minimum rates represent not only the potential range
of responsiveness of its experience rating system but also
the potential for actual avoidance of the employment sta­
bilization incentives by a large proportion of employers.
Evidence such as Robert Topel’s suggests that employers
at these limiting rates— especially at the maximum rate—
do indeed generate extraordinary turnover rates through their
layoffs.18
However, the New Jersey results must also be considered
in light of the number of employees affected. Because em­
ployers at the maximum or minimum rates account for about
20 percent of employment in the sample, the proportion of
workers affected by incomplete experience rating is smaller
than the proportion of employers— a situation that some­
what mitigates the unemployment effects of the lack of
experience rating at the limiting rates.19 Also, one must
keep in mind that different macroeconomic conditions (such
as falling unemployment rates) could yield different param­
eter estimates. For example, conditions of full employment
could result in a smaller estimate of the proportion of stayers
in the maximum-rate category, although the number of min­
imum-rate stayers would probably rise.
s o , t h e i m p r e s s i o n left by this discussion of tax rate
assignments is that the system analyzed here, which is not
atypical, seems to lack strong incentives for employment
stabilization, particularly for employers at the maximum
rate. Employers tend to sort themselves into tax categories
and stay there or to move among categories very slowly.
Thus, most employers are either always or never facing the
employment stabilization incentives of the ui experience
rating system. For employers at the maximum rate, this
results in large negative reserves that require subsidization
by other employers in the given State’s system.
□

Even

Status next period

Initial status

Minimum- Mid-rate Maximum- “Other” “Inactive
rate
rate
accounts”
----------FOOTNOTES----------

Minimum-rate ................
Mid-rate.........................
Maximum-rate.................
“ Other” .........................
"Inactive accounts” ........

48

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

.586
.192
.001
.098
.058

.336
.606
.141
.154
.090

.016
.120
664
.048
.026

.019
.049
.136
.642
.708

.042
.032
.059
.058
.119

‘Two sources that together give an adequate introduction to and survey
of current research on the effects of ui on labor market decisions are Daniel
Hamermesh, Jobless Pay and the Economy (Baltimore, m d ., The Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1977); and Robert Topel and Finis Welch,

3

“ Unemployment Insurance: Survey and Extensions,” Economica, August
1980, pp. 3 5 1 -7 9 .
2See, for example, Ronald G. Ehrenberg and Ronald Oaxaca, “ Un­
employment Insurance, the Duration of Unemployment, and Subsequent
Wage G ain,” American Economic Review, December 1976, pp. 754-66.
3Frank Brechling, “ Layoffs and Unemployment Insurance,” in LowIncome Labor Markets (New York, National Bureau of Economic Re­
search, 1979); Terrence C. Halpin, “ The Effect of Unemployment Insur­
ance on Seasonal Fluctuations in Employment,” Industrial and Labor
Relations Review, April 1979, pp. 353—62; and Robert H. Topel, “ On
Layoffs and Unemployment Insurance, ’ ’ American Economic Review, Sep­
tember 1983, pp. 5 41 -5 9 .
4Topel, “ On Layoffs,” p. 555 (his emphasis).
5 See Denton Marks, “ Evidence on the Effect of Incomplete Experience
Rating in Unemployment Insurance on Layoff Rates in the Manufacturing
Sector,” Working Paper 732 (Vancouver, University of British Columbia,
1981).
6 While one might question the broad applicability of research based on
data from one State, New Jersey is a particularly good State to study for
this type of project because: (1) it uses the reserve ratio system of ex­
perience rating, which is used by more States (32) than any other sys­
tem; (2) it is among the top 10 States in number of workers covered and
has a large representation of all industries; and (3) it has one of the lowest
levels o f “ no-fault” benefits in the country— a feature which allows a
clearer analysis o f the degree of completeness of the experience rating tax
schedule itself. Also it forgives very few negative balance accounts. Over­
all, the New Jersey ui financing system has little leakage.
Finally, microdata required for these calculations are sufficiently scarce
that it would be virtually impossible to perform any sort of national analysis.
7 Joseph Becker has provided information on this question for the State
o f Massachusetts for the period 1960-68. He shows the number and pro­
portion of employers who were assigned the maximum or minimum tax
rate for anywhere from 5 to 9 years during this period. While his findings
suggest that a large number of employers do spend large proportions of
time at a limiting tax rate, his evidence is considerably less complete than
that presented in this research. First, Becker does not test the statistical
significance o f his results. There is no hypothesis formulation or testing.
Moreover, his data are from Massachusetts, where maximum and minimum
rates span a short range relative to other States. This fact alone increases
the likelihood o f employers being assigned limiting rates in the particular
State. (See footnote 17 and related text.) Finally, Becker does not consider
the movement o f employers among tax rates or the probabilities of various
tax rate assignments. See Joseph M. Becker, Experience Rating in Un­
employment Insurance (Baltimore, m d ., The Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1972).
8 Minimum- and maximum-rated employers can be considered not ex­
perience rated because their marginal ui tax cost of a layoff is negligible.
Similarly, “ inactive accounts” employers are not experience rated. “ Other”
accounts are (1) those too new to be eligible for a reserve ratio (less than
3 years’ experience), which are assigned a flat rate of 3.4 percent; and (2)
those for which a reserve ratio cannot be calculated— accounts in “ formula
breakdown” status— which could receive only one of two possible tax rates
(4.1 or 6.2 percent).
9For discussions of the Markov model, see T.W . Anderson and Leo A.
Goodman, “ Statistical Inferences About Markov Chains,” Annals of Math­
ematical Statistics, March 1957, pp. 89-110; and Leo A. Goodman, “ Sta­
tistical Methods for the Mover-Stayer M odel,” Journal of the American
Statistical Association, December 1961, pp. 841 -6 8 . For an application
o f this method in a policy context (specifically probabilities of movement
into and out o f poverty), see John J. McCall, Income Mobility, Racial
Discrimination and Economic Growth (Lexington, m a , D.C. Heath and
C o., 1973).
l0The discussion follows Goodman, “ Statistical Methods,” and McCall,
Income M obility.
11Goodman shows that the variance of d, can be estimated by:
2 _ piiU ~ pit) _ np2jn~ 1 (1 - pi,)
Sd'


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

w ,( l)

vf,

_
2 w .(t)
where
w , = — ---------n
See Goodman, “ Statistical Methods,” p. 864.
l2For technical reasons, the ratio for “ other” is more difficult to inter­
pret. Fortunately, the rejection of the null hypothesis does not depend on
this component of the sum of ratios. In the case of “ inactive accounts,”
the sample selection process guarantees that the employer stays in this
category throughout the 4-year period. Because the file from which the
random sample was drawn contains only active accounts, there can be no
employers coming into or going out of the inactive category in the period
from which the sample is drawn. Because the random sample was taken
from the second period, the inactive category column is all zeroes in the
1975-76 transition matrix, and the inactive accounts row is all zeroes in
the 1976-77 matrix.
Thus, it is not surprising that the ratio for this category is small, although
the estimate is probably biased downward. It is reasonable to expect that
there are covered employers who exit from their industry and stay out of
the industry permanently. Thus, the ratio for this category should support
the mover-stayer model.
Matrices indicating the annual transitions made by employers during the
4-year period fiscal 1975-78 are available from the author.
13Goodman, “ Statistical Methods,” pp. 851-55.
l4Results for the “ other” and “ inactive accounts” categories are not
discussed at length here because technical problems render their interpre­
tation very complex. It should be noted, however, that the inability to
identify certain employers in the “ other” category may lend a considerable
downward bias to the parameters shown above for mid- and maximumrate employers. Also, sample selection problems bias the “ inactive ac­
counts” estimate toward zero, when it probably should, in fact, be positive.
These problems are discussed, and alternative parameter estimates based
on adjusted data are presented in my paper, “ The Degree of Experience
Rating in Unemployment Insurance: Evidence on the Permanence o f Pay­
roll Tax Rate Assignments,” Working Paper 734 (Vancouver, University
of British Columbia, January 1984).
15See Denton Marks, “ Incomplete Experience Rating and Cross-subsi­
dization of Payrolls,” Working Paper 733 (Vancouver, University of Brit­
ish Columbia, October 1981).
l6The comparable figures for minimum-rate employers are surpluses per
employee-year of $112 and $108. Comparable figures for mid-rated em­
ployers as a group are unavailable, but there are figures by the various tax
rates covered by the category. The deficits are preceded by “ —” :
End o f ¡976
End o f 1975
Tax rate
$81.4
.........
$86.7
...........
16
72.6
69.4
...........
19
67.5
64.2
...........
2 3
46.2
53.1
...........
2 6
41.8
51.2
...........
3 0
36.6
39.9
...........
3 4
30.4
40.2
...........
3.7
15.5
17.9
...........
4.1
- 4 4 .3
- 4 6 .5
...........
5.5
.........
- 1 4 1 .2
- 1 5 5 .4
...........
5.9
......... .........
The employers with the net surplus position represent about 80 percent of
the employment in the mid-rate category.
It should be noted that these calculations disregard differences in the
timing of contributions and payment of benefits because the data do not
allow any matching of the flows. Thus, it is impossible to determine the
role that changing price levels and forgone interest play in the cross­
subsidization process.
17See, for example, Frank Brechling, “ The Incentive Effects of the
U .c . Unemployment Insurance T ax,” in Research in Labor Economics I
(Greenwich, CT, j a i Press, 1977), p. 83.
18See Topel, “ On Layoffs.”
19
Denton Marks, “ The Mitigating Effect of Employer Size in Incomplete
Experience Rating,” Working Paper 824 (Vancouver, University of British
Columbia, September 1982).

49

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Research Summaries

Wet corn mills yield top pay
among grain industries

industries with 8,115 production workers, was found in
nearly all regions of the country. In contrast, slightly more
than four-fifths of the 3,236 rice milling employees were in
the southwest. Except for rice milling, the Great Lakes
region was the major center of production; it accounted for
nearly three-tenths of the production work force in flour
milling, and for three-fifths of the workers in both the blended
flour and wet com milling industries.

Wet com milling had the highest pay levels of four grain
mill industries, according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics
survey of occupational pay. At $10.72 per hour, average
earnings in wet com mills in September 1982 were 25 per­
cent higher than in flour mills ($8.59), 34 percent higher
than in blended flour plants ($8.01), and 72 percent higher
than in rice mills ($6.25).' Nearly all workers in wet com
mills were located in metropolitan areas— chiefly within the
Great Lakes States— in plants with 100 workers or more,
and in establishments where collective bargaining agree­
ments covered a majority of the workers. These character­
istics, historically associated with higher pay levels, were
found to a lesser extent in each of the other milling industries
studied. Rice mill workers, for example, were concentrated
in the Southwest, one of the lowest paying regions, and just
under half of the workers were unionized.
The grain mill products industries covered by the survey
employed just over 23,000 production workers in September
1982. Slightly more than one-third of the workers were
employed in flour mills, approximately one-fourth each in
wet com mills and blended flour plants, and about one-sixth
in rice mills.
Regional employment patterns varied considerably by in­
dustry. Flour milling, for example, the largest of the four

Pay. Table 1 presents nationwide average pay rates for
representative occupations in the grain milling industries.
As with the industry averages, occupational pay levels were
consistently highest in wet com mills. This was true even
where comparisons could be made within the same geo­
graphic region. In each industry, maintenance journeymen
usually were the highest paid and custodial or general labor
personnel, the lowest.
Nearly all workers in each industry were paid according
to formal time-rated pay plans. Except in rice mills, where
rate-range plans prevailed, most workers were paid single
rates for specified occupations. Although single rate pay
systems generally result in narrow earnings distributions,
wide differences in pay scales among establishments pro­
duced a contrary effect in flour mills and blended flour
plants. Blended flour plants had one of the highest wage
dispersion indexes (57) among the industries in which the
Bureau studies occupational pay.2 Wage dispersion indexes

Tab le 1. N um b er and average straight-tim e hourly earnings of production w orkers in selected o c cupations in th e grain m ill
in dustries in the U nited States, S ep tem ber 1982
Flour and other
grain mills
Occupation

Number of
workers

Rice
mills

Blended and
prepared flour mills

Average
hourly
earnings1

Number of
workers

Average
hourly
earnings1

Number of
workers

Average
hourly
earnings1

_
—
—

_
_
—

Elevator operations .......................................
Bulk cleaners..............................................
Receivers ..................................................
Weighers ..................................................

463
95
264
104

$8.60
8.98
8.56
8.36

113
22
66
25

$6.09
7.67
5.50
6.28

Processors:
Flour........................................................
Rice ........................................................
Blended flour..............................................
Wet corn ............................................

1,273
—
—
—

8.88
—
—
—

_
528
—
—

6.03

Packers:
Flour ........................................................
Rice ........................................................
Blended flour..............................................
Wet corn ..................................................

1,068
—
—
—

7.72
—
—
—

_
277
—
—

_
5.87

_
_

6.73

—

426
—

Material movement:
Laborers, material handling .........................
Power-truck operators.................................

925
312

7.95
9.22

317
113

4.91
6.17

172
260

6.17
8.01

Maintenance:
Electricians................................................
General mechanics .....................................
Millwrights .........................................
Oilers........................................................
Sheet-metal workers...................................

101
360
148
183
54

10.68
9.42
10.88
8.52
10.80

21
184
14

11.01
7.73
8.64

Service and custodial:
Guards......................................................
Janitors ..........................................

22
515

5.55
8.52


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

_

93
15
47
31

$10.17
9.25
10.62
9.92

1,491

10.69

271

10.33

196
162

10.19
10.51

215
300
159
48
101

11.75
11.00
11.81
10 73
11.66

51
176

9.43
9.78

_

_

_

—

—

—

27
192

5.78
4.78

_

_

185

6.75

—

Average
hourly
earnings1

_

—

332

Numbers of
workers

6.64

—

Dashes indicate that no data were reported or that data did not meet publication criteria.

50

—

_

_
1,013
—

_
_
_

'Excludes premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends, holidays, and late shifts.
N ote:

_

Wet corn
mills

10.27

for the other grain milling industries were 13 for wet com,
33 for flour, and 37 for rice.
Benefits. Virtually all production workers were in grain
mills providing paid holidays and vacations after qualifying
periods of service. The most common holiday provision in
rice mills was 8 days; in wet com mills, 10 days; and in
flour mills and blended and prepared flour establishments,
12 days. Typical vacation provisions in each industry granted
at least 1 week of paid time off after 1 year of service, at
least 2 weeks after 3 years, and 3 weeks or more after 10
years. Vacation benefits were less generous in rice mills
than in the other industries, particularly after longer periods
of service.
All or virtually all production workers were in mills that
provided at least part of the cost of hospitalization, surgical,
basic medical, and major medical insurance coverage. Life
insurance plans were available to at least nine-tenths of the
workers in each industry. Accidental death and dismem­
berment insurance coverage was available to about half of


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

the workers in blended flour plants, and to three-fourths or
more of the workers in each of the remaining industries.
Retirement pension plans— other than Federal social se­
curity— applied to at least nine-tenths of the production
workers in the flour, blended flour, and wet corn mill in­
dustries; the proportion was four-fifths in rice mills.
A comprehensive report on the survey findings, Industry
Wage Survey: Grain Mill Products, September 1982, Bul­
letin 2207 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1984) is for sale ($3)
by the Government Printing Office, or by any of the Bu­
reau’s regional offices.
□
----------FOOTNOTES---------‘ Earnings data exclude premium pay for overtime and for work on
weekends, holidays, and late shifts.
2To provide a common reference for comparing wage dispersion, an
index is calculated for an industry by dividing the middle range of the
earnings distribution by the median. For a discussion of occupational pay
relationships by industry, see Carl B. Barsky and Martin E. Personick,
“ Measuring wage dispersion: pay ranges reflect industry traits,” Monthly
Labor Review, April 1981, pp. 3 5 -4 1 .

51

Technical Note
Average retail food prices:
a brief history of methods
F l o y d A . R a b il

The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes average retail food
prices on a monthly basis in a news release, Consumer
Prices: Energy and Food. Data are published for the United
States and for four major geographic regions— Northeast,
North Central, South, and W est.1 The report presents av­
erage prices for 94 food items that are calculated from data
used in compiling the Consumer Price Index ( c p i ). All of
the major c p i “ food at home’’ categories— cereals and bak­
ery products; meats, poultry, fish, and eggs; dairy products;
fruits and vegetables; and other foods at home— are rep­
resented in the list of average food prices. Each report also
contains data for the two preceding months.
Average retail food prices are among the oldest data series
published by b l s . The first report, issued in 1904, contained
average monthly retail prices for about 30 foods for the
years 1890-1903.2 Input data for the report were obtained
retroactively from account books and records of about 800
firms in 171 cities.
Prior to 1964, retail food prices were weighted averages
of prices collected for use in compiling the c p i . From De­
cember 1963 through June 1978, average food prices were
estimated from the movement of the c p i . 3 Each year, usually
in January, special benchmark prices were calculated for
narrowly defined classes of food products. These benchmark
prices were adjusted in succeeding months by price changes
reflected in. the appropriate c p i series. Because the c p i series
pertained to more broadly defined product categories than
did the benchmark average food prices, a new set of bench­
mark prices was computed annually to prevent estimated
prices from deviating widely from a true average of collected
prices.
The Bureau adopted this estimation technique for average
prices as a result of changes made in the specification pricing
procedures during a revision of the c p i , completed in De­
cember 1963. As a part of that revision, the specifications
used in collecting c p i prices were broadened to encompass

Floyd A. Rabil is an economist in the Office o f Prices and Living Con­
ditions, Bureau o f Labor Statistics.

52


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

a wider sample of goods and services. While this procedure
improved the item sample for the c p i , it made calculation
of the average food prices difficult because of the greater
heterogeneity of foods being priced within a specification.
The “ benchmark and estimation” technique for calculating
average food prices was then developed to meet the con­
tinuing needs of users of such information.
Because of the major methodological changes introduced
in the 1978 revision of the c p i , a completely different ap­
proach had to be developed for calculating average food
prices. The demanding schedule for the completion of the
1978 c p i revision made it impossible to revise the average
food price program in time to coincide with the release of
the revised c p i . Therefore, average retail food prices are
not available from July 1978 through December 1979. Data
based on the revised c p i sample are available beginning in
January 1980, but average prices in the current series are
not comparable to estimates published through June 1978.
Development of the new average food price program for
1980 presented the b l s staff with a number of difficulties.
Because of the substantial change in price collection meth­
odology employed in the revised c p i , a greater variety of
food items (as well as nonfood goods and services) have
been selected for pricing. For the pre-1978 c p i , b l s field
representatives had priced items that conformed to detailed
specifications which were basically the same for every store
across the country. Thus, a large number of prices were
obtained for each of the almost 100 food items. For an item
such as cookies, for example, about 1,100 prices were col­
lected nationally each month. The prices were for almost
identical types of cookies varying only by brand and package
size. Therefore, an adequate number of observations were
available to calculate an average price for a specific type of
cookie in individual cities as well as nationally.
In the revised c p i , collection methodology was changed
to allow for almost the full range of goods and services to
be sampled.4 Under this procedure, the selection of each
item is keyed to the sales experience of the store in which
it is priced. The field representative works from a list of
general categories in selecting the item to be priced. This
procedure gives each variety, brand, size, and so forth, a
chance of selection proportional to its importance in total
sales for the general category in the particular store. Once
selected, the same item continues to be priced over time.
This procedure results in a considerably larger range of

A note on energy prices
b l s also publishes average retail prices for four kinds of
energy: gasoline, electricity, natural gas, and fuel oil. Gasoline
average prices per gallon are published for leaded regular,
unleaded regular, unleaded premium, and all types combined.
Electricity average prices are published for 500 kilowatt
hours ( k w h ) and per kw h as calculated from a broad
representative sample of residential consumption amounts.
Natural gas average prices are available for 40 therms, 100
therms, and per therm, calculated from a representative
sample of monthly residential consumption amounts. Fuel
oil # 2 average prices are released on a per-gallon basis,
calculated from a sample of residential deliveries.

goods and services being selected for the food item sample.
For calculating the c p i , the revised procedure produces
an index which is much more representative of the goods
and services purchased by consumers. Fewer prices are ob­
tained, however, for any specific item because data collec­
tion is spread over a much broader range of food products.
For example, about 570 prices are presently being collected
nationally for cookies. These prices are representative of
virtually all kinds of cookies available in the marketplace,
including packaged cookies, cookies sold loose in bakeries,
dietetic cookies, and all of the various combinations of
ingredients. Therefore, there are relatively few observations
for any one type of cookie, compared to the 1,100 prices
that were obtained for a specific type of cookie prior to
1978. Because of the smaller number of quotations obtained
for nearly comparable food items, published average prices
currently are available only at the national and regional
level.
The number of prices available to calculate average prices
for any food category in the c p i is dependent upon two
factors: 1) the number of price quotations assigned to the
product stratum (which assignment is designed for maxi­
mum accuracy of the c p i ); and 2) the homogeneity of a
specific item with respect to ingredient composition, pack­
age size, and packaging. Thus, for an item such as white
pan bread, which has a large number of price quotations
assigned to its stratum and which is a relatively homoge­
neous product, about 930 prices are obtained nationally, of
which about 60 percent are used to calculate the U.S. av­
erage price. Generally, for the purpose of average price
calculation, very few items have usable sample sizes which
approach that for white pan bread.
In developing post-1980 calculation procedures for av­
erage food prices, several procedures were considered, in­
cluding the use of the benchmark and estimation procedure
used in the earlier series. It was decided, however, to adopt
a methodology in which actual weighted average prices
would be calculated each month. In determining the items
for which to develop average prices, b l s identifies the nar­
rowest possible specification for which a usable sample can
be obtained and an average price calculated. If the speci­
fication is judged narrow enough to be useful, an average

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

price is published. For example, average prices are calcu­
lated for freeze-dried instant coffee in jars ranging in size
from 6.1 to 14 ounces. The specification was narrowed to
this range because the per-ounce price of freeze-dried instant
coffee varies widely from small jars (6 ounces or less) to
large jars (more than 14 ounces). Therefore, prices for jars
outside the 6.1- to 14-ounce size range are excluded to
eliminate price extremes which would not yield realistic
average prices.
The first step in calculating an average food price is the
computation of an “ effective price.” This procedure in­
volves converting a reported price to a price per standard
unit of measure (weight, volume, or count). The published
average prices are weighted averages of the individual ef­
fective prices. The weight of each observation reflects the
relative share of expenditures which the individual obser­
vations were selected to represent in the c p i . (See “ Con­
sumer Price Index,” BLS Handbook o f Methods, Volume II,
Bulletin 2134-2, for a detailed methodological description.)
Users of average retail food prices should be aware that
these data are best suited to measure price levels in a par­
ticular month. The estimates are not designed to track price
changes over time, nor are they intended for use in making
interarea comparisons. Ongoing updates of the item and
outlet samples will cause movement of average prices over
time to differ from the movement of an index for the same
item, because the index reflects only price change for the
same product in the same retail outlet. In calculating average
prices, individual quotes that meet the item and geographic
definitions are included, regardless of whether they are used
for index calculation. Differences in prices among geo­
graphic areas may not represent true differentials because
of variations in brand, quality, and size of the sample. Of
course, such differences will vary considerably depending
on the item being observed. For an item such as boneless
round steak, for which U.S. Department of Agriculture grades
are used to define the quality of the cut of meat, comparison
of prices among regions is likely to be more informative
than for items such as fresh pork sausage, ice cream, canned
tomatoes, and smoked ham, for which differences in brand
and quality can be quite substantial.
----------FOOTNOTES---------'The four census region, are: Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Mas­
sachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, and Vermont; North Central: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South
Dakota, and Wisconsin; South: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District
of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missis­
sippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vir­
ginia, and West Virginia; and West: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New M exico, Oregon, Utah, Wash­
ington, and Wyoming.
2C ost o f Living and Retail Prices in the United States (1890-1903),
Bulletin 54 (U .S. Bureau of Labor, 1904), p. 1129; and Cost o f Living
and Retail Prices of Food (18th Annual Report of the Commissioner of
Labor, 1903), pp. 15-17.
3See Doris P. Rothwell, “ Calculation of Average Retail Food Prices,”
Monthly Labor Review, January 1965, pp. 6 1 -6 6 .
*The Consumer Price Index: Concepts and Content Over the Years,
Report 517 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1978), p. 7.

53

Foreign Labor
Developments

Caribbean Basin Initiative:
setting labor standards
Steve Charnovitz

On January 1, 1984, the Caribbean Basin Initiative went
into effect, eliminating tariffs for most products exported
by that region to the United States. This preferential access
to American markets is expected to increase the flow of
investment into Caribbean countries with high unemploy­
ment, and thus create additional jobs.
The Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act lists 27
countries1 as potentially eligible for the trade benefits, but
directs the President of the United States to undertake a
rigorous process of designation. This process includes a
review of 18 criteria for designation. The criteria are quite
varied; they range from whether a country is Communist to
whether commercial stations in that country pirate U.S.
television broadcasts.
Although only 7 of the 18 criteria are mandatory, the
Administration has persuaded each designated country— 20
as of mid-1984— to meet all of the criteria.2 At the end of
the bilateral discussions, each country interested in being
designated was asked to submit a letter to the United States
explaining how each of the 18 criteria were met. These
letters contain both declarations and commitments regarding
present and future policies.3 In some cases, governments
are required to take specific actions before the designation
letters are accepted.

The labor criterion
One of the most controversial criteria is that regarding
labor.4 This provision requires the President to consider the
degree to which workers in the country are afforded “ rea­
sonable workplace conditions” and enjoy the “ right to or­
ganize and bargain collectively.” In practice, this has meant
that in countries with restrictive labor policies, the U.S.
negotiating teams have encouraged the governments to agree
to changes in their policies.
Steve Charnovitz is a program analyst in the Bureau of International Af­
fairs, U .S. Department o f Labor. He is currently on leave as a Foreign
Affairs Fellow in the Congressional fellowship program.

54

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

The primary reason for the labor criterion is a concern
that the labor laws and conditions in some countries would
prevent the benefits of the Caribbean Basin Initiative from
reaching the workers. By promoting free trade unions, the
United States intended not only to contribute to democratic
pluralism, but also to provide foreign workers the institu­
tional base needed to earn their rightful share of the income
generated by the Initiative. A second reason for the labor
criterion is to safeguard American workers from unfair for­
eign competition. By using the statutory labor criterion, the
United States would have leverage against a participating
country that exported to the American market products made
under “ sweatshop style” working conditions.
Aside from the narrow provision in U.S. trade law that
prohibits the importation of products made by convict or
forced labor, the Caribbean Basin Initiative is the only U.S.
law that makes foreign labor conditions a specific consid­
eration in providing trade benefits to other countries.5 While
international fair labor standards have been a longtime goal
of organized labor in the United States, the Initiative is the
first time this concept has been incorporated into U.S. tariff
legislation.

Defining the standard
In implementing the labor criterion, the Administration
faced 27 countries with a wide range of labor conditions—
from very good to very poor. Realizing that it could not
apply the same standards to countries with different cultures
and legal systems, the United States adopted a two-step
procedure. One, all countries are reviewed with respect to
a few very basic labor standards. Two, countries with in­
adequate labor rights are asked to make some improvements.
The approach the United States takes in each country, of
course, also depends on the number of negotiation issues
involving the other Caribbean Basin Initiative criteria.
The first area of concern is freedom of association, or the
right to organize unions, form labor federations, and affiliate
with international trade union organizations. In defining this
standard, the United States relied heavily on the Freedom
of Association Convention (Convention 87) of the Inter­
national Labor Organization (ilo).
The second area of concern is workplace conditions. At
a minimum, this means freedom from forced labor and child

labor abuses— a universal standard applicable to all coun­
tries. The United States also looks at laws on minimum
wage and occupational health and safety, but each country’s
laws are judged on an individual basis. This approach was
suggested by the legislative history, because the House had
considered but failed to enact a bill to make U.S. occupa­
tional safety and health laws the standard for the labor cri­
terion.
The third area of concern is government protection of
unions from harassment and nonrecognition by employers.
In each country, the United States looks for laws to promote
collective bargaining, to protect union organizers from being
fired, and to permit peaceful strikes. Where these laws do
not exist, the countries are urged to consider reforms.
The fourth area of concern is the Export Processing Zones
in many of the Caribbean Basin Initiative countries. Such
zones, also called “ free trade zones,” are exempt from
many of the commercial laws that apply in the rest of the
country. Because these zones serve as platforms for export
to the American market, the United States seeks assurances
that the labor standards in these zones are not less than the
standards in the rest of the country. This issue came up
because, in the past, some of these zones had abusive labor
conditions, compared with the rest of the country, that gave
the zone’s production an unfair competitive advantage in
international markets. For example, in some of these zones,
the governments prohibited trade unions.
Before the U.S. team visits a country, the U.S. Depart­
ment of Labor consults closely with the afl- cio and the
American Institute for Free Labor Development to obtain
information and insight into the labor problems of that coun­
try. These consultations, together with embassy analyses
and ilo reports, enable the U.S. team to focus on the most
serious labor problems within the time constraints of short
visits.

Major labor provisions
Several of the agreements call for significant improve­
ments in labor conditions.
Although Haiti had a handful of weak trade unions, the
Haitian government’s' history of repressing unions under
former President Francois Duvalier had made it anathema
in the international free trade union community. The Ini­
tiative program coincided with plans of the present Haitian
government to improve its labor laws, and so the Haitian
government agreed with the United States that a well-pub­
licized labor law reform would give a boost to Haiti’s labor
unions and lead to needed assistance by the ilo .
Specifically, Haiti’s designation letter includes the fol­
lowing:
• Several changes in labor code provisions which impeded
the free operation of unions,
• an official announcement that the stringent registration
provisions of the penal code did not apply to trade unions,


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

• a clarification of the government law prohibiting strikes
and an agreement to ask the ilo for assistance in studying
improvements in that law,

• a letter to all Haitian unions notifying them of their right
to form federations and affiliate with international trade
union organizations,
• a letter to international trade union organizations advising
them that affiliation is allowed and welcoming them to
visit Haiti,
• an agreement to use a weekly radio show to clarify the
labor code to workers,
• a statement that workers who report minimum wage vi­
olations will be protected from punishment by employers,
• a statement that Haitian sugar workers going to the Do­
minican Republic are allowed to keep their travel docu­
ments and contracts,
• instructions to the Haitian Embassy in the Dominican
Republic regarding improved inspections of sugar plan­
tation conditions, and
• a request to the ilo to provide technical assistance with
regard to the problems of the sugar workers.

In the Dominican Republic, the Administration sought
commitments to improve the working conditions of the Hai­
tian migrant sugar workers. In 1983, a special ilo Com­
mission of Inquiry had found very poor working conditions
including, in some cases, “ forced labor.” Specifically, the
Dominican designation letter includes the following: (1) an
agreement to allow workers to choose the plantation they
work on, (2) an agreement that the national police will make
sure that plantation security forces do not prevent workers
from quitting their jobs and leaving the plantation, (3) a
statement that further improvements in working conditions
will be made in 1984, (4) a statement that sugar workers
are given a break during the day and 1 day off per week in
accordance with the contract, (5) a statement that workers
do receive at least the minimum wage ($3.50 per day), and
(6) a commitment to provide government inspectors to over­
see the weighing of cane. With regard to the export pro­
cessing zone, the government stated that the right to form
unions and bargain does apply there. The Dominican gov­
ernment also agreed to ask its Congress to speed up con­
sideration of pending labor law reforms, which include
protection of employees from dismissal because of union
organizing activities.
In El Salvador, the Administration sought commitments
regarding the past violent attacks on trade union leaders.
The letter from El Salvador specifically states: (1) the gov­
ernment will take special measures to assure that its security
forces provide more effective protection against illegal at­
tacks or detention of trade unionists or employer organi­
zations and (2) the government will take suitable measures
to assure that the necessary organization exists within the
security forces to investigate illegal acts of violence against
labor leaders and seek evidence to present to a court of
55

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Foreign Labor Developments
justice. With regard to labor laws, El Salvador’s letter in­
cludes: (3) a statement that workers can join free trade
unions, that unions can form federations, and that federa­
tions can affiliate internationally, (4) an agreement that in
the new Constitution, the right of farm workers to associate
in labor unions will be established, (5) an agreement that
the government will propose to the tripartite labor code
commission sanctions adequate to act as a deterrent to em­
ployers who refuse to bargain or who intimidate trade unions,
and (6) a statement that the labor code applies to the free
trade zone and that union organizers would henceforth be
permitted to enter the zone.
In Honduras, the United States sought to investigate al­
legations that some of the firms in the free zone prohibited
unions. In the Honduran letter, the government stated that
the labor code applies in the free zone and that the govern­
ment would investigate charges that workers in one company
were obliged to sign an agreement not to establish a trade
union. The government also pledged to send additional in­
spectors to the zone to assure that workers know their rights
and protections under the labor code.
In Guatemala, the United States sought the government’s
legal recognition of the new Guatemalan labor confedera­
tion, the Confederation of Labor Unity. The Guatemalan
letter stated that the Confederation has been recognized and
that unions have a right to form federations and affiliate
with international organizations.
The designation letters of the other 15 countries also
discuss labor rights and conditions, but the United States
did not press for significant reforms in these countries (for
example, Barbados) because their labor conditions already
met the Administration’s standard.

Future of labor standards in trade
In summary, the designation process of the Caribbean
Basin Initiative provides an important boost to organized
labor in several countries where there were serious labor
problems. In the months ahead, the U.S. Government will
work closely with American and international unions to

56

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

monitor these designation letters to assure that the Caribbean
Basin governments adhere to them. Such monitoring is par­
ticularly important because many of the statements on labor
involved prospective changes.
During the next few years, many parties will be analyzing
the impact of the labor criterion under the Caribbean Basin
Initiative. This analysis will involve a weighing of the ben­
efits and costs of promoting labor rights in these countries.
Both economic and political factors will need to be consid­
ered. If the labor criterion is judged to be successful, the
next step would be to consider extending it to other countries
receiving trade preferences from the United States.6
□
FOOTNOTES
1The following countries or territories are eligible for designation under
the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (P.L. 98-67):
Anguilla
Grenada
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Antigua and Barbuda Guatemala Suriname
Bahamas, The
Guyana
Trinidad and Tobago
Barbados
Haiti
Cayman Islands
Belize
Honduras
Montserrat
Costa Rica
Jamaica
Netherlands Antilles
Dominica
Nicaragua
Saint Christopher-Nevis
Dominican Republic
Panama
Turks and Caicos Islands
El Salvador
Saint Lucia Virgin Islands, British
2 Seven o f the countries have not asked to be designated. They are
Anguilla, Guyana, Nicaragua, Suriname, the Cayman Islands, the
Turks and Caicos Islands, and the Bahamas.
3 Eleven of the country designation letters have been published in Com­
munication From the President o f the United States (U .S. House of Rep­
resentatives, Committee on Ways and Means, House Document 9 8 -1 5 1 ,
Jan. 23, 1984). All of the letters are on file at the Committee.
4There are two types of criteria— mandatory and discretionary. For the
mandatory criteria, the President cannot designate a country unless it meets
these criteria. For the discretionary criteria, the President is directed to
take these criteria into account in making designation decisions. The labor
criterion is discretionary.
5This provision is in the Tariff Act of 1930, Section 307. The prohibition
exempts goods, wares, articles, and merchandise not produced domesti­
cally in sufficient quantities to meet the “ consumptive demands” of the
United States.
6On Oct. 30, 1984, the President signed the Trade and Tariff Act of
1984 which, in renewing the Generalized System of Preferences, includes
a new designation criterion relating to “ internationally recognized worker
rights.”

Major Agreements
Expiring Next Month

This list of selected collective bargaining agreements expiring in December is based on information
from the Bureau’s Office of Wages and Industrial Relations. The list includes agreements covering
1,000 workers or more. Private industry is arranged in order of Standard Industrial Classification.
Number of
workers

Employer and location

Private industry

Labor organization1

Constructors Labor Council (West Virginia) .................................................

Construction .............................

Pennsylvania Heavy and Highway Contractors Bargaining Association
(Harrisburg, pa)
West Virginia Contractors Bargaining Association, Inc. (West Virginia) . . .
Association of Steel Erectors and Heavy Equipment Operators, Inc.
(Atlanta, ga)
National Electrical Contractors-Association, Inc., Western Pennsylvania
Chapter (Pennsylvania)

Construction .............................

Carpenters; Laborers; Operating
Engineers; and Teamsters (Ind.)
Steelworkers ....................................

2,000

Construction .............................
Construction .............................

Steelworkers ....................................
Iron Workers....................................

2,000
1,000

Construction .............................

Electrical Workers (ibew) ................

1,900

GTE Lenkurt, Inc. (Albuquerque, nm) ..........................................................
Amana Refrigeration, Inc. (Fayetteville, tn) .................................................
Tacoma Boatbuilding Co. (Tacoma, wa) ......................................................

Electrical products ....................
Machinery..................................
Transportation equipment .........

1,200
1,000
1,500

Eastern Airlines, ground service (Interstate)2 .................................................
Northwest Airlines, ground service (Interstate)2 .............................................
Republic Airlines, pilots (Interstate)2 ............................................................
Western Airlines, flight attendants (Interstate)2 .............................................

Air transportation......................
Air transportation......................
Air transportation......................
Air transportation......................

Electrical Workers (ibew) ................
Machinists.........................................
Boilermakers; Carpenters; Electrical
Workers (ibew); Laborers;
Machinists; Operating Engineers;
Painters; Plumbers; Sheet Metal
Workers; and Teamsters (Ind.)
Machinists.........................................
Machinists.........................................
Air Line Pilots..................................
Flight Attendants .............................

Northern States Power Co. (Minneapolis, mn) ...............................................
Public Service Co. of Colorado (Denver, co) ...............................................
New York Oil Heating Association (New York, ny) ....................................
Cemeteries (New Jersey and New York)3 ......................................................
Metropolitan Detroit Hotel and Motor Hotel Association (Michigan)...........

Utilities......................................
Utilities......................................
Wholesale trade.........................
Real estate..................................
H otels........................................

Electrical Workers (ibew) ................
Electrical Workers (ibew) ................
Teamsters (Ind.) ..............................
Service Employees...........................
Hotel Employees and Restaurant
Employees

3,200
3,000
2,000
1,800
2,300

Chicago Residential Hotel Association (Illinois).............................................
Illinois Association of Health Care Facilities (Chicago, il) ...........................
Kaiser Permanente (California)........................................................................

H otels........................................
Hospitals....................................
Hospitals....................................

Service Employees...........................
Service Employees...........................
Nurses’ Association (Ind.) .............

1,000
4,300
4,000

Government activity

Labor organization1

Education ..................................
Education ..................................

Education Association (In d .).........
Colorado Classified School
Employees (Ind.)
Fire Fighters ....................................
Nurses’ Association (Ind.) ..............
Police (Ind.) ....................................
Transport Workers...........................
Service Employees...........................
Technical Employees Association
(Ind.)
State, County and Municipal
Employees

Colorado:

Boulder Board of Education, teachers........................................
Jefferson County Board of Education, classified employees . . . .

Florida:

Dade County Fire Department........................................................ Fire protection...........................
Dade County Nurses........................................................................ Health services .........................
Dade County Police Department .................................................... Police protection ......................
Dade County Transit Agency.......................................................... Transportation ...........................
Michigan: Correctional facility...................................................................... General services.........................
Technical employees................................................................... General services.........................

Minnesota:

Hennepin County multi-unit ......................................................

General services.........................

7,600

12,600
3,600
1,200
2,300

Number of
workers
1,250
2,750
1,050
1,000
1,600
1,150
2,600
1,650
3,000

See footnotes at end of table.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

57

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Major Agreements Expiring Next Month

Continued— Major Agreements Expiring Next Month

Employer and location

New Jersey:

Hudson County ...............................................................
Trenton municipal employees ........................................

New York:

Nassau County .................................................................
Onondaga County multidepartments ...............................
Saratoga County ...................... ........................................
Schenectady County..........................................................
Suffolk County Police Department ..................................
Westchester County..........................................................
New York City Housing Authority ..................................
Syracuse Board of Education, teachers ...........................

Ohio:

Medical College, professional and technical unit ....................
Cincinnati Board of Education, teachers ..................................
Cincinnati Police Department ....................................................
Dayton Board of Education, teachers ......................................
Montgomery County .................................................................
Toledo Board of Education, teachers........................................
Toledo Board of Education, classified employees....................

Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh Fire Department...........................................
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County.............................................................
Milwaukee Police Department...........................................
'Affiliated with AFL-CIO except where noted as independent (Ind.).
information from newspaper reports.
industry area (group of companies signing the same contract).

58

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Government activity

Labor organization1

General services......................... Teamsters (Ind.) .............................
General services......................... State, County and Municipal
Employees
General services......................... State, County and Municipal
Employees
General services......................... State, County and Municipal
Employees
General services......................... State, County and Municipal
Employees
General services......................... State, County and Municipal
Employees
Police protection ...................... Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association
(Ind.)
General services......................... State, County and Municipal
Employees
General services......................... Teamsters (Ind.) .............................
Education .................................. Education Association (In d .)...........
State, County and Municipal
Employees
Education .................................. Teachers ...........................................
Police protection ...................... Police ...............................................
Education .................................. Education Association (Ind.)...........
General services......................... State, County and Municipal
Employees
Education .................................. Teachers ...........................................
Education .................................. State, County and Municipal
Employees
Fire protection........................... Fire Fighters ....................................
General services......................... State, County and Municipal
Employees
Police protection ...................... Milwaukee Police Association.........
Education ..................................

Number of
workers
1,700
1,100
13,000
3,500
2,600
1,300
2,100
5,300
5,000
1,500
1,000
3,100
1,100
1,700
1,200
2,500
1,700
1,050
6,000
1,800

Developments in
Industrial Relations

Auto, coal agreements reached
The United Auto Workers has reached an agreement with
General Motors, and bargaining has shifted to the Ford
Motor Co. A feature of the u a w - g m contract is a job se­
curity provision which guarantees that workers with at least
1 year of service will not be laid off because of the intro­
duction of new technology, “ outsourcing,” negotiated pro­
ductivity improvements, shifting of work from one g m plant
to another, or the consolidation of component production.
The United Mine Workers and the Bituminous Coal Op­
erators Association settled peacefully on a 40-month con­
tract. Union president Rich Trumka said the contract contained
“ no concessions, absolutely none.” An industry official
described the contract as “ fair and modest.”
Detailecf provisions o f the UAW/Bituminous Coal Oper­
ators Association and UAW/GM-Ford agreements will appear
in the December M o n th ly L a b o r R e v i e w .

Board limits bargaining units in health facilities
Union efforts to organize hospital and nursing home em­
ployees were adversely affected by a National Labor Re­
lations Board ruling that the number of bargaining units in
such institutions must be held to a minimum. The Board
contended that the ruling conformed with a requirement
imposed by the Congress in 1974 when it extended to em­
ployees of nonprofit health care facilities the right to bargain
on wages and benefits. In granting this right, the Congress
specified that bargaining units in such institutions should be
as broad as possible to reduce the possibility that a small
number of workers could paralyze a hospital. The Board
did not specify the precise number of bargaining units that
would be appropriate in a hospital, but one Board member
said that four units might be appropriate in a large institution
and two in a small one.
The case arose when the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers organized a small number of trades work­
ers at St. Francis Hospital in Memphis, t n . In 1982, the
Board ruled that the hospital must bargain with the union.
“ 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.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

At that time, the Board maintained that the basic test for a
bargaining unit was whether the workers shared “ a com­
munity of interests” in their wages, hours, training, and
working conditions, the same requirement that applies in
other industries.
In overturning the 1982 decision, the reconstituted Board
held that unions seeking to designate bargaining units in
health care facilities must prove a “ disparity of interests,”
in wages and in the other working conditions that are sharper
than in other industries.
The reaction from organized labor was immediate. Jerry
Shea, health care coordinator for the Service Employees,
complained that the ruling did not include “ guidance as to
what it means.” He said some employers may withdraw
from current bargaining on initial contracts and ask the
courts to rule on the legality of the bargaining unit.
Management attorney John Irving disagreed, saying that
the decision will preclude much litigation over bargaining
units because the courts will now have a more definite un­
derstanding of the intent of the Congress regarding bar­
gaining units.

Merck, three unions settle, end 15-week strike
The longest strike in the history of Merck & Co. ended
when the firm settled with a council of unions including the
Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, the Chemical Workers,
and the Clothing and Textile Workers. The major issue in
the 15-week walkout was a company demand for employee
pay cuts to enhance Merck’s ability to compete with other
pharmaceutical companies. Merck claimed its wage rates
were 18 to 46 percent above its competitors and that its
employees earned an average annual salary of $34,500 in
1983. Union officials disputed this, claiming that the average
was about $23,000.
Merck’s demand for compensation cuts included a call
for adoption of a two-tier wage system under which new
employees would be permanently paid less than those al­
ready on the payroll. The final provision did not amount to
a true two-tier system because the additional pay sacrifices
applicable to new workers would be recouped. The 4-year
contract does not provide for specified wage increases or
automatic cost-of-living adjustments in the first year. Cur­
rent employees will receive lump-sum payments of $700 on
59

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Developments in Industrial Relations
April 30, 1985; $800 on April 30, 1986; and $500 on April
30, 1987. In addition, they will receive possible cost-ofliving adjustments of up to 15 cents an hour in the fourth
year. New employees will not receive the lump-sum pay­
ments or the current $3.15 to $3.18 cost-of-living allow­
ance, but will receive a 30-cent-an-hour wage increase after
each 12 months of service. They would attain pay rate parity
with current employees in about 10 years, assuming the
provision for 30-cent increases is retained in subsequent
contracts.
The contract, which expires on April 30, 1988, increases
lifetime major medical coverage to $750,000, from $250,000;
medical deductibles to $150 for single coverage and $300
for family, from $50 and $150, respectively; covered hos­
pital stays to 365 days, from 120 days; and requires a second
medical opinion for surgery. Other benefit changes included
a $1,000 increase in life insurance coverage, to $5,000, and
unspecified improvements in pensions.
The accord covered 4,000 employees at operations in
Rahway and North Branch, nj; West Point, Hawthorne, and
Danville, pa ; South San Francisco, ca ; Albany, ga ; and
Elkton, v a .

Electrical Workers win first contract at Litton
After a 4-year confrontation, Litton Systems, Inc., and
the United Electrical Workers negotiated an initial contract
for 2,000 employees of the company’s microwave oven
plant in Sioux Falls, sd . The Electrical Workers had won
a representation election at the plant in November 1980. A
year later, the National Labor Relations Board certified the
union as the bargaining agent for the workers, but the re­
lationship became increasingly antagonistic as the parties
traded charges and engaged in legal actions. The union,
which won the assistance of other unions in a national pub­
licity and boycott drive against Litton, claimed that the
company was engaged in a corporatewide campaign to thwart
employee efforts to organize. Litton denied this, saying its
labor relations strategies were set at the local rather than
national level and that its number of labor law violations
was not excessive considering its large number of plants.
A major factor in attaining the contract settlement was
the intervention of a joint committee the parties established
in 1983 to discuss and investigate labor disputes.
The new contract, which extends to January 31, 1987,

60

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

provides for wage increases of 35 cents an hour effective
immediately, 40 cents in August 1985, and 25 cents in
August 1986. Prior to the settlement, the employees re­
portedly averaged $5.20 an hour.
Benefit provisions include coverage under a contributory
companywide pension plan; a grievance procedure; seniority
rights; job-bidding procedures; health and safety monitoring;
11 holidays; and a health plan calling for a nominal em­
ployee contribution for single coverage and $25 a month
for family coverage.

New York City’s longest health-care strike ends
The largest and longest health care strike in New York
City history ended when members of District 1199 of the
Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union approved
2-year agreements with the League of Voluntary Hospitals
and Homes and the Association of Voluntary Nursing Homes.
The 44-day stoppage involved 52,000 employees, 18,000
patients, and 45 private, nonprofit hospitals and nursing
homes. Part of the delay in settling resulted from the Lea­
gue’s contention that the projected rise in State payments
to the institutions was not enough to cover the cost of a
settlement that would include 5-percent annual pay in­
creases. New York Governor Mario Cuomo assured the
parties that he would “ do the right thing” and “ make ad­
justments” later if the institutions were unable to cover the
cost of the settlement. This induced labor and management
to settle, but negotiators cautioned that the accord could be
abrogated by either party if they did not receive “ assurances
from the State consistent with Governor Cuomo’s state­
ment.”
The two 5-percent pay increases will be applied to annual
salaries ranging from $15,247 for orderlies to $33,962 for
social workers. Other types of workers involved include
clerks, technicians, and aides. The accord also provides that
the workers will have alternate weekends off. Management
had offered 26 weekends off per year, although not nec­
essarily every other weekend, and a $20 premium for every
weekend worked beyond the 26. Another provision freezes
starting pay for new employees, beginning with the second
year. The terms were expected to set a pattern for settlements
between the union and about 24 other institutions when
current agreements expire on October 1.

Book Reviews

The rise of the United Farm Workers
By Linda C.
and Theo J. Majka. Philadelphia, pa , Temple Univer­
sity Press, 1983. 346 pp. $24.95.

F a r m w o r k e r s , A g r i b u s i n e s s , a n d th e S t a t e .

Cesar Chavez began to organize California farmworkers
in the 1960’s, and within a decade, the strikes, boycotts,
and marches organized by what became the United Farm
Workers union made Americans aware that Mexican-Amer­
ican workers harvested most of the Nation’s grapes and
lettuce. Unions, churches, and students enthusiastically sup­
ported the fledgling farmworker union, first, in its struggle
to be represented as the bargaining agent for farmworkers
on corporate grape and vegetable farms, and later, to retain
its contracts when the Teamsters union began organizing
farmworkers in the early 1970’s. The tumultuous events of
the early 1970’s led growers and unions to demand a State
law to end the strife. The California Agricultural Labor
Relations Act was enacted in 1975 to
. . ensure peace
in the agricultural fields by guaranteeing justice for all ag­
ricultural workers and stability in labor relations. ’’ It granted
farmworkers organizing and collective bargaining rights.
F a r m w o r k e r s , A g r i b u s i n e s s , a n d th e S t a t e is a chronicle
of the farmworker events in the 1960’s and 1970’s by ob­
servers who worked for the United Farm Workers union.
The authors do more than simply record events; they also
theorize as to why the United Farm Workers succeeded in
its efforts to achieve lasting bargaining agreements after
other farmworker unions had failed. The authors’ theory
has to do with how government both opposed and aided
farmworker organizations that have been present in Cali­
fornia agriculture for more than 100 years.
California’s labor-intensive fruit and vegetable industry
was developed in the late 1880’s when refrigerated rail
transportation opened up east coast markets and the 12,000
Chinese laborers who had built the transcontinental railroad
became migratory farmworkers because they were denied
mining and urban jobs. The large California farms that
emerged when wheat fields were converted to orchards were
preserved with the arrival of immigrant workers without
options. Although the availability of farmworkers kept wages
low, land prices rose to the extent that most of the midwestern farmers who migrated to California could not re­


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

main farmers. By 1900, the conventional wisdom asserted
that California agriculture needed large numbers of migrant
workers for seasonal jobs, and that such a lifestyle was most
acceptable to non white immigrants.
Waves of immigrant farmworkers followed— the Japa­
nese, Hindus, Filipinos, Depression-era “ Okies” and “ Arkies” in the late 1920’s and early 1930’s; and Mexicans
since World War II. In most instances, these immigrants
without options were not a majority of the farm work force,
but their desperate need for work meant that wages fell' as
additional laborers arrived in search of work. White farm­
workers protested bitterly when farmers reduced wages after
“ too many” workers had appeared. The Industrial Workers
of the World converted these protests into strikes before
World War I, and the Communist-dominated Cannery and
Agricultural Workers Industrial Union similarly assumed
the leadership of spontaneous strikes in the 1930’s.
This book summarizes the rise of the United Farm Work­
ers union. The authors give considerable weight to the per­
suasive talents of Cesar Chavez, as well as the importance
of religious groups and students in promoting boycott ac­
tivities by the union. The book emphasizes the often tenuous
ties between the United Farm Workers and most afl- cio
unions, although it highlights the United Auto Workers’
enthusiastic support of the United Farm Workers. The book’s
major shortcoming is its failure to explain how the changing
structure of California agriculture expedited organizing. Just
as the textile workers union asserted that it had to organize
the industry before it could organize the work force, the
United Farm Worker’s success rested heavily on the emer­
gence of large growers who could afford to pay higher
wages. The United Farm Workers union has been most
successful in organizing workers on corporate vegetable
farms but has had the least success in commodities where
production is diffused among thousands of family farmers
who often struggle to stay in business.
Although other books have chronicled the rise of the
United Farm Workers and analyzed the reasons for its suc­
cess, Linda and Theo Majka theorize on how government
has intervened in omnipresent farmworker protests. I find
this theory to be the weak part of the book, because it
assumes that farmworkers have always wanted to organize
and gain control over their employment, that farmers have
61

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Book Reviews
implacably opposed these organizing efforts, and that the
State acted as an umpire, shifting from the side of the farm­
ers to the workers’ cause in the 1970’s. This power theory
becomes tautological by arguing that the United Farm Work­
ers union gained enough without a law to cause the State
legislators to switch sides, downplaying structural shifts in
agriculture and the possibility that unionism can bring mu­
tual benefits to workers and employers.
This book is a useful summary of events derived from
personal experience and newspaper accounts.
— P h il ip

L.

M

a r t in

Associate Professor
Agricultural Economics
University of California, Davis

Book notes
The Federal Data Base Finder.
Monica Homer. Potomac,

m d

By Sharon Zarozny and
,

Information

USA,

Inc.,

1984, 368 pp., $95.
Mathew Lesko, founder and president of Information u s a ,
has made a career of telling people how and where to get
information from the Federal Government. In this directory,
billed as the first of its kind, Information u s a lists and
describes more than 3,000 Federal data bases and files, from
Acid Rain (Oak Ridge National Laboratory) to World Pop­
ulation (Census Bureau) and includes many Bureau of Labor
Statistics series. The authors acknowledge that direct access
to many of the Federal data bases is limited to Government
agencies, but suggest that information from them sometimes
is available from the producing agencies at low or no cost.
The book also lists machine-readable data tapes offered for
sale directly by Government agencies and reports on com­
mercial vendors who re-sell Government information at a
profit. The Federal Data Base Finder says that the Federal
Government spends billions of dollars creating data but very
little to inform the public that the data exist. Lesko and his
associates have assembled much of that information and
offer to share it with the public for $95.

Included in the volume are comprehensive discussions of
“ Unemployment and Associated Measures,” by Commis­
sioner of Labor Statistics Janet L. Norwood; “ Measures of
Recession and Expansion,” by Geoffrey H. Moore, a for­
mer Commissioner of Labor Statistics, now at Columbia
University; and of “ Measures of Inflation,” by Joel Popkin
of Joel Popkin and C o., a former assistant b l s commissioner
in charge of price programs.
The book includes both subject and author indexes.

Publications received
Economic and social statistics
Ahrne, Goran and Erik Olin Wright, C la s se s in the U n ited S ta tes
a n d S w ed e n : A C o m p a riso n . Reprinted from A c ta S o cio lo g ic a , Vol. 26, Nos. 3 -4 , 1983, pp. 211-35. Madison, wi,
University of Wisconsin, Institute for Research on Poverty,
1984. ( ir p Reprint Series, 483.)
Lazear, Edward P., R a id s a n d O ffer-M atch in g. Cambridge, m a ,
National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1984, 37 pp.
( n b e r W ork in g Paper S eries, 1 4 1 9 .) $ 1 .5 0 , paper.

Menchik, Paul L. and Martin David, In com e D istrib u tio n , L ife ­
tim e S a vin g s, a n d B e q u e sts. Reprinted from the A m erica n
E c o n o m ic R e v ie w , September 1983, pp. 672-90. Madison,
wi, University of Wisconsin, Institute for Research on Pov­
erty, 1984. ( ir p Series, 480.)
Moifitt, Robert, A n E c o n o m ic M o d e l o f W elfare S tig m a . Re­
printed from the A m erican E conom ic R e view , December 1983,
pp. 1023-35. Madison, wi, University of Wisconsin, Institute
for Research on Poverty, 1984. ( ir p Reprint Series, 482.)
Sorensen, Aage B .,

P r o c e s s e s o f A llo ca tio n to O pen a n d C lo s e d
P o sitio n s in S o c ia l S tru ctu re. Reprinted from Z eitsch rift f u r
S o zio lo g ie , July 1983, pp. 203-24. Madison, wi, University

of Wisconsin, Institute for Research on Poverty, 1984.
Series, 485.)

( ir p

Vetter, Betty M. and Eleanor L. Babco,

P ro fe ssio n a l W om en
a n d M in o ritie s: A M a n p o w e r D a ta R e so u rc e S e rv ic e . 5th ed.

Washington, Scientific Manpower Commission, 1984, 280
pp. $70, paper.
Zarozny, Sharon and Monica Homer, The F e d e ra l D a ta B a se
F in d er. Potomac, m d , Information USA, Inc., 1984, 368 pp.
$95.

Economic growth and development
Austen, A. D. and R. H. Neale, eds.,

The Handbook o f Economic and Financial Measures.
Edited by Frank J. Fabozzi and Harry I. Greenfield.
Homewood, i l , D o w Jones Irwin, 1984. 517 pp. $47.50.
The editors of this handbook seek to close an information
gap they perceive between increasing sophistication of eco­
nomic and financial reporting on the one hand and the lack
of commonly understood definitions of economic and fi­
nancial concepts on the other. They asked professionals
from Government agencies, academia, and the private sector
to define and explain 21 measures of economic and financial
activity, from gross national product to consumer confi­
dence and from monetary aggregates to interest rates.
62

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

M a n a g in g C on stru ctio n
P r o je c ts : A G u id e to P ro c e s se s a n d P ro c e d u r e s. Geneva,

International Labour Organization, 1984, 158 pp., bibliog­
raphy. Available in the United States from the Washington
Branch of i l o .
Frisch, Helmut, T h e o ries o f In flation . New York, Cambridge
University Press, 1983, 262 pp., bibliography. $39.50, cloth;
$12.50, paper.
Meier, Gerald M .,

E m erg in g F rom P o v e rty : The E c o n o m ics T hat

R e a lly M a tte r s.

New York, Oxford University Press, 1984,

258 pp. $29.95.

Education
National Academy of Sciences,

H ig h S ch o o ls a n d .th e C h an gin g
W o rk p la ce: The E m p lo y e r s ’ V iew . Washington, National

Academy of Sciences, 1984, 50 pp. $5.25, single copy, pa­
per, National Academy Press, Washington 20418.
National Education Association, T o d a y ’s E d u ca tio n , 1 9 8 4 - 8 5
A n n u a l E d itio n , The Journal of the National Education As­
sociation. Washington, 1984, 184 pp.
Weiss, Andrew, T estin g the S ortin g M o d e l o f E d u ca tio n . Cam­
bridge, m a , National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.,
1984, 51 pp. (nber Working Paper Series, 1420.) $1.50,
paper.

Health and safety
Christoffel, Tom, “ Using Roadblocks to Reduce Drunk Driving:
Public Health or Law and Order?” A m erica n J o u rn a l o f P u b ­
lic H e a lth , September 1984, pp. 1028-30.
Torrens, Ian M., “ What Goes Up Must Come Down: The Acid
Rain Problem,” The OECD O b s e rv e r , July 1984, pp. 9-15.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,

E va lu a tin g Y our F ir m ’s In ju ry
a n d Illn e ss R e c o rd : 19 8 2 , M an u factu rin g In d u stries. Prepared

by lima Rosskopf. Washington, 1984, 29 pp. (Report 706.)

Industrial relations
Aboud, Antone, ed., P la n t C lo sin g L eg isla tio n . Ithaca, n y , Cor­
nell University, New York State School of Industrial and
Labor Relations, 1984, 60 pp. (Key Issues, 27.) $6, ilr Press,
Ithaca, ny .
Briggs, Steven, T he M u n icip a l G rie va n ce P ro c e s s. Los Angeles,
c a , University of California, Institute of Industrial Relations,
1984, 185 pp., bibliography. (Monograph and Research Se­
ries, 36.)
Bussey, Ellen M., ed., F e d e ra l C iv il S e rv ic e L a w a n d P r o c e ­
d u res: A B a sic G u id e. Washington, The Bureau of National
Affairs, Inc., 198^, 348 pp. $25, bna Books, Distribution
Center, 9435 Key West Avenue, Rockville, md , 20850-3397.
Clarke, Oliver, “ Collective Bargaining and the Economic Re­
covery,” The OECD O b s e rv e r , July 1984, pp. 19-22.
Ferman, Luis A ., ed ., The Future of American U nion­
ism: “ Trade Unionism from Roosevelt to Reagan,” by Jack
Barbash; “ The Future Demographics of American Union­
ism,” by Markley Roberts; “ Collective Bargaining: The Next
Twenty Years,” by Doris B. McLaughlin in consultation with
Douglas A. Fraser; “ Labor and Politics in the 1980s,” by
Charles M. Rehmus; “ The Future of American Unionism: A
Comparative Perspective,” by Everett M. Kassalow; “ The
Changing of the Guard: The New American Labor Leader,”
by Arthur R. Schwartz and Michele M. Hoyman; “ LaborManagement Cooperation in American Communities: What’s
In It for the Unions?” by Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld; “ Work
Place Democracy and Quality of Work Life: Problems and
Prospects,” by Hy Kornbluh; “ Union Organizing: New Chal­
lenges and Prospects,” by Alan Kistler; “ Changing Concepts
of Worker Rights in the Work Place,” by Theodore J. St.
Antoine; “ The Changing Work Place,” by Sar A. Levitan
and Clifford M. Johnson; “ Employee Ownership and the Fu­
ture of Unions,” by William Foote Whyte and Joseph R.
Blasi; “ New Directions for American Unionism,” by Rudy
Oswald; “ Trade Unions and Productivity: Some New Evi­
dence on an Old Issue,” by Richard B. Freeman and James
L. Medoflf; “ A Look Ahead at Public Employee Unionism,”
by James L. Stem; “ Will the New Industrial Relations Last?
Implications for the American Labor Movement,” by Thomas
A. Kochan and Michael J. Piore, The A n n als of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, May 1984, p. 11189.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Hanami, Tadashi and Roger Blanpain, eds,

In du stria l C o n flict
R eso lu tio n in M a rk et E co n o m ies: A S tu dy o f A u stra lia , the
F e d e ra l R e p u b lic o f G erm a n y, Ita ly, J a p a n , a n d the USA.

Deventer, The Netherlands, Kluwer Law and Taxation Pub­
lishers, 1984, 321 pp. $50, paper. Kluwer Law and Taxation
Publishers, Higham, m a .
Hanson, Charles and Paul Rathkey,
“ Industrial Democracy: A
Post-Bullock Shopfloor View,” B ritish J o u rn a l o f In d u stria l
R e la tio n s , July 1984, pp. 154-68.
Industrial Relations Research Association,

P ro c e e d in g s o f the
1984 S prin g M e etin g o f the In d u stria l R e la tio n s R esea rch
A sso c ia tio n , h e ld M a y 2 - 4 , 1984 in C lev ela n d , O h io . Edited

by Barbara D. Dennis. Madison, wi, University of Wisconsin,
Industrial Relations Research Association, 1984, 70 pp.
Katz, Harry C., “ The U.S. Automobile Collective Bargaining
System in Transition,” B ritish J o u rn a l o f In d u stria l R e la ­
tio n s, July 1984, pp. 205-17.
Kelly, James, “ Management Strategy and the Reform of Col­
lective Bargaining: Cases from the British Steel Corpora­
tion,” B ritish J o u rn a l o f In d u stria l R e la tio n s, July 1984, pp.
135-53.
Narad, Susan, “ Labor Woos Women,” D u n ’s B u sin ess M o n th ,
September 1984, beginning on p. 83.
Papademetriou, Demetrois G. and Mark J. Miller, eds.,

The
U n a v o id a b le Issu e: U .S . Im m ig ra tio n P o lic y in the 1 9 8 0 s.

Philadelphia, p a , Institute for the Study of Human Issues,
1983, 305 pp.
Perry, Charles R.,

C o lle c tiv e B a rg a in in g a n d th e D e c lin e o f the
U n ited M in e W o rk ers. Philadelphia, p a , University of Penn­

sylvania, The Wharton School, Industrial Research Unit, 1984,
273 pp. (Major Industrial Research Unit Studies, 60.) $30.
Swabe, A. I. R. and Patricia Price, “ Building a Permanent As­
sociation? The Development of Staff Associations in the
Building Societies,” B ritish J o u rn a l o f In d u stria l R e la tio n s,
July 1984, pp. 195-204.
“ The Status of Statutes Containing Legislative Veto Provisions
After C h a d h a — Does the e e o c Have the Authority to Enforce
the Equal Pay Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act?” W ash in gton L a w R e v ie w , July 1984, pp. 549-64.
U.S. Department of Labor,

A C o n fere n c e on Q u a lity o f W ork
L ife: Issu es A ffectin g the S ta te-o f-th e -A rt. Washington, U.S.

Department of Labor, Office of Labor-Management Relations
Services, 1984, 32 pp.
------ A W orkin g W o m a n 's G u id e to H e r J o b R ig h ts. Washington,
U.S. Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau, 1984, 56 pp.
(Leaflet 55.) Stock No. 029-002-0069-0. $2.25, Superin­
tendent of Documents, Washington 20402.

Industry and government organization
Altshuler, Alan and others,

The F u tu re o f th e A u to m o b ile: The
I n te r n a tio n a l A u to m o b ile P r o g r a m .

R e p o rt o f MIT’s

Cambridge,

m a

,

The

m it

Press, 1984, 321 pp. $16.95.

Allman, Dale N., “ The 1978-83 Increase in U.S. Business Fail­
ures,” E c o n o m ic R e v ie w , Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas
City, July-August 2984, pp. 32-38.

International economics
Haley, John O., “ Antitrust Sanctions and Remedies: A Com­
parative Study of German and Japanese Law,” W ash in gton
L a w R e v ie w , July 1984, pp. 471-508.
“ Ministers Discuss Trade, Finance and Economic Recovery,”
The OECD O b s e rv e r , July 1984, pp. 3-8.

63

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 •

B o o k R e v ie w s

Tokyo Metropolitan Government,

L on g-T erm P la n f o r T okyo
M e tr o p o lis : “ M y T ow n T o k yo ” — H ea d in g in to the 2 1 s t C e n ­
tu ry. Tokyo, Japan, 1984, 279 pp. (tmg Municipal Library,

Welfare programs and social insurance
Berlin, Sharon B. and Linda E. Jones,

L ife A fte r W elfare: a f d c
T erm in ation A m o n g L on g-T erm R e c ip ie n ts. Reprinted from
S o c ia l S e rv ic e R e v ie w , September 1983, pp. 378-402. Mad­

18.)

Labor and economic history

ison, w i , University of Wisconsin, Institute for Research on
Poverty, 1984. ( ir p Reprint Series, 478.)

Barkan, Joanne,

V ision s o f E m a n cip a tio n : The Ita lia n W o rk e rs’
M o v e m e n t S in ce 1 9 4 5 . New York, Praeger Publishers, 1984,

Danziger, Sheldon and Peter Gottschalk,

The M e a su rem en t o f
P o v e r ty : Im p lica tio n s f o r A n tip o v e rty P o lic y . Reprinted from
A m erica n B e h a v io r a l S c ie n tist, July-August 1983, pp. 739-

265 pp. $24.95.
“ Canada,”

C u rren t H is to r y ,

May 1984, pp. 193-233.

56. Madison, wi, University of Wisconsin, Institute for Re­
search on Poverty, 1984. ( ir p Reprint Series, 476.)

Rockoff, Hugh,

D r a s tic M e a su re s: A H isto ry o f W age a n d P ric e
C o n tr o ls in the U n ited S ta tes. New York, Cambridge Uni­

versity Press, 1984, 289 pp., bibliography.

Labor force

Employee Benefit Research Institute, “ The World of Pensions
Ten Years after e r i s a , ” e b r i I s s u e B r i e f , Employee Ben­

efit Research Research Institute, September 1984, pp.

1- 22.

Dooley, Martin D. and Peter Gottschalk,

E a rn in g s In eq u a lity
a m o n g M a le s in the U n ited S ta tes: T ren ds a n d the Effect o f
L a b o r F o rc e G ro w th . Reprinted from the J o u rn a l o f P o litic a l
E c o n o m y, Vol. 92, No. 1, pp. 59-89. Madison, wi, Uni­

Haveman, Robert A. and Barbara L. Wolfe,

D isa b ility a n d W ork
Effort: A P ro b a b ilis tic C h o ice A n a lysis o f the L a b o r S u p p ly
D e c is io n s o f O ld e r M en . Reprinted from S o c ia l In su ra n ce,

versity of Wisconsin, Institute for Research on Poverty, 1984.
( ir p Reprint Series, 481.)
Holzer, Harry J., On the R a tio n a lity o f B la ck Youth U n em p lo y­
m en t. Cambridge, ma , National Bureau of Economic Re­
search, Inc., 1984, 18 pp. ( n b e r Working Paper Series, 1411.)
$1.50, paper.
Mare, Robert D. and Christopher Winship,

The P a ra d o x o f L e s s ­
en in g R a c ia l In eq u a lity a n d J o b le s sn e ss a m on g B la ck Youth:
E n ro llm en t, E n listm en t, a n d E m p lo ym en t, 1 9 6 4 - 1 9 8 1 . Re­
printed from the A m erica n S o c io lo g ic a l R e v ie w , February

Lars Söderström, ed., pp. 187-205. Madison, wi, University
of Wisconsin, Institute for Research on Poverty, 1984. ( ir p
Reprint Series, 479.)
Warlick, Jennifer, A g e d W om en: A P ro b le m W ith ou t a S olu tio n ?
Reprinted from A g in g a n d P u b lic P o lic y : The P o litic s o f
G ro w in g O ld in A m e r ic a , William P. Brown and Laura Katz
Olsen, eds. Madison, wi, University of Wisconsin, Institute
for Research on Poverty, 1984. ( ir p Reprint Series, 477.)

1984, pp. 39-55. Madison, wi, University of Wisconsin,
Institute for Research on Poverty, 1984. ( ir p Reprint Series,
484.)
National Council on Employment Policy,
F u tu re. Washington, 1984, 42 pp.

U.S. Postal Service
STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION
(Required by 39 U.S.C. 3685)

In vestin g in A m e r ic a ’s

Sorensen, Aage,

S o c io lo g ic a l R e sea rch on the L a b o r M arket:
C o n c e p tu a l a n d M e th o d o lo g ic a l Issu es. Reprinted from W ork
a n d O c c u p a tio n s, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1983, pp. 261-87. Mad­

ison, wi, University of Wisconsin, Institute for Research on
Poverty, 1984. ( ir p Reprint Series, 486.)
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, E m p lo ym en t in P e rs p e c tiv e :
M in o rity W o rk ers. Washington, 1984, 4 pp. (Report 712.)
Work in American Institute, Inc., A W ork in A m erica In stitu te
R e p o rt, 1 9 8 4 - 8 5 . Scarsdale, n y , 1984, 23 pp.

Management and organization theory

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

8.
9.
10.

Title of Publication: Monthly Labor Review
Date of Filing: 10-9-84
Frequency of issue: Monthly
Annual Subscription Price: $24
Location of Known Office of Publication: 441 G Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20212
Location of the Headquarters of General Business Offices of the Publishers: 441
G Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20212
Names and Complete Addresses of Publisher, Editor, and Executive Editor: Publisher:
U.S: Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Publications,
441 G Street, N.W., Washington, D.C 20212; Editor: Henry Lowenstern, Editorin-Chief, same address; Executive Editor: Robert Fisher, same address
Owner: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 441 G Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20212
Known Bondholders, Mortgagees, and Other Security Holders Owning or Holding
1 Percent or More of Total Amount of Bonds, Mortgages or Other Securities:
None
Extent and Nature of Circulation:

Bromage, Mary C., W ritin g A u d it R e p o rts. 2d ed. New York,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1984, 213 pp. $29.95.
Gunn, Christopher Eaton, W orkers’ Self-M anagem ent in the U n ited
S ta te s. Ithaca, n y , Cornell University Press, 1984, 251 pp.,
bibliography. $25.
Winkler, John, B a rg a in in g f o r R e su lts. New York, Facts on File
Publications, 1984, 196 pp. $16.95.

Monetary and fiscal policy
Black, Robert P.,

“ The Fed’s Mandate: Help or Hindrance?”
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, JulyAugust 1984, pp. 3-7.

E c o n o m ic R e v ie w ,

McCarthy, F. Ward, Jr., “ A Review of Bank Performance in
the Fifth District, 1983,” E co n o m ic R e v ie w , Federal Reserve
Bank of Richmond, July-August 1984, pp. 21-29.
Mehra, Yash, 44The Tax Effect, and Recent Behavior of the After
Tax Rate: Is it too High?” E co n o m ic R e v ie w , Federal Reserve
Bank of Richmond, July-August 1984, pp. 8-20.
64

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

A. Total number copies printed (net press r u n ) ..............
B. Paid circulation:
1. Sales through dealers and carriers, street
vendors, and counter sales.................................
2. Mail subscriptions................................................
C. Total paid circulation ..................................................
D. Free distribution by mail, carrier, or other means
(samples, complimentary, and otherfree copies) . .
E. Total distribution (sum of C and D ) .............................
F. Copies not distributed:
1. Office use, leftover, unaccounted, spoiled after
prin ting ................................................................
2. Returns from news a g e n ts .................................
G. Total (sum of E, F1 and 2— should equal net
press run shown in A ) .............................................

A verage No.
C opies E ach
Issue D uring
P re ce d ing
12 M onths

A ctu a l No. o f
C opies o f
S ingle Issue
P ub lish ed
N earest To
Filing Date

14,667

14,423

2,037
10,719
12,756

1,914
10,648
12,562

1,711
14,467

1,711
14,273

200
N/A

150
N/A

14,667

14,423

I certify that the statements made by me above are correct and complete.
(Signed) Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chief

Current
Labor Statistics
Notes on Current Labor Statistics.....................................................................................................................................................

66

Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series ...........................................................................................

66

Employment data from household survey. Definitions and notes .........................................................................

67
67
68
69
70
70
71
71
71

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, selected years, 1950-83 ................................
Employment status of the population, including Armed Forces in the United States, by sex, seasonally adjusted . . . .
Employment status of the civilian population, by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin, seasonally adjusted ..................
Selected employment indicators, seasonally ad ju sted ......................................................................................................................
Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally ad ju sted .................................................................................................................
Unemployment rates, by sex and age, seasonally adjusted ...........................................................................................................
Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally ad ju sted ..................................................................................
Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted...............................................................................................................................

Employment, hours, and earnings data from establishment surveys. Definitions and notes
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

Employment, by industry, selected years, 1950-83 ............................................................... ........................................................
Employment, by State ............................................................................................................................................................................
Employment, by industry, seasonally adjusted .................................................................................................................................
Average hours and earnings, by industry, 1968-83 ........................................................................................................................
Average weekly hours, by industry, seasonally adjusted ...............................................................................................................
Average hourly earnings, by industry .................................................................................................................................................
Hourly Earnings Index, by industry.....................................................................................................................................................
Average weekly earnings, by industry.................................................................................................................................................
Indexes of diffusion: industries in which employment increased, seasonally a d ju sted ...........................................................

Unemployment insurance data. Definitions...............................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................

79
79

.......................................................................................................................................................
Consumer Price Index, 1967-83 ..........................................................................................................................................................
Consumer Price Index, U .S. city average, general summary and selected it e m s ....................................................................
Consumer Price Index, cross-classification of region and population size c l a s s ......................................................................
Consumer Price Index, selected areas .................................................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing ...............................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings ..........................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by special commodity groupings .............................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product ............................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries ................................................................................................

80
81
81
87
88
89
90
92
92
93

18. Unemployment insurance and employment service operations

Price data. Definitions and notes
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.

Productivity data. Definitions and notes
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.

.....................................................................................................................................
Annual indexes of multifactor productivity and related measures, selected years, 1950-83 ................................................
Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices,selected years, 1950-83 ............................
Annual changes in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1973-83 ....................................................
Quarterly indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted ..............................
Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs,and p r ic e s..............

Wage and compensation data. Definitions and notes
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.

72
73
73
74
75
76
77
77
78
78

Employment Cost Index, by occupation and industry group ........................................................................................................
Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group ..................................................................
Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and area size .......................................
Wage and compensation change, major collective bargaining settlements, 1978 to d a te .......................................................
Effective wage adjustments in collective bargaining units covering 1,000 workers or more,1978 to date .......................

Work stoppage data. Definition ....................................
38.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more, 1947 to date

94
95
95
96
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
102
103
103

65

NOTES ON CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS

This section of the R e v ie w presents the principal statistical series
collected and calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A brief
introduction to each group of tables provides definitions, notes on
the data, sources, and other material usually found in footnotes.
Readers who need additional information are invited to consult
the BLS regional offices listed on the inside front cover of this
issue of the R e v ie w . Some general notes applicable to several series
are given below.

quarter to quarter are published for numerous Consumer and Producer
Price Index series. However, seasonally adjusted indexes are not published
for the U .S. average All Items CPI. Only seasonally adjusted percent
changes are available for this series.

Adjustments for price changes. Some data are adjusted to eliminate the
effect of changes in price. These adjustments are made by dividing current
dollar values by the Consumer Price Index or the appropriate component
of the index, then multiplying by 100. For example, given a current hourly
wage rate of $3 and a current price index number of 150, where 1967 = 100,
the hourly rate expressed in 1967-dollars is $2 ($3/150 x 100 = $2). The
resulting values are described as “ real,” “ constant,” or “ 1967” dollars.

Seasonal adjustment. Certain monthly and quarterly data are adjusted to
eliminate the effect o f such factors as climatic conditions, industry pro­
duction schedules, opening and closing of schools, holiday buying periods,
and vacation practices, which might otherwise mask short-term movements
of the statistical series. Tables containing these data are identified as “ sea­
sonally adjusted.” Seasonal effects are estimated on the basis of past
experience. When new seasonal factors are computed each year, revisions
may affect seasonally adjusted data for several preceding years.
Seasonally adjusted labor force data in tables 3 - 8 were revised in the
February 1984 issue o f the Review, to reflect experience through 1983.
Beginning in January 1980, the BLS introduced two major modifications
in the seasonal adjustment methodology for labor force data. First, the
data are being seasonally adjusted with a new procedure called X -11/
AR1MA, which was developed at Statistics Canada as an extension of the
standard X -l 1 method. A detailed description of the procedure appears in
The X - l l ARIMA Seasonal Adjustment M ethod by Estela Bee Dagum
(Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 12-564E, February 1980). The second
change is that seasonal factors are now being calculated for use during the
first 6 months of the year, rather than for the entire year, and then are
calculated at mid-year for the July-December period. Revisions of historical
data continue to be made only at the end of each calendar year.
Annual revision o f the seasonally adjusted payroll data shown in tables
11, 13, and 15 were made in July 1984 using the X -l 1 ARIMA seasonal
adjustment methodology. New seasonal factors for productivity data in
tables 29 and 30 are usually introduced in the September issue. Seasonally
adjusted indexes and percent changes from month to month and from

Availability of information. Data that supplement the tables in this section
are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a variety of sources.
Press releases provide the latest statistical information published by the
Bureau; the major recurring releases are published according to the schedule
given below. More information from household and establishment surveys
is provided in Employment and Earnings, a monthly publication o f the
Bureau. Comparable household information is published in a two-volume
data book-L a b o r Force Statistics Derived From the Current Population
Survey, Bulletin 2096. Comparable establishment information appears in
two data books-Em ploym ent and Earnings, United States, and Employ­
ment and Earnings, States and Areas, and their annual supplements. More
detailed information on wages and other aspects of collective bargaining
appears in the monthly periodical, Current Wage Developments. More
detailed price information is published each month in the periodicals, the
CPI D etailed Report and Producer Prices and Price Indexes.

Symbols
p = preliminary. To improve the timeliness of some series, pre­
liminary figures are issued based on representative but in­
complete returns.
r = revised. Generally, this revision reflects the availability of
later data but may also reflect other adjustments,
n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified.

Schedule of release dates for BLS statistical series
R e le a s e

P e r io d

R e le a s e

P e r io d

R e le a s e

P e r io d

M L R t a b le

d a te

co v e re d

d a te

c o v e re d

d a te

c o v e re d

num ber

Employment situation .............................

November 2

October

December 7

November

January 9

December

1-11

Producer Price Index .............................

November 9

October

December 14

November

January 11

December

23-27

Occupational injuries and illnesses............

November 14

1983

Consumer Price Index............................

November 21

October

December 20

November

January 23

December

19-22

Real earnings.........................................

November 21

October

December 20

November

January (1)

December

12-16

S e r ie s

Productivity and costs:
Nonfinancial Corporations.....................
Nonfarm business and manufacturing . . .

3rd quarter

?9 3?
January (1)

4th quarter

29-32

Employment Cost Index..........................

January (')

4th quarter

33-35

1984

36-37

U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes . . . .

January 31

4th quarter

1Date not available.

66

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

EMPLOYMENT DATA FROM THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY

p l o y m e n t d a t a in this section are obtained from the Current
Population Survey, a program of personal interviews conducted
monthly by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. The sample consists of about 60,000 households selected
to represent the U.S population 16 years of age and older. House­
holds are interviewed on a rotating basis, so that three-fourths of
the sample is the same for any 2 consecutive months.

Em

Definitions
Employed persons include (1) all civilians who worked for pay any
time during the week which includes the 12th day of the month or who
worked unpaid for 15 hours or more in a family-operated enterprise and
(2) those who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs because of
illness, vacation, industrial dispute, or similar reasons. Members of the
Armed Forces stationed in the United States are also included in the em­
ployed total. A person working at more than one job is counted only in
the job at which he or she worked the greatest number of hours.
Unemployed persons are those who did not work during the survey
week, but were available for work except for temporary illness and had
looked for jobs within the preceding 4 weeks. Persons who did not look
for work because they were on layoff or waiting to start new jobs within
the next 30 days are also counted among the unemployed. The overall
unemployment rate represents the number unemployed as a percent of
the labor force, including the resident Armed Forces. The unemployment

rate for all civilian workers 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
housework, those not working while attending school, those unable to
work because of long-term illness, those discouraged from seeking work
because of personal or job market factors, and those who are voluntarily
idle. The noninstitutional population comprises all persons 16 years of
age and older who are not inmates of penal or mental institutions, sani­
tariums, or homes for the aged, infirm, or needy, and members of the
Armed Forces stationed in the United States. The labor force participation
rate is the proportion of the noninstitutional population that is in the labor
force. The employment-population ratio is total employment (including
the resident Armed Forces) as a percent of the noninstitutional population.

Notes on the data
From time to time, and especially after a decennial census, adjustments
are made in the Current Population Survey figures to correct for estimating
errors during the preceding years. These adjustments affect the compara­
bility of historical data presented in table 1. A description o f these ad­
justments and their effect on the various data series appear in the Explanatory
Notes of Employment and Earnings.
Data in tables 2 - 8 are seasonally adjusted, based on the seasonal ex­
perience through December 1983.

1. Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, selected years, 1950-83
[Numbers in thousands]
L a b o r fo rc e
U n e m p lo y e d

E m p lo y e d
N o n in s t i­
Year

t u tio n a l
p o p u la tio n

N o t in

C i v ilia n
N um ber

P e rc e n t of
p o p u la tio n

P e rc e n t of
P e rc e n t of
T o ta l

p o p u la tio n

N o n a g r i-

A rm e d
Fo rc e s

T o ta l

A g r ic u lt u r e

N um ber

c u ltu r a l

la b o r fo rc e

la b o r
fo rc e

i n d u s tr ie s

1950 ............
1955 ............
1960 ............

106,164
111,747
119,106

63,377
67,087
71,489

59.7
60.0
60.0

60,087
64,234
67,639

56.6
57.5
56 8

1,169
2,064
1,861

58,918
62,170
65,778

7,160
6,450
5,458

51,758
55,722
60,318

3,288
2,852
3,852

5.2
4.3
5.4

42,787
44,660
46,617

1965
1966
1967
1968
1969

............
............
............
............
............

128,459
130,180
132,092
134,281
136,573

76,401
77,892
79,565
80,990
82,972

59.5
59 8
60.2
60.3
60.8

73,034
75,017
76,590
78,173
80,140

56.9
57.6
58.0
58.2
58.7

1,946
2,122
2,218
2,253
2,238

71,088
72,895
74,372
75,920
77,902

4,361
3,979
3,844
3,817
3,606

66,726
68,915
70,527
72,103
74,296

3,366
2,875
2,975
2,817
2,832

4.4
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.4

52,058
52,288
52,527
53,291
53,602

1970
1971
1972
1973
1974

............
............
............
............
............

139,203
142,189
145,939
148,870
151,841

84,889
86,355
88,847
91,203
93,670

61.0
60.7
60 9
61.3
61.7

80,796
81,340
83,966
86,838
88,515

58 0
57.2
57.5
58.3
58.3

2,118
1,973
1,813
1,774
1,721

78,678
79,367
82,153
85,064
86,794

3,463
3,394
3.484
3,470
3,515

75,215
75,972
78,669
81,594
83,279

4,093
5,016
4,882
4,355
5,156

4.8
5.8
5.5
4.8
5.5

54,315
55,834
57,091
57,667
58,171

1975
1976
1977
1978
1979

............
............
............
............
............

154,831
157,818
160,689
c163,541
166,460

95,453
97,826
100,665
103,882
106,559

61.6
62.0
62.6
63.5
64.0

87,524
90,420
93,673
97,679
100,421

56.5
57.3
58.3
59.7
60.3

1,678
1,668
1,656
1,631
1,597

85,845
88,752
92,017
96,048
98,824

3,408
3,331
3,283
3,387
3,347

82,438
85,421
88,734
92,661
95,477

7,929
7,406
6,991
6,202
6,137

8.3
7.6
6.9
6.0
5.8

59,377
59,991
60,025
59,659
59,900

1980 ............
1981 ............
1982 ............
1983

169,349
171,775
173,939
175,891

108,544
110,315
111,872
113,226

64.1
65 2
64.3
64.4

100,907
102,042
101,194
102,510

59.6
59 4
58.2
58.3

1,604
1,645
1,668
1,676

99,303
100,397
99,526
100,834

3,364
3,368
3,401
3,383

95,938
97,030
96,125
97,450

7,637
8,273
10,578
10,717

7.0
7.5
9.5
9.5

60,806
61,460
62,067
62,665

c = corrected.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

67

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
2.

Employment status of the population, including Armed Forces in the United States, by sex, seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
A nnu al av e ra g e

1983

1984

E m p lo y m e n t s t a tu s a n d s e x
1982

1983

S e p t.

O c t.

Nov.

D ec.

Jan.

Feb.

M a r.

A p r.

May

June

J u ly

A ug.

S e p t.

TO TAL

Noninstitutional population1'2 . . . ............
Labor force2 ......................................
Participation rate3 .....................
Total employed2
Employment-population rate4 . . . .
Resident Armed Forces1 .................
Civilian employed..........................
Agriculture ...............................
Nonagricultural industries............
Unemployed.................
Unemployment rate5 ...................
Not in labor force ...............................

173,939
111,872
64.3
101,194
58.2
1,668
99,526
3,401
96,125
10,678
9.5
62,067

175,465
112,646
64.2
101,277
57.7
1,671
99,606
3,392
96,214
11,369
10.1
62,819

176,297
113,924
64.6
103,571
58.7
1,695
101,876
3,308
98,568
10,353
9.1
62,373

176,474
113,561
64.3
103,665
58.7
1,695
101,970
3,240
98,730
9,896
8.7
62,913

176,636
113,720
64.4
104,291
59.0
1,685
102,606
3,257
99,349
9,429
8.3
62,916

176,809
113,824
64.4
104,629
59.2
1,688
102,941
3,356
99,585
9,195
8.1
62,985

177,219
113,901
64.3
104,876
59.2
1,686
103,190
3,271
99,918
9,026
7.9
63,318

177,363
114,377
64.5
105,576
59.5
1,684
103,892
3,395
100,496
8,801
7.7
62,986

177,510
114,598
64.6
105,826
59.6
1,686
104,140
3,281
100,859
8,772
7.7
62,912

177,662
114,938
64.7
106,095
59.7
1.693
104,402
3,393
101,009
8,843
7.7
62,724

177,813
115,493
65.0
106,978
60.2
1,690
105,288
3,389
101,899
8,514
7.4
62,320

177,974
115,567
64.9
107,438
60.4
1,690
105,748
3,403
102,344
8,130
7.0
62,407

178,138
115,636
64.9
107,093
60.1
1,698
105,395
3,345
102,050
8,543
7.4
62,503

178,295
115,206
64.6
106,681
59 8
1,712
104,969
3,224
101,744
8,526
74
63,089

178,483
115 419
64 7
106 959
59 9
1,720
105,239
3,315
101,923
8 460
73
63,064

83,052
63,979
77.0
57,800
69.6
1,527
56,271
6,179
9.7

84,064
64,580
76.8
58,320
69.4
1,533
56,787
6,260
9.7

84,261
64,877
77.0
58,828
69.8
1,549
57,279
6,049
9.3

84,344
64,709
76.7
58,950
69.9
1,543
57,407
5,759
8.9

84,423
64,846
76.8
59,389
70.3
1,534
57,855
5,457
8.4

84,506
64,838
76.7
59,580
70.5
1,537
58,043
5,258
8.1

84,745
64,930
76.6
59,781
70.5
1,542
58,239
5,149
7.9

84,811
65,093
76.8
60,147
70 9
1,540
58,607
4,946
7.6

84,880
65,156
76.8
60,290
71.0
1,542
58,748
4,867
7.5

84,953
65,212
76.8
60,293
71.0
1,548
58,745
4,919
7.5

85,024
65,307
76.8
60,629
71.3
1,545
59,084
4,678
7.2

85,101
65,452
76.9
60,923
71.6
1,545
59,378
4,529
6.9

85,179
65,362
76.7
60,607
71 2
1,551
59,056
4,756
7.3

85,257
65,244
76.5
60,661
71 2
1,563
59,098
4,583
7.0

85,352
65,614
76 9
60 912
71 4
1,571
57,341
4 702
7.2

90,887
47,894
52.7
43,395
47.7
139
43,256
4,499
9.4

91,827
48,646
53.0
44,190
48.1
143
44,047
4,457
9.2

92,036
49,047
53.3
44,743
48.6
146
44,597
4,304
8.8

92,129
48,852
53.0
44,715
48.5
152
44,563
4,137
8.5

92,214
48,874
53 0
44,902
48.7
151
44,751
3,972
8.1

92,302
48,986
53.1
45,049
48.8
151
44,898
3,937
8.0

92,474
48,971
53.0
45,094
48.8
144
44,950
3,876
7.9

92,552
49,283
53.2
45,429
49.1
144
45,285
3,855
7.8

92,630
49,442
53.4
45,536
49.2
144
45,392
3.905
7.9

92,709
49,725
53.6
45,802
49.4
145
45,657
3,924
7.9

92,789
50,186
54.1
46,350
50.0
145
46,205
3,836
7.6

92,873
50,115
54 0
46,515
50.1
145
46,370
3,600
7.2

92,958
50,273
54.1
46,486
50.0
147
46,339
3,787
7.5

93,039
49,963
53.7
46,020
49 5
149
45,871
3,943
7.9

93,132
49,804
53 5
46,047
49 4
149
45,898
3 758
7.5

M e n , 16 y e a rs an d o ver

Noninstitutional population1'2 ...................
Labor force2 ....................................
Participation rate3 .....................
Total employed2 ...............................
Employment-population rate4 . . . .
Resident Armed Forces1 .................
Civilian employed..........................
Unemployed....................................
Unemployment rate5 ...................
W o m e n , 16 yea rs and o ver

Noninstitutional population1'2 ...................
Labor force2 ......................................
Participation rate3 ......................
Total employed2 ...............................
Employment-population rate4 . . . .
Resident Armed Forces1 .................
Civilian employed..........................
Unemployed..........................
Unemployment rate5 ...................

1The population and Armed Forces figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation.
2Includes members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States.
Labor force as a percent of the noninstitutional population.

68

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

4Total employed as a percent of the noninstitutional population.
Unemployment as a percent of the labor force (including the resident Armed Forces).

3.

E m ploym ent status of the civilian population by sex, age, race, and H ispanic origin, seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
A n n u al a verag e

1983

1984

E m p lo y m e n t s ta tu s
1982

1983

S e p t.

O c t.

Nov.

D ec.

Jan.

Feb.

M a r.

A p r.

M ay

June

J u ly

A ug.

S e p t.

TO TAL

Civilian noninstitutional population1 ............
Civilian labor force...............................
Participation rate........................
Employed ......................................
Employment-population ratio2 . . . .
Unemployed....................................
Unemployment rate ...................
Not in labor force ...............................

172,271
110,204
64.0
99,526
57.8
10,678
9.7
62,067

174.215
111,550
64.0
100,834
57.9
10,717
9.6
62,665

174,602
112,229
64 3
101,876
58 3
10,353
9.2
62,373

174,779
111,866
64.0
101,970
58.3
9,896
8.8
62,913

174,951
112,035
64 0
102,606
58 6
9,429
8.4
62,916

175,121
112,136
64.0
102,941
58.8
9,195
8.2
62,985

175,533
112,215
63.9
103,190
58.8
9,026
8.0
63,318

175,679
112,693
64.1
103,892
59.1
8,801
7.8
62,986

175,824
112,912
64.2
104,140
59.2
8,772
7.8
62,912

175,969
113,245
64.4
104,402
59.3
8,843
7.8
62,724

176,123
113,803
64.6
105,288
59.8
8,514
7.5
62,320

176,284
113,877
64.6
105,748
60.0
8,130
7.1
62,407

176,440
113,938
64.6
105,395
59.7
8,543
7.5
62,502

176,583
113,494
64.3
104,969
59.4
8,526
7.5
63,089

176,763
113,699
64.3
105,239
59.5
8,460
7.4
63,064

73,644
57,980
78.7
52,891
71.8
2,422
50,469
5,089
8.8

74,872
58,744
78.5
53,4897
71.4
2,429
51,058
5,257
8.9

75,115
59,012
78.6
53,947
71.8
2,431
51,516
5,065
8.6

75,216
58,949
78.4
54,140
72.0
2,376
51,764
4,809
8.2

75,327
59,053
78.4
54,457
72.3
2,336
52,121
4,596
7.8

75,433
59,050
78.3
54,658
72.5
2,374
52,284
4,392
7.4

75,692
59,299
78.3
54,999
72.7
2,356
52,643
4,300
7.3

75,786
59,394
78.4
55,266
72.9
2,409
52,857
4,128
7.0

75,880
59,388
78.3
55,368
73.0
2,364
53,004
4,020
6.8

75,973
59,480
78.3
55,385
72.9
2,453
52,932
4,095
6.9

76,073
59,546
78.3
55,685
73.2
2,451
53,234
3,861
6.5

76,176
59,726
78.4
55,970
73.5
2,469
53,501
3,755
6.3

76,269
59,694
78.3
55,789
73.1
2,455
53,334
3,906
6.5

76,350
59,752
78.3
55,899
.73.2
2,392
53,507
3,853
6.4

76,451
59,898
78.3
56,022
73.3
2,403
53,620
3,875
6.5

82,864
43,699
52.7
40,086
48.4
601
39,485
3,613
8.3

84,069
44,636
53.1
41,004
48.8
620
40,384
3,632
8.1

84,333
45,062
53.4
41,550
49.3
581
40,969
3,512
7.8

84,443
44,936
53.2
41,570
49.2
597
40,973
3,366
7.5

84,553
44,953
53.2
41,738
49.4
638
41,100
3,215
7.2

84,666
45,024
53.2
41,843
49.4
653
41,190
3,181
7.1

84,860
44,981
53.0
41,798
49.3
625
41,174
3,182
7.1

84,962
45,258
53.3
42,138
49.6
640
41,498
3,120
6.9

85,064
45,459
53.4
42,315
49.7
574
41,741
3,144
6.9

85,168
45,703
53.7
42,517
49.9
619
41,898
3,186
7.0

85,272
46,222
54.2
43,098
50.5
610
42,487
3,124
6.8

85,380
46,101
54.0
43,146
50.5
623
42,523
2,955
6.4

85,488
46,261
54.1
43,088
50.4
573
42,515
3,173
6.9

85,581
46,082
53.8
42,819
50.0
563
42,255
3,264
7.1

85,688
45,859
53.5
42,807
50.5
595
42,212
3,053
6.7

15,763
8,526
54.1
6,549
41.5
378
6,171
1,977
23.2

15,274
8,171
53.5
6,342
41.5
334
6,008
1,829
22.4

15,154
8,155
53.8
6,379
42.1
296
6,083
1,776
21.8

15,120
7,981
52.8
6,260
41.4
267
5,993
1,721
21.6

15,072
8,029
53.3
6,411
42.5
283
6,128
1,618
20.2

15,022
8,062
53.7
6,440
42.9
329
6,111
1,622
20.1

14,981
7,935
53.0
6,392
42.7
290
6,102
1,543
19.4

14,931
8,041
53.9
6,488
43.5
346
6,142
1,553
19.3

14,880
8,065
54.2
6,457
43.4
343
6,114
1,608
19.9

14,828
8,062
54.4
6,500
43.8
321
6,179
1,562
19.4

14,778
8,034
54.4
6,505
44.0
327
6,178
1,529
19.0

14,728
8,050
54.7
6,631
45.0
311
6,320
1,419
17.6

14,683
7,982
54.4
6,518
44.4
317
6,201
1,464
18.3

14,653
7,660
52.3
6,251
42.7
269
5,982
1,409
18.4

14,624
7,942
54.3
6,410
43.8
318
6,092
1,532
19.3

149,441
96,143
64.3
87,903
58.8
8,241
8.6

150,805
97,021
64.3
88,893
58.9
8,128
8.4

151,021
97,507
64.6
89,693
59.4
7,814
8.0

151,175
97,339
64.4
89,851
59.4
7,488
7.7

151,324
97,559
64.5
90.430
59.8
7,129
7.3

151,484
97,724
64.5
90,779
59.9
6,945
7.1

151,939
97,813
64.4
91,044
59.9
6,768
6.9

152,079
98,167
64.6
91,544
60.2
6,623
6.7

152,285
98,424
64.6
91,845
60.3
6,580
6.7

152,178
98,495
64.7
91,933
60.4
6,562
6.7

152,229
98,853
64.9
92,505
60.8
6,348
6.4

152,295
98,770
64.9
92,697
60.9
6,072
6.1

152,286
98,710
64.8
92,430
60.7
6,280
6.4

152,402
98,156
64.4
91,850
60.3
6,306
6.4

152,471
98,388
64.5
92,074
60.4
6,314
6.4

18,584
11,331
61.0
9,189
49.4
2,142
18.9

18,925
11,647
61.5
9,375
49.5
2,272
19.5

18,994
11,720
61.7
9,504
50.0
2,216
18.9

19,026
11,565
60.8
9,449
49.7
2,116
18.3

19,057
11,623
61.0
9,563
50.2
2,060
17.7

19,086
11,650
61.0
9,582
50.2
2,068
17.8

19,196
11,660
60.7
9,707
50.6
1,953
16.7

19,222
11,881
61.8
9,958
51.8
1,923
16.2

19,248
11,867
61.7
9,896
51.4
1,972
16.6

19,274
11,934
61.9
9,923
51.5
2,011
16.8

19,302
12,008
62.5
10,105
52.4
1,903
15.8

19,330
11,962
61.9
10,168
52.6
1,795
15.0

19,360
12,076
62.4
10,041
51.9
2,035
16.9

19,386
12,176
62.8
10,226
52.8
1,950
16.0

19,416
12,079
62.2
10,259
52 8
1,820
15.1

9,400
5,983
63.6
5,158
54.9
825
13.8

12,771
8,119
63.6
6,995
54.8
1,124
13.8

9,700
6,202
63.9
5,392
55.6
810
13.1

9,745
6,165
63.3
5,398
55.4
767
12.4

9,677
6,232
64.4
5,463
56.5
769
12.3

9,735
6,267
64.4
5,540
56.9
727
11.6

9,778
6,336
64.8
5,627
57.6
708
11.2

9,906
6,292
63.5
5,652
57.1
639
10.2

10,080
6,484
64.3
5,751
57.1
733
11.3

10,072
6,378
63.3
5,643
56.0
735
11.5

10,026
6,332
63 2
5,666
56.5
666
10.5

9,824
6,298
64.1
5,669
57.7
629
10.0

9,738
6,293
64.6
5,626
57.8
667
10.6

9,785
6,271
64.1
5,600
57.2
672
10.7

9,713
6,328
65.2
5,650
58.2
678
10.7

M e n , 2 0 y e a rs an d o ver

Civilian noninstitutional population' ............
Civilian labor force...............................
Participation rate........................
Employed ......................................
Employment-population ratio2 . . . .
Agriculture....................................
Nonagricultural industries ..............
Unemployed....................................
Unemployment rate ...................
W o m e n , 2 0 yea rs and o ver

Civilian noninstitutional population' ............
Civilian labor force...............................
Participation rate........................
Employed ......................................
Employment-population ratio2 . . . .
Agriculture....................................
Nonagricultural industries ..............
Unemployed....................................
Unemployment rate ...................
B o th s e x e s , 1 6 t o 1 9 y e a r s

Civilian noninstitutional population' ............
Civilian labor force...............................
Participation rate........................
Employed ......................................
Employment-population ratio2 . . . .
Agriculture....................................
Nonagricultural industries ..............
Unemployed....................................
Unemployment rate ...................
W h it e

Civilian noninstitutional population' ............
Civilian labor force ................................
Participation rate........................
Employed ......................................
Employment-population ratio2 . . . .
Unemployed....................................
Unemployment rate ...................
B la c k

Civilian noninstitutional population' ............
Civilian labor force...............................
Participation rate........................
Employed ......................................
Employment-population ratio2 . . . .
Unemployed....................................
Unemployment rate ...................
H is p a n ic o r ig in

Civilian noninstitutional population'............
Civilian labor force...............................
Participation rate........................
Employed ......................................
Employment-population ratio2 . . . .
Unemployed....................................
Unemployment rate ...................

'The population figures are not seasonally adjusted.
2Civilian employment as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

NOTE: Detail for the above race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum to totals because data for
the “ other races” groups are not presented and Híspanles are included In both the white and black
population groups.

69

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
4.

S elected em ploym ent indicators, seasonally adjusted

[In thousands]
A n n u al a verag e

1983

1984

S e le c t e d c a t e g o r ie s
1982

1983

S e p t.

O c t.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

M a r.

A p r.

M ay

June

J u ly

A ug.

S e p t.

C H A R A C T E R IS T IC

Civilian employed, 16 years and over .................
Men.......................................................
Women..................................................
Married men, spouse present......................
Married women, spouse present.................
Women who maintain families ...................

99,526
56,271
43,256
38,074
24,053
5,099

100,834
56,787
44,047
37,967
24,603
5,091

101,876 101,970 102,606 102,941 103,190 103,892 104,140 104,402 105,288 105,748 105,395 104,969 105,239
57,279 57,407 57,855 58,043 58,239 58,607 58,748 58,745 59,084 59,378 59,056 59,098 59,341
44,597 44,563 44,751 44,898 44,950 45,285 45,392 45,657 46,205 46,370 46,339 45,871 45,898
38,232 38,240 38,388 38,494 38,682 38,911 38,927 39,062 39,159 39,072 39,121 39,029 39,034
24,921 24,953 25,057 25,140 24,947 25,212 25,239 25,457 25,722 25,786 25,716 25,764 25,641
5,124
5,254
5,172
5,236
5,293
5,346
5,444
5,491
5,668
5,688
5,662
5,507
5,412

Agriculture:
Wage and salary workers ..........................
Self-employed workers .............................
Unpaid family workers...............................

1,505
1,636
261

1,579
1,565
240

1,572
1,515
236

1,505
1,527
227

1,481
1,556
224

1,512
1,572
265

1,443
1,613
233

1,560
1,609
232

1,515
1,580
198

1,661
1,534
207

1,610
1,537
246

1,604
1,570
212

1,513
1,559
230

1,425
1,568
208

1,569
1,569
187

Nonagricultural industries:
Wage and salary workers ..........................
Government......................................
Private industries...............................
Private households .....................
Other .........................................
Self-employed workers .............................
Unpaid family workers...............................

88,462
15,562
72,945
1,207
71,738
7,262
401

89,500
15,537
73,963
1,247
72,716
7,575
376

90,743
15,560
75,183
1,279
73,904
7,656
380

90,617
15,578
75,039
1,278
73,761
7,695
405

91,094
15,585
75,509
1,216
74,293
7,800
474

91,422
15,481
75,941
1,241
74,700
7,734
450

91,641
15,535
76,106
1,197
74,909
7,936
364

92,379
15,822
76,557
1,219
75,339
7,849
330

92,819
15,813
77,006
1,155
75,851
7,755
326

92,931
15,784
77,147
1,296
75,851
7,834
338

93,928
15,761
78,167
1,347
76,820
7,707
311

94,040
15,685
78,355
1,329
77,026
7,828
348

93,841
15,604
78,236
1,239
76,997
7,717
306

93,554
15,782
77,772
1,181
76,591
7,829
324

94,122
15,959
78,163
1,185
76,979
7,721
314

90,552
72,245
5.852
2,169
3,683
12,455

92,038
73,624
5,997
1,826
4,171
12,417

93,322
74,666
6,027
1,771
4,256
12,629

93,273
75,047
5,724
1,617
4,107
12,502

93,834
75,398
5,848
1,719
4,129
12,588

94,173
75,802
5,712
1,672
4,040
12,659

94,707
76,237
5,943
1,771
4,172
12,527

95,067
76,715
5,808
1,611
4,197
12,545

94,982
77,004
5,463
1,472
3,991
12,515

96,918
78,276
5,593
1,530
4,063
13,049

96,523
78,280
5,353
1,549
3,804
12,889

96,500
78,496
5,491
1,654
3,837
12,514

96,848
78,659
5,300
1,589
3,711
12,889

96,921
78,799
5,324
1,749
3,576
12,797

96,448
78,291
5,496
1,675
3,821
12,662

M A J O R IN D U S T R Y A N D C L A S S O F W O R K E R

PERSONS AT W O R K 1

Nonagricultural industries.................................
Full-time schedules .................................
Part time for economic reasons...................
Usually work full time ........................
Usually work part tim e........................
Part time for noneconomic reasons..............

1Excludes persons “ with a job but not at work” during the survey period for such reasons as
vacation, illness, or industrial disputes.

5.

S elected unem ploym ent indicators, seasonally adjusted

[Unemployment rates]
A nnu al av e ra g e

1983

1984

S e le c t e d c a t e g o r ie s
1982

1983

S e p t.

O c t.

Nov.

D ec.

Jan.

Feb.

M a r.

A p r.

M ay

June

J u ly

A ug.

S e p t.

Total, all civilian workers.................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years........................
Men, 20 years and over.............................
Women, 20 years and over........................

9.7
23.2
8.8
8.3

9.6
22.4
8.9
8.1

9.2
21.8
8.6
7.8

8.8
21.6
8.2
7.5

8.4
20.2
7.8
7.2

8.2
20.1
7.4
7.1

8.0
19.4
7.3
7.1

7.8
19.3
7.0
6.9

7.8
19.9
6.8
6.9

7.8
19.4
6.9
7.0

7.5
19.0
6.5
6.8

7.1
17.6
6.3
6.4

7.5
18.3
6.5
6.9

7.5
18.4
6.4
7.1

7.4
19.3
6.5
6.7

White, total.............................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years .................
Men, 16 to 19 years ...................
Women, 16 to 19 years ..............
Men, 20 years and o ver.....................
Women, 20 years and over .................

8.6
20.4
21.7
19.0
7.8
7.3

8.4
19.3
20.2
18.3
7.9
6.9

8.0
18.2
18.9
17.4
7.7
6.6

7.7
18.5
19.8
16.9
7.3
6.3

7.3
17.2
17.6
16.6
6.9
6.0

7.1
17.0
17.5
16.5
6.7
5.9

6.9
16.2
17.8
14.5
6.3
6.0

6.7
16.5
16.4
16.7
6.1
5.8

6.7
17.1
17.3
16.8
5.8
5.9

6.7
16.2
16.6
15.7
5.9
6.0

6.4
16.2
16.8
15.5
5.6
5.8

6.1
15.5
16.5
14.5
5.3
5.6

6.4
15.3
17.8
12.6
5.5
5.9

6.4
15.9
16.2
15.5
5.5
6.0

6.4
16.6
17.3
15.8
5.6
5.8

Black, to ta l.............................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years .................
Men, 16 to 19 years ...................
Women, 16 to 19 years ..............
Men, 20 years and o ve r.....................
Women, 20 years and over .................

18.9
48.0
48.9
47.1
17.8
15.4

19.5
48.5
48.8
48.2
18.1
16.5

18.9
51.1
52.7
49.2
16.9
16.1

18.3
48.7
45.6
52.2
16.3
15.9

17.7
47.3
44.9
50.0
15.6
15.6

17.8
49.0
46.4
51.9
15.1
15.9

16.7
47.9
47.1
48.8
14.8
14.3

16.2
43.5
46.7
39.9
14.1
14.4

16.6
46.7
44.4
49.6
15.4
13.5

16.8
44.8
42.8
47.1
16.0
13.4

15.8
44.1
40.9
48.2
14.1
13.6

15.0
34.3
35.3
33.1
14.8
12.4

16.9
42.4
42.6
42.1
15.7
14.0

16.0
41.7
40.6
42.9
14.2
14.1

15.1
41.7
39.9
43.7
13.5
12.6

Hispanic origin, total.................................

13.8

13.8

13.1

12.4

12.3

11.6

11.2

10.2

11.3

11.5

10.5

10.0

10.6

10.7

10.7

Married men, spouse present.....................
Married women, spouse present.................
Women who maintain families ...................

6.5
7.4
11.7

6.5
7.0
12.2

6.1
6.8
12.0

5.7
6.3
11.4

5.5
6.0
10.5

5.2
6.1
10.9

5.0
6.0
10.7

4.9
5.9
11.0

4.7
5.8
11.0

4.7
5.8
10.5

4.5
5.8
9.8

4.5
5.6
9.6

4.6
5.9
9.6

4.4
6.0
10.5

4.6
5.8
10.0

Full-time workers......................................
Part-time workers ....................................
Unemployed 15 weeks and over .................
Labor force time lost1 ...............................

9.6
10.5
3.2
11.0

9.5
10.4
3.8
10.9

9.1
10.1
3.5
10.5

8.7
10.0
3.3
10.0

8.2
9.8
3.1
9.7

8.0
9.8
3.0
9.4

7.8
9.2
2.9
9.2

7.5
9.3
2.6
8.9

7.5
9.2
2.5
8,8

7.6
9.1
2.5
8.9

7.2
9.3
2.5
8.5

6.7
10.3
2.3
8.3

7.2
9.6
2.4
8.7

7.2
9.6
2.3
8.5

7.1
9.4
2.3
8.5

10.1
13.4
20.0
12.3
13.3
10.8
6.8
10.0
6.9
4.9
14.7

9.9
17.0
18.4
11.2
12.1
10.0
7.4
10.0
7.2
5.3
16.0

9.4
16.9
18.1
10.2
10.9
9.3
7.4
9.5
7.0
5.0
16.5

9.0
12.1
15.8
9.6
10.2
8.7
7.2
9.8
6.9
5.1
16.2

8.6
12.8
15.6
8.9
9.0
8.7
6.7
9.1
6.7
4.9
15.7

8.3
12.4
16.3
8.3
8.3
8.2
6.5
8.8
6.6
5.0
15.6

7.9
10.9
15.0
8.4
8.0
8.9
5.1
8.4
6.3
5.0
15.5

7.8
12.2
15.1
7.5
7.3
7.8
5.9
8.3
6.3
4.5
14.0

7.6
11.2
13.3
7.5
7.8
7.2
5.0
8.3
6.4
4.4
14.6

7.7
10.3
14.3
7.7
7.5
8.0
5.4
8.7
6.1
4.4
12.2

7.2
8.9
14.8
7.1
7.0
7.1
5.5
7.9
5.5
4.7
13.9

7.0
7.1
14.8
7.2
7.2
7.3
5.2
7.2
5.4
4.1
11.8

7.4
7.5
14.7
7.5
6.7
8.6
6.1
7.8
5.9
4.5
14.6

7.5
10.3
14.0
7.5
6.9
8.3
6.2
7.8
6.1
4.3
12.8

7.4
8.6
13.8
7.6
7.0
8.4
6.1
8.2
5.6
4.5
15.0

C H A R A C T E R IS T IC

IN D U S T R Y

Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers . .
Mining ..................................................
Construction ...........................................
Manufacturing .........................................
Durable goods .................................
Nondurable goods .............................
Transportation and public utilities.................
Wholesale and retail trade..........................
Finance and service industries ......... '. . . .
Government workers ......................................
Agricultural wage and salary workers .................

1Aggregate hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons as a percent
of potentially available labor force hours.

70


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

6.

U nem p loym ent rates by sex and age, seasonally adjusted

[Civilian workers]
A nnu al a verag e

1983

1984

S ex and age
1982

1983

S e p t.

O c t.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

M a r.

A p r.

M ay

June

J u ly

A ug.

S e p t.

Total, 16 years and over .................................
16 to 24 years ...........................................
16 to 19 years.........................................
16 to 17 years......................................
18 to 19 years......................................
20 to 24 years.........................................
25 years and over ......................................
25 to 54 years......................................
55 years and over ..................................

9.7
17.8
23.2
24.9
22.1
14.9
7.4
7.9
5.0

9.6
17.2
22 4
24.5
21.1
14.5
7.5
8.0
5.3

9.2
16.5
21.8
24.0
20.5
14.4
7.2
7.7
5.2

8.8
16.3
21.6
24.0
20.3
13.8
6.8
7.2
5.0

8.4
15.4
20.2
21.9
19.3
13.6
6.5
6.9
4.9

8.2
14.9
20.1
22.9
18.8
13.0
6.4
6.8
4.9

8.0
14.8
19.4
21.9
17.6
12.2
6.2
6.5
4.7

7.8
14.2
19.3
22.1
17.5
12.5
6.1
6.4
4.3

7.8
14.4
19.9
23.1
18.1
11.6
5.9
6.3
4.3

7.8
14.6
19.4
22.3
17.5
11.6
6.0
6.3
4.2

7.5
14.0
19.0
20.2
18.2
12.2
5.7
6.0
4.4

7.1
13.0
17.6
19.7
16.3
11.5
5.6
5.7
4.6

7.5
13.6
18.3
20.5
16.7
10.7
5.9
6.2
4.4

7.5
14.0
18.4
21.4
16.7
11.8
5.8
6.1
4.6

7.4
14.1
19.3
21.3
17.9
11.5
5.7
5.9
4.5

Men, 16 years and over.............................
16 to 24 years......................................
16 to 19 years .................................
16 to 17 years...............................
18 to 19 years...............................
20 to 24 years
25 years and over .................................
25 to 54 years ...............................
55 years and over ..........................

9.9
19.1
24.4
26.4
23.1
16.4
7.5
8.0
5.1

9.9
18.4
23.3
25.2
22 2
15.9
7.8
8.2
5.6

9.6
17.6
22.8
23.9
22.2
15.0
7.5
8.0
5.6

9.1
17.3
22.5
24.3
21.6
14.7
7.0
7.4
5.4

8.6
15.9
20.2
22 0
19.6
13.8
6.8
7.1
5.4

8.3
15.6
20.4
23.3
18.9
13.3
6.5
6.7
5.4

8.1
15.6
20 8
21.6
19.6
13.1
6.2
6.6
4.8

7.8
14.6
19.7
21.6
18.1
12.1
6.1
6.4
4.5

7.7
14.6
20.0
23.0
18.2
11.9
5.9
6.1
4.6

7.7
15.0
19.7
23.7
17.3
12.7
5.9
6.2
4.4

7.3
14.0
19.4
21.3
18.3
11.5
5.7
5.9
4.5

7.1
13.7
18.5
22.7
16.1
11.4
5.4
5.6
4.3

7.5
14.6
20.6
23.0
18.8
11.7
5.7
5.9
4.6

7.2
14.3
18.6
22.1
16.5
12.3
5.5
5.7
4.6

7.3
14.8
19.9
21.1
19.1
12.3
5.5
5.6
5.0

Women, 16 years and over........................
16 to 24 years......................................
16 to 19 years .................................
16 to 17 years...............................
18 to 19 years...............................
20 to 24 years .................................
25 years and over .................................
25 to 54 years ...............................
55 years and over ..........................

9.4
16.2
21.9
23.2
21.0
13.2
7.3
7.7
4.8

9.2
15.8
21.3
23.7
19.9
12.9
7.2
7.7
4.7

8.8
15.2
20.6
24 0
18.5
12.5
6.9
7.3
4.5

8.5
15.1
20 5
23 6
18.8
12.3
6.5
7.0
4.4

8.2
14.7
20.1
21.8
19.0
12.0
6.2
6.6
4.1

8.1
14.0
19.8
22.5
18.7
11.0
6.3
6.8
4.3

7.9
13.9
18.0
22.2
15.4
11.7
6.2
6.5
4.5

7.8
13.7
18.9
22.6
16.9
11.0
6.1
6.5
4.0

7.9
14.2
19.8
23.1
18.1
11.3
6.0
6.5
3.9

7.9
14.1
19.0
20.8
17.8
11.6
6.0
6.4
3.9

7.7
14.0
18.6
19.0
18.1
11.6
5.8
6.1
4.3

7.2
12.2
16.7
16.4
16.5
9.9
5.8
5.8
5.0

7.6
12.5
15.9
17.9
14.4
10.8
6.1
6.5
4.2

7.9
13.7
18.2
20.6
16.9
11.4
6.3
6.6
4.4

7.6
13.2
18.6
21.4
16.8
10.4
5.9
6.3
3.9

7.

U nem ployed persons by reason fo r unem ploym ent, seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
A n n u al av e ra g e

1983

1984

R e a s o n l o r u n e m p lo y m e n t

Job losers .....................................................
On layoff ................................................
Other job losers ......................................
Job leavers.....................................................
Reentrants.....................................................
New entrants..................................................

1982

1983

S e p t.

O c t.

Nov.

D ec.

Jan.

Feb.

M a r.

A p r.

M ay

June

J u ly

Aug.

S e p t.

6,258
2,127
4,141
840
2,384
1,185

6,258
1,780
4,478
830
2,412
1,216

5,938
1,562
4,376
858
2,362
1,234

5,601
1,392
4,209
866
2,322
1,127

5,226
1,321
3,905
868
2,250
1,154

5,017
1,283
3,734
855
2,246
1,150

4,825
1,238
3,588
809
2,192
1,175

4,737
1,272
3,465
772
2,153
1,092

4,614
1,254
3,360
756
2,208
1,213

4,527
1,108
3,419
781
2,308
1,216

4,327
1,192
3,134
804
2,178
1,186

4,220
1,166
3,055
800
1,968
1,136

4,511
1,164
3,346
865
2,091
1,092

4,218
1,152
3,066
835
2,322
1,093

4,211
1,109
3,102
845
2,298
1,052

100.0
58 7
19.9
38.8
7.9
22.3
11.1

100.0
58.4
16.6
41.8
7.7
22.5
11.3

100.0
57.1
15.0
42.1
8.3
22 7
11.9

100.0
56.5
14.0
42.4
8.7
23.4
11.4

100.0
55.0
13.9
41.1
9.1
23.7
12.1

100.0
54.1
13.8
40.3
9.2
24.2
12.4

100.0
53.6
13.7
39.9
9.0
24.4
13.1

100.0
54.1
14.5
39.6
8.8
24.6
12.5

100.0
52.5
14.3
38 2
8.6
25.1
13.8

100.0
51.3
12.5
38.7
8.8
26.1
13.8

100.0
50.9
14.0
36 9
9.5
25.6
14.0

100.0
51.9
14.4
37.6
9.8
24.2
14.0

100.0
52.7
13.6
39.1
10.1
24.4
12.8

100 0
49.8
13.6
36.2
9.9
27.4
12.9

100.0
50.1
13.2
36.9
10.1
27.3
12.5

5.7
.8
2.2
1.1

5.6
.7
2.2
1.1

5.3
8
2.1
1.1

5.0
.8
2.1
1.0

4.7
.8
2.0
1.0

4.5
.8
2.0
1.0

4.3
.7
2.0
1.0

4.2
.7
1.9
1.0

4.1
.7
2.0
1.1

4.0
.7
¿.0
1.1

3.8
.7
1.9
1.0

3.7
.7
1.7
1.0

4.0
.8
1.8
1.0

3.7
.7
2.0
1.0

3.7
.7
2.0
.9

P E R C E N T D I S T R IB U T IO N

Total unemployed...........................................
Job losers .....................................................
On layoff ................................................
Other job losers ......................................
Job leavers.....................................................
Reentrants.....................................................
New entrants..................................................
PERCENT OF
C IV IL IA N L A B O R F O R C E

Job losers . . . ...........................................
Job leavers.....................................................
Reentrants.....................................................
New entrants..................................................

8.

D uration of unem ploym ent, seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
A n n u al a verag e

1983

1984

W e e k s o l u n e m p lo y m e n t

Less than 5 weeks ...........................................
5 to 14 weeks................................................
15 weeks and over .........................................
15 to 26 weeks.........................................
27 weeks and over....................................
Mean duration in weeks....................................
Median duration in weeks.................................


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1982

1983

S e p t.

O c t.

Nov.

D ec.

Jan.

Feb.

M a r.

A p r.

M ay

June

J u ly

A ug.

S e p t.

3,883
3,311
3,485
1,708
1,776
15.6
8.7

3,570
2,937
4,210
1,652
2,559
20.0
10.1

3,740
2,784
3,889
1,383
2,506
20.2
9.4

3,504
2,725
3,655
1,372
2,283
20.1
9.5

3,328
2,616
3,527
1,337
2,190
20.2
9.4

3,382
2,504
3,369
1,284
2,085
19.6
9.0

3,233
2,556
3,201
1,166
2,035
20.5
9.2

3,359
2,484
2,984
1,173
1,810
18.8
8.3

3,386
2,539
2,873
1,114
1,759
18.8
8.3

3,438
2,493
2,855
1,111
1,744
18.5
8.1

3,238
2,433
2,851
1,186
1,664
18.4
8.7

3,174
2,294
2,619
1,008
1,611
18.6
7.2

3,462
2,490
2,689
1,100
1,589
18.1
7.6

3,555
2,333
2,606
1,113
1,493
17.3
7.5

3,286
2,539
2,600
1,085
1,515
17.1
7.6

71

EMPLOYMENT, HOURS, AND EARNINGS DATA FROM ESTABLISHMENT SURVEYS

E mployment, hours, and earnings data in this section are com­

piled from payroll records reported monthly on a voluntary basis
to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperating State agencies
by over 200,000 establishments representing all industries except
agriculture. In most industries, the sampling probabilities are based
on the size of the establishment; most large establishments are
therefore in the sample. (An establishment is not necessarily a
firm; it may be a branch plant, for example, or warehouse.) Selfemployed persons and others not on a regular civilian payroll are
outside the scope of the survey because they are excluded from
establishment records. This largely accounts for the difference in
employment figures between the household and establishment sur­
veys.
Definitions
Employed persons are all persons who received pay (including holiday
and sick pay) for any part of the payroll period including the 12th of the
month. Persons holding more than one job (about 5 percent of all persons
in the labor force) are counted in each establishment which reports them.
Production workers in manufacturing include blue-collar worker su­
pervisors and all nonsupervisory workers closely associated with produc­
tion operations. Those workers mentioned in tables 12-16 include production
workers in manufacturing and mining; construction workers in construc­
tion; and nonsupervisory workers in transportation and public utilities; in
wholesale and retail trade; in finance, insurance, and real estate; and in
services industries. These groups account for about four-fifths of the total
employment on private nonagricultural payrolls.

Earnings are the payments production or nonsupervisory workers re­
ceive during the survey period, including premium pay for overtime or
late-shift work but excluding irregular bonuses and other special payments.
Real earnings are earnings adjusted to reflect the effects 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

72

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

in manufacturing (the only sector for which overtime data are available)
and the effects of changes and seasonal factors in the proportion of workers
in high-wage and low-wage industries.

Hours represent the average weekly hours of production or nonsuper­
visory workers for which pay was received and are different from standard
or scheduled hours. Overtime hours represent the portion of gross average
weekly hours which were in excess of regular hours and for which overtime
premiums were paid.
The Diffusion Index, introduced in table 17 of the May 1983 issue,
represents the percent of 185 nonagricultural industries in which employ­
ment was rising over the indicated period. One-half of the industries with
unchanged employment are counted as rising. In line with Bureau practice,
data for the 3-, 6-, and 9-month spans are seasonally adjusted, while that
for the 12-month span is unadjusted. The diffusion index is useful for
measuring the dispersion of economic gains or losses and is also an eco­
nomic indicator.

Notes on the data
Establishment data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are pe­
riodically adjusted to com prehensive counts o f em ploym ent (called
“ benchmarks” ). The latest complete adjustment was made with the release
of May 1984 data, published in the July 1984 issue of the Review. Con­
sequently, data published in the Review prior to that issue are not necessarily
comparable to current data. Unadjusted data have been revised back to
April 1982; seasonally adjusted data have been revised back to January
1979. Unadjusted data from April 1983 forward, and seasonally adjusted
data from January 1980 forward are subject to revision in future bench­
marks. Earlier comparable unadjusted and seasonally adjusted data are
published in a Supplement to Employment and Earnings (unadjusted data
from April 1977 through February 1984 and seasonally adjusted data from
January 1974 through February 1984) and in Employment and Earnings,
United States, 1909-78, BLS Bulletin 1312-11 (for prior periods).
A comprehensive discussion of the differences between household and
establishment data on employment appears in Gloria P. Green, “ Com­
paring employment estimates from household and payroll surveys,” Monthly
Labor Review, December 1969, pp. 9 -2 0 . See also BLS Handbook of
Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982).

9.

E m ploym ent, by industry, selected years, 1 9 5 0 -8 3

[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
G o o d s -p r o d u c in g

S e r v ic e - p r o d u c in g
T ra n s p o r­

Year

T o ta l

P r iv a t e
s e c to r

T o ta l

M in in g

C o n s tru c ­

M a n u fa c ­

tio n

tu rin g

T o ta l

t a tio n

W h o le ­

and

s a le

p u b lic

tra d e

G o v e rn m e n t

F in a n c e ,
R e t a il

in s u ra n c e ,

tra d e

an d real

S e r v ic e s
T o ta l

F e d e ra l

S t a te

Local

e s t a te

u t il it ie s

1950 ..........................
1955 ..........................
I9602 ........................
1964 ..........................
1965 ..........................

45,197
50,641
54,189
58,283
60,765

39,170
43,727
45,836
48,686
50,689

18,506
20,513
20,434
21,005
21,926

901
792
712
634
632

2,364
2,839
2,926
3,097
3,232

15,241
16,882
16,796
17,274
18,062

26,691
30,128
33,755
37,278
38,839

4,034
4,141
4,004
3,951
4,036

2,635
2,926
3,143
3,337
3,466

6,751
7,610
8,248
8,823
9,250

1,888
2,298
2,629
2,911
2,977

5,357
6,240
7,378
8,660
9,036

6,026
6,914
8,353
9,596
10,074

1,928
2,187
2,270
2,348
2,378

(1)
1,168
1,536
1,856
1,996

(1)
3,558
4,547
5,392
5,700

1966
1967
1968
1969
1970

..........................
...........................
..........................
..........................
...........................

63,901
65,803
67,897
70,384
70,880

53,116
54,413
56,058
58,189
58,325

23,158
23,308
23,737
24,361
23,578

627
613
606
619
623

3,317
3,248
3,350
3,575
3,588

19,214
19,447
19,781
20,167
19,367

40,743
42,495
44,160
46,023
47,302

4,158
4,268
4,318
4,442
4,515

3,597
3,689
3,779
3,907
3,993

9,648
9,917
10,320
10,798
11,047

3,058
3,185
3,337
3,512
3,645

9,498
10,045
10,567
11,169
11,548

10,784
11,391
11,839
12,195
12,554

2,564
2,719
2,737
2,758
2,731

2,141
2,302
2,442
2,533
2,664

6,080
6,371
6,660
6,904
7,158

1971...........................
1972 ...........................
1973 ..........................
1974 ..........................
1975 ..........................

71,214
73,675
76,790
78,265
76,945

58,331
60,341
63,058
64,095
62,259

22,935
23,668
24,893
24,794
22,600

609
628
642
697
752

3,704
3,889
4,097
4,020
3,525

18,623
19,151
20,154
20,077
18,323

48,278
50,007
51,897
53,471
54,345

4,476
4,541
4,656
4,725
4,542

4,001
4,113
4,277
4,433
4,415

11,351
11,836
12,329
12,554
12,645

3,772
3,908
4,046
4,148
4,165

11,797
12,276
12,857
13,441
13,892

12,881
13,334
13,732
14,170
14,686

2,696
2,684
2,663
2,724
2,748

2,747
2,859
2,923
3,039
3,179

7,437
7,790
8,146
8,407
8,758

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

79,382
82,471
86,697
89,823
90,406

64,511
67,344
71,026
73,876
74,166

23,352
24,346
25,585
26,461
25,658

779
813
851
958
1,027

3,576
3,851
4,229
4,463
4,346

18,997
19,682
20,505
21,040
20,285

56,030
58,125
61,113
63,363
64,748

4,582
4,713
4,923
5,136
5,146

4,546
4,708
4,969
5,204
5,275

13,209
13,808
14,573
14,989
15,035

4,271
4,467
4,724
4,975
5,160

14,551
15,303
16,252
17,112
17,890

14,871
15,127
15,672
15,947
16,241

2,733
2,727
2,753
2,773
2,866

3,273
3,377
3,474
3,541
3,610

8,865
9,023
9,446
9,633
9,765

1981..........................
1982 ..........................
1983 ..........................

91,156
89,566
90,138

75,126
73,729
74,288

25,497
23,813
23,394

1,139
1,128
957

4,188
3,905
3,940

20,170
18,781
18,497

65,659
65,753
66,744

5,165
5,082
4,958

5,358
5,278
5,259

15,189
15,179
15,545

5,298
5,341
5,467

18,619
19,036
19,665

16,031
15,837
15,851

2,772
2,739
2,752

3,640
3,640
3,660

9,619
9,458
9,439

1Not available.
2Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959.

NOTE: See “ Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.

10. Employment, by State
[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
S t a te

August 1 983

J u ly 1 9 8 4

August 1984F

S t a te

August 1 983

J u ly 1 9 8 4

Alabama..............................................
AlasKa ................................................
Arizona ..............................................
California ...........................................

1,323.7
233.7
1,037.7
740.3
9,878.3

1,348.4
234.3
1,111.9
766.7
10,328.5

1,353.1
236.8
1,114.8
773.6
10,351.2

Montana..............................................
Nebraska ...........................................
Nevada ..............................................
New Hampshire....................................
New Jersey.........................................

267.4
607.4
411.0
420.4
3,191.5

271.9
624.9
420.1
433.7
3,316.9

273.5
626.0
420.6
439.0
3,314.7

Colorado ...........................................
Connecticut.........................................
Delaware ...........................................
District of Columbia .............................
Florida................................................

1,320.8
1,429.1
270.8
601.9
3,829.1

1,359.3
1,485.7
274.3
617.2
4,079.4

1,365.3
1,478.2
276.2
611.8
4,084.1

New Mexico.........................................
New Y ork...........................................
North Carolina ....................................
North Dakota......................................
Ohio..................................................

481.9
7,266.8
2,384.9
250.1
4,074.0

495.9
7,500.2
2,442.1
252.0
4,174.9

498.3
7,467.2
2,463.4
251.5
4,173.9

Georgia ..............................................
Hawaii................................................
Idaho ................................................
Illinois................................................
Indiana ..............................................

2,275.4
404.8
315.9
4,509.2
2,008.0

2,407.5
408.1
324.6
4,591.6
2,064.7

2,427.2
406.2
325.2
4,592.7
2,069.2

Oklahoma...........................................
Oregon ..............................................
Pennsylvania ......................................
Rhode Island......................................
South Carolina ....................................

1,163.3
965.4
4,525.4
394.1
1,176.4

1,181.0
986.7
4,625.5
400.0
1,238.7

1,181.5
995.7
4,629 3
404.4
1,234.4

Iowa...................................................
Kansas ..............................................
Kentucky ...........................................
Louisiana ...........................................
Maine................................................

1,005.8
906 5
1,141.7
1,555.3
440.1

1,022.9
930.6
1,180.5
1,573.1
445 0

1,023.9
929.6
1,184.5
1,568.9
452.2

South Dakota......................................
Tennessee ...........................................
Texas ................................................
Utah..................................................
Vermont..............................................

235.7
1,727.8
6,126.6
567.4
205.5

240.7
1,817.5
6,337.6
595.8
209.5

239.5
1,814.3
6,345.4
598.5
210.3

Maryland ...........................................
Massachusetts ....................................
Michigan ...........................................
Minnesota...........................................
Mississippi .........................................
Missouri..............................................

1,698.6
2,650.9
3,162.4
1,722.7
782.0
1,915.6

1,758.5
2,726.1
3,282.9
1,820.9
794.8
1,942.7

1,746.7
2,737.9
3,266.6
1,837.9
792 8
1,955.0

Virginia ..............................................
Washington.........................................
West Virginia......................................
Wisconsin...........................................
Wyoming ...........................................

2,199.6
1,578.4
589.3
1,849.7
204.1

2,285.8
1,636.9
593.2
1,916.7
210.8

2,291.7
1,643.7
595.9
1,928.1
211.1

Virgin Islands......................................

35.8

35.5

35.1

A u g u s t1 9 8 4 P

p = preliminary.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

73

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
11.

E m ploym ent, by industry, seasonally adjusted

[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
A n n u al ave ra g e

1983

1984

In d u s tr y d iv is io n a n d g ro u p
1982

1983

S e p t.

O c t.

Nov.

Oec.

Jan.

Feb.

M a r.

A p r.

89,566

90,138

91,018

91,345

91,688

92,026

92,391

92,846

93,058

73,729

74,288

75,083

75,481

75,814

76.157

76,533

76,971

77,185

23,813

23,394

23,669

23,895

24,058

24,198

24,383

24,577

1,128
708

957
600

952
594

965
600

967
603

969
607

975
608

3,905
991

3,940
1,015

4,019
1,043

4,044
1,053

4,073
1,064

4,086
1,077

18,781
12,742

18,497
12,581

18,698
12,759

18,886
12,928

19,018
13,048

Production workers .................................

11,039
7,311

10,774
7,151

10,923
7,289

11,071
7,421

Lumber and wood products ........................
Furniture and fixtures.................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ...................
Primary metal industries .............................
Blast furnaces and basic steel products . . . .
Fabricated metal products.............................

598
432
577
922
396
1,427

658
447
573
838
343
1,374

680
456
581
849
346
1,389

Machinery, except electrical ........................
Electrical and electronic equipment.................
Transportation equipment.............................
Motor vehicles and equipment ...................
Instruments and related products .................
Miscellaneous manufacturing........................

2,244
2,008
1,735
699
716
382

2,038
2,024
1,756
758
695
371

Production workers .................................

7,741
5,431

Food and kindred products..........................
Tobacco manufactures ...............................
Textile mill oroducts .....................................
Apparel and other textile products.................
Paper and allied products.............................
Printing and publishing...............................
Chemicals and allied products ......................
Petroleum and coal products........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products . .
Leather and leather products........................

TO TAL
P R IV A T E S E C T O R
G O O D S P R O D U C IN G
M in in g

Oil and gas extraction...............................
C o n s t r u c tio n

General building contractors........................
M a n u f a c t u r in g

Production workers .................................
D u r a b le g o o d s

N o n d u r a b le g o o d s

S E R V IC E -P R O D U C IN G
T r a n s p o r t a t io n a n d p u b lic u t il it ie s

Transportation...........................................
Communication and public utilities.................
W h o le s a l e t r a d e

Durable goods...........................................
Nondurable goods......................................
R e t a il t r a d e

General merchandise stores ........................
Food stores ..............................................
Automotive dealers and service stations.........
Eating and drinking places ..........................
F i n a n c e , in s u r a n c e , a n d r e a l e s t a te

Finance.....................................................
Insurance ................................................
Real estate................................................
S e r v ic e s

Business services......................................
Health services .........................................
G o v e rn m e n t

Federal.....................................................
State .......................................................
Local.......................................................
p = preliminary.

74

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

M ay

June

J u ly

A u g .P

S e p t .F

93,449

93,768

94,135

94,350

94,532

94,671

77,546

77,864

78,241

78,422

78,566

78,638

24,595

24,760

24,851

24,974

25,059

25,086

24,996

978
607

978
607

984
612

995
619

1,002
623

1,007
629

1,017
637

1,024
646

4,154
1,100

4,226
1,111

4,151
1,099

4,246
1,110

4,286
1,126

4.343
1.135

4,356
1,133

4,344
1,130

4,371
1,143

19,143
13,145

19,254
13,234

19,373
13,326

19,466
13,388

19,530
13,443

19,570
13,465

19,629
13,492

19,696
13,541

19,725
13,561

19,601
13,455

11,170
7,511

11,266
7,585

11,343
7,643

11,440
7,718

11,513
7,769

11,551
7,799

11,598
7,826

11,652
7,860

11,702
7,899

11,754
7,943

11,680
7,872

690
462
587
863
351
1,408

695
467
589
869
351
1,420

698
470
592
877
352
1,431

702
475
595
871
347
1,440

706
480
604
877
348
1,447

712
483
606
877
347
1,456

714
482
604
879
345
1,459

711
482
605
887
347
1,469

712
485
605
884
345
1,479

708
485
606
880
342
1,490

706
484
604
880
335
1,489

702
481
604
870
334
1,483

2,058
2,062
1,780
783
698
370

2,077
2,086
1,820
810
702
376

2,106
2,109
1,832
823
705
378

2,122
2,132
1,855
843
707
382

2,137
2,152
1,876
858
711
384

2,151
2,175
1,898
865
715
387

2,166
2,202
1,905
863
718
388

2,189
2,212
1,905
857
719
388

2,203
2,228
1,906
848
722
385

2,226
2,237
1,917
855
723
384

2,242
2,252
1,926
858
727
386

2,254
2,268
1,953
891
727
389

2,240
2,260
1,929
855
724
387

7,724
5,430

7,775
5,470

7,815
5,507

7,848
5,537

7,877
5,560

7,911
5,591

7,933
5,608

7,953
5,619

7,979
5,644

7,972
5,639

7,977
5,632

7,994
5,642

7,971
5,618

7,921
5,583

1,636
69
749
1,161
662

1,622
69
744
1,164
662

1,624
68
753
1,174
666

1,624
68
758
1,186
669

1,629
66
760
1,195
671

1,631
67
762
1,202
675

1,638
66
758
1,207
676

1,637
65
767
1,213
680

1,638
66
769
1,218
680

1,648
67
766
1,226
680

1,643
67
762
1,217
681

1,644
67
759
1,209
685

1,655
66
755
1,206
687

1,643
65
751
1,200
685

1,628
68
744
1,183
681

1,272
1,075
201
697
219

1,296
1,047
195
718
208

1,305
1,047
194
735
209

1,311
1,049
192
748
210

1,317
1,050
192
758
210

1,321
1,052
191
766
210

1,328
1,053
191
774
210

1,333
1,054
190
784
210

1,339
1,054
190
790
209

1,348
1,057
189
790
208

1,356
1,057
188
795
206

1,362
1,062
188
797
204

1,368
1,064
187
801
205

1,371
1,068
187
800
201

1,373
1,062
185
799
198

65,753

66,744

67,349

67,450

67,630

67,828

68,008

68,269

68,463

68,689

68,917

69,161

69,291

69,446

69,675

5,082
2,789
2,293

4,958
2,739
2,219

5,046
2,768
2,278

5,053
2,776
2,277

5,043
2,763
2,280

5,055
2,776
2,279

5,095
2,816
2,279

5,105
2,828
2,276

5,112
2,839
2,273

5,129
2,862
2,267

5,144
2,871
2,273

5,163
2,883
2,280

5,175
2,896
2,279

5,196
2,918
2,278

5,175
2,912
2,263

5,278
11,039
7,741

5,259
10,774
7,724

5,301
10,923
7,775

5,322
11,071
7,815

5,344
11,170
7,848

5,371
11,266
7,877

5,406
11,343
7,911

5,438
11,440
7,933

5,457
11,513
7,953

5,473
11,551
7,979

5,492
11,598
7,972

5,502
11,652
7,977

5,528
11,702
7,994

5,554
11,754
7,971

5,590
11,680
7,921

15,179
2,184
2,478
1,632
4,831

15,545
2,161
2,560
1,667
5,007

15,671
2,171
2,568
1,685
5,058

15,737
2,179
2,587
1,695
5,071

15,805
2,195
2,594
1,703
5,082

15,857
2,189
2,600
1,710
5,095

15,914
2,210
2,618
1,725
5,111

15,980
2,211
2,626
1,740
5,121

16,030
2,230
2,626
1,748
5,136

16,095
2,251
2,635
1,743
5,154

16,166
2,273
2,630
1,751
5,183

16,245
2,295
2,641
1,751
5,199

16,283
2,301
2,648
1,762
5,211

16,302
2,291
2,650
1,758
5,236

16,366
2,326
2,657
1,761
5,249

5,341
2,646
1,714
981

5.467
2,740
1,721
1,005

5.503
2,763
1,725
1,015

5,512
2,769
1,725
1,018

5,530
2,777
1,728
1,025

5,546
2,789
1,730
1,027

5,573
2,797
1,737
1,039

5,593
2,812
1,741
1,040

5,613
2,831
1,742
1,041

5,640
2,851
1,742
1,047

5,662
2,863
1,746
1,053

5,676
2,854
1,752
1,066

5,676
2,854
1,759
1,063

5,682
2,851
1,764
1,067

5,682
2,857
1,767
1,058

19,036
3,286
5,812

19,665
3,539
5,973

19,893
3,636
6,003

19,962
3,672
6,007

20,034
3,703
6,016

20,130
3,758
6,026

20,162
3,798
6,030

20,278
3,845
6,040

20,378
3,875
6,052

20,449
3,912
6,062

20,549
3,979
6,073

20,681
4,014
6,064

20,701
4,035
6,079

20,746
4,067
6,032

20,829
4,093
6,092

15,837
2,739
3,640
9,458

15,851
2,752
3,660
9,439

15,935
2,774
3,672
9,489

15,864
2,760
3,667
9,437

15,874
2,759
3,669
9,446

15,869
2,762
3,668
9,439

15,858
2,760
3,670
9,428

15,875
2,763
3,682
9,430

15,873
2,770
3,686
9,417

15,903
2,771
3,693
9,439

15,904
2,767
3,699
9,438

15,894
2,777
3,699
9,418

15,928
2,779
3,697
9,452

15,966
2,780
3,718
9,468

16,033
2,785
3,708
9,540

NOTE: See "Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.

12.

A verage hours and earnings, by industry 1 9 6 8 -8 3

[Production or nonsupervisory workers on nonagricultural payrolls]
A v e ra g e

A v e ra g e

A v e ra g e

A v e ra g e

w e e k ly

h o u r ly

w e e k ly

w e e k ly

h o u r ly

w e e k ly

w e e k ly

h o u r ly

w e e k ly

h o u rs

e a r n in g s

e a r n in g s

h o u rs

e a r n in g s

e a r n in g s

h o u rs

e a r n in g s

e a r n in g s

A v e ra g e
Year

A v e ra g e

A v e ra g e

M in in g

P r iv a t e s e c t o r

A v e ra g e

A v e ra g e

C o n s t r u c tio n

1968 .......................................................
1969 .......................................................
1970 .......................................................

37 8
37.7
37.1

$2.85
3.04
3.23

$107.73
114.61
119.83

42.6
43.0
42.7

$3.35
3.60
3.85

$142.71
154.80
164.40

37.3
37.9
37.3

$4.41
4.79
5.24

$164.49
181.54
195.45

1971.......................................................
1972 .......................................................
1973 .......................................................
1974 .......................................................
1975 .......................................................

36.9
37.0
36.9
36.5
36.1

3.45
3.70
3.94
4.24
4.53

127.31
136.90
145.39
154.76
163.53

42.4
42.6
42.4
41.9
41.9

4.06
4.44
4.75
5.23
5.95

172.14
189.14
201.40
219.14
249.31

37.2
36.5
36.8
36.6
36.4

5.69
6.06
6.41
6.81
7.31

211.67
221.19
235.89
249.25
266.08

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................

36.1
36.0
35.8
35.7
35.3

4.86
5.25
5.69
6.16
6.66

175.45
189.00
203.70
219.91
235.10

42.4
43.4
43.4
43.0
43.3

6.46
6.94
7.67
8.49
9.17

273.90
301.20
332.88
365.07
397.06

36.8
36.5
36.8
37.0
37.0

7.71
8.10
8.66
9.27
9.94

283.73
295.65
318.69
342.99
367.78

1981.......................................................
1982 .......................................................
1983 .......................................................

35.2
34.8
35.0

7.25
7.68
8.02

255.20
267.26
280.70

43.7
42.7
42.5

10.04
10.77
11.27

438.75
459.88
478.98

36.9
36.7
37.2

10.82
11.63
11.92

399.26
426.82
443.42

T r a n s p o r t a t io n a n d p u b lic u t il it ie s

M a n u fa c t u r in g

W h o le s a l e t r a d e

1968 .......................................................
......................................
1969
1970 .......................................................

40.7
40.6
39.8

$3.01
3.19
3.35

$122.51
129.51
133.33

40.6
40.7
40.5

$3.42
3.63
3.85

$138.85
147.74
155.93

40.1
40.2
39.9

$3.05
3.23
3.44

$122.31
129.85
137.26

1971.......................................................
1972 .......................................................
1973 .......................................................
1974 .......................................................
1975 .......................................................

39.9
40.5
40.7
40.0
39.5

3.57
3.82
4.09
4.42
4.83

142.44
154.71
166.46
176.80
190.79

40.1
40.4
40.5
40.2
39.7

4.21
4.65
5.02
5.41
5.88

168.82
187.86
203.31
217.48
233.44

39.5
39.4
39.3
38.8
38.7

3.65
3.85
4.08
4.39
4.73

129.85
144.18
151.69
160.34
183.05

1976 .......................................................
1977 .......................................................
1978
.............................................
1979 .......................................................
1980
................................................

40.1
40.3
40.4
40.2
39.7

5.22
5.68
6.17
6.70
7.27

209.32
228.90
249.27
269.34
288.62

39.8
39.9
40.0
39.9
39.6

6.45
6.99
7.57
8.16
8.87

256.71
278.90
302.80
325.58
351.25

38.7
38.8
38.8
38.8
38.5

5.03
5.39
5.88
6.39
6.96

194 66
209.13
228.14
247.93
267.96

1981.......................................................
1982 .......................................................
1983 .......................................................

39.8
38.9
40.1

7.99
8.49
8.83

318.00
330.26
354.08

39.4
39.0
39.0

9.70
10.32
10.80

382.18
402.48
421.20

38.5
38.3
38.5

7.56
8.09
8.54

291.06
309.85
328.79

F in a n c e , in s u r a n c e , a n d r e a l e s t a t e

R e t a il t r a d e

S e r v ic e s

1968 .......................................................
1969 .......................................................
1970 .......................................................

34.7
34.2
33.8

$2.16
2.30
2.44

$74.95
78.66
82.47

37.0
37.1
36.7

$2.75
2.93
3.07

$101.75
108.70
112.67

34.7
34.7
34.4

$2.42
2.61
2.81

$83.97
90.57
96.66

1971.......................................................
1972 .......................................................
1973 .....................................................
1974 .......................................................
1975 .......................................................

33.7
33.4
33.1
32.7
32.4

2.60
2.75
2.91
3.14
3.36

87.62
91.85
96.32
102.68
108.86

36.6
36.6
36.6
36.5
36.5

3.22
3.36
3.53
3.77
4.06

117.85
122.98
129.20
137.61
148.19

33.9
33.9
33.8
33.6
33.5

3.04
3.27
3.47
3.75
4.02

103.06
110.85
117.29
126.00
134.67

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

.......................................................
.......................................................
................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................

32.1
31.6
31.0
30.6
30.2

3.57
3.85
4.20
4.53
4.88

114.60
121.66
130.20
138.62
147.38

36.4
36.4
36.4
36.2
36.2

4.27
4.54
4.89
5.27
5.79

155.43
165.26
178.00
190.77
209.60

33.3
33.0
32.8
32.7
32.6

4.31
4.65
4.99
5.36
5.85

143.52
153.45
163.67
175.27
190.71

1981.......................................................
1982 .......................................................
1983 .......................................................

30.1
29.9
29.8

5.25
5.48
5.74

158.03
163.85
171.05

36.3
36 2
36.2

6.31
6.78
7.29

229.05
245.44
263.90

32.6
32.6
32.7

6.41
6.92
7.30

208.97
225.59
238.71

NOTE: See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

75

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
13.

A verage w eekly hours, by industry, seasonally adjusted

[Production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
1983

A n n u al ave ra g e
In d u s tr y

1982

1983

S e p t.

O c t.

1984
Nov.

Dec

Jan.

Feb.

M a r.

A p r.

M ay

June

J u ly

A u g i1

S e p t .b

34 8

35.0

35.2

35 2

35.2

35.2

35.4

35 3

35.3

35.4

35.3

35 3

35.2

35 2

35 3

38.9
2.3

40.1
3.0

40.7
3.2

40.6
3.3

40.6
3.3

40.6
3.4

40.9
3.5

40.9
3.5

40.7
3.5

41.1
3.7

40.6
3.3

40 6
3.3

40 5
3.3

40 4
3.2

40.5
3.3

Overtime hours.................................

39.3
2.2

40.7
3.0

41.4
3.3

41.2
3.4

41.3
3.5

41.3
3.5

41.6
3.7

41.7
3.8

41.4
3.7

41.8
4.0

41.3
3.5

41.2
3.5

41.2
3.5

41.1
3.4

41.4
3.5

Lumber and wood products........................
Furniture and fixtures ................... ..
Stone, clay, and glass products .................
Primary metal industries.............................
Blast furnaces and basic steel products . . . .
Fabricated metal products..........................

38.0
37.2
40.1
38.6
37.9
39.2

40.1
39.4
41.5
40.5
39.5
40.6

40.4
40.0
42.0
41.2
40.5
41.4

40.5
39.8
41.8
41.6
40.8
41.2

40.0
39.8
41.8
41.7
40.8
41.4

40.0
40.1
41.9
41.8
41.2
41.4

40.6
40.0
42.1
41.9
41.0
41.6

40.4
39.9
42.5
42.0
41.3
41.8

40.1
39 6
41.9
41.8
41.2
41.3

40.4
39.7
42 3
42 2
41.0
41.8

39 6
39.7
42.1
42.1
41.6
41.4

39.4
39.1
41.8
41.7
41.1
41.3

39.3
39 8
41.9
41.5
399
41.3

39 4
39 2
41.6
41.0
39.6
41.2

40.0
40.2
41.8
41.5
40 0
41.5

Machinery, except electrical........................
Electrical and electronic equipment..............
Transportation equipment..........................
Motor vehicles and equipment...................
Instruments and related products.................

39.7
39.3
40.5
40.5
39.8

40.5
40.5
42.1
43.3
40.4

41.1
41.2
43.3
45.1
40.8

41.2
41.1
42.5
44.1
40.7

41.3
41.1
42.6
44.1
40.7

41.5
41.0
42.4
43.9
40.8

41.8
41.2
43.2
44.8
41.3

41.9
41.2
43.1
44.3
41.2

41.9
41.0
42.9
44.4
41.1

42.3
41.3
43.5
44.8
41.4

41.9
41.0
42.4
42.9
40.7

42.0
40.8
42 3
43.1
41.3

41.8
40.8
42 2
42 4
41.3

41.8
40.9
42 5
43.3
41.1

41.7
41.2
42.6
43.7
41.3

Overtime hours.................................

38.4
2.5

39 4
3.0

39 9
3.1

39.7
3.1

39.8
3.1

39.7
3.2

39.9
3.3

39.9
3.3

39 8
3.3

40 2
3.4

39.6
3.1

39.6
3.2

39.4
3.1

39 4
3.0

39.3
3.0

Food and kindred products ........................
Textile mill products..................................
Apparel and other textile products ..............
Paper and allied products..........................

39.4
37.5
34.7
41.8

39.5
40.5
36.2
42.6

39.8
41.3
36.7
43.2

39 6
40.8
36.6
43.2

39.6
40.6
36.7
43,1

39 5
40.7
36.6
43.1

39 7
40.6
36.6
43.2

39.7
40.8
36.9
43 2

39.8
40.6
36.7
43.0

40.1
41.2
37.4
43.2

39.7
40.0
36.5
43.1

39 8
40.0
36.4
42.9

39.5
39 8
35 8
43.3

39.6
39.4
36.0
43.0

39.6
39 2
35.9
42.9

Printing and publishing .............................
Chemicals and allied products......................
Petroleum and coal products ......................
Leather and leather products .....................

37.1
40.9
43.9
35.6

37.6
41.6
43.9
36.8

37 8
41,7
43.2
37.8

37.9
41.7
43.6
37.3

37.9
41.9
43.7
37.2

37.7
41.9
44.6
37.1

37.9
42.1
44.8
37.3

37.9
42.1
44.5
37.2

37.9
42.0
44.7
36.7

38.2
42.0
43.7
37.5

38.0
41.8
43.5
36.5

37.7
41.9
43.1
36.7

37.7
41.9
43 2
37.0

37 9
42.0
43 8
36.5

37 9
41.6
42 2
37.1

T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC U T IL IT IE S

39 0

39.0

39.3

39.4

39.2

39.4

39.5

39.3

39.2

39.5

39.4

39.6

39.8

39.3

39.6

W H O LE SA LE TR A D E

38.3

38.5

38 6

38.6

38.6

38.6

38.6

38.5

38.5

38.7

38 6

38.6

38.6

38.7

38.8

R E T A IL T R A D E

29.9

29.8

29.8

30 0

30 0

30.3

30.1

30.0

30.1

30.0

30.1

30.2

29.9

29.9

30 0

S E R V IC E S

32.6

32.7

32.7

32.8

32.7

32.6

32.8

32 7

32.8

32.8

32.7

32.7

32.7

32.6

32.8

P R IV A T E S E C T O R

M A N U F A C T U R IN G

Overtime hours.................................
D u r a b le g o o d s

N o n d u r a b le g o o d s

p = preliminary.

76

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.

14.

A verage hourly earnings, by industry

[Production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
1983

A n n u al av e ra g e
In d u s tr y

1982

1983

S e p t.

O c t.

$7.68
(1)

$8.02
(1)

$8.12
8.09

M IN IN G

10.77

11.27

C O N S T R U C T IO N

11.63

11.92

P R IV A T E S E C T O R

Seasonally adjusted.............................

1984
Nov.

D ec.

Jan.

Feb.

M a r.

A p r.

$8.16
8.13

$8.16
8.14

$8.16
8.17

$8.26
8.21

$8.24
8.23

$8.24
8.25

$8.29
8.31

$8.28
8.29

$8.29
8.33

11.33

11.33

11.40

11.41

11.54

11.49

11.60

11.62

11.56

11.57

12.04

12.06

11.91

12.02

12.08

11.99

11.97

11.95

11.99

11.94

M ay

June

J u ly

S e p t .P

A u g .P

$8.32
8.35

$8.30
8.34

$8.43
8 40

11.57

11.57

11.65

11.97

12.00

12.12

8.49

8.83

8.89

8.90

8.97

9.04

9.08

9.06

9 09

9.11

9.11

9.14

9.18

9.14

9.22

Lumber and wood products.................
Furniture and fixtures..........................
Stone, clay, and glass products............
Primary metal industries.....................
Blast furnaces and basic steel products
Fabricated metal products...................

9.04
7.43
6.31
8.87
11.33
13.35
8.77

9.38
7.79
6.62
9.27
11.34
12.89
9.11

9.46
7.87
6.74
9.42
11,34
12.79
9.18

9.47
7 86
6.71
9.38
11.28
12.68
9.18

9.53
7 79
6.73
9.41
11.32
12.71
9.24

9.60
7.80
6.78
9.41
11.35
12.71
9.35

9.64
7.88
6.76
9 42
11.38
12.76
9.31

9.63
7 88
6.75
9.38
11.49
13.10
9.31

9 66
7.87
6.76
9.40
11.44
12.97
9.31

9.67
7 89
6.76
9.51
11.51
13.12
9.34

9.66
7.92
6.80
9.54
11.49
13.09
9.33

9.69
8.04
6.84
9.58
11.46
13.02
9.33

9.70
8.01
6.88
9.64
11.45
13.02
9.33

9 68
8.04
6.90
9.61
11.43
13.13
9.30

9 77
8.11
6.98
9.64
11.49
13.21
9.37

Machinery, except electrical.................
Electrical and electronic equipment . . . .
Transportation equipment ...................
Motor vehicles and equipment............
Instruments and related products.........
Miscellaneous manufacturing ..............

9.26
8.21
11.11
11.62
8.06
6.42

9 55
8.65
11.66
12.12
8.46
6.80

9 63
8.73
11.80
12 31
8.54
6.83

9.66
8.71
11.87
12 38
8.54
6.84

9.74
8.77
12.01
12.49
8.56
6.84

9.85
8.84
12.04
12.47
8.65
6.95

9.85
8.88
12.06
12.53
8.68
7.00

9.87
8.86
12.00
12.41
8.66
6.97

9.90
8 88
12.12
12 62
8.71
6.97

9.91
8.89
12.06
12.56
8.73
6.97

9.90
8.89
12.04
12.51
8.71
6.99

9.93
8.91
12.14
12.67
8.78
6.98

9.96
8.95
12.13
12.61
8.83
7.02

9.93
9.00
12.11
12.58
8.85
6.97

10.02
9.08
12.22
12.71
8.89
7.00

7.74
7.92
9.79
5.83
5.20
9.32

8.08
8.20
10.35
6.18
5.37
9.94

8.11
8.17
9.90
6 23
5 39
10.11

8.12
8.16
9.65
6.24
5.40
10.11

8.18
8.26
10.77
6.26
5.43
10 20

8.24
8.36
10.19
6.31
5.44
10.24

8.27
8.41
10.77
6.39
5.50
10.23

8.24
8.37
11.13
6.40
5.46
10.22

8.27
8.39
11.29
6.41
5.48
10 25

8.29
8.43
11.43
6.43
5.49
10.29

8.30
8.43
11.55
6.42
5.48
10.34

8.33
8.44
11.92
6.43
5.50
10.42

8.41
8.41
11.67
6.43
5.51
10.56

8.37
8.35
10 69
6.46
5.53
10.52

8.43
8 39
10.18
6.48
5.60
10.56

8.74
9.96
12.46

9.11
10.59
13.29

9.23
10.70
13.38

9.23
10.79
13.38

9.26
10.86
13.45

9 29
10.90
13.54

9 26
10.91
13.47

9.30
10.90
13.43

9.29
10.95
13.44

9.29
10.97
13.44

9.31
11.02
13.32

9.30
11.03
13.33

9.36
11.12
13.27

9.43
11.12
13.30

9.52
11.19
13.49

7.64
5.33

7.99
5.54

8.05
5.57

8.08
5.56

8.07
5.57

8.16
5.61

8.17
5.68

8.16
5.67

8 20
5 68

8.25
5.68

8.20
5.68

8.23
5.67

8.30
5.70

8.28
5.65

8.32
5.70

10.32

10.80

10.88

10.94

11.01

11.00

11.08

11.01

11.02

11.07

11.03

11.07

11.18

11.17*

11.28

W HO LESALE TRADE

8.09

8.54

8.62

8.69

8.68

8.74

8 82

8.79

8.79

8 89

8.86

8.90

8.97

8 93

9.02

R E T A IL T R A D E

5.48

5.74

5.78

5.79

5.82

5.78

5.89

5.89

5 89

5.90

5.88

5.88

5.87

5.83

5.90

F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D R E A L E S T A T E

6.78

7.29

7.33

7.45

7.39

7.43

7.55

7.54

7.54

7.62

7.55

7.58

7.60

7.60

7.80

S E R V IC E S

6.92

7.30

7.37

7.43

7.44

7.47

7.57

7.55

7.54

7.60

7.55

7.53

7.56

7.53

7.70

M A N U F A C T U R IN G

D u r a b le g o o d s

N o n d u r a b le g o o d s

Food and kindred products .................
Tobacco manufactures........................
Textile mill products ..........................
Apparel and other textile products.........
Paper and allied products ...................
Printing and publishing........................
Chemicals and allied products..............
Petroleum and coal products ..............
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products.............................
Leather and leather products ..............
T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC U T IL IT IE S

1Not available.
p = preliminary.

15.

NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.

T he H ourly E arn ings Index, by industry

[Production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls; 1977 = 100]
N o t s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d

S e a s o n a ll y a d ju s te d
P e rc e n t

P ercen t

change
In d u s tr y

P R IV A T E S E C T O R ( in c u r r e n t d o lla r s )

Mining..............................................
Construction......................................
Manufacturing....................................
Transportation and public utilities .........
Wholesale trade..................................
Retail trade.........................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate..........
Services ...........................................
P R IV A T E S E C T O R ( in c o n s t a n t d o l la r s )

J u ly

Aug.

S e p t.

f ro m :

S e p t.

M ay

June

J u ly

A ug.

S e p t.

f ro m :

1983

1984

1984

1984P

S e p t. 1 9 8 3

1983

1984

1984

1984

1984P

1984P

A ug. 198 4


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

to

to

S e p t. 1 9 8 4

S e p t. 1 9 8 4

156.5

160 4

160.1

162.0

3.5

156.2

159 6

160.3

160.8

160.6

161.7

0.7

168.0
147.3
158.2
157.9
159.8
151.5
159.6
157.7

174.3
146.5
162.8
161.6
165.9
153.9
165.5
162.3

173.9
146 8
162.7
161.7
165.2
153.0
165.1
161.6

175.3
148.3
163.6
163.5
166 9
154.4
168.8
165.0

4.3
.7
3.4
3.6
4.5
2.0
5.8
4.6

(1)
145.5
158.1
157.4
(1)
151.3
(1)
157.7

(1)
147.0
162.0
160.9
(1)
153 4
(1)
161.4

(1)
147.1
162.3
162.1
(1)
153.8
(1)
162.5

(1)
146 6
162.9
162.6
(1)
154.0
(1)
163.4

(1)
146.5
163.4
161.8
<1)
153.4
<1)
162.7

(1)
146.5
163.5
163.1
(1)
154.3
(1)
165.0

<1)
.0
.0
.8
(1)
.6
<1)
1.4

94.4

94.7

93.6

(2>

<2)

94.5

94.9

95.2

95.2

94.1

<2)

(2)

1This series is not seasonally adjusted because the seasonal component is small relative to the trendcycle, irregular components, or both, and consequently cannot be separated with sufficient precision.
2Not available.

change

S e p t.

p = preliminary,
NOTE: See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.

77

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
16.

A verag e w eekly earnings, by industry

[Production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
1983

A n n u al a verag e
In d u s tr y

1984

1982

1983

$267.26
(1)
168.09

$280.70
<1)
171.37

M IN IN G

459.88

478.98

488.32

489.46

489 06

495.19

499.68

492.92

496.48

499.66

499.39

505.61

497.51

504.45

511.44

C O N S T R U C T IO N

426.82

443.42

456.32

449.84

432 33

442.34

438.50

443.63

439.30

448.13

458.02

460.88

462.04

462.00

469 04

330.26
207.71

354.08
216.17

362.71
218.90

362.23
218.08

365 98
220.34

372.45
224.23

368.65
221.01

368.74
220 67

369.96
221.40

372.60
222.45

369.87
219 77

372.91
221.05

369 95
218.39

369 26
215.94

375 25
<1)

Lumber and wood products ........................
Furniture and fixtures.................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ...................
Primary metal industries .............................
Blast furnaces and basic steel products.........
Fabricated metal products.............................

355.27
282.34
234.73
355.69
437.34
505.97
343.78

381.77
312.38
260.83
384.71
459.27
509.16
369.87

390.70
320.31
270.95
399.41
469.48
521.83
379.13

391.11
319.12
271.08
394.90
464.74
508.47
379.13

395.50
309.26
269 87
395.22
470.91
513.48
384.38

403.20
311.22
277.98
394.28
478.97
526.19
395.51

398.13
311.26
263.64
386.22
476.82
521.88
385.43

398.68
313.62
263.93
389.27
482.58
539.72
386.37

399.92
314.01
267.02
389.16
480.48
534.36
384.50

402.27
317.18
267.02
401.32
488.02
549.73
387.61

399 92
317.59
268.60
404.50
481.43
540.62
386.26

402.14
324.01
270.86
407.15
480.17
536.42
388.13

396.73
316.40
269.70
406.81
472.89
524.71
380.66

395.91
321.60
273 93
404.58
466.34
516.01
382.23

404.48
326 02
281.99
406.81
479.13
532 36
387.92

Machinery except electrical..........................
Electrical and electronic equipment.................
Transportation equipment.............................
Motor vehicles and equipment...................
Instruments and related products .................
Miscellaneous manufacturing........................

367.62
322.65
449.96
470.61
320.79
246.53

386.78
350.33
490.89
524.80
341.78
265.88

395.79
358.80
505.04
546.56
349.29
269.10

396.06
357.98
505.66
545 96
346.72
272.23

405.18
363.08
515.23
550.81
350 96
272.23

418 63
369.51
521.33
556.16
357.25
278.00

411.73
364.97
517.37
555.08
356.75
272 30

413.55
364.15
514.80
544.80
356.79
276.01

415 80
364.08
521.16
560 33
358.85
276.01

417.21
364.49
523.40
563 94
358.80
275.32

413.82
363 60
514.11
546.69
354.50
274.71

417.06
365.31
519.59
557.48
362.61
273 62

411.35
361.58
508.25
537.19
361.15
273.08

410.11
366 30
504.99
532.13
362.85
271.13

417.83
374.10
514.46
546.53
368.05
274.40

297.22
312.05
370.06
218.63
180.44
389.58

318.35
323.90
387.09
250.29
194.39
423.44

325.21
330.07
380.16
258.55
198.35
439.79

323 99
324.77
370.56
256.46
198.72
437.76

327.20
329.57
431.88
256.66
199.82
440.64

330.42
333.56
385.18
258.71
199.65
448.51

326 67
331.35
410.34
257.52
198.55
440.91

326.30
327.27
405.13
259.84
200.38
438.44

327.49
329,73
416.60
258.96
201.12
437.68

329.94
332.99
451.49
260.42
202.03
442.47

328.68
333.83
457.38
257.44
200.02
443.59

331.53
337.60
482.76
259.77
202 40
449.10

331.35
333.04
437.63
252.70
198.36
456.19

331.45
334.00
414.77
256.46
200.74
451.31

333.83
337.28
410.25
255.31
201.60
456.19

324.25
407.36
546 99

342.54
440.54
583.43

350.74
448.33
592.73

350.74
449.94
586.04

352.81
457.21
590.46

356.74
462.16
603.88

347.25
458.22
594.03

349.68
457.80
584.21

353.02
458.81
585.98

353 02
460.74
590.02

351.92
460 64
580.75

349.68
463.26
579.86

351.94
463.70
579.90

358.34
463.70
582.54

362.71
467.74
584.12

302.54
189.75

329.19
203.87

337.30
209 43

338.55
206.83

338.94
207.76

345.98
209.25

343.14
208.46

342.72
208.66

341.94
205.05

347 33
210.16

341.94
209.59

344.84
213.76

341.96
212.61

341.14
208.49

344.45
210.90

T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC U T IL IT IE S

402.48

421.20

428 67

432.13

432.69

436.70

434.34

429.39

429.78

435.05

432 38

440.59

447.20

442.33

447.82

W HO LESALE TRADE

309.85

328.79

333.59

336 30

335.92

339.99

338.69

335.78

336.66

342.27

342.00

344.43

348 04

346.48

349.98

R E T A IL T R A D E

163.85

171.05

172.82

173.12

173.44

178.02

173.17

173.17

174.34

175.82

176.40

178.75

180.21

178.40

177.59

F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D R E A L E S T A T E

245.44

263 90

264.61

271.18

266.78

268 97

275.58

274.46

273.70

278.13

274.07

275.15

278.92

276.64

285.48

S E R V IC E S

225.59

238.71

241.00

242.96

242.54

243.52

246.78

246.13

245.80

248.52

246.13

247.74

250.24

248.49

252.56

S e p t.

O c t.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

M a r.

A p r.

M ay

June

J u ly

A u g .P

S e p t .P

P R IV A T E S E C T O R

Current dollars........................................
Seasonally adjusted...............................
Constant (1977) dollars.............................

$286.64 $288.05 $286.42 $289.68 $289.10 $288.40 $288.40 $292.64 $291.46 $294.30 $296.19 $294.65 $299.27
284.77 286.18 286.53 287.58 290.63 290.52 291.23 294.17 292.64 294.05 293 92 293.57 296.52
172.99 173.42 172.44 174.40 173.32 172.59 172.59 174.71 173.18 174.45 174.85 172.31
(1)

M A N U F A C T U R IN G

Current dollars.........................................
Constant (1977) dollars.............................
D u r a b le g o o d s

N o n d u r a b le g o o d s

Food and kindred products..........................
Tobacco manufactures ...............................
Textile mill products....................................
Apparel and other textile products.................
Paper and allied products.............................
Printing and publishing...............................
Chemicals and allied products ......................
Petroleum and coat products........................
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products....................................
Leather and leather products........................

1Not available.
p = preliminary.

17.

NOTE: See “ Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.

In dexes o f diffusion: industries in w hich em ploym ent increased, seasonally adjusted

[In percent]
T im e

Year

Jan.

Feb.

M a r.

A p r.

M ay

June

J u ly

A ug.

S e p t.

O c t.

Nov.

D ec.

Over
1-month
span

1982 . . . .
1983 .
1984 . . . .

27.6
54.3
71.1

47.6
46.5
73.2

35.7
60.8
67.0

31.1
68 9
63 8

41.1
69.5
64.1

33.5
64.6
63.0

34.6
74.3
62.4

32.4
68.6
P57.3

37.3
69.5
P38.9

28 9
75.4
-

32.4
69.7
-

45.7
73.8
-

Over
3-month
span

1982 . . . .
1983 . . . .
1984 . . . .

25.1
46.8
82.2

27.8
57.3
80.5

27.8
64.1
76.5

27.3
75.1
71.1

27.6
75.7
68 4

28.6
77 8
68.9

23.5
74.1
P64.9

24.1
81.6
P54.1

26.5
80.8
-

25.9
78.9
-

27.8
79.5
-

41.6
77.6
-

Over
6-month
span

1982 . . . .
1983 . . . .
1984 . . . .

19.2
50.8
81.9

22.2
63.0
82.7

21.9
69.2
79.7

24.6
75.1
75.4

20.3
80.0
P70.5

21.4
82 4
P62.2

21.4
84.1
—

18.6
82.4
-

23.2
84.6
-

27.3
85.9
-

29.5
86.8
-

35.4
83.8
-

Over
12-month
span

1982 . .
1983 . . . .
1984 . . . .

21.6
49.5
86.5

21.4
54.3
P82.4

17.6
61.9
P78.6

18.1
71.1
—

16.2
77.3
—

18.1
79.5
—

21.1
83.8
—

21.1
88.1
—

25.1
86.8
—

31.6
87.3
—

34.1
85.4
—

40.3
87.3
-

span

p = preliminary.
NOTE: Figures are the percent of industries with employment rising. (Half of the unchanged components

78

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

are counted as rising.) Data are centered within the spans. See the “ Definitions'' in this section.
See "Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DATA

N a t i o n a l u n e m p l o y m e n t i n s u r a n c e d a t a are compiled monthly
by the Employment and Training Administration of the U.S. De­
partment of Labor from monthly reports of unemployment insur­
ance activity prepared by State agencies. Railroad unemployment
insurance data are prepared by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board.

persons in unemployment insurance programs to indicate they are out of
work and wish to begin receiving compensation. A claimant who continued
to be unemployed a full week is then counted in the insured unemployment
figure. The rate of insured unemployment expresses the number of in­
sured unemployed as a percent of the average insured employment in a
12-month period.

Definitions

Average weekly seasonally adjusted insured unemployment data are
computed by BLS’ Weekly Seasonal Adjustment program. This procedure
incorporated the X -l 1 Variant of the Census Method II Seasonal Adjust­
ment program.

Data for all programs represent an unduplicated count of insured un­
employment under State programs, Unemployment Compensation for ExServicemen, and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees,
and the Railroad Insurance Act.
Under both State and Federal unemployment insurance programs for
civilian employees, insured workers must report the completion of at least
1 week of unemployment before they are defined as unemployed. Persons
not covered by unemployment insurance (about 10 percent of the labor
force) and those who have exhausted or not yet earned benefit rights are
excluded from the scope of the survey. Initial claims are notices filed by

18.

An application for benefits is filed by a railroad worker at the beginning
of his first period of unemployment in a benefit year; no application is
required for subsequent periods in the same year. Number of payments
are payments made in 14-day registration periods. The average amount
of benefit payment is an average for all compensable periods, not adjusted
for recovery of overpayments or settlement of underpayments. However,
total benefits paid have been adjusted.

U nem p loym ent insurance and em ploym ent service operations

[All items except average benefits amounts are in thousands]
1984

1983
It e m
Aug.

All programs:
Insured unemployment.....................
State unemployment insurance program:1
Initial claims2 ..................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume).............................
Rate of insured unemployment............
Weeks of unemployment compensated . .
Average weekly benefit amount
for total unemployment .................
Total benefits paid ..........................

Nov.

O c t.

S e p t.

Jan.

D ec.

M a r.

Feb.

A p r.

M ay

June

J u ly

A u g .F

2,290

2,166

2,327

2,184

1,429

r1,368

r1,387

1,727

1,467

2,515
2.9
9,695

2,215
2.6
9,304

2,111
2.5
r8,053

2,270
2.6
8,367

2,183
2.5
8,792

$124.30
$124.67
$125.26
$123.69
$123.60
$123.00
$122.19
$122.61
r$121.17
$121.32
$1,367,186 $1,104,404 $1,002,141 $1,099,862 $1,203,605 $1,457,983 $1,400,458 $1,369,536 $1,173,601 $1,109,268

r$121.96
r$948,381

2,917

2,580

2,478

2,620

2,915

3,374

3,174

2,958

r1,667

r1,380

1,522

1,757

r2,104

r2,355

r1,528

r1,424

2,766
3.2
r11,578

2,449
2.8
9,383

2,358
2.7
8,417

2,508
2.9
9,301

2,805
3.3
10,168

3,249
3.8
12,232

3,056
3.6
11,622

2,843
3.3
11,339

2,613

$120.84
$119.85
$972,687 $1,031,949

State unemployment insurance program:1
(Seasonally adjusted data)3
Initial claims2 ..................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume).............................
Rate of insured unemployment............

1,803

1,729

1,667

1,677

1,604

1,617

1,572

1,570

1,569

1,614

1,559

1,623

1,626

3,036
3.5

3,102
3.6

2,801
3.3

2,711
3.2

2,687
3.1

2,510
2.9

2,428
2.8

2,470
2.9

2,507
2.9

2,300
2.7

2,356
2.7

2,457
2.8

2,415
2.8

Unemployment compensation for exservicemen:4
Initial claims1 ..................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume).............................
Weeks of unemployment compensated . .
Total benefits paid ..........................

19

17

16

15

14

15

13

13

12

12

12

13

14

26
110
$14,082

27
106
$13,531

28
107
$14,074

28
116
$15,121

27
113
$14,815

27
112
$14,532

24
96
$12,540

22
89
$11,813

20
78
$10,349

18
79
$10,577

18
r71
'$9,467

18
71
$9,578

19
80
$10,839

11

11

15

13

13

16

10

9

13

9

11

12

10

22
96
$10,982

22
83
$9,535

25
88
$10,144

27
110
$12,415

29
119
$13,888

32
133
$15,588

31
129
$15,003

28
122
$14,778

23
98
$11,844

20
88
$10,529

19
76
'$8,994

20
80
$9,490

19
83
$9,826

14

9

7

8

8

10

4

3

2

2

11

25

7

46
107
$214.21
$21,789

41
103
$214.77
$20,239

48
92
$211.41
$19,531

40
92
$212.36
$19,536

43
95
$213.71
$19,870

51
121
$210.73
$23,866

49
104
$209.56
$23,228

41
99
$208.96
$20,112

27
70
$196.32
$13,356

19
54
$188.45
$10,233

16
38
$187.37
$7,039

16
35
$189.06
$6,691

17
37
$197.85
$6,695

Unemployment compensation for
Federal civilian employees:5
Initial claims....................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume).............................
Weeks of unemployment compensated . .
Total benefits paid ..........................
Railroad unemployment insurance:
Applications....................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume).............................
Number of payments........................
Average amount of benefit payment . . .
Total benefits paid ..........................
Employment service:6
New applications and renewals............
Nonfarm placements ........................

15,595
3,012

11nitial claims and State insured unemployment include data under the program for Puerto Rican
sugarcane workers.
2Excludes transition claims under State programs.
3Insured unemployment data were revised for the development and application of updated seasonal
factors. The factors were developed from data through June 1984.
4Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with other programs.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

8,231
1,469

4,297
782

9,517
1,810

Excludes data or claims and payments made jointly with State programs.
Cumulative total for fiscal year (October 1-September 30). Data computed quarterly.
NOTE: Data for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands included. Dashes indicate data not available,
p = preliminary.
r= revised.

79

PRICE DATA

P rice d a t a are gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from
retail and primary markets in the United States. Price indexes are
given in relation to a base period (1967 = 100, unless otherwise
noted).

Definitions
The Consumer Price Index is a monthly statistical measure of the average
change in prices in a fixed market basket of goods and services. Effective
with the January 1978 index, the Bureau of Labor Statistics began pub­
lishing CPI’s for two groups of the population. It introduced a CPI for All
Urban Consumers, covering 80 percent of the total noninstitutional pop­
ulation, and revised the CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers,
covering about half the new index population. The All Urban Consumers
index covers in addition to wage earners and clerical workers, professional,
managerial, and technical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers,
the unemployed, retirees, and others not in the labor force.
The CPI is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, fuel, drugs,
transportation fares, doctors’ and dentists’ fees, and other goods and serv­
ices that people buy for day-to-day living. The quantity and quality of
these items is kept essentially unchanged between major revisions so that
only price changes will be measured. Data are collected from more than
24,000 retail establishments and 24,000 tenants in 85 urban areas across
the country. All taxes directly associated with the purchase and use of
items are included in the index. Because the CPI’s are based on the ex­
penditures o f two population groups in 1972- 73, they may not accurately
reflect the experience of individual families and single persons with dif­
ferent buying habits.
Though the CPI is often called the “ Cost-of-Living Index,” it measures
only price change, which is just one of several important factors affecting
living costs. Area indexes do not measure differences in the level of prices
among cities. They only measure the average change in prices for each
area since the base period.

Producer Price Indexes measure average changes in prices received in
primary markets o f the United States by producers of commodities in all
stages o f processing. The sample used for calculating these indexes contains
about 2,800 commodities and about 10,000 quotations per month selected
to represent the movement of prices of all commodities produced in the
manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, gas and electricity,
and public utilities sectors. The universe includes all commodities produced
or imported for sale in commercial transactions in primary markets in the
United States.
Producer Price Indexes can be organized by stage of processing or by
commodity. The stage o f processing structure organizes products by degree
o f fabrication (that is, finished goods, intermediate or semifinished goods,
and crude materials). The commodity structure organizes products by sim­
ilarity o f end-use or material composition.

80

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

To the extent possible, prices used in calculating Producer Price Indexes
apply to the first significant commercial transaction in the United States,
from the production or central marketing point. Price data are generally
collected monthly, primarily by mail questionnaire. Most prices are ob­
tained directly from producing companies on a voluntary and confidential
basis. Prices generally are reported for the Tuesday of the week containing
the 13th day of the month.
In calculating Producer Price Indexes, price changes for the various
commodities are averaged together with implicit quantity weights repre­
senting their importance in the total net selling value of all commodities
as of 1972. 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 groupings.

Price indexes for the output of selected SIC industries measure av­
erage price changes in commodities produced by particular industries, as
defined in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual 1972 (Washing­
ton, U .S. Office of Management and Budget, 1972). These indexes are
derived from several price series, combined to match the economic activity
of the specified industry and weighted by the value of shipments in the
industry. They use data from comprehensive industrial censuses conducted
by the U .S. Bureau of the Census and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Notes on the data
Regional CPI’s cross classified by population size were introduced in
the May 1978 Review. These indexes enable users in local areas for which
an index is not published to get a better approximation of the CPI for their
area by using the appropriate population size class measure for their region.
The cross-classified indexes are published bimonthly. (See table 20.)
For details concerning the 1978 revision of the CPI, see The Consumer
Price Index: Concepts and Content Over the Years. Report 517, revised
edition (Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 1978).
As of January 1976, the Producer Price Index incorporated a revised
weighting structure reflecting 1972 values of shipments.
Additional data and analyses of price changes are provided in the CP!
Detailed Report and Producer Prices and Price Indexes, both monthly
publications o f the Bureau.
For a discussion of the general method of computing producer, and
industry price indexes, see BLS Handbook of Methods. Bulletin 2134-1
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 7. For consumer prices, see
BLS Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies (1976), chapter 13.
See also John F. Early, “ Improving the measurement of producer price
change,” Monthly Labor Review, April 1978. For industry prices, see also
Bennett R. Moss, “ Industry and Sector Price Indexes,” Monthly Labor
Review, August 1965.

19.

C onsum er Price Index fo r U rban W age Earners and C lerical W orkers, annual averages and changes, 1 9 6 7 -8 3

[1967 = 100]
Food and

A ll it e m s

A p p arel and

H o u s in g

Year
In d e i

P e rc e n t

In d e x

change

P e rc e n t

In d e x

change

T r a n s p o r ta t io n

M e d ic a l c a r e

O th e r g o o d s

E n t e r t a in m e n t

a n d s e r v ic e s

upkeep

b ev e ra g e s
P e rc e n t

In d e x

change

P e rc e n t

In d e x

change

P e rc e n t
change

In d e x

P e rc e n t
change

P e rc e n t
In d e x

change

In d e x

P e rc e n t
change

1967 ..............
1968 ..............
1969
1970 ..............

100 0
104 2
109 8
116.3

42
5.4
5.9

100 0
103.6
108.8
114,7

3.6
5.0
5.4

100 0
104 0
110.4
118.2

40
6.2
7.1

100 0
105.4
111.5
116.1

5.4
5.8
4.1

100 0
103 2
107.2
112.7

3.2
3.9
5.1

100 0
106.1
113.4
120 6

6.1
6.9
6.3

100 0
105 7
111.0
116.7

5.7
5.0
5.1

100.0
105.2
110.4
115.8

5.2
4.9
5.8

1971
1972
1973
1974
1975

..............
..............
..............
..............
..............

121.3
125.3
133.1
147.7
161.2

43
3.3
6.2
11.0
9.1

118.3
123.2
139.5
158.7
172.1

3.1
4.1
13.2
13.8
8.4

123 4
128.1
133.7
148.8
164 5

4.4
3.8
4.4
11.3
10.6

119.8
122.3
126 8
136 2
142.3

3.3
2.1
3.7
7.4
4.5

118.6
119.9
123 8
137.7
150.6

52
1.1
3.3
11.2
9.4

128.4
132.5
137.7
150 5
168.6

65
3.2
3.9
9.3
12.0

122.9
126.5
130.0
139.8
152.2

5.3
2.9
2.8
7.5
8.9

122.4
127.5
132.5
142.0
153.9

4.8
4.2
3.9
7.2
8.4

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

..............
..............
..............
..............
..............

170.5
181.5
195.3
217.7
247.0

5.8
6.5
7.6
11.5
13.5

177.4
188 0
206.2
228 7
248 7

3.1
8.0
9.7
10.9
8.7

174.6
186.5
202 6
227.5
263 2

6.1
6.8
8.6
12.3
15.7

147.6
154 2
159 5
166.4
177.4

3.7
4.5
3.4
4.3
6.6

165 5
177.2
185.8
212 8
250.5

9.9
7.1
4.9
14.5
17.7

184.7
202.4
219 4
240.1
287.2

9.5
9.6
8.4
9.4
11.3

159.8
167.7
176.2
187.6
203.7

5.0
4.9
5.1
6.5
8.5

162.7
172.2
183.2
196.3
213.6

5.7
5.8
6.4
7.2
88

1981 ..............
1982 ..............
1983

272.3
288.6
297.4

10.2
6.0
3.0

267 8
278.5
284.7

7.7
40
2.2

293 2
314.7
322.0

11.4
7.3
2.3

186 6
190 9
195.6

5.2
2.3
2.5

281 3
293 1
300.0

12.3
4.2
2.4

295 1
326.9
355.1

10.4
10.8
8.6

219.0
232.4
242.4

7.5
6.1
4.3

233.3
257.0
286.3

9.2
10.2
11.4

20. C o nsum er P rice Index fo r All U rban C onsum ers and revised CPI for Urban W age E arners and C lerical W orkers,
U.S. city averag e — general sum m ary and groups, subgroups, and selected item s
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
U r b a n W a g e E a r n e r s a n d C l e r ic a l W o r k e r s

A ll U r b a n C o n s u m e r s
G e n e ra l s u m m a ry

1984

1983

1984

1983

A ug.

M a r.

A p r.

M ay

June

J u ly

A ug.

A ug.

M a r.

A p r.

M ay

June

J u ly

Aug.

A ll i t e m s

300 3

307.3

308.8

309 7

310.7

311.7

313.0

299.5

303.3

304 1

305.4

306.2

307.5

310.3

Food and beverages ........................................................................
Housing .......................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep........................................................................
Transportaton...............................................................................
Medical care
Entertainment ...............................................................................
Otner goods and services.................................................................

284 9
324.8
197.3
302.4
360.0
246 6
289.0

294.3
331.5
198 8
306 9
374.5
251.7
302.1

294.5
333.2
199 2
309.6
375.7
253.8
302.8

293.6
334.6
198.9
312 2
376.8
253.5
303.2

294.3
336.2
197.4
313.1
378.0
254.5
304.4

295 3
338.1
196.6
312.9
380.3
255.3
306 5

296.9
339.5
200.1
312.9
381 9
256.4
307.2

285.1
324.3
196 3
304.1
357 9
243 1
288.0

294.5
322.9
198 0
308.9
372.6
248.0
299 7

294.7
322.7
198.2
311.9
373 9
249 8
300.4

293.7
325.2
197.7
314.6
375 0
249 6
300.8

294.3
326.2
196.1
315.5
376.3
250.7
302.1

295.3
328 7
195.3
315.2
378 5
251.4
304.5

296.9
334.2
199.0
315.2
380.1
252.5
305.3

Commodities..................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages.........................................
Nondurables less food and beverages......................................
Durables.............................................................................

273.4
263 6
274.7
254.3

278 7
266.6
274.2
262.2

280.1
268.7
275.7
265 2

280.4
269.7
276.1
267.0

280.6
269 6
275 4
267.8

280.6
269.0
274.3
267 8

281 4
269.3
274 8
267.8

275.1
266.1
276 9
256.0

278.1
266.4
276.1
257.1

279.2
267.8
277.5
258.5

279.5
268.7
277.9
259.8

279.7
268.7
277.2
260.3

280.1
268 8
276.2
261.3

281.4
270.0
276.6
263.0

Services .......................................................................................
Rent, residential......................................................................
Household services less rent of shelter (12/82 = 100)...................
Transportation services ............................................................
Medical care services ..............................................................
Other services ........................................................................

346.8
238.2
104.8
304 0
389.8
276.9

356.5
244.8
105.8
315.4
405.3
290.4

358.1
246 4
106.2
315.8
406.3
291.3

359 9
247.2
107.4
317.7
407.1
292.3

361.9
248.4
108.5
319 6
408.4
293.6

364.5
249.7
109.7
321.4
410.9
294.2

366.5
251.1
110.5
323 8
412,7
295.5

344.8
237.6

349.9
244.1

350.1
245.7

353.4
246.5

355.2
247.7

358.2
249.0

363.9
250.3

300 2
387.0
274.8

311.6
402.7
287.6

312.1
403.9
288 3

313 9
404.7
289 4

315.7
406.1
290 9

317.4
408.6
291 5

319.6
410.4
292.8

All items less food..........................................................................
All items less homeowners' costs .....................................................
All items less mortgage interest costs................................................
Commodities less food ...................................................................
Nondurables less food ...................................................................
Nondurables less food and apparel.....................................................
Nondurables..................................................................................
Services less rent of shelter (12/82 = 100).........................................
Services less medical care ..............................................................
Domestically produced farm foods.....................................................
Selected beef cuts..........................................................................
Energy .........................................................................................
Energy commodities ...................................................................
All items less energy ......................................................................
All items less food and energy.......................................................
Commodities less food and energy.............................................
Services less energy........................................................................

300.5
102.7

306.8
105.1

308.6
105.5

310.0
105.9

311.0
106.2

312.0
106.5

313.2
106.9

300.0

302.4

303.3

305 2

306 0

307.3

310.4

261.4
269.6
310.9
281.0
103.5
339.9
269.2
270.5
429.8
423.7
290.3
288.2
244 2
339.3

264.4
269.3
310.3
285.5
106.5
349 0
279.9
279.7
418.1
410.7
299 2
296.7
249.9
350.7

266 5
270.7
312.1
286.3
106.8
350 6
279.4
280.6
421.3
414.2
300.5
298.3
251.8
352.2

267.4
271.1
313.0
286.1
107.5
352.5
277.4
278.1
426.1
416 3
301.1
299.3
252.5
353.3

267.4
270.5
312.9
286.0
108.3
354.5
278.0
273.7
428 5
414.4
301.9
300.2
252.8
354.7

266.8
269.5
311.9
286.0
109.0
357.1
279.0
271.9
428.3
408.9
303.1
301.3
253 0
356 8

267.1
270.0
311.0
287.1
109.7
359 2
281.4
274.2
427.3
404.2
304 6
302.8
254.2
358 6

286.3
263.9
271.7
312.7
282.1

291.3
264.3
271 3
311.6
286 4

292.4
265.7
272 6
313.5
287.2

293.2
266.6
273.0
314.3
286.9

294.0
266.6
272.4
314.3
286.9

294 9
266.7
271.4
313.3
286 8

296.4
267.8
271.8
312.2
287.8

338 1
268.0
271.6
430.7
424.9
288 8
286.6
245.1
336.8

342 1
278.6
281.3
418.2
411.3
294.0
290.7
247.2
343.3

342.2
278.1
282.3
421.5
414.8
294.6
291.3
248.4
343.3

345.8
276.0
279.3
426.0
416 9
295.7
293.0
249.1
346.1

347.6
276 4
274.9
428.2
415.0
296.3
293 6
249.3
347.2

350.5
277.4
272.8
427 8
409.5
297.8
295.1
250.1
349.7

356.6
279.8
275.5
426.5
404.9
301.0
298.7
252.0
355.5

Purchasing power of the consumer dollar, 1967 = $1 ..........................

$0.333

SO325

$0.324

$0.323

$0.322

$0.321

$0.319

$0.334

$0.330

$0.329

$0.327

$0.327

S p e c i a l in d e x e s :


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

$0 325 $0.322

81

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • C u r r e n t L a b o r S t a t i s t i c s : C o n s u m e r P r i c e s

20.

C o n tin u ed — C onsum er Price In dex— U.S. city average

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
A ll U r b a n C o n s u m e r s
G e n e ra l s u m m a ry

1983

U r b a n W a g e E a r n e r s a n d C le r ic a l W o r k e r s

1984

1983

Aug.

M a r.

A p r.

M ay

FO O D A N D BEVERAG ES

284.9

294.3

294.5

293.6

294.3

Food

292.2

302.2

302.3

301.4

302 0

Food at home ...............................................................................
Cereals and bakery products .....................................................
Cereals and cereal products (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Flour and prepared flour mixes (12/77 = 100).................
Cereal (12/77 = 100) ................................................
Rice, pasta, and cornmeal (12/77 = 100) .....................
Bakery products (12/77 = 100)...........................................
White oread..............................................................
Other breads (12/77 = 100)....................................
Fresh biscuits, rolls, and muffins (12/77 = 100) ............
Fresh cakes and cupcakes (12/77 = 100) .....................
Cookies (12/77 = 100) .............................................
Crackers, bread, and cracker products (12/77 = 100) . . .
Fresh sweetrolls, coffeecake, and donuts 912/77 = 100)
Frozen and refrigerated bakery products and
fresh pies, tarts, and turnovers (12/77 = 1 00 )............

282.5
294.0
158.6
143.9
177.2
145.6
154.5
253.1
150.1
153.4
154.9
157.6
151.4
155 3

293.1
301.5
161.9
144.6
182.3
148.8
158.8
258.9
153.0
158.8
160.0
162.9
153.9
160.5

292.8
302.8
162.5
143.8
183 9
149.2
159.4
258.2
154.7
159.2
161.2
163.8
156.6
160.1

290.7
303.5
163.4
144.6
185.1
150.0
159.6
260.4
154.3
158.5
160.6
163.9
155.4
161.5

291.4
304.9
164.2
146.2
185.7
150.1
160.4
260.2
154.8
158.7
161.3
165.8
157.9
162.1

292 5
306.6
164.5
147.2
185.7
150.3
161.5
260.9
155.7
158.7
163.9
166.1
160.7
163.0

159.4

163.8

166.0

164.9

166.6

169.0

168.9

Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs ..................................................
Meats, poultry, and fis h .....................................................
Meats .....................................................................
Beef and veal 1
Ground beef other than canned...............................
ChucK roast .......................................................
Round roast.......................................................
Round steak.......................................................
Sirloin steak.......................................................
Other beef and veal (12/77 = 100) ........................
Pork.....................................................................
Bacon ..............................................................
Chops ..............................................................
Ham other than canned (12/77 = 100)...................
Sausage ............................................................
Canned ham .......................................................
Other pork (12/77 = 100) ....................................
Other meats .........................................................
Frankfurters .......................................................
Bologna, liverwurst, and salami (12/77 = 100) . . . .
Other lunchmeats (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Lamb and organ meats (12/77 = 100) ...................
Poultry......................................................................
Fresh whole chicken.............................................
Fresh and frozen chicken parts (12/77 = 100)..........
Other poultry (12/77 = 100).................................
Fish and seafood .......................................................
Canned fish and seafood ......................................
Fresh and frozen fish and seafood (12/77 = 100) . . .
Eggs...............................................................................

258 8
265.0
264.2
270.7
256.5
272.4
232.4
250.3
280.9
166.6
249.6
264.7
232 4
109 6
313.9
254.0
138.4
264.6
266.7
153.2
136.4
133.8
200.5
202.1
131.7
125.7
372.7
135.9
145.5
183.7

269.6
272.6
268.8
279.9
260.9
286.6
251.2
261.6
278.7
172.2
248.6
258.9
229.6
112.2
315.2
251.5
137.8
265.1
264.2
153.1
136.3
137.2
223 2
232.6
150.7
127.9
385.3
132.1
155.4
237.2

270.5
272.7
268.9
280.8
262.7
286 8
250 9
262.4
284.3
172,1
247.7
258.8
232.9
109.2
314.8
246 9
137.3
264.6
262.5
152.9
135.3
138.9
222.3
231.2
150.1
128.0
387.3
132.7
156.3
249.6

266.7
270.9
267 9
278.3
259.7
281.0
246 5
261.3
280.0
172.0
248.0
262.5
227.3
110.2
318.7
249.7
137.1
265.7
264.8
153.6
135.9
138.5
218.0
223.2
145 9
130.3
380.8
132.3
152.6
218.9

263.9
270.3
266.8
274.2
255.1
272.1
238.3
254.2
284.6
170.9
250.5
262.8
234 4
110.7
319.3
248 3
139.1
267.5
265.8
155.0
138.2
137.1
219.6
223.7
147.6
131.6
382.3
133.0
153.1
185.8

264.6
271.4
267.3
272.1
253 0
269.1
231.4
250.6
286.5
170.5
255.5
272.4
242.4
111.4
322.0
246.5
142.0
268.0
265.3
154.8
138.2
139.0
221.3
228.1
146 6
132.7
387.0
134.4
155.1
182.7

265.7
272.7
269.9
274.3
254.8
272.7
235.7
254.7
287.7
171.2
259.9
272 3
250.7
113.5
322 9
248.1
146.1
268.4
267.8
154.8
138.2
138.6
216.5
218.6
144.1
133.3
387.0
134.4
155.1
179.3

Dairy products.................................................................
Fresh milk and cream (12/77 = 100)..................................
Fresh whole milk ..................................................
Other fresh milk and cream (12/77 = 100).....................
Processed dairy products ..................................................
Butter .........................................................
Cheese (12/77 = 100)...........................................
Ice cream and related products (12/77 = 100).................
Other dairy products (12/77 = 100) .............................

250 2
136.5
223 2
136.8
148.4
254.2
146.4
152.5
145.9

250.8
136.5
222.9
137.3
149.2
254.4
146.3
155 3
146.9

251.5
136 8
223.7
137.3
149.6
252.4
146.6
156.4
148.2

251.0
136.5
223.0
137.3
149.4
254.2
146.2
156.6
146.8

251.7
136 6
223.2
137.3
150.2
254.1
147.4
156.6
148.5

252.2
136.7
223.3
137.5
150.8
261.2
147.9
155.8
148.3

Fruits and vegetables .............................................
Fresh fruits and vegetables ................................................
Fresh fruits .....................................................
Apples ..............................................................
Bananas ............................................................
Oranges .....................................................
Other fresh fruits (12/77 = 100).............................
Fresh vegetables .......................................................
Potatoes............................................................
Lettuce..............................................................
Tomatoes .............................................
Other fresh vegetables (12/77 = 100).....................

299.4
310.7
328.9
310.0
291.0
359.8
173.2
293.8
342.2
293.9
200.5
163.6

323.2
344.3
300.5
298.6
264.1
309.6
159.1
385.4
363.5
290.5
318.5
249 4

315.3
326.5
304.2
299.3
275.2
309.5
161.5
347.4
367.3
244.4
280 4
218.9

310.2
316.0
315.2
298.8
251.1
344.8
169.9
316.8
372.1
234.1
252.8
187.4

318.1
329.7
343 3
315.5
277.9
452.5
169.6
317.1
391.4
262.6
262.3
174.6

Processed fruits and vegetables......................................
Processed fruits (12/77 = 100)...............................
Frozen fruit and fruit juices (12/77 = 1 00 )..............
Fruit juices other than frozen (12/77 = 100) ............
Canned and dried fruits (12/77 = 100)...................

289.5
150.7
141.1
155.6
153.5

302.8
159.5
159.4
160.8
158.3

305.7
161.7
163.2
163.2
158.8

306.5
162.1
163.8
164.1
158.6

308.0
163.2
164.8
165.2
159 6

82

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

June

J u ly

1984

A ug.

Aug.

295.3

296.9

285.1

303.2

304.8

292 2

302.1

302.3

301.2

294.4
307.8
165.0
148.3
185.9
150.5
162.2
262.6
154.9
159.3
164.9
167.9
162.0
163.4

281.5
292.5
159.5
144 6
179.5
146.8
153.3
248.7
152.2
149.6
153.3
158.5
152.8
158.0

291.9
300.0
162.6
145.1
184.4
150 0
157.5
254.6
155 2
154.9
158.1
163.7
155.2
163.3

291.6
301.3
163.1
144.1
186.1
150.4
158.2
254.0
156.8
155.1
159.2
164.8
158.1
163.1

152.5

157.0

258.4
264.4
263.7
271.1
258.0
280 6
235.0
248.5
281.8
165.1
249.3
268.8
230.5
106.8
315.3
259.8
137.8
264.4
265.9
153.3
134.5
136.6
198.5
129 9
125.1
370.8
135.4
144.8
184.6

269 0
272.0
268.3
280.8
262.1
295.8
254.5
261.3
280.9
171.0
248.0
262.7
227.8
109.1
315.6
256.3
137.1
264.6
263.0
152.9
134.3
140.5
221.2
229.8
148.7
127.6
383.9
131.7
155.2
238.7

252.7
136.7
223.2
137.7
151.5
264.4
148.2
157.4
148.1

249.4
135.9
222.3
136.2
148.6
256.8
146.7
151.5
146.5

249.8
135.8
221.9
136.7
149.4
256 9
146.6
154.3
147.4

250.5
136 2

320.0
332.4
346.9
329.9
271.8
486.5
163.6
318.8
455.6
246.0
237.3
167.1

327.7
345.7
353 3
341.8
257 0
530.8
160.4
338.7
478.1
316.6
310.4
157.1

295.1
304 3
317.5
311.9
290.7
329.9
166.3
292.5
338.2
294.2
204.0
162.5

309.2
163.6
163.9
165.7
161.2

310.7
164.3
166.2
165.3
161.5

287.4
150.4
140.3
154.7
153.8

200.0

A p r.

M ay

June

J u ly

294.3

295.3

301.8

302 8

304.5

289.4
301.9
164.1
144.8
187.3
151.1
158.4
256.1
156.6
154.3
158.7
164.7
156.6
164.2

290.0
303.4
164.8
146.5
188.0
151.2
159.1
256.0
157.0
154.5
159.3
166.7
159.2
164.9

291.0
304.9
165.2
147.5
188.0
151.4
160.1
256.6
157.8
154.6
161.8
167.1
162.0
165.6

292 9
306.3
165.7
148.6
188.2
151.7
160.9
258.5
157.3
155.1
162.7
168 9
163 4
166.3

159.1

158.1

159.8

162.1

161.8

270.0
272.1
268.4
281.7
264.0
295.8
254.7
261.4
286.4
171.0
247.2
262.6
231.1
106 3
315.3
252.1
136.8
263.9
261.1
152.6
133.4
142.1
220.4
228.7
148.3
127.3
385.9
132.2
156.1
251.0

266.1
270.1
267.2
278.8
260.6
289.5
250.2
258.7
281.7
170.7
247.4
266.3
225.2
107.4
319.2
254.8
136.4
265.1
263.4
153.4
134.0
141.7
216.0

220.0

263.3
269.6
266.1
274.6
256 3
280 9
242.6
251.3
285.9
169.3
249.9
266.7
232.4
107.6
319.8
253.3
138 3
267.1
264.4
154.7
136.4
140.3
217.7
221.5
145.7
131.0
380.9
132.5
152.9
186.7

263.9
270.4
266 6
272.4
253.7
277 3
235.1
247 7
288.4
169.1
254.8
276.3
240.1
108.3
322.9
252.0
141.1
267.5
263.8
154.8
136.4
142.0
218.8
225.4
144.4
131.5
385.5
133.9
154.8
183.7

265.2
272.1
269.4
274.9
256 0
280.4
239.9
254.4
288.9
169.8
259.2
276 3
248.3
110.4
323.6
253.4
145.3
268.0
266.3
154.7
136.4
141.7
214.0
216.1
141.8
132.3
385.7
133 9
155.0
180.4

250.1
135.9

250.6
135.9

251.7
136.0

222 6

222.0

222.1

136 6
149.8
254.9
146 9
155.3
148.7

136 6
149.7
256.8
146.5
155.5
147.3

136.6
150.5
256.7
147.8
155.5
148.8

251.1
136 0
222.2
136.8
151.0
263.8
148.2
154.8
148.6

137.0
151.8
266.7
148.6
156.5
148.6

319.4
339.0
290.8
298.7
262.2
284.2
153.4
382.7
357.7
292.6
322.7
247.0

311.2
321.0
294.0
300.4
273.1
283.4
155.1
345.4
360.1
247.1
286.6
217.2

305.6
309.5
303.2
299.5
248.8
313.9
163.2
315.4
366.0
236.4
257 6
186.3

313.1
322.5
328.8
315.2
275.5
413.0
162 6
316.8
387.6
264.6
267.4
174.1

315.1
325.2
333.5
330.6
269.5
448.5
157.0
317.8
451.1
246.2
242.1
166.1

322.4
337.6
338.8
342.8
254.7
487.7
153.6
336.7
470.0
319.1
314.3
155.3

300.2
159.0
158.6
159.7
158.5

302.9
161.2
162.4
162.2
159.0

303.8
161.6
163.1
163.1
158.7

305.3
162.7
164.1
164.3
159.9

306.5
163.1
163.1
164.8
161.4

308.0
163.7
165.5
164.1
161.8

294.7

221.0

143.9
129.6
380.0
131.9
152.7

Aug.

222.0

20.

C o n tin u ed — C onsum er Price In dex— U.S. city average

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
U r b a n W a g e E a r n e r s a n d C l e r ic a l W o r k e r s

A ll U r b a n C o n s u m e r s
G e n e ra l s u m m a ry

1984

1983

1984

1983
Aug.

M a r.

A p r.

M ay

June

J u ly

Aug.

A ug.

M a r.

A p r.

M ay

June

J u ly

Aug.

140.2
152.8
142.0
132 9
339.1
375.8
151.6
169.7
152.8
258.1
257.2
149.8
130.3
430.7
312.4
146.3
356.0
352 3
140.5
276 9
141.8
155.1
159.3
158.3
156 0
151.5
146.5

144.9
153.5
148.2
138.8
349.7
384.8
156.0
172.5
156.5
280.7
280.1
153.7
145.2
443.5
319.1
153.2
367.6
359.8
144.9
282.1
143 6
156.0
163 3
162.9
156.6
155.0
151.6

145.6
156.0
148.5
138 9
351.0
387.7
158 6
171.8
156.9
282.4
280.5
154.3
146.7
443.6
320.8
151.3
368.6
362.2
144.7
283.8
144.6
159.3
163.0
163.5
157.5
155.8
151.7

146.0
155.4
149.3
139 6
350.8
390.0
159 4
172.4
158.5
282.9
282.7
153.3
146.9
441.7
316 2
150 9
368 9
362.8
146.0
283.9
144.6
158.3
164.7
162.7
157.8
156.0
151.3

146.5
155.6
150.7
139.8
352 1
391 2
160.5
172.4
158.3
285.4
285 6
152.3
149.1
442.3
317.1
150.1
372.8
363 5
146 2
285 3
144.6
160.4
165.1
163 8
158.4
156.0
152.1

147.2
155.1
152.3
140.6
353.1
391.8
161.3
171.0
159.4
291.4
293.2
153.2
152.7
442.7
315.1
150.5
374.8
366.9
147.4
285.4
145.6
159.1
166.0
163 8
160.0
154.9
151.6

148.1
157.0
153.1
147.2
354 0
392.6
161.6
171.0
160.1
295.4
296 0
154.9
155.2
441.5
313.3
149.2
375.9
369.6
147.6
286 9
146.4
162.0
166 5
164.4
159.9
155.5
152.1

139.1
154.5
139 5
131.5
339.9
375.7
151.6
171.0
150.6
257.8
255.1
148.1
130.9
432 5
309.9
144.1
350 8
351.5
140.8
278.5
143.7
154.2
161.4
157 4
157 9
151.8
147.7

143.6
155.2
145.5
137.1
350.2
384 5
155.9
173.7
154.2
280 2
278.1
151.8
145.6
444.9
316.1
150.7
362.0
359.1
145 2
283 7
145.5
155.1
165.4
161.9
158.4
155.1
152.8

144.3
157.7
145 8
137.2
351.6
387.3
158.4
173.0
154.7
281.9
278.5
152 2
147.1
445.2
318 0
149.0
363.0
361.6
144.9
285 4
246.5
258.4
165.2
162.4
159.4
156 0
153.0

144.8
157.1
146.6
138.0
351.3
389 4
159.2
173 6
156.2
282.4
280.3
151.5
147.3
443.1
313.5
148.5
363.4
362.1
146.4
285.4
146.5
157.3
166.9
161.7
159.6
156.0
152.4

145 3
157.2
148.0
138.1
352.5
390.5
160.3
173.6
155.8
284 9
283.2
150.5
149.4
443.7
314.5
147.6
367.1
362.9
146 4
286.9
146.4
159.6
167.4
163.0
160.2
156.2
153.2

146.0
156.7
149.7
138.9
353.5
391.1
161.0
172,2
157.0
291 0
291.1
151.3
153.2
444.0
312.4
148.1
369.0
366.3
147.7
287.0
147.6
158.3
168.3
162.9
161.9
154 9
152.8

146.9
158.6
150.5
139.5
354.3
391.9
161.3
172.3
157 6
295.0
293.6
153.1
lbb./
442.8
310.7
147.0
369.9
368 9
147.9
288.5
148.4
161.2
168.8
163.5
161.7
155.6
153.2

321.0
155.4
153.9
159.5

329.8
159 0
158.9
163.4

330.9
159.6
159.6
163.7

332.6
160.5
160.2
164.8

333.1
160.7
160.3
165.3

334.4
161.5
161.0
165.5

335.5
161.9
161.7
166.0

324.3
157.1
155.6
160 0

333 0
160.6
160.8
163.9

334.1
161.2
161.3
164 2

335 9
162.0
162.0
165.3

336 3
162.3
162.0
165.8

337.7
163.0
162.8
166.0

338 8
163.5
163.5
166.5

217.1

220.7

221.3

221.5

222.4

222.5

222.9

219.7

223.8

224.6

224.8

225.6

225.8

226.2

Other alcoholic beverages (12/77 = 1 00)....................................
Alcoholic beverages away from home (12/77 = 100) ..........................

140.3
224.4
151.6
234.8
122.4
147.3

142.0
228.7
153.6
233.6
122.8
152.6

142.3
229.9
153.1
233.4
122.8
153.6

142.3
230.6
153.3
231 4
122.3
154.2

142.8
231.2
153.8
234.0
122 5
154.8

142.8
231.5
153.5
232.5
122.7
155.5

142.9
231.1
154.0
234.2
122.6
156.4

142.1
223.2
152.1
242 4
122 4
148.5

144.1
227.8
153.8
241.5
122.8
153.9

144.5
228.9
153.7
241.7
122.7
154.8

144.6
229.7
153.7
239.3
122.3
155.3

145.0
230.2
154.1
241 8
122.4
155.9

145.0
230.6
153.9
240 1
122 4
156.6

145.1
230.3
154.3
241.6
122.4
lb /.8

H O U S IN G

324.8

331.5

333 2

334 6

336.2

338.1

339.5

324 3

322.9

322.7

325.2

326 2

328.7

334.2

S h e lte r ( C P I - U )

346.6

355.5

357.8

358.9

360.2

362.7

364 6

Renters' costs...............................................................................
Rent, residential .....................................................................
Other renters' costs .................................................................
Homeowners' costs........................................................................
Owners' equivalent re n t............................................................
Household insurance.................................................................
Maintenance and repairs .................................................................
Maintenance and repair services ................................................
Maintenance and repair commodities...........................................

103.7
238.2
355 8
103.0
103.0
103.5
347.9
388 6
261.2

106.5
244.8
364.5
105.6
105.5
107.1
355.3
405.9
259.3

107 4
246 4
371.2
106.2
106.2
106.1
356.3
408.1
259 2

107 8
247.2
371.3
106.5
106.3
160.6
357.3
409.6
259.7

108.2
248 4
371.5
106.8
106.8
106.6
358.9
409.8
262.2

108.9
249.7
375.7
107.6
107.7
106.7
360.3
411.6
263.1

109.6
251.1
380.7
108.1
108.1
108.0
360.1
412.3
262 2
346.4

342.0

341.3

344.2

344.6

347 9

356.1

Rent, residential.............................................................................

237.6

244.1

245.7

246.5

247 7

249.0

250.3

Other renters’ costs........................................................................
Lodging while out of town.........................................................
Tenants' insurance (12/77 = 100).............................................
Homeownership.............................................................................

354.0
375.7
155.4
385.2
304.1
496.6
430.8
237.1
629.8
205.5
344 3
385.1
257.5

363.0
381.3
161.1
376.6
292.5
484.8
439.9
244.1
607.9
205.4
353.8
400.3
256.3

370.7
393 8
159.8
374.9
291.7
480 8
440.3
244.8
601.6
203.9
354.2
401.0
255.9

370.5
393.5
159.8
378.5
291 9
490.1
441.0
245.6
615.5
208.4
355.0
402 6
255.6

370.8
393.9
160.1
378.8
291.7
490.6
441.5
245.9
616.0
209.3
356.0
403.1
257.2

375.1
400.6
160.4
382.7
294.9
496.5
441.6
246.4
624.9
210.1
357.3
405.2
257.1

380.2
407.6
162.6
393.4
299.8
519.0
441.8
248.9
658.4
217.4
357.4
405.4
256 9

147.6
126.8

147.3
124 3

147.3
124.5

146.2
124.2

148 0
124.1

147.2
123.1

147.4
123.3

139.5
143.3

138.6
144.0

140 2
141.7

141.9
142.4

142.5
143.0

142.1
146.3

142.8
144.2

Fruits and vegetables— Continued
Processed vegetables (12/77 = 100).............................
Frozen vegetables (12/77 - 100) ..........................
Cut corn and canned beans except lima (12/77 = 100)
Other canned and dried vegetables (12/77 = 100) . . . .

Candy and chewing gum (12/77 = 100) ........................
Sugar and artificial sweeteners (12/77 = 100).................
Other sweets (12/77 = 100)
Fats and oils (12/77 = 100) .............................................
Nondairy substitutes and peanut butter (12/77 = 100) . . .
Other fats, oils, and salad dressings (12/77 = 100).........
Nonalcoholic beverages .....................................................
Cola drinks, excluding diet cola .................................
Carbonated drinks, including diet cola (12/77 = 100) . . . .
Freeze dried and instant coffee......................................
Other noncarbonated drinks (12/77 = 100) ...................
Other prepared foods.........................................................
Canned and packaged soup (12/77 = 100).....................
Frozen prepared foods (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Snacks (12/77 - 100)................................................
Seasonings, olives, pickles, and relish (12/77 = 100) . .
Other condiments (12/77 = 1 00).................................
Miscellaneous prepared foods (12/77 = 100) .................
Other canned and packaged prepared foods (12/77 = 100) .

Lunch (12/77 - 100)..............................................................
Dinner (12/77 - 100)..............................................................
Other meals and snacks (12/77 = 100)
A lc o h o lic b e v e r a g e s

Alcoholic beverages at home (12/77 = 100) ......................................

S h e lte r (C P I W )

Financing, taxes, and insurance..................................................
Property insurance............................................................
Property taxes .................................................................
Contracted mortgage interest costs......................................
Mortgage interest rates................................................
Maintenance and repairs............................................................
Maintenance and repair services...........................................
Maintenance and repair commodities...........................................
Paint and wallpaper, supplies, tools, and
equipment (12/77 = 100).........................................
Lumber, awnings, glass, and masonry (12/77 = 100).........
Plumbing, electrical, heating, and cooling
supplies (12/77 = 100) .............................................
Miscellaneous supplies and equipment (12/77 = 100)..........


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

83

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
20.

C o n tin u ed — C onsum er Price In dex— U.S. city average

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
A il U r b a n C o n s u m e r s
G e n e ra l s u m m a ry

1983
Aug.

U r b a n W a g e E a r n e r s a n d C l e r ic a l W o r k e r s

1984
M a r.

A p r.

M ay

June

1983
J u ly

1984

Aug.

A ug.

M a r.

A p r.

M ay

June

J u ly

Aug.

F u e l a n d o t h e r u t il it ie s

375.1

380.1

380.9

385.5

390.0

393.9

395.5

376.8

381.3

382.0

386.6

391.4

395.4

396.9

Fuels..........................
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas..............
Fuel oil .............................
Other fuels (6/78 = 100) .................
Gas (piped) and electricity......................
Electricity............ .................
Utility (piped) gas .................................

476.5
619.0
626.5
190.0
439.1
340.7
589.8

475.2
660.0
671.6
196.4
429.5
335.8
571.4

476.0
650.7
660.9
195.6
432.3
338 9
573.2

483.5
649.2
659.9
194.4
441.4
343.0
591.7

490.7
646.0
656.2
194.1
450.6
358.6
585.9

496.5
637.4
646.2
193.7
459.1
c368.7
589.7

498.6
625.5
632.4
193.3
463.9
374.3
592.2

476.6
621.5
628.9
190.8
438.7
341.2
585.8

474.7
662.4
673.9
197.1
428.4
335.1
567.9

475.4
652.9
663.1
196.3
431.1
338.0
569.8

482.6
651.5
662.1
195.1
439.9
342.2
587.2

490 4
648.4
658.6
194 8
449.7
358.7
581.6

496 1
640.0
648 8
194 4
458.2
369 0
585.1

498 2
628 1
635 1
193 9
463 0
374 8
587.1

Other utilities and public services , .
Telephone services.................
Local charges (12/77 = 100)............
Interstate toll calls (12/77 = 100) . . .
Intrastate toll calls (12/77 = 100) . . .
Water and sewerage maintenance.................

214.8
173.9
142.1
121.9
118.3
355.9

227.4
185.9
157.7
122.4
122.0
369.5

228.2
186.4
157.8
122.3
123.7
371.4

228.8
186.7
158.3
122.6
123.1
373.9

229.4
187.1
160.1
118.5
124.8
374.6

230 6
188.1
162.3
116.2
125.9
376.6

231.3
188.4
163.3
116.1
124.9
378 9

215.9
174.5
142.6
122.4
118.3
360.2

228.5
186.6
158.4
122.8
122 0
373 9

229.2
187.0
158.4
122.7
123 6
375.7

229.9
187.4
159.0
123.0
122.9
378.2

230.4
187.6
160 8
118 9
124 6
378 9

231 7
188 7
163 1
116 6
125 7
381.0

232 4
189 1
164 0
116 5
124 8
383 2

H o u s e h o ld f u r n is h in g s a n d o p e r a t io n s

238.0

241.2

242.3

242.4

242.3

241.9

242.2

234.8

238.0

238.9

239.1

238.9

c238 3

238.6

Housefurnishings ...............................
Textile housefurnishings............
Household linens (12/77 = 100) , . .
Curtains, drapes, slipcovers, and sewing
materials (12/77 = 100) .................

196.7
226.1
133.4

198 3
236.1
140.1

199.9
235.2
139.0

199.8
236.6
140.8

199.1
234.7
138.2

197.9
232 9
136.6

198.1
238.6
143.1

194.7
229.6
134.5

196.7
240.0
141.2

197.7
238 6
139.9

197.7
239 9
141.6

196 9
238 4
139.4

195 6
236 4
137.7

195 9
242 0
144.1

149.0

154.6

154.7

154.6

154.9

154.2

154.7

153 3

159.5

159 2

158 9

159.5

158.6

158 8

Furniture and bedding.............................
Bedroom furniture (12/77 = 100) . . . .
Sofas (12/77 = 100) ...................
Living room chairs and tables (12/77 = 100)
Other furniture (12/77 = 100) . . .
Appliances including TV and sound equipment
Television and sound equipment............
Television .............................
Sound equipment (12/77 = 100) . . . .
Household appliances .....................
Refrigerators and home freezers............
Laundry equipment...................
Other household appliances (12/77 = 100)
Stoves, dishwashers, vacuums, and sewing
machines (12/77 = 100)..............
Office machines, small electric appliances, and
air conditioners (12/77 = 100)
Other household equipment (12/77 = 100)
Floor and window coverings, infants', laundry,
cleaning, and outdoor equipment (12/77 = 100)
Clocks, lamps, and decor Items (12/77 = 100)
Tableware, serving pieces, and nonelectric
kitchenware (12/77 = 100).........
Lawn equipment, power tools, and other
hardware (12/77 = 1 0 0 )..........

217 2
151.3
117.3
123.5
139.8
150.6
105.1
100.1
110.6
188.0
191.4
142.0
125.4

218.4
149.1
119.8
124.6
142.1
150.5
103.6
97.9
109.7
191.0
197.2
147.4
126.2

222.8
154.2
121.2
125.5
144.6
150.1
103.4
96.7
110.3
190.4
195.8
146.7
126,1

223.8
154.3
121.1
128.2
144.7
149.8
102.9
96.5
109.5
190.6
196.2
146.7
126.2

223.3
154.1
121.3
126.8
144.8
148.8
102.0
95.9
108.4
189.7
196.8
145.0
125.4

222.1
151.5
121.9
126 3
144.7
147.2
101.3
94.5
108.2
187.1
194.2
145.5
123.2

220.8
151.7
120.6
127.1
142,2
147.2
101.0
94.1
108.1
187.5
194.6
145.4
123.6

214.3
148.2
117.6
124.5
135.6
150.8
104.3
99.0
109.7
188.0
197.2
142.8
123 4

215.3
145.9
119.7
125.7
137 9
151.9
102.5
96 5
108.6
192.8
203.1
148.6
125.2

218.9
149.6
121.3
126.3
140.2
151.4
102.4
95.3
109.3
192.0
202.2
147.6
124.9

220.1
150.2
121.1
129.0
140.4
151.3
101.9
95.1
108.5
192.3
202.5
147.6
125 2

219 5
149.6
121 6
127 6
140 4
150 1
101.0
94 5
107.4
191 0
202.5
145 8
124.2

218 7
148 1
122 1
127 2
140 2
148 4
100 2
93 0
107 2
188 4
199 8
146 0
121.4

217 9
148 4
120 7
128 1
138 4

148.7

148.2

149.2

134.2

135.3

134.9

Housekeeping supplies ......................
Soaps and detergents...................
Other laundry and cleaning products (12/77 = 100)
Cleansing and toilet tissue, paper towels and napkins (12/77 = 100)
Stationery, stationery supplies, and gift wrap (12/77 = 100)
Miscellaneous household products (12/77 = 100)
Lawn and garden supplies (12/77 = 100)

295 8
294.4
151.0
148.1
139.5
154.1
144.6

300.6
296.1
153.7
149.3
141.7
159.5
146.6

301.8
297.1
153.8
151.6
142.0
159.2
147.5

Housekeeping services ...................
Postage....................................
Moving, storage, freight, household laundry, and
drycleaning services (12/77 = 100) .
Appliance and furniture repair (12/77 = 100)

319.3
337.5

326.1
337.5

162.8
144.9

171.7
148.8

APPAREL AND UPKEEP

197.3

198.8

199.2

198.9

197.4

196.6

200.1

196.3

A p p a r e l c o m m o d it ie s

185.3

185 9

186.3

185.8

184.0

183.0

186.6

184.7

Apparel commodities less footwear.........

181.9

182.3

182.6

181.7

179.8

178.9

183.1

181.2

181.9

Men’s and boys’ ..........................
Men’s (12/77 = 100) .................
Suits, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 100)
Coats and jackets...................
Furnishings and special clothing (12/77 = 100)
Shirts (12/77 = 100) .................
Dungarees, jeans, and trousers (12/77 = 100) .
Boys' (12/77 = 100) ........................
Coats, jackets, sweaters, and shirts (12/77 = 100)
Furnishings (12/77 = 100) .........
Suits, trousers, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 100) . .

188.3
118.5
111.4
99.5
144.8
121.6
112.3
122 6
115.4
134.2
123.5

189.9
119.4
110.6
98.1
146.1
127.0
112.4
124.1
119.7
137.9
122.1

190.6
120.2
112.0
99.0
146.0
127.3
113.6
123.2
119.7
137.2
120.3

190.7
120.4
111.9
98.2
147.6
127.6
113.5
122.5
119.4
136.6
119.3

190.3
120.0
113.0
96.2
148.0
126.9
111.4
123.0
118.2
137.1
121.2

189.8
119.3
113.2
96.1
145.6
125.6
111.3
124.1
120.8
136.5
121.8

192.6
121.2
113.5
100.9
147.6
127.3
113.7
125.5
125.5
134.7
121.8

188.3
118.9
104.4
101.7
140.8
124.7
118.1
120.7
116.2
129.9
120.7

190.5
120.1
104.1
101.4
142.1
130.0
118.3
122.8
122.0
133.4
119.6

84

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

148 5

100 0
92 7
107 1
188 9
200 6
146 3
121.7

123.7

127.1

126.3

126.9

127.0

121.7

123.6

122.1

126.4

125.4

126.2

125.8

120.0

121.6

127.2
141.2

125.8
141.6

126.2
143.2

125.7
142.1

124.4
142.2

124.9
142.1

123 9
141.7

124.8
138.9

123.8
139 2

124.2
140.7

124.1
139.4

122.4
139.6

122 9
139.5

121 8
138.9

144.4
132.3

145.4
132.8

147.6
137.4

147.5
136.1 .

147.8
134.3

147.0
135.5

147.7
134.3

136.4
128.3

137.0
128.5

139.0
132.9

138.8
131.5

138 8
129.7

137 8
130.7

137 3
129.8

147.2

147.9

147.2

147.0

144.4

144.2

145.1

143.0

143.9

143.3

143.1

134.1

134.6

135.2

134.4

139.3

140.1

140.5

139.5

140.0

140.7

139.8

301.5
298.2
153.4
151.7
142.5
159.8
144.8

303.0
299.3
155.1
152.9
143.5
160.1
144.7

303.8
299.8
154.9
153.7
143.7
161.2
144.9

304.2
298.8
154.9
153.6
144.2
162.0
145.7

292.7
290.2
149.8
148.1
142.5
148.8
137.8

297.1
291.7
152.4
149.4
144.7
154.0
138.9

298.5
292 8
152.5
151.6
145.1
153.7
140.5

298.5
293 7
152.0
151 7
145 7
154.4
138.7

300 1
294 8
153 8
152 9
146 7
154 7
138.7

301 0
295 3
153 6
153 7
147 1
155 9
138.7

301 1
294 2
153 4
153 4

325.7
337.5

326.5
337.5

327.0
337.5

327.6
337.5

328.2
337.5

319.1
337.5

326.0
337.5

326.0
337.5

326.9
337.5

327.5
337.5

328 2
337.5

328.8
337.5

171.8
149.4

172,9
150.1

173.7
150.2

174.5
150.9

174.6
152.2

163.1
143.1

172.0
146.9

172.1
147.5

173.2
148.1

174 1
148.2

174 9
148.9

175 1
150.0

198.0

198.2

197.7

196.1

195.3

199.0

185.8

185.9

185.1

183.3

182.4

186.1

181.9

180.7

178.7

177.9

182.2

191.2
121.0
105.4
102.4
142.1
130.1
119 9
121.8
122.0
132.7
117.6

191.1
121.1
105.2
101.2
143.5
130.1
119.9
121.1
121 8
132.2
116.6

190.3
120.3
105.8
99.4
143.8
129 2
117.5
121 6
120.4
132.7
118.4

189.9
119 6
106.2
99 6
141 8
127 7
117.2
122 7
123 1
132 2
119.0

193 0
121 7
106 8
104 0
143 3
130 0
120 0
124 3
128 0
130 5
119.1

15fi fi
139.1

20.

C o n tin u ed — C onsum er Price In dex— U.S. city average

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
U r b a n W a g e E a r n e r s a n d C l e r ic a l W o r k e r s

A ll U r b a n C o n s u m e r s

1984

1983

1984

1983

G e n e ra l s u m m a ry

Aug.

M a r.

A p r.

M ay

June

J u ly

Aug.

A ug.

M a r.

A p r.

M ay

June

J u ly

A ug.

164 2
109.5
171.6
171 4
99 4
133.2
87.3
107.7
101.9
102.0

163.3
108.7
167.2
175.9
92 5
136.8
85.0
108.0
100.6
103 9

163.2
108.6
164.9
175.0
92 8
136.9
85 1
108.2
100.6
104.3

161.8
107.7
159.7
176.1
93 4
137.5
77.3
107.2
98 3
102.7

157.9
105.2
154.6
172.1
91 1
137.0
71.3
104.3
95.0
99.0

156.2
103.7
156.8
163.7
88 2
136.7
74 4
104.6
99 7
96 9

163.1
108.6
167.7
172.0
92.9
138.0
85.1
107 7
131.0
103.1

165.8
111.1
175.3
158.7
99.7
132.9
108.1
106.8
98.7
102.9

165.3
110.5
172.8
162.9
93.0
136.5
106.4
107.4
98 3
104 6

164.5
109 9
170.1
160 6
93 5
136.6
104.2
107.6
98.1
105.2

162.7
108.6
164.7
162.9
93 9
137.1
92.7
106.4
96.0
103.7

159 2
106.2
159.1
160.5
91 4
136.6
85.8
104,3
93.7
100.7

157.4
104.8
162.4
153.1
88 6
136.2
97.1
104.0
98 4
96.7

164.1
109.5
176.1
159.9
93.1
137.5
96 5
107.5
100 4
103.5

127.8
281.9
216.2
121.6
147.5

128 0
288.0
217.2
120 8
148 8

128 1
289 2
217.6
122.6
148 3

129.7
283.9
216.8
123.1
147.4

129 3
278.3
217.7
122.4
148.5

127.1
281.2
218 0
122.5
148.8

127.4
288.7
216.3
123 8
146.7

126.7
292.3
204.6
119.8
138.0

126.9
298.6
205 3
119.7
138.7

126 9
299.7
205.5
120.8
138.4

128.2
293.0
205 0
121.5
137.6

127.8
289 2
205.7
120 9
138.5

125.7
292 0
206.0
120.7
138 9

1260
298.9
204.9
122.3
137.1

205.7
132.3
130 3
125.3

207.7
135.2
131.2
125 5

208 9
135.8
131.4
126.7

210 2
137.1
132.4
127.1

209.6
136.7
132.1
126.7

208.0
137.5
131.0
124.2

207.7
137.4
131.9
123.4

205.5
134.2
132.6
121.1

208.3
137.1
133.8
122.3

209 4
137.9
133 9
123.4

210.7
139.2
134.7
123.7

210.0
138.7
134.5
123.2

208.7
139 6
133.7
120.8

208.5
139.4
134.8
119.9

292 3

300 8

301.5

303.7

304.4

305.1

307.5

290.4

298.8

299 4

301.6

302.4

303.0

305.5

174.3
152.7

180.7
155.3

181 0
155.7

182.6
156.5

182.9
157.0

183.4
157.2

184.1
159.9

172.9
153.9

179.1
156.5

179.4
156.9

180.9
157.7

181.2
158.3

181.7
158.5

182.3
161.3

T R A N S P O R T A T IO N

302 4

306 9

309.6

312.2

313.1

312 9

312.9

304.1

308.9

311.9

314.6

315.5

315.2

315 2

P r iv a te

298.0

301 9

304.8

307.4

308.1

307.5

307.5

300.8

305.2

308.3

311.0

311.7

311.2

311.1

202.1
336 8
389.5
331.0
167.1

207.2
362.2
368.6
338.3
170.7

207.4
370.0
374.0
338 9
171.4

207 6
378.0
376.7
340.2
172.3

207.7
382.0
374.9
340.7
172.6

208.1
383.2
369.8
341.6
172.6

208.1
383.8
365.9
342.7
173.5

201.7
336 8
391.0
331.7
166.0

206.7
362.2
370.5
339.0
169.3

206 9
370.0
375.7
339 6
170.1

207.1
378.0
378 2
340.8
170 9

207.1
382.0
376.4
341.5
171.3

207.6
383.2
376.4
342.3
171.6

207.6
383.8
367.4
343.4
172.1

158.9
152.8
157.5
260.0
208 9
153.5
132.4
183.4
131.6
276.0
302.9
155.4
146.0
194.6
153.0
139 0
158.8

165.1
153.9
162.1
268.3
201.3
152.5
126.9
171.8
133.2
288.7
322 3
159.2
149.1
195.5
158.0
139 2
163.5

165.1
154.2
162.4
269 0
202 4
152.7
127.7
172.9
134.0
289.3
321.8
160 9
149.5
195.7
158.0
139.8
164.3

165.8
154.8
162.6
270 4
201.7
152.7
127.2
172.2
133.5
291.2
323.7
162.4
150.3
197.1
158.0
139 9
165.2

166.2
154.6
163 4
271.5
202.0
154.1
127.3
172.0
134.1
292.5
324.2
164.1
151.1
199.4
157.8
139 9
165.1

166.5
155.3
163.5
272.4
200.6
154.3
126.2
169.6
134.7
294.1
324.8
166.2
152.0
199.8
161.0
139 9
166.5

167 2
155.9
163.9
274.9
200.8
153.6
126 4
170.4
133.9
297 2
325.2
168.7
156.8
209.7
161.3
139.9
170.0

162.8
152.2
156.9
261.1
211.2
152.6
134.1
186.9
131.3
276.8
302.5
155.0
147.2
194.5
153.4
139.8
166.3

169.1
153.1
161.6
269.1
203.5
152.3
128.5
175.1
132.7
289.0
321.5
158.7
150.1
195.4
158.3
139.9
170.7

169 2
153.4
161.9
269.9
204.8
151.9
129.4
176.5
133.6
289.7
321.0
160.4
150.4
195 6
158.3
140.3
171.5

169.8
154.0
162.2
271.3
204.2
152.5
128.9
175.7
133 3
291.6
322.7
161.9
151.3
197.1
158.3
140 4
172.7

170.2
153.8
163.1
272.4
204.5
153.5
129 0
175.5
133.9
293.0
323.1
163.5
152.4
199 6
158.1
140.4
172 6

170.6
154.5
163.2
273 4
202 9
153.8
127 8
173.0
134.1
294.6
323.9
165.7
153.1
200 0
161.2
140.4
173.8

171.3
155.0
163.5
275 8
203.2
153.2
128.1
174.0
133.3
297.5
324 2
168.2
157.4
208.8
161.5
140.5
176.4

P u b lic

365 0

377.4

377.1

379 8

385 2

389 3

390.8

355.7

370.2

370 0

372 2

377.4

380.7

381.6

Intracity mass transit......................................................................
Intercity train fa re ..........................................................................

420.7
412.8
323 7
302.4
364.5

429.0
427.6
342 0
308.5
373.4

427.7
428.7
342.3
308 8
373 4

433 8
429.9
342 3
309.2
373.5

442.0
426.2
346.5
309.7
381.5

450.1
438 9
346.6
310.4
381.9

454.1
441.1
345.7
310.4
381.9

417.1
412.7
321.6
311.8
365 2

424.9
426.8
341.8
317.7
373.7

423.5
427.6
342.1
317.9
373.7

430.0
429.3
347.1
318.3
373.8

438.2
425 8
346.5
319 0
381.9

446.6
438.7
346.6
319.7
382.1

450.5
441.3
345.8
319.7
382.2

M E D IC A L C A R E

360.0

374.5

375.7

376 8

378.0

380 3

381.9

357.9

372.6

373 9

375 0

376.3

378.5

380.1

225.4

235.0

236.9

238.7

239.4

240.7

241.6

225.8

235 3

237.1

238.7

239.5

240.7

241.5

Prescription drugs..........................................................................
Anti-infective drugs (12/77 100).............................................
Tranquilizers and sedatives (12/77
100) .................................
Circulatories and diuretics (12/77 100)
Hormones, diabetic drugs, biologicals, and
prescription medical supplies (12/77 100)
Pain and symptom control drugs (12/77 100)..........................
Supplements, cough and cold preparations, and
respiratory agents (12/77 100)...........................................

215.7
157.9
179.1
155.4

228 2
163 9
195.5
164.7

230.7
164.8
198.4
166.1

233.1
165.8
202.8
167 4

233 5
164.9
204.0
169.0

234.9
166.1
205.1
170.4

236 6
167.7
207.6
171.3

216.9
160.1
178.7
154.4

229.7
166.3
195.4
164.3

232.2
167.3
198.3
165.5

234 5
168 3
202.7
167 3

234.9
167.3
204.0
168.3

236.3
168 3
205.1
169.5

237.9
170.0
207.5
170.4

199 2
175.7

209.7
185.5

212.5
187 7

214.1
188.7

214.7
188.3

216.2
189.7

218.1
191.0

201.1
177.5

211 9
187.7

214.7
190 0

216 3
191.0

217.0
190.3

218.4
191.7

220.4
192.8

162.6

171.4

173.2

174.6

174.5

175.9

175.5

162.9

172.0

173.9

175.3

176.1

176.5

176.2

Nonprescription drugs and medical supplies (12/77 100)
Eyeglasses (12/77 100) .......................................................
Internal and respiratory over-the-counter drugs.............................
Nonprescription medical equipment and supplies (12/77 100)

156.7
136 2
255.0
151 0

161.2
138.4
263.1
155.8

162 1
138.9
264.9
156.5

162.8
139 3
266 6
156.5

163.5
140.0
268.2
156.4

164.3
140.6
269 5
157.0

164.4
140.5
269.4
157 9

157.5
135.1
256 3
152.4

162.1
137.3
264.4
157.5

163 0
137.8
266.1
158 0

163.7
138.2
267.7
158.0

164.4
138.8
269.3
157.9

165.1
139.5
270 6
158.4

165 2
139.3
270.4
159.4

Women's (12/77 100) ..................................................
Coats and jackets.......................................................
Dresses ...................................................................
Separates and sportswear (12/77
100) .....................
Underwear, nightwear, and hosiery (12/77
100)
Suits (12/77
100)..................................................
Girls' (12/77 100).........................................................
Coats, jackets, dresses, and suits (12/77 1 00)............
Separates and sportswear (12/77 100) .....................
Underwear, nightwear, hosiery, and
accessories (12/77 1 00 )......................................
Infants' and toddlers' ..............................................................
Other apparel commodities .........
Sewing materials and notions (12/77 100) ........................
Jewelry and luggage (12/77
100)
.................................

Men's (12/77 100)..............................................................
Boys'and girls'(12/77
100)..................................................
Women's (12/77 100) .........................................................
A p p a r e l s e r v ic e s

Laundry and drycleaning other than coin operated (12/77
Other apparel services (12/77 100)

100)

Automobile maintenance and repair ..................................................
Body work (12/77 100) .......................................................
Automobile drive train, brake, and miscellaneous
mechanical repair (12/77
100) ...........................................
Maintenance and servicing (12/77 100)....................................
Power plant repair (12/77 100)
Other private transportation..............................................................
Other private transportation commodities ....................................
Motor oil, coolant, and other products (12/77 100) ............
Automobile parts and equipment (12/77 100)
Other parts and equipment (12/77
100).....................
Other private transportation services...........................................
Automobile insurance .......................................................
Automobile finance charges (12/77 100)
Automobile rental, registration, and other fees (12/77
100)
State registration .......................................................
Drivers' licenses (12/77 100)....................................
Vehicle inspection (12/77 100).................................
Other vehicle-related fees (12/77
100)........................

M e d ic a l c a r e c o m m o d it ie s


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

85

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
20.

C o n tin u ed — C onsum er Price In dex— U.S. city average

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
A ll U r b a n C o n s u m e r s
G e n e ra l s u m m a ry

1983

U r b a n W a g e E a r n e r s a n d C l e r ic a l W o r k e r s

1984

Aug.

M a r.

A p r.

M e d ic a l c a r e s e r v ic e s

389.8

405.3

Professional services .................
Physicians services.....................
Dental services...................
Other professional services (12/77
100)

326,0
354 9
306.5
154.0

Other medical care services.....................
Hospital and other medical services (12/77 100) .
Hospital room .....................
Other hospital and medical care services (12/77 100)

1983

M ay

June

J u ly

406.3

407.1

408.4

341.1
372.2
321.1
158.8

342.5
373.5
322.5
159.5

343 8
375.2
323 6
159.7

345.8
377.1
326.2
159 9

466.9
196.7
627 6
193.0

482.8
207 0
659.4
203 3

483.4
207.5
660.3
204.2

483 6
207.9
660.7
204.8

484.1
208.4
662.0
205.2

E N T E R T A IN M E N T

246 6

251.7

253.8

253.5

254.5

255 3

256 4

243 1

E n t e r t a in m e n t c o m m o d it ie s

248.0

250 6

253.4

252.2

252.4

253.3

254.5

242.5

Reading materials (12/77 100)
Newspapers .................
Magazines, periodicals, and books (12/77

160 9
303.5
168.4

162.4
311 8
166.6

164.5
312 6
170.7

163.1
313.0
167.5

163.7
313 3
168.7

164.5
315.0
169.4

166.0
315 2
172.5

160.2
303.4
168.5

Sporting goods and equipment (12/77 100)
Sport vehicles (12/77 100) ..............
Indoor and warm weather sport equipment (12/77 100)
Bicycles .............................
Other sporting goods and equipment (12/77 100)

134,1
136.9
118.8
199.9
133.1

136.1
139 9
117.1
201.5
134.0

139.1
144.6
117.5
201 1
135.6

138.0
143 0
117.3
200 8
134.6

137.5
142.2
117.7
201.1
134.2

137.8
142.9
117.7
200.2
134.3

138.3
143.9
117.9
198.3
134.8

Toys, hobbies, and other entertainment (12/77 100)
Toys, hobbies, and music equipment (12/77
100)
Photographic supplies and equipment (12/77 100)
Pet supplies and expenses (12/77 100)..............

139 3
137.7
131.6
147.5

140.5
138 •
132.6
149.7

141,0
139.3
132 9
149.9

141.0
139.2
133.2
149.8

141.1
138.8
133.7
150.5

141,7
139.3
134.2
151 4

E n t e r t a in m e n t s e r v ic e s

245.0

253.8

254.9

255.4

258 1

Fees for participant sports (12/77 100) .
Admissions (12/77 100).........
Other entertainment services (12/77 100)

152.2
145.4
129.8

158.5
148.9
134.5

159.5
149.4
134.8

159.6
151.3
134.9

159.7
155.3
135.1

O T H E R G O O D S A N D S E R V IC E S

289.0

302.1

302.8

303.2

T o b a c c o p ro d u c ts

297.7

305 6

305 9

306.1
150.9

313 8
157.0

P e rs o n a l c a re

262.1

Toilet goods and personal care appliances...................
Products for the hair, hairpieces, and wigs (12/77 100)
Dental and shaving products (12/77 100)
Cosmetics, bath and nail preparations, manicure and
eye makeup implements (12/77 100).........
Other toilet goods and small personal care appliances (12/77 100)
Personal care services .................
Beauty parlor services for women
Haircuts and other barber shop services for men (12/77

1984

Aug.

Aug

M a r.

A p r.

M ay

June

J u ly

Aug.

410.9

412.7

387.0

402.7

403 9

404.7

406.1

408 6

410.4

347.0
378.1
327.9
160.1

348.2
379.5
329 1
160.3

326.5
358 8
304.3
150.5

341.6
376.1
319.0
155.0

343.0
377.5
320 5
155.8

344.2
379 0
321.6
156.0

346.2
381.1
324.0
156.1

347.4
382 1
325 7
156 4

348.6
383.6
326 8
156.6

488.3
210 9
672.9
207.0

490.7
212.5
678.1
208.5

462.9
194 6
619.5
191.2

479.3
204.9
651.7
201.5

480 0
205.6
652.9
202.4

480 3
205.9
653 3
203.0

480.9
206.3
654.4
203.4

485.2
208 9
664.6
205.4

487 7
210.4
669 5
206.8

248.0

249 8

249.6

250.7

251.4

252.5

245.3

247.7

246.8

246.9

247.8

248 8

161.9
312.0
166.5

164.0
312.9
170 8

162.6
313.1
167.3

163.3
313.4
168.7

164.0
315 1
169.3

165.4
315 3
172.4

128.3
127.8
116.6
200.7
132.9

130.0
130.4
115.1
202.5
133.8

132.6
134.1
115 6
202.2
135.3

131.7
133 0
115.5
201.7
134.3

131.2
132.2
116 0
202.0
134.0

131 4
132 6
115.9
201.2
134.2

131 9
133 7
115.9
199 4
134.0

141.9
138.6
135.0
153.1

138.0
133.9
132.8
148.6

139 5
135.2
133.8
150.8

140.0
135.8
134.2
151.0

140.0
135.8
134.4
150 9

140.1
135.5
135.0
151.6

140 7
135 9
135 6
152.7

141 0
135 2
136 3
154.2

258.5

259.7

245.4

253.9

254.7

255.8

258.5

258.8

260.1

159.7
156.0
135.3

160.1
157.3
136.1

153.2
144.5
130.7

159.2
147.8
135.7

160.1
148.3
135.7

160 3
150 2
132.5

160.7
154.3
135.7

160.4
155 0
136 0

161 0
156 1
136.8

304.4

306.5

307 2

288.0

299.7

300 4

300 8

302.1

304.5

305.3

305 9

308.1

313 2

313 9

297.5

305.2

305 6

305 6

307.8

312 9

313.5

314.1
157.6

314.0
157.9

316.3
158.9

322.0
159.3

322.6
159.7

305.2
150 9

312.8
157.0

313.1
157.6

313.1
157.9

315.3
159 0

320.9
159 4

321 5
159 8

267.8

268.9

269.5

270 6

271.8

272.6

260.1

265.7

266 9

267.5

268.5

269.7

270.5

261.9
152.8
160 0

265 9
154.1
164.6

267 3
154.9
165.1

267.4
154.1
166 8

268.5
154.8
166 5

270 2
156.1
167.2

270.6
156.2
167 6

262.6
151.9
158.5

266 6
153.3
162.9

268.1
154.1
163.3

268.3
153.4
164.9

269 3
154 1
164.7

270 9
155 1
165.2

271 4
155 3
165 6

148.6
148.9

150 0
151.8

151.8
151.6

151.5
151.7

153 0
151.7

154.0
152.7

153 2
154.2

149 2
152.4

150.8
155.4

152.7
155.2

152.7
155.3

154.0
155.5

155 1
156.4

154 5
158.0

263.3
266.5
145.6

270.4
273 4
149.9

271.4
274 4
150.4

272.3
275 0
151.4

273 4
276.4
151.7

274 3
277.3
152.1

275.4
278 4
152.8

258.1
259.7
144.4

265.3
266 6
148 6

266.1
267.5
149 2

267.1
268.0
150.2

268 2
269.3
150.5

269.0
270 2
150 9

270 0
271 2
151.6

P e r s o n a l a n d e d u c a t io n a l e x p e n s e s

328.1

356.4

356 9

357.4

357.9

358 6

359.3

330 5

359.2

359.7

360.3

360.7

361.3

362.1

Schoolbooks and supplies ............
Personal and educational services . . .
Tuition and other school fees . .
College tuition (12/77 100).........
Elementary and high school tuition (12/77
Personal expenses (12/77 100) . . .

294.6
336 2
168.2
168.0
169.2
189 8

317.1
365.7
184.3
184.5
183.9
201.2

317.6
366.1
184.4
184.7
183 9
202.0

317.8
366.7
184.4
184.7
183.9
188.0

318.5
367.1
184.5
184.8
183.9
204.2

318.8
367.9
184.8
185.2
183.9
205.0

319.2
368.7
185.0
185.3
184.3
206.4

298.8
338.6
168.8
168.0
170 3
190.4

321.6
368.6
185.2
185.4
184.9
202 1

322.2
369 0
185.3
185.5
184.9
202.8

322.4
369.7
185.3
185.5
185.6
204.3

323.1
370.1
185 4
185 7
185.0
204.8

323 4
370 8
185 6
186 0
185 0
205.6

323 8
371 6
185 8
186 1
185 4
207 0

385.9
415.6
342 9
364.2

366.5
412.6
345.5
376.1

371.4
410 3
347 0
376 6

373.8
416.9
351.6
377.8

372.2
417.7
357.1
378 4

367.3
422 0
362 0
379 9

363 8
437 3
364 6
380 3

100). .

Cigarettes ........................
Other tobacco products and smoking accessories (12/77

100)

100) .

100)

S p e c i a l in d e x e s :

Gasoline, motor oil, coolant, and other products
Insurance and finance.........
Utilities and public transportation.........
Housekeeping and home maintenance services
c

corrected.

86

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

384 5

364.7

369,8

372.4

370.7

365 9

362.4

343 6
360.1

346.5
368.7

348.0
368 6

352.8
369.5

358.0
370.0

362.9
370 9

365.6
371.6

21. C onsum er Price Index for All Urban C onsum ers: C ross classification of region and population size clas s by expenditure
category and com m o dity and service group
[December 1977 = 100]
S iz e c la s s A

S iz e c la s s B

S iz e c la s s C

S iz e c la s s O

( 1 . 2 5 m il li o n o r m o r e )

( 3 8 5 . 0 0 0 - 1 . 2 5 0 m il li o n )

(7 5 ,0 0 0 - 3 8 5 ,0 0 0 )

( 7 5 , 0 0 0 o r le s s )

C a te g o ry a n d g ro u p

June

Aug.

A p r.

June

1984

1984

1984

1984
A p r.

|

A p r.

Aug.

June

]

A ug.

A p r.

I

June

I

Aug.

N o rth e a s t
E X P E N D IT U R E C A T E G O R Y

Food and beverages ....................................................................................

Medical care .............................................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................

160.7
152.7
165.3
123 8
170.1
173.2
148.1
170 6

161.2
153.0
165.9
122 2
171.4
174.0
146.6
171.1

162.6
154.2
167.4
125.7
172.0
176.8
149.7
172 3

166.3
151.5
175.7
128.5
174.1
177.6
143.8
169.1

167.2
151.0
177.3
125.5
176.2
179.2
143.8
170.0

168.9
152 0
180.6
125 6
175 6
181.0
148.2
172 0

170 9
155.2
183 0
131.8
174.3
176.9
152.8
174.5

171.7
156.0
184.0
131.1
175.5
177.7
152.3
172.5

173.7
157.5
187.7
131.1
176.2
178.9
153.9
176.6

166.3
152.4
172.9
133.6
173.4
182.5
152.3
173.9

167.2
152.6
173.4
136.4
175.1
183.0
153.6
174.6

167.2
152.7
172.3
138.5
175.7
184.9
153 6
175 6

154 1
154.7
168.8

154.2
154.6
169.8

154.9
154.6
172.0

159.9
163.5
176 1

159.8
163.7
178.2

159 8
163.1
182.3

159.2
160.8
189.6

159.8
161.5
190.4

160.2
161.0
195.0

158 2
160.4
178.4

159.1
160.8
179.1

158.7
161 0
179.1

C O M M O D IT Y A N D S E R V IC E G R O U P

Commodities.....................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ............................................................
Servces ............................................................................................................

N o r th C e n t r a l R e g io n
E X P E N D IT U R E C A T E G O R Y

Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ....................................................................................

Other goods and services ............................................................................

169.9
149.4
187.7
118.2
170.5
177.4
145.1
165 9

171.3
149.0
190.7
117.8
172.3
178.5
145.7
166.8

172.3
150.2
192.0
120.2
171 9
180.0
146.4
168.7

166.8
148.6
175.2
132.8
172.9
177.2
140.6
178.6

167.7
148.5
176.7
130 8
174.1
179.4
140.7
180.5

168.1
149.4
177.3
131.7
173.4
182.0
139.6
180.6

163.4
148.8
169.1
132.6
173.8
172.7
151.0
163.6

164.7
149.1
171.6
128.3
176 2
172.7
152.9
164.3

166.6
150.7
175.3
130.2
175.1
175.2
153 9
167.1

164.5
156.9
167.3
126.1
172.2
182.9
141.3
176.1

164.8
156.9
166.4
124.6
174.7
184.0
140.5
177.4

166.6
158.4
170.0
124.9
174.9
185.1
142.5
178 4

158.1
162.1
187.2

158 0
162.2
190.7

158 6
162.4
192.3

157.3
160 9
182.1

157.5
161.1
184.1

157.2
160.2
185.3

155.1
157.9
176.8

155.4
158.3
179 6

155.8
157.9
183.6

154.8
153.8
179.8

155.6
155 0
179.2

156.3
155.3
182.8

C O M M O D IT Y A N D S E R V IC E G R O U P

Commodities.....................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ............................................................

S o u th
E X P E N D IT U R E C A T E G O R Y

Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ....................................................................................

Other goods and services .............................................................................

166.3
156.3
172.3
131.3
172.6
177.1
145.2
170.0

167.6
152 6
174.5
132.2
173.9
179.1
144.7
170.8

168.7
157.3
175 4
131.5
175.6
180.6
147.7
172.5

168.2
155.6
173.7
128.1
176.2
178.5
159.6
172.4

169.1
155.3
174.7
128 3
178.0
180.4
160 0
173.0

170,6
157.2
176.5
127 8
179 0
183.5
161.9
174.8

166 9
153.0
173.2
127.5
174.0
187.5
153.2
170.2

167.1
152.5
172.6
126.4
176 0
188.0
152.8
172.1

168.6
154.0
174.1
127.4
177.5
188.6
153.4
174.5

168.1
156.6
176.4
114.7
172.3
193.7
150.5
169.2

168.4
156.1
176.4
113.6
174.3
193.4
150.7
169.9

168.7
157.8
177.0
110.8
173.8
193.4
151.7
171.3

158 6
159.4
176.8

159.1
160.2
179.1

159.4
160.0
181.3

160.2
161.8
180.1

160.6
162.7
181.6

161.3
162.7
184.2

157.7
159.7
181.2

158.0
160.5
181.2

159.2
161.6
182.9

152.9
158.1
183.4

158.2
159.0
183.5

158.5
158.4
184.1

C O M M O D IT Y A N D S E R V IC E G R O U P

Commodities less food and beverages ............................................................

W est
E X P E N D IT U R E C A T E G O R Y

Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ....................................................................................

Other goods and services .............................................................................

167 2
155.3
173.7
124.3
176.4
182.6
144.1
171.5

168.6
154.6
176 3
121.4
179.5
183 3
194.9
171.5

170.3
156.5
179.3
126.5
177.6
185.7
144.8
173.7

166 8
158.6
170.4
126.9
177.5
179 8
148.9
171.3

169.1
158.8
174.3
127.2
180.5
181.5
148 9
173.0

169.5
159.8
174.7
130.5
178 6
182.7
148.8
174.7

159.1
155.0
155.8
123 9
173.5
185.9
154.4
166.5

160 9
154.5
158.7
122.7
176.3
187.5
154.8
169.4

161.4
155.4
159 9
122.5
174.5
189.5
157.9
170.1

166.5
160.3
168 0
142.9
171.1
184.6
160.6
175.1

167.2
161.6
167.3
142.9
173.5
186 6
162.0
175.3

167.8
163.0
167.8
145.1
172.6
188.2
163.2
176 0

155.9
156.1
181.9

155.7
156 3
185.0

155.8
155.3
188.4

158.7
158.4
178.0

159.7
159 9
181.8

159.5
159.0
182.7

157.1
157.4
161.7

157.6
158.8
164.6

157.1
157.2
166.5

155.6
153.2
182.3

157.0
154.6
182.2

157.6
154.7
182.8

C O M M O D IT Y A N D S E R V IC E G R O U P

Commodities less food and beverages ............................................................
Services............................................................................................................


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

87

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
22.

C o n su m er Price In d ex— U.S. city average, and selected areas

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
A ll U r b a n C o n s u m e r s
A re a 1

1983

U r b a n W a g e E a r n e r s a n d C l e r ic a l W o r k e r s

1984

1983

1984

Aug.

M a r.

A p r.

M ay

June

J u ly

Aug.

Aug.

U.S. city average2 ....................................

300.3

307.3

308 8

309.7

310.7

311.7

313 0

299.5

303 3

Anchorage, Alaska (10/67
100)
Atlanta, Ga........................
Baltimore, Md
Boston, Mass...................................

303.9

274 4
309 3

315 9

304.3

265 9
309 6

Buffalo, N Y.....................................

285.9

Chicago, I I I . -Northwestern Ind...................
Cincinnati, Ohio Ky Ind......................
Cleveland, Ohio.............................
Dallas-Ft. Worth, Tex..............................
Denver-Boulder, Colo.........................

301.6

Detroit, Mich...............................
Honolulu, Hawaii........................
Houston, Tex
Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas..........................
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Anaheim, Calif.............
Miami, Fla. (11/77 100) . . . ,
Milwaukee, WIs.....................
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.-Wis...........
New York, N Y-Northeastern N.J..........
Northeast. Pa. (Scranton) ...................

275 3

326 2
315 9

306.7

304 1

300.7

Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J...........................
Pittsburgh, Pa.........................
Portland. Oreg.-Wash............................
St. Louis, Mo.-Ill.........................
San Diego, Calif..............................

289.9
310 2

San Francisco-Oakland, Calif................................
Seattle-Everett, Wash..............................
Washington. D.C.-Md.-Va. . . .

306 0

299.9
293.0
296 7

305 6
283.2
325.7
309.1
302.8

322.0
300 9
298 2
318.6

305.7

305 4

300 8
294.7
298.7


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

306.3
284.7
330.5
310.8
305.6

315.9

307.7

305 9

300 0
319.7

302.9
297 3

285.1
297.4

337.3
329.8

317.5
309 0

308 0
286.0
332 0
311.2
308.6

303.7
278.2
321.6
299.3
293.7

301.4

M ay

June

J u ly

304 1

305.4

306.2

307.5

265.7

324.8
305.0

308.5
288.4

302.9
319.1

293.3
304.2

296.0
313 8

296.3

302 9

297.9

289 9
294.0
298.8

301.6

used for New York and Chicago
2Average of 85 cities.

298.3

303.1

299 0
301 5

291.6
295.5
300 5

288.6
299 0
314 4

298.3

300.3

298 9
293 6
333 6
304 5
305.1

168 0
341 6
328 9
293.0
302.7
301.4

294.7
295.9
304.3

332 5
297 1

306 1
303 3

294.6
301 4
324.6
315.1

302.7
308 9

301 2
328 1
324 8

347.1
297.0
290 9
329.5
299.9
303.4

297.5
297.3
328 2
310 8

299.9
308.2

298.3

167.2
338.2
321.1
291.2

315 0

321.9
318 7
340 8

298 6
289 0
324 9
299 7
298.9

292.2
297.3
326.6
323.4

296.3
312.3

310 3

311 6
300.8
287.3

320.7
316.5

166.3
335.3

314.3
308 3

309.4
300 6

286.6

Aug

266 8
310 9

341.7

300 9
308.7
351.3
318.7

313.0
305.7

294.5
313 4

167.0
321.3
324 1
301.6

A p r.

307.2
298.2

349 9

301.9
305.4
353 5

1The areas listed include not only the central city but the entire portion of the Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area, as defined for the 1970 Census of Population, except that the Standard Consolidated Area is

88

310.8
323 3

336.7
325.7

166.4
320.5

298.0
302.7
349 8

310 2
305.1

310 0

346 1

165.6
316 8
316.2
289.5

313.0
304.9
292.5

306.9
321.9

332.8
323 9
344,7

298.8
273 5
324.0
301.3
295.2

311.3
303.1

293 0
305.4
320 0

275 5
314 0

310.4
302.0

M ar

322 7
303 2
310.8

23.

P roducer Price Indexes, by stage of processing

[1967 = 100]
1984

1983

Annual
C o m m o d it y g r o u p in g

a verag e

1983

S e p t.

O c t.

Nov.

D ec.

Jan.

Feb.

M a r.

A p r.

M ay1

June

J u ly

Aug.

S e p t.

F IN IS H E D G O O D S

Finished goods..............................................................

285 2

285.1

287.6

286 8

287 2

289 5

290 6

291.4

291.2

r291 1

291.2

292.6

291.8

289.8 '

Finished consumer goods .........................................

284.6
261.8
258.7
260.0
335.3
233.1
231.5
287.2

285.1
263.0
267.4
260.5
338.6
229 2
233.0
285.1

287.0
263.7
287.3
259.5
338.1
235.3
233.6
289.9

285.9
261.9
270.4
259.0
336.8
235 4
234.1
r290.0

286.3
264.3
266.0
262.0
335.2
235 9
234.0
290.4

288.9
272.2
306.9
266 9
335.0
235 9
236.0
291.6

290.1
274.7
313.6
269.0
336.1
236.1
236 5
292.3

291.1
276.6
323.7
270.2
336.7
236.6
237.1
292.3

290.3
274.3
299.0
269 9
336.4
236.7
237.9
294.5

r290.3
r271.7
r270.7
r269 6
r338 9
r236 6
r238 7
r293.9

290.3
270.8
282.6
269 3
339.6
236.5
238.5
294.2

292.0
275 6
275.1
273.4
339.8
236.6
240.2
294.8

290.8
274.2
278 9
271.6
337.6
237.1
240.2
295.1

288.9
273.4
274.7
271.0
336.9
232.5
240.9
292.9

312 3

315.5

315 6

315.5

315.7

316.3

317.6

319.7

320.3

r320 9

321.6

321.7

321.1

320 3
301.7

Processed .......................................................
Nondurable goods less foods.................................
Consumer nondurable goods less food and energy
Capital equipment.....................................................
IN T E R M E D IA T E M A T E R IA L S

Intermediate materials, supplies, and components.................
Materials and components for manufacturing.................

293 4

296.7

296.4

296.5

297.6

298.9

299.8

301.8

302.9

r303 3

303.1

303.0

302.3

Materials for food manufacturing.............................
Materials for nondurable manufacturing ...................
Materials for durable manufacturing ........................
Components for manufacturing...............................

258.4
280 0
319.4
280.4

269 4
282.7
323.1
281.8

263.5
283.3
322.3
282.6

260.0
284.6
321.6
283.0

262 9
285.7
322.8
283.5

268.6
286.6
323 4
284.5

268.3
287.0
325.6
285.2

269.6
290.3
328.2
285.6

271.4
291.8
329.1
286.2

r276.0
r292.8
r327.2
r287.0

274.7
292.6
327.1
286.9

276.6
293.0
325.3
287.2

272.7
291.7
324.7
287.8

269.9
291.1
323 2
288.5

Materials and components for construction...................

301.8

303.1

303.6

303 9

304.9

305.5

307.8

309.6

310.5

r309.8

310.2

310.7

311.8

311.3

Manufacturing industries . .......................................
Nonmanufacturing industries .................................

564.8
479.0
640.0

573.4
487.2
648.8

574.2
490.5
647.2

568.1
484.9
640.6

561.7
478.8
634.0

556.4
474.2
628.0

561.3
477.9
634.1

567.8
483 4
641.4

562.9
480.6
634.5

r567.2
r485.5
r638.2

577.2
493.5
650.1

578.9
494.5
652.3

572.5
489.3
645.0

567.6
485.0
639.6

Containers..............................................................

286 6

287.1

288.1

289.3

289.9

292.3

294.8

297.3

299.4

r300.9

302.2

303.0

304.1

304.7

Manufacturing industries.........................................
Nonmanufacturing industries .................................

277.1
269.9
281.1
225.9
292.8

280.2
270.8
285 3
249.6
293.4

280 6
271.8
285.3
246.7
294.0

281.6
272 2
286.7
251.0
294.8

281.6
273.3
286.1
243.9
295.5

282.6
274.5
287.0
243.7
296.6

282.2
276 0
285.7
227.7
298.0

283.0
276.4
286.7
232.2
298.4

284.2
277.8
287.8
233 5
299.5

r284.3
r278.4
287.6
r229.2
300.0

283.8
278 9
286.7
221.5
300.4

283.0
279.1
285 4
211.3
300.8

283.3
279.7
285.4
208.3
301.4

283.3
280.3
285.1
202 9
302.1

323.6

328.5

324.8

324.0

327.5

333.5

332.6

338.8

339 4

r338.0

333.2

334.5

329.3

326.7

252.2

257.2

253.7

251.8

256.0

264.0

260.5

269.9

269.7

r266 4

260.7

264.0

256.9

253.1

477.4

482.5

478.2

479.4

481.6

483.4

488.1

487.5

490.1

r492.3

489.5

486.6

485.5

485.1

377.7
387.9
272.1

379.1
389.4
272.7

380.1
390.4
273.7

385.5
395.5
280.3

387.8
398 8
276.5

388.8
399.5
279.2

r389.9
400.2
r282.7

385.9
395.7
281.7

381.1
390.3
281.9

377.2
386.6
277.5

379.8
389.1
280.2

r928.4
920.8
1,079.6 r1,088.1
r816.1
809.1

933.2
1,095.5
818.6

940.6
1,104.4
825.0

954.4
1,121.7
836.3

938.8
1,101.4
824.3

Other supplies..................................................
C R U D E M A T E R IA L S

Crude materials for further processing ...............................

Nonfood materials.....................................................
Nonfood materials except fuel.................................
Manufacturing industries ....................................
Construction.....................................................

372.2
381 9
270.6

378.1
388.3
272.5

377.1
387.4
270.5

Crude fuel............................................................
Manufacturing industries ....................................
Nonmanufacturing industries...............................

931.5
1,094.5
816.3

931.0
1,093.9
816.1

910.9
1,067.1
801.1

915 3
1,071.8
805.3

921.1
1,079.0
810.1

926.1
1,086.5
813.2

926 6
1,086.3
814.2

910.6
1,064.8
802.6

Finished goods excluding foods.........................................
Finished consumer goods excluding foods ...................
Finished consumer goods less energy..........................

290.8
291.4
249 9

290.3
291.4
249.7

293 4
293.9
252.1

293 0
293.2
251.7

292.6
292.5
252.6

292.9
292.5
256.1

293.6
293.1
257.2

294.0
293.6
258.2

294,6
293.5
257.8

r295.3
r294.9
r257.1

295.7
295.3
256.7

296.0
295.4
259.0

295.3
294.4
258.7

292.9
291.9
257.2

Intermediate materials less foods and feeds ........................
Intermediate materials less energy...............................

317.1
295.2

319.5
298.1

320.0
298.2

319 9
298.5

320.2
299.4

320.6
300.5

322 3
301.5

324.4
303.3

325.0
304.4

325.4
r304.6

326.5
304.6

326.7
304.5

326.3
304.3

325.7
304.0

247.9

263.2

258.2

257 4

256 9

260.7

255.1

257.5

259.1

r260.8

257.4

255.3

251.7

248.0

538.6
246.5

542.9
252.5

538.8
249.6

540.3
248.3

543.2
252.0

546.3
258.3

552.0
257.3

550.0
265.1

553.0
265.4

554.0
r263.3

552.3
257.7

550 0
258.7

549.4
252.2

547.3
250.1

S P E C IA L G R O U P IN G S

1Data for May 1984 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by
respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

I .

I.

r = revised.

89

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
24.

P roducer Price Indexes, by com m o dity g roupings

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
1983

Annual
Code

C o m m o d it y g r o u p a n d s u b g r o u p

1984

a verag e

1983

S e p t.

O c t.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

M a r.

A p r.

M ay1

June

J u ly

Aug.

303.1
321.5

305.3
323.9

306.0
324.7

305.5
324.1

306.1
324.8

308.0
326.8

308.9
327.7

311.0
330 0

311.3
330.3

r311 5
r330 5

311.4
330.4

312 0
331.0

310 9
329.9

309 6
328.4

253 9
315.7

259.1
317.1

257.5
318.5

256.0
318.3

257 9
318.4

264.4
319.1

263.4
320.6

267 9
321.9

267.3
322 6

'265.8
'323 2

262.7
323.9

265 2
324.0

261 6
323.5

?59 6
322.3

01-8
01-9

Farm products........................
Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables . . . .
Grains.............................
Livestock....................................
Live poultry....................................
Plant and animal fibers .................
Fluid m ilk........................
Eggs.............................................................................
Hay, hayseeds, and oilseeds ..............
Other farm products.....................

248.2
262.1
240.4
243.1
206.5
227.0
282.0
<2)
246.8
282.1

256.4
276.0
258.0
231.5
242.2
238.7
284.4
200.1
297.8
287.3

255.2
308.1
253.7
229.4
208.5
234.5
284.1
(2)
288.8
283.7

251.0
275.2
257.5
220 5
238.5
243.6
283.2
(2)
287.6
283.5

254.0
276.1
243.6
238 2
241.2
244.1
281.4
(2)
282.2
276 9

263.4
291.2
245.5
250.7
252.6
229 3
279.1
282.4
287.3
280 2

261.6
312.2
235.3
251.9
251.3
232.7
275.7
280.7
265.4
278.9

267.4
308.0
250.9
260.8
258.4
250.3
274.2
<2)
281.4
277.7

265.4
263.8
262.1
260.8
240.8
252.3
272.7
264.4
282.1
279.7

260.8
'251.9
256 2
254.8
240.6
259.1
271.7
201.0
297.0
288.2

257.1
272.9
257.8
250.0
227 7
252.7
271.8
177.9
272.4
279 0

258 6
281 2
248.9
260.1
259 2
235.8
273.9
184 9
245 8
277.4

253 2
293 3
236 9
253 7
218 6
211 3
276.8
181 2
242 6
284 1

?49 7
289 7
231 4
244 9
239 7
210 3
282 1
177 6
228 4
296.1

02
02-1
02-2
02-3
02-4
02-5
02-6
02-7
02-8
02-9

Processed foods and feeds............
Cereal and bakery products.........
Meats, poultry, and fis h .....................
Dairy products....................................
Processed fruits and vegetables............
Sugar and confectionery.....................
Beverages and beverage materials ..............
Fats and oils .....................
Miscellaneous processed foods . . .
Prepared animal feeds...................

255.9
261.0
249.0
250 6
277.4
292.8
263.6
238.8
254.8
228.8

259.6
263.6
242.9
250 6
278.6
300.2
264.3
303.5
258.4
249.3

257.8
264.6
237.0
251 3
281.1
298.0
265.2
281.7
262.1
248.6

257.6
265.2
234.7
251.4
280 9
297.7
266.3
274.5
264.8
252.1

259 0
265.1
242.3
248.9
282.9
297.5
266.5
271.7
266.2
245.6

263.8
266.6
255.8
248.4
287.7
299 9
268.7
278.3
266 8
245.2

263.4
267.1
254.6
248.4
292.8
300.5
270.2
273.3
275.4
231.1

267.1
267.4
264.4
248.8
295.4
301.1
269.9
286.2
275.2
235.3

267.2
268.3
261.7
248.9
295.1
301.9
271.4
293.4
276.3
236 3

'267.5
'268.7
'257.1
248.9
'297.7
'303.8
'273.5
'328.5
'276 2
'232.3

264.8
271.5
248.5
249.4
298.2
304.0
271.7
326 5
278.4
225.5

267 7
272 2
260.6
251 4
296 5
305 3
273.8
312 7
280 4
216.3

265 2
271 8
253 8
251 0
296 4
304 1
274 2
306 8
279 6
214.0

?64 0
27? 0
251 0
?55 ?
?9? O
30? 7
274 7

A ll c o m m o d it ie s
A ll c o m m o d it ie s

(1957-59 = 100)

F a r m p r o d u c t s a n d p r o c e s s e d f o o d s a n d fe e d s
I n d u s t r ia l c o m m o d it ie s

S e p t.

FA R M PR O D U C TS A N D PR O C ESSED FO ODS
A N D FEE D S

01
01-1
01-2
01-3
01-4
01-5
01-6

280 8
209.0

I N D U S T R IA L C O M M O D IT IE S

03
03-1
03-2
03-3
03-4
03-81
03-82

Textile products and apparel........................
Synthetic fibers (12/75 = 100) . . . .
Processed yarns and threads (12/75 = 100) .
Gray fabrics (12/75 = 100)........................
Finished fabrics (12/75 = 100)............
Apparel .................................
Textile housefumishings.................

205.1
156.7
138.5
147.0
123.1
197.4
235.1

206.2
158.0
140.3
147.3
123 4
198.7
235.3

207 0
160.5
141.3
149.4
123 8
198.8
234.5

207.7
159 3
141.7
151.4
124.4
199.4
234.4

207.8
158.1
142.9
152.0
124.8
199.0
235.3

208.2
159.2
142 3
151.1
124.8
200.1
236 0

209.6
161.4
144.0
152.8
126.3
200.5
236.6

209.9
160.7
144.0
153.2
127.0
200.7
237.6

209 9
160.7
143.6
153.0
126.9
200.7
238.1

210.5
'160.6
144.3
'153.7
'127.3
'201.3
'238.8

210.3
160.5
143.8
154.3
127.2
200.7
239.3

210 8
160 1
143 7
154 1
127.7
201 9
239.2

210 5
159 9
14? 1
154 4
127.3
201 8
239.7

154 5
127 0
?0? 3
240.5

04
04-2
04-3
04-4

Hides, skins, leather, and related products
Leather ....................................
Footwear ..............
Other leather and related products . . .

271.1
330.7
250.1
252 7

274.4
339.4
251.6
253.5

273.7
336.6
251.3
253.5

277.0
340.5
257.3
255.8

277.3
344.1
250.3
255.6

279.1
346.2
250.9
257.2

283.3
362.0
252.5
257.3

286.7
378.0
253.5
257.3

286.8
386.7
251.6
258.1

'288.5
'390.7
'251.5
'259.8

290 3
383.5
250.3
271.2

290.2
384.7
250 1
271.2

290.2
379.7
250 9
271.5

290 3
372 6
?5? 1
271,7

05
05-1
05-3
05-4
05-61
05-7

Fuels and related products and power
Coal.........................................
Coke..........................
Gas fuels3 .....................
Electric power ........................
Crude petroleum4 ..............
Petroleum products, refined5 ............

06
06-1
06-21
06-22
06-3
06-4
06-5
06-6
06-7

Chemicals and allied products . . .
Industrial chemicals6 ...................
Prepared paint
Paint materials...................
Drugs and pharmaceuticals .........
Fats and oils, inedible . . .
Agricultural chemicals and chemical products . .
Plastic resins and materials . .
Other chemicals and allied products . .

293.0
342.9
264.7
305.8
226.1
285.6
280.5
291.5
273.6

295 9
345.6
264.5
316.2
227 4
329.0
276.0
302.6
274.3

295.5
344.9
264.2
316.9
229.3
318.6
276.4
299.1
274.4

296 4
346.2
264.5
316.5
231.0
321.6
280 4
297.9
273.8

297.7
349.2
264.9
315.5
230.9
318.8
281.9
301.5
273.6

298.1
347.4
265.6
316.6
232.9
334.2
278.5
305.2
274.9

296.5
337.6
267.3
314.2
234.4
349.0
285.9
305.0
273.3

300.1
344.7
267.3
317.9
237.6
366.7
288.1
306.2
275.2

302.0
345.4
268.7
328.7
239.8
383.2
288.4
307 8
277 0

'302.7
'345.3
'270.0
'337.6
'240.1
'399.2
'286.8
'310.6
277.2

302.5
345.5
270.8
337.1
238.7
414 2
286 4
310 8
276.3

302 6
345.7
274 1
335 4
240 0
378 4
285 5
309 9
277.5

301 4
341 7
276 4
335 1
241 7

301 4
338 1
?77 4
333 5
?4? 8

?8? 9
30Q 4
278.4

278.7

07
07-1

Rubber plastic products ............
Rubber and rubber products.........
Crude rubber .....................
Tires and tubes..............
Miscellaneous rubber products
Plastic products (6/78 = 100) .........

243.2
266.0
280.8
245.3
284.8
135.3

243.2
263 9
284.4
242.5
281.6
136.6

244.4
264.8
284.3
242.6
283.8
137.4

243.6
264.3
282.7
242.4
283.5
136.7

243.8
264.6
282.2
242.3
284.6
136.8

244.8
266.6
282.9
244.1
287.1
136 9

246 2
266.8
282.8
243.7
288.4
138.4

246.4
265.5
283.0
241.7
287.4
139.4

247.3
267.2
282.3
243.5
289.8
139.4

'247.5
'266.3
'277.7
'243.2
'289.3
'140.2

247.3
266.3
277.1
243.5
289.1
140.1

247 5
266.9
275 9
244 1
290 3
139.9

247 6
267 7
273 2
244 1
293 4
139.5

?47 9
268 1
273 5
244 7
?93 5
139.7

Lumber and wood products . .
Lumber..........................

307.1
352.6
302.3
244.1
230.6

305.6
346 6
305.9
242.2
229.4

305.6
344.7
307.4
246 6
229 6

304.9
342.8
307.9
244.6
229.8

308.7
351.3
308.5
247.2
230.6

309.1
352.6
308.6
248.2
230.0

315.7
364 9
308.8
249.5
230.8

316.8
370.5
309 9
248 6
231.8

315.1
369.4
307.2
243.6
233.3

'308.5
'355.6
'304.2
'235.4
'234.7

307.1
351.5
305.2
236.3
234.9

304.3
343.3
305.7
237 1
235.2

304.5
342.3
306 1
246 9
236.5

303 4
338 4
307 0
243 4
235.9

07-12
07-13
07-2
08

08-3
08-4

Plywood........................
Other wood products.................

See footnotes at end of table.

90

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

?10 6
159 ?

664,7
672.3 669.5
663.7 658.0 652.1
656.0 658.7
654.7 '660 6 667.9 667.2
660.7 654 8
537.4
537 9 538.2
542.3 543.9
541.4
544.7 546.2
542.0 '547.4
543.3
546.8 550.7 549.6
444.6
453.9 453.1
453.8 415.4 418.3 437.9
438.9 442.8 '441.6
441.9 441.9 437 3 435 4
1,146.9 1,147.0 1,128.4 1,122.0 1,120.4 1,123.0 1,107.8 1,091.0 1,102.1 '1,104.1 1,122.1 1,123.5 1,128 9 1 119 1
417.9
427.9 423.6
418.7 417.3 420.5 424,4
426.7 431.5 '433.1
446.5 453.9 457 1 456 8
681.4
675,7 675.7
675.8 674.4
675.6 675.6 675.6 673.9 '673.9
673.7 673 1 672 3 67? 0
684.3
695.3 695.3
688.2 678 3 663.2
669.8
680.2 667.0 '677.6
681.1
674.6 657.3 647.5

24.

C o n tin u ed — P roducer Price Indexes, by com m o dity groupings

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]________________________________________________ _ _ _______
1984

1983

Annual
C o m m o d it y g r o u p a n d s u b g r o u p

Code

a verag e
S e p t.

O c t.

Nov.

D ec.

Jan.

Feb.

M a r.

A p r.

M ay1

June

J u ly

A ug.

S e p t.

298 1
271.4
346.9
<2)
282.0
250.9
265.3
250.0

299 9
273.1
34.4
194.4
286 0
254.0
265 0
252.8

302 2
275.2
347.4
216.2
287.2
257.3
266.5
254.7

303.6
277.4
356.7
215.0
288 5
259 4
267.9
254 7

304.0
277.4
355.5
211.5
289.3
260.9
268.0
250.4

309.1
280.8
366.2
211.5
294 2
262.2
270.6
251.9

312.0
285.0
374.2
229.3
296 6
271 8
273.7
255.1

314.0
288.3
378.6
242.9
299.8
275.6
276.5
258 6

316.3
291.5
401.1
258.8
300 4
277.1
279.1
263.8

r317.7
292.7
r407.9
259.3
301.3
'277 8
r280 1
265.2

317.6
293.3
407.6
257.3
301.4
279.1
280.8
265.1

319 2
295.6
410.6
254.7
307.9
279.1
281.9
262 9

320.0
296.3
410 0
254.5
306 9
285.4
282 4
258 4

321.2
297.2
409.5
249 6
306.7
288.2
283 8
258.1

310 7
348.1
358 1
282 0
338.5
292.5
292.4
246.6
304.3
284.3

310.9
348 5
358.7
279.3
338 3
292.7
292.7
245.3
304.2
289.0

310.9
349.5
359.5
276.6
338 2
293.1
294 1
245.5
305.3
289.5

311.9
350 9
360 0
278.2
340.3
293.5
294.0
245 7
306.0
289.6

312.9
353 8
362 5
276.8
344.1
293.3
293.9
247 3
306.5
290.3

314.8
356.2
363.6
280 2
344.8
294.0
296 4
248 1
307.0
291.1

316.8
356.5
363.6
286.1
345.4
294 4
299 9
248.5
308.3
292.1

317.9
356.5
364.2
289.1
345.3
294.6
301.5
250.3
309.3
293.1

r317.4
r357.3
r364.7
r284.1
'348.0
'295.3
r301 6
'252 4
310.6
'293.4

317.2
356.8
365 4
282.9
348.2
295.0
302 0
251 3
311.1
294 5

315.9
357.2
367.8
276.8
348.4
295.8
302.5
254./
311.6
294.1

315.8
35/.1
368.0
274 6
352.4
296 7
303.3
255.5
312.3
295.0

315.3
35/6
367.9
271 3
352.6
297.3
299 0

1983

I N D U S T R IA L C O M M O D IT IE S — C o n t in u e d

09
09-1
09-11
09-12
no-13
09-14
09-15
09-2

Pulp, paper, and allied products...........................................
Pulp, paper,and products,excluding building paper and board
Woodpulp.....................................................................

10
10-1
10-17
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-7
10-8

Metals and metal products..................................................

Fabricated structural metal products .................................
Miscellaneous metal products...........................................

307.2
343.4
352.8
276.1
335.4
290.7
289 3
243.6
303.5
283.6

11
11-1
11-2
11-3
11 4
11-6
11-7
11-9

Machinery and equipment ..................................................
Agricultural machinery and equipment ...............................
Construction machinery and equipment
Metalworking machinery and equipment.............................
General purpose machinery and equipment
Special industry machinery and equipment..........................
Electrical machinery and equipment....................................
Miscellaneous machinery ................................................

286.4
326.3
351.9
326.5
308.2
337.1
240.1
274.1

287 9
328.5
353.5
326.6
308.1
339.8
242.9
274.5

287.6
328.0
353 6
327.0
307.8
340 6
242.6
273.3

288.0
328.6
353.9
327.3
308.6
341.0
242.8
273.7

288.8
330.1
353.6
328.7
309 8
342.0
243.8
273 9

289.7
331.0
354.2
329.2
310.7
342.0
244 7
275.5

290.2
331 4
355 9
330.2
310.9
343.2
245.7
274.3

291 0
332.9
355.3
330.6
311.7
344.6
246.7
274.5

292.2
335.5
357 5
332.6
313.1
346.8
247.7
274.6

'292.6
'338.2
357.8
'333.5
'313.2
348.2
'248.1
'273.7

293.1
336.8
358.1
333.3
313.6
348 8
248.4
275.7

293.7
337.2
358.2
334.1
314.9
351.0
248 5
275.6

294.2
337.6
358.6
334.6
315.4
352.3
248.7
276.1

294.5
337.9
359.0
335.5
315.8
350.3
249 3
276.6

Floor coverings..............................................................
Household appliances .....................................................
Home electronic equipment .............................................
Other household durable goods.........................................

214.0
234.7
286.3
185.4
206.9
86.1
313.1

215.4
236.6
287.3
189.5
208.0
85.8
314.5

215.3
236.9
287.4
189.5
207.6
85.8
314.0

215.7
237.4
289.9
189.3
208.0
85.1
315.1

215.7
237.2
289.5
189.4
208.5
84.5
315.2

216.8
237.9
293.4
188.2
209.8
84.4
318.0

217.2
239.1
294 7
188.4
210.7
84.1
316 8

217 4
240.0
294.7
188.3
210 9
84 0
316.7

218.2
240.8
296.1
188.2
210.9
84.9
319.1

'219.1
241.5
'297.4
'191.7
'210.8
'84.5
'321.6

219.2
242.3
297 0
191.6
211.1
83.7
322.1

218.7
241.8
297.9
191.4
211.4
82.4
320.4

218.9
242.2
298.4
191.3
211.7
84.2
316 3

218.9
243.0
298.5
191.4
211.8
83.5
315.9

327.2
229.5
317.2
303.5
282.4
340.2
387.2
297.8
351.1
482.5

328.0
229.6
316.7
303.3
283.5
344.7
387 9
312.8
350.2
483.2

328.9
230.1
314.8
304 1
284.1
353.3
387.8
315.1
350.4
487 4

328 9
229.9
314.6
304 2
284.2
353.3
384.2
322.6
350.4
486.8

330.1
229.5
315.6
304.9
284.3
353.9
385.0
328.6
350.6
486.4

332.2
229.9
319.9
305.9
283 7
356.0
392.3
339.4
350.6
488.1

333.4
229 1
324.2
306.3
284.3
361.1
385 6
339.6
351.6
490.8

335.8
230.2
324.3
308.8
285.0
361.8
396 2
353.0
358.0
491.3

'337.6
'226.1
'328.0
'309.4
'285 6
'361.8
'398.7
360.9
'361.9
'494.9

338.4
227.3
326.3
310.0
285.6
362.9
392.3
360.3
366.0
499.7

339.3
227.4
327.2
310.6
285.7
362.9
392.6
360.6
367.1
507.1

340.0
217.8
329.0
311.3
287.5
362.7
405 6
352.9
366 0
512.0

340.4
217.9
328.8
311.4
288.7
362.7
406.7
356.1
364.6
510.1

12
12-1
12-2
12 3
12-4
12-5
12-6

Paper ..........................................................................
Paperboard ...................................................................
Converted paper and paperboard products..........................
Building paper and board ................................................

Plumbing fixtures and brass fittings

¿57.5

312.1
295.6

13-8
13-9

Other nonmetallic minerals .............................................

325.2
229.7
313.3
302.0
277.8
341.3
384.0
286.0
352.4
480.2

14
14-1
14-4

Transportation equipment (12/68 = 100)...............................
Motor vehicles and equipment...........................................
Railroad equipment.........................................................

256.7
256.8
350.2

250.4
249.1
350.7

260.6
260 6
348.6

260.5
260.5
348.6

260 7
260.6
350.5

261.5
261.1
351.5

262.2
261.2
351.5

262.4
261.5
352.0

263.4
261,9
380.8

'262.5
261 5
'354.4

262.6
261.4
361.2

262.8
261.5
363 4

263.1
261.8
364 6

257.4
254 6
364 6

15
15-1
15-2

Toys sporting goods, small arms, ammunition...................

289.6
225.2
365.4
280.1
215.7
163.4
351.8

291.4
224.8
376.9
279.7
216.6
164.3
349.6

291.7
225.9
376.8
279.7
216.8
164.8
349.2

291.7
225.2
377.0
279.6
216.8
165 0
349.3

292.8
225.3
377.1
280.1
216.8
165.1
353.2

294.5
227.4
389.4
281.4
<2)
162.2
350.8

294.9
227.8
390.3
282.2
217.9
162.4
350.5

294.9
227.6
390 4
282.2
212.7
162.5
354.2

294.6
226.5
390.4
283.0
213 6
163.8
351.9

294 3
'226.8
390.6
'283.9
'213.6
'163.7
'350.4

295.6
226.4
400.2
283.9
213.5
163.9
349.6

297.1
226.4
407.9
283.9
213.7
164.1
349 8

297.9
226.9
407.6
283.9
214.1
163.1
352.8

296.4
226 9
406.7
283 9
215.5
163.3
346.6

13
13-2
13-3
13-4
13 5
13-6

15-4
15-5
15-9

Nonmetallic mineral products .............................................
Flat glass......................................................................

Structural clay products, excluding refractories ...................
Asphalt roofing..............................................................
Gypsum products .........................................................

Photographic equipment and supplies ...............................
Other miscellaneous products...........................................

1Data for May 1984 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by
respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
2Not available.
3Prices for natural gas are lagged 1 month.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

4Includes only domestic production.
5Most prices for refined petroleum products are lagged 1 month.
6Some prices for industrial chemicals are lagged 1 month.
r= revised.

91

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
25.

P roducer Price indexes, for special com m o dity groupings

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
A nnual

19 8 3

1984

1983

S e p t.

O c t.

Nov.

D ec.

Jan.

Feb.

M a r.

A p r.

M ay1

306.6
257.5
258.7

308.3
260.7
260.9

309.2
260.5
258.6

309.1
258.0
258.0

309.4
260.2
260.4

310.7
268.3
266.2

311.9
270.2
267.0

313.6
272.9
271.2

314.2
270.6
270.9

r314.7
'268.9
r271.4

314.9
267.6
269.2

Industrial commodities less fuels . . . .
Selected textile mill products (Dec. 1975 = 100)
Hos ery .........................................
Underwear and nightwear ...................
Chemicals and allied products, including synthetic rubber
and fibers and yarns...............................

279.3
138.2
144.7
223.8

280.0
139.1
145.6
224.5

281.8
139.4
145.6
224.7

282 2
139.8
145.6
224.6

282 9
140.1
145.6
225.4

284.3
140.0
145.8
228.6

285.5
141.3
147.3
229.8

286.7
141.7
147.4
'230.9

287.8
141.7
147.4
229.8

287.8
142.7
147.4
'230 9

287.9
142.6
147.4
229.0

283.5

285.6

285 6

286 3

287.4

287.6

286.2

289.1

290 6

r291.1

290.7

291.2

290.4

290.2

Pharmaceutical preparations.............................
Lumber and wood products, excluding millwork.........
Steel mill products, including fabricated wire products . . . .
Finished steel mill products, excluding fabricated wire
products ....................................
Finished steel mill products, including fabricated wire
products .........................................

224.8
321.2
351.2

227.1
316.5
355.9

229.4
316.7
356.4

231.3
314.7
357.4

231.8
321.4
357.8

233.9
322.6
360.1

235.9
331.4
361.1

238.8
334.9
361.2

241.5
332.5
361.8

r241.9
r320 4
r362.4

242.3
317.9
363.1

244.0
312 6
365.3

244 2
315 3
365.7

245 7
311 4
365.6

351.5

357.1

357.8

358.6

359.2

361.7

363.2

363.1

363.6

r364.1

364.8

367.0

367.4

367.2

349.9

354.8

355.4

356.4

356.9

359.2

360.5

360.5

361.0

361.6

362.3

364.4

364.9

364.8

Special metals and metal products .........
Fabricated metal products..........................
Copper and copper products.............................
Machinery and motive products . . . .
Machinery and equipment, except electrical . . . .

292.6
294.3
196.6
279.8
313.6

291.5
295.5
198.2
277.7
314.3

296.4
297.2
190.7
282.2
314.1

296 3
297.9
182.6
282.4
314.6

297.0
298.4
185.0
283.0
315.3

297.8
299.3
182.1
283.9
316.3

299.0
300.0
185.1
284.5
316.5

300.3
301.1
192.9
285.0
317.1

301.2
301.9
199.4
286.2
318.5

'300.8
'302.9
'191.8
'285.9
'318.8

300.6
303.5
189.3
286.3
319.4

300.0
303.8
183.5
286.7
320.3

300 0
304.9
181 8
287 1
321.0

296 7
305 0
182 1
284 7
321.1

Agricultural machinery, including tractors .
Metalworking machinery..........................
Total tractors...........................................
Agricultural machinery and equipment less parts..............

341.5
357.1
r369.7
330.0

344.0
357.5
372.5
332.6

343.6
357.1
372.6
331.8

344.0
357.6
373.1
332.2

346.4
358.2
373.8
334.2

347.1
359.3
374.0
335.2

347.5
362.1
374.5
335.7

349.3
361.6
376.1
337.4

352.9
363.0
384.1
340.4

'357.0
'363.2
'386.8
'343.6

354.6
363.2
384.8
341.7

355.4
364.7
384.9
342.3

355 9
365 2
386 5
342.7

356 0
366 5
386 4
343.0

Farm and garden tractors less parts ..............
Agricultural machinery, excluding tractors less parts .
Construction materials......................

347.2
337.1
297.7

350.6
338.9
299.9

350.7
338.2
300.4

350.9
338.7
300.4

352.0
342.2
301.3

352.2
343.3
302.3

352.9
343.4
305.0

355.1
344.9
306.6

362.1
345.7
307.1

'365.8
'350.1
'306.2

362.8
348.2
306.3

362.9
349.6
306.6

364 9
348 8
307.3

364 8
349 2
306.7

A p r.

M ay1

June

J u ly

Aug.

S e p t.

A ll c o m m o d it ie s — le s s f a r m p r o d u c ts
A ll f o o d s
P ro c e s s e d fo o d s

1Data for May 1984 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by
respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.

26.

June

J u ly

Aug.

S e p t.

315.4
272.1
273.4

314.7
270.1
270.5

313.4
268 9
269.5

288.1
142.9
147.8
229.5

288 2
142.7
147 8
230.2

287 5
142 7
147 9
230.2

r = revised.

P roducer Price indexes, by durability of product

[1967 = 100]
Annual
C o m m o d it y g r o u p in g

19 83

a verag e
1983

S e p t.

O c t.

Nov.

D ec.

Total durable goods ...................
Total nondurable goods ..............

286.7
315.7

286.8
319.7

289.2
319.1

289.3
318.1

290.1
318.4

291.0
321.2

292.2
321.9

293.2
324.8

294.2
324.7

'293.8
r325.3

293.8
325.1

293.7
326.3

293.9
324.0

292.5
322.6

Total manufactures......................
Durable .............................
Nondurable ........................

295.7
287.3
304.4

297.2
287.2
307.8

298.5
289.6
307.7

298.4
289.8
307.4

298.8
290.5
307.5

300.0
291.3
309.1

301.2
292 4
310.4

302.8
293.3
312.7

303.2
294.3
312.5

'303.8
293.9
r314.1

303.8
294.1
314.1

304.2
294.1
314.9

303.4
294.5
312.7

302.1
293.0
311.7

Total raw or slightly processed goods
Durable .............................
Nondurable ........................

339.8
249.3
345.4

345.9
260.7
351.0

343.6
259.8
348.6

340.6
258.5
345.6

341.8
263.3
346.5

348.4
267.4
353.3

347.6
275.2
351.8

352.4
278.7
356.7

352.4
280.6
356.5

'350.1
'277.9
r354.3

349.0
273.0
353.5

350.8
264.8
356.0

348.1
259.6
353.5

345.8
260.6
351.0

1Data for May 1984 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections
by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.

92

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

27.

P roducer Price indexes for the output of selected SIC industries

(1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
S IC

In d u s tr y d e s c r ip t io n

code

1984

1983

Annual

1972

av e ra g e
1983

S e p t.

O c t.

Nov.

D ec.

Jan.

Feb.

M a r.

A p r.

177.1
269.7
921 4

177.1
243.3
920.0

177.1
283 3
907.2

177.1
287.5
909 4

177.1
277.0
909 4

177.1
275.8
914.3

177.1
245.4
913 0

177.1
250.0
902.7

177.1
267 9
909 2

June

J u ly

Aug.

S e p t.

177.1
273.7
r914.1

177.1
271.6
919 2

177.1
264.6
922.2

177.1
249.1
929.4

177.1
257.1
919.4

M ay1

M IN IN G

1011
1092
1311

Iron ores (12/75 -■ 100)....................................
Mercury ores (12/75 = 100) .............................
Crude petroleum and natural gas

2067
2074
2083
2091
2098

Chewing g u m ..................................................
Cottonseed oil mills...........................................
Malt ..............................................................
Canned and cured seafoods (12/73 100) .........
Macaroni and spaghetti

326 8
204.1
234.1
174.1
256.8

327.3
262.9
232.6
169.8
255.5

327.3
253.5
232 6
170.2
258 6

327.5
233.1
241.6
169 2
261.9

327 5
223 3
241.6
169 7
261 9

328.0
229 2
241 6
1690
261 9

328 1
201.7
241.6
168 8
261 9

328 7
212.7
241 6
168 6
261.9

328.8
222.6
241.6
167 0
261.9

'328.9
r245 3
241 6
'169.3
261 9

329.0
242.9
241.6
168 9
261.9

329.1
223.2
241.6
167.8
261.9

329.2
210.3
241.6
167.9
261 9

329.2
205.0
241.6
167.1
261 9

2298
2361
2381
2394
2448

Cordage and twine (12/77 = 100) .....................
Children's dresses and blouses (12/77 = 100) . . . .
Fabric dress and work gloves .............................
Canvas and related products (12/77 100).........
Wood pallets and skids (12/75 - 100)................

139.3
116.6
293 3
147 0
149.2

139.0
117.0
296 3
146 2
151.0

139 0
117.0
296.3
147.8
151.5

138.9
117.0
296 3
147.8
151.9

139.0
117.0
297 6
147 8
153.6

139.0
118.2
295 2
150.6
154.0

139.2
117.8
299.1
150.6
156 0

139.2
117.8
302 3
150.6
157.9

139.3
118.6
304 8
150.6
161.6

139.4
'118.6
315.6
'150 6
'165.1

139.4
118.5
315 6
151.3
165.4

137,4
118.6
315.6
151.3
166 3

137.4
118.6
315.6
151.3
166.3

137.4
117.8
315.6
152.9
166.4

2521
2654
2655
2911
3251

Wood office furniture.........................................
Sanitary food containers ....................................
Fiber cans, drums, and similar products (12/75 = 100)
Petroleum refining (6/76 = 100) ........................
Brick and structural clay t i le ...............................

281.3
266.1
186.5
253.8
332.3

283 6
267.8
187 7
256.8
336.4

283 6
269.0
187 8
257.1
338.4

283.6
269.0
189 5
253.5
339.7

283.6
269 0
189.6
249.7
339.9

285 1
269.1
189 6
244.4
340 2

289 1
273.4
189.7
246.7
339.9

289.1
278.4
191.4
249 8
341.1

289 2
280 6
193.1
244 9
342 6

'289.2
'280.6
193.1
'248.1
'343 8

290.3
282.3
193.1
249.6
346.1

290.3
282.3
194.7
247.2
346.5

290.3
282.3
194 7
241.0
346.5

292.2
282 9
194.7
238.3
348 7

3253
3255
3259
3261
3263

Ceramic wall and floor tile (12/75 100) ............
Clay refractories................................................
Structural clay products, n.e.c..............................
Vitreous plumbing fixtures.................................
Fine earthenware food utensils.............................

146 0
355.6
230.2
278.1
366 5

149.6
355.9
234.9
281.3
366 5

149.6
364.3
235.1
283 7
366.5

149 6
366 6
235.0
284.5
368.5

149.6
366.5
235.0
285.4
368.5

149 6
367 2
235.0
285.6
383.6

149.6
367.7
232.1
287.0
384.0

149.6
369.3
232.4
290 1
375.9

149.6
371.5
232.4
290 4
382 6

'149.6
'371.5
'232.4
290.8
'376.5

146.8
373.7
232 9
292.5
375.5

146.8
373.7
233.0
293.1
372.1

150.5
373.4
232.9
293.9
373.0

150.5
373.4
232 9
295.5
372.8

3269
3274
3297
3482
3623

Pottery products, n.e.c. (12/75 * 100)
Lime (12/75 = 1 00 ).........................................
Nonclay refractories (12/74 = 100).....................
Small arms ammunition (12/75 = 100).................
Welding apparatus, electric (12/72 = 100)............

187.1
185.7
205.2
180 5
243.6

186 6
186.3
203.8
181.6
243.6

186.6
185.9
203.9
181.6
243.9

189.9
182 4
212.8
181.6
243.9

189.9
182.5
212.8
181.6
244.7

191.9
182.8
213.1
190 3
246.0

192.2
184.4
215.4
190.3
246.7

191.9
183.9
220.6
190 3
247.2

192.2
184.1
220 1
190.3
248.7

'192 2
184.2
'220.1
'190 3
'248 8

192.2
183.4
220.1
196.6
245.2

192.1
180 4
220.0
196.6
245.3

192.1
179.8
219.9
196.6
245.4

189.0
187 3
220.3
196.6
245.9

3648
3671
3942
3944
3955

Lighting equipment, n e.c. (12/75 100)............
Electron tubes, receiving type .............................
Dolls (12/75 - 1 00).........................................
Games, toys, and children's vehicles ...................
Carbon paper and inked ribbons (12/75 = 100) . . .

172.8
435.4
137 5
238.7
139.2

173.5
432.8
137.7
236.3
139.2

173.7
432 9
137.7
236.4
139.3

173.9
432.9
137 7
236 2
139 3

172.6
469.8
137.7
236 2
139 3

173.5
490 6
137.6
239.3
144 3

173.5
490.8
137.8
240.6
149.0

184.9
490 8
137.7
240 1
149 0

185 0
490.9
131.6
239 7
149.1

185 6
'490.9
'133.4
'239.1
149.1

185.7
490.9
133.3
234.7
149.1

186.4
491.1
133 3
234.7
146.7

188 2
491.3
133.3
234.7
146.7

188.3
491.6
133.3
234.8
146.7

3995
3996

Burial caskets (6/76
100)...............................
Hard surface floor coverings (12/75 100).........

153.5
161.5

155.4
163.5

156 0
165.5

156.0
163 5

156.0
163.5

156.0
165.2

157.2
165.2

157.3
165.2

158.8
166 3

158.8
166.4

158.8
166.4

158.8
168.7

158.8
168 7

158.5
168.8

M A N U F A C T U R IN G

'Data for May 1984 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections
by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
r = revised.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

NOTE: Indexes which were deleted in the September issue may now be found in Table 4 of the BIS
monthly report, Producer Prices and Price Indexes.

93

PRODUCTIVITY DATA

P r o d u c t i v i t y d a t a are compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
from establishment data and from measures of compensation and
output supplied by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the
Federal Reserve Board.

hour

d e sc r ib e s lab or p ro d u ctiv ity in n o n fin a n c ia l co rp o ra tio n s w h ere there

are n o s e lf-e m p lo y e d . T h e

capital services

input in d ex used in the m u l­

tifa c to r p ro d u ctiv ity co m p u ta tio n is d e v e lo p e d by

b i .s

to r ie s— w e ig h te d by rental p rices for ea ch ty p e o f a sse t.

of labor and capital input

Definitions

from m ea su res o f

the net sto ck o f p h y sica l a s s e ts — e q u ip m en t, stru ctu res, lan d , and in v e n ­

Combined units

are co m p u ted by co m b in in g c h a n g es in labor

and ca p ita l in p u ts w ith w e ig h ts w h ich represent ea ch c o m p o n e n t’s share

Output is the con stan t d o lla r g ro ss product
secto r. Output per hour of all persons (lab or

p rod uced by the particular
p ro d u ctiv ity ) m ea su res the

v a lu e o f g o o d s and s e r v ic e s in con stan t p rices p rod uced per h our o f labor.

Output per unit of capital services

(cap ital p rod u ctivity) m easu res the

o f total o u tpu t. T h e in d e x e s fo r ca p ita l s e r v ic e s and co m b in ed units o f
lab or and cap ital are b a sed on ch a n g in g w e ig h ts w h ich arc a v er a g es o f the
sh a res in th e current and p rec ed in g y ea r (th e T o m q u ist in d ex -n u m b er
fo rm u la ).

v a lu e o f g o o d s and se r v ic e s in con stan t d ollars per unit o f cap ital se r v ic e s

Notes on the data

input.

Multifactor productivity

m easu res the output per unit o f c o m b in ed

lab or and cap ital input. T h e traditional m easu re o f ou tpu t per h our reflects
ch a n g e s in cap ital per h our and a co m b in a tio n o f o th er fa cto rs— su ch a s,
c h a n g e s in te c h n o lo g y , sh ifts in the co m p o s itio n o f the lab or fo r c e , ch a n g es
in ca p a city u tiliz a tio n , research and d e v e lo p m e n t, sk ill and effo rts o f the
work force, m an agem en t, and s o forth. T he m ultifactor productivity m ea s­
ure d iffe r s from the fam iliar

bls

m easu re o f output per hour o f all p erso n s

in that it e x c lu d e s the e ffe c ts o f the su b stitu tion o f cap ital for labor.

Compensation per hour

In the b u sin ess sector and the nonfarm b usiness sector, the output m ea s­
ure e m p lo y e d in the co m p u ta tio n o f output per hour is co n stru cted from
G r o ss D o m e s tic P roduct rather than G ro ss N a tio n a l P rodu ct. M u ltifa cto r
p ro d u c tiv ity m ea su res (ta b le 2 8 ) fo r the

private

b u sin e ss and

private

non­

farm b u sin e ss s ecto rs d iffer from the b u sin e ss and nonfarm b u sin e ss secto r
m ea su res u sed in the traditional lab or p ro d u ctiv ity in d e x e s (ta b les 2 9 - 3 2 )
in that th ey e x c lu d e the a c tiv itie s o f g o v er n m en t en terp rises. T h ere is no
d iffe r e n c e in the secto r d efin itio n for m an u fa ctu rin g .

in clu d es w a g e s and sa la ries o f e m p lo y e e s p lu s

e m p lo y e r s ’ co n trib u tio n s for so cia l in su ran ce and private b en efit p lan s.

O utput m ea su res for the b u sin e ss secto rs are d eriv ed from data su p p lied

T h e data a ls o in clu d e an estim a te o f w a g e s , sa la ries, and su p p lem en tary

by the B ureau o f E c o n o m ic A n a ly sis, U .S . D ep artm en t o f C o m m e r c e , and

p a y m en ts for the s e lf-e m p lo y e d , e x c e p t for n o n fin a n c ia l co r p o r a tio n s, in

the F ederal R eserv e B oard . Q u arterly m an ufacturin g ou tpu t in d e x e s are

is c o m ­

a d justed by the B ureau o f L abor S ta tistics to annual e stim a te s o f output

p en sa tio n per h our ad justed by the C o n su m er Price Index for A ll Urban

(g r o ss p rod uct o rig in a tin g ) from the B ureau o f E c o n o m ic A n a ly sis. C o m ­

C o n su m ers.

p en sa tio n and h ours data are from the B ureau o f L ab or S ta tistics and the

w h ich there are no s e lf-e m p lo y e d .

Real compensation per hour

B ureau o f E c o n o m ic A n a ly sis.

Unit labor costs

m easu re the lab or co m p en sa tio n c o s ts required to

p ro d u ce a unit o f ou tpu t and is d eriv ed by d iv id in g co m p en sa tio n by ou tpu t.

Unit nonlabor payments

T h e p ro d u c tiv ity and a sso c ia ted c o st m ea su res in the ta b les d escrib e the

in clu d e p rofits, d ep rec ia tio n , in terest, and in ­

re la tio n sh ip b etw een ou tpu t in real term s and the labor tim e and cap ital

d irect ta x es per unit o f ou tpu t. T h ey are co m p u ted by sub tractin g c o m ­

s e r v ic e s in v o lv e d in its p ro d u ctio n . T h ey sh o w the c h a n g e s from p eriod

p en sa tio n o f all p erson s from current d ollar g ro ss product and d iv id in g by

to p erio d in the a m o u n t o f g o o d s and s e r v ic e s p rod uced per unit o f input.

o u tp u t.

Unit nonlabor costs

con tain all the c o m p o n en ts o f unit n onlab or

p a y m en ts e x c e p t unit p rofits.

Unit profits

in clu d e corporate p ro fits and

th e v a lu e o f in ven tory ad ju stm en ts per unit o f ou tpu t.
The

implicit price deflator

is the p rice in d ex for the g ro ss product o f

the s e cto r reported. It is d eriv ed by d iv id in g the current d o lla r g ro ss product

A lth o u g h th ese m ea su res relate output to hours and ca p ita l s e r v ic e s , th ey
d o not m ea su re the co n trib u tio n s o f lab or, ca p ita l, or an y o th er s p e c ific
fa cto r o f p ro d u ctio n . R ather, th ey reflect the jo in t e ffe c t o f m an y in flu e n c e s,
in clu d in g ch a n g e s in te c h n o lo g y ; cap ital in v estm en t; le v e l o f output; u ti­
liza tio n o f c a p a c ity , e n e r g y , and m aterials; the o rg a n iz a tio n o f p rod uction ;
m a n agerial sk ill; and the ch a ra cteristics and e ffo rts o f the w ork fo rce . For

b y the co n sta n t d o lla r fig u re s.

a m ore c o m p le te d escrip tio n o f th e m e th o d o lo g y u nd erly in g the m u ltifa cto r

Hours of all persons

m easu res the labor input o f payroll w ork ers, s e lf-

e m p lo y e d p e r so n s, and unpaid fa m ily w ork ers.

94

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Output per all employee

p ro d u c tiv ity m ea su res, s e e B u lle tin 2 1 7 8 , “ T rend s in M u ltifa cto r P ro d u c­
tiv ity , 1 9 4 8 - 8 1 ” (S ep tem b er 1 9 8 3 ).

28.

A nnual indexes of m ultifactor produ ctivity and related m easures, selected years, 1 9 5 0 -8 3

[1977 = 100]
Hem

1950

1960

1970

1973

1974

1975

1976

1978

1979'

1980'

1981'

1982'

19B 3P

49 7
98.6
63.6
39.5

64.8
98.5
75.4
53 3

86.1
98.5
90.2
78.3

'94.8
103.0
97.5
91.8

r92 5
96 5
93.8
89.9

94.5
92 0
93.6
88 0

97.6
96.1
97.1
93.7

'100.5
101.8
101.0
105.5

99 3
100.3
99.7
107 9

98.7
95.6
97.6
106.4

100.6
94.1
98.3
109.2

100.8
89 6
96.8
106 3

103.7
92.3
99 6
111.1

'79 4
40.1
62.1
50.4

82 2
54.1
70 7
65.8

r90 8
79.4
'86 7
87 4

r96.8
89.1
94.1
92.0

97 2
93.1
95 8
'95.9

93.1
95.7
94.0
102.8

95 9
97.5
96 5
101.6

'105 0
103.6
'104.5
'98 7

108.6
107.5
108.2
98 9

107.8
111.4
109.0
103 3

108.5
116.0
111.0
106.9

105.4
118.7
109.8
112.6

107.2
120.3
111.5
112 3

55.6
98 2
68 1
38.3

r68 0
98.4
77.6
52 3

86.8
98.6
'90 7
77.8

95 3
103.2
97 9
91.7

92 9
96.5
94.1
89.7

'94.8
91.7
93 6
87.6

97.8
96.1
97.2
93.6

100.6
101.9
'101.0
105.7

99 0
100.1
99.4
108.0

98.2
95 2
97.2
106.4

99 6
93.2
97.4
108.7

99 9
88 7
95.9
105.9

103.5
91.9
99.3
111.3

69.0
39.0
'56 2
56.6

77 0
53.2
67.4
r69.1

89 7
78.9
85.9
88 0

96.2
88 8
93.6
'92.4

'96.5
93.0
'95 3
96 3

'92.4
95.6
'93.5
103 4

95.7
97.4
96 3
101.8

105.1
103.7
104.6
98.7

109.1
107.9
108.7
98 9

108.4
111.7
109.5
103.1

109.1
116.6
111.6
106.8

106 0
119.4
110 4
112.6

107 6
121.2
112.0
112.6

49.4
94.5
59 9
38.6

60.0
88 0
67.0
50.7

r79.2
91.8
82.3
77.0

93.0
108 2
96.8
95.9

90.8
99.6
'93.1
91.9

93 4
89.4
92.2
85.4

'97.6
96.1
97.1
93.6

'100.9
101.5
'101.1
105 3

101.6
99.5
101.0
108.2

101,7
90.7
98.8
103.5

104.9
89.9
100.8
106.1

107.1
02.9
100.3
99.3

111.6
87.6
104.9
104.4

78.2
40.9
'64 5
52 3

84.4
57.5
75.6
68 2

97.3
83.9
'93 5
86.2

r103 1
88.6
'99 0
85 9

101.2
92.2
'98.7
91.1

91.4
95.5
92.6
'104.5

95.9
97.4
'96.3
'101.6

'104.4
103.8
'104.2
'99.4

106.5
108.8
107.1
102.1

101 7
114.1
104 8
112.2

101.1
118.0
105 2
116.7

92.7
119.8
99.0
129.2

93.5
119.2
99.5
127.5

P R IV A T E B U S IN E S S S E C T O R

Productivity:
Output per hour of all persons.....................
Output per unit of capital services.................
Multifactor productivity...............................
Output..........................................................
Inputs:
Hours of all persons....................................
Capital services .........................................
Combined units of labor and capital input . . . .
Capital per hour of all persons ........................
P R IV A T E N O N F A R M B U S IN E S S S E C T O R

Productivity:
Output per hour of all persons.....................
Output per unit of capital services.................
Multifactor productivity...............................
Output..........................................................
Inputs:
Hours of all persons....................................
Capital services .........................................
Combined units of labor and capital input . . . .
Capital per hour of all persons ........................
M A N U F A C T U R IN G

Productivity:
Output per hour of all persons.....................
Output per unit of capital services.................
Multifactor productivity...............................
Output..........................................................
Inputs:
Hours of all persons....................................
Capital services .........................................
Combined units of labor and capital input . . . .
Capital per hour of all persons ........................

P = preliminary.

r = revised.

29.

A nnual in dexes of productivity, hourly com pensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years, 1 9 5 0 -8 3

[1977 = 100]
Item
Business sector:
Output per hour of all persons.....................
Compensation per hour...............................
Real compensation per hour ........................
Unit labor costs.........................................
Unit nonlabor payments...............................
Implicit price deflator.................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons.....................
Compensation per hour...............................
Real compensation per hour ........................
Unit labor costs.........................................
Unit nonlabor payments...............................
Implicit price deflator..................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
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.................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons.....................
Compensation per hour...............................
Real compensation per hour ........................
Unit nonlabor payments...................
Implicit price deflator..................................

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1976

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

50.4
20.0
50.5
39.8
43.4
41.0

58.3
26.4
59 7
45 2
47.6
46.0

65 2
33.9
69.5
52.1
50.6
51.6

78.3
41.7
80.1
53.3
57 6
54.7

86.2
58.2
90 8
67.5
63.2
66.0

94.6
85.6
96 4
90.5
90 4
90.4

97.6
92.9
98.9
95.1
94.0
94.7

100.5
108 5
100.8
108.0
106.7
107.5

99.3
118 7
99.1
119.5
112.8
117.2

98 8
131.1
96.4
132.6
119.3
128.1

100.7
143.4
95.5
142.4
136.7
140.4

100.9
155.0
97 3
153.6
136 8
147.9

103.7
161.7
98.4
156.0
145.5
152.4

56.3
21.9
55.1
38.8
42.7
40.1

62.8
28.3
64.0
45.1
47.8
46.0

68.3
35.7
73.1
52.3
50.4
51.6

80.5
42.8
82.3
53.2
58.0
54.8

86.8
58.7
91.5
67.6
63.8
66.3

94 8
86.1
96.9
90.8
88.5
90.0

97 8
93.0
99.0
95.1
93.5
94.6

100.6
108 6
100.8
108 0
105.3
107.1

99.0
118.4
98.8
119.5
110.4
116.5

98 3
130.6
96.0
132.8
118.6
128.1

99.8
143.1
95.3
143.5
135.0
140 6

100.0
154.5
97.0
154 5
136.9
148.6

103.4
162.0
98.6
156.6
147.0
153.4

(1)
<1)
(1)
<1)
<1>
(1)

(1)
<1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)

68.0
37.0
75.8
54.4
54.6
54.5

82.0
43.9
84 3
53.5
60.8
56.1

87.4
59.4
92 7
68 0
63.1
66.3

95.5
86.1
97.0
90.2
90.8
90 4

98.2
92 9
98.9
94 6
95.0
94.7

100.8
108.4
100.7
107.5
104.2
106 4

100.6
118 6
99.0
117.8
106.9
114.1

99 7
130.8
96.2
131.2
117.4
126 4

101.6
143.1
95.3
140.9
135.1
138.9

102.6
154.6
97.0
150.6
138.1
146.3

106.1
161.0
97.9
151.8
149.1
150 9

49.4
21.5
54 0
43.4
54.3
46.6

56.4
28.8
65.1
51.0
58.6
53.2

60.0
36.7
75.1
61.1
61.1
61.1

74.6
42.8
82.3
57.5
69.4
61.0

79.2
57.6
89.8
72.7
65.1
70.5

93.4
85.5
96.2
91.5
87.3
90.3

97.6
92.3
98.3
94.6
93.9
94.4

100.9
108.3
100 6
107.3
102.7
106.0

101.6
118.8
99.2
117.0
99.9
112.0

101.7
132.7
97.6
130.5
97.9
120.9

104.9
145.2
96.8
138.4
111.6
130.6

107.1
158.0
99 2
147.6
110.5
136.7

111.6
163.4
99 4
146.4
128.8
141.2

1Not available.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

95

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Current Labor Statistics: Productivity

30.

A nnual changes in productivity, hourly com pensation, unit costs, and prices, 1 9 7 3 -8 3
of change
1973

Business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............
Compensation per h o u r.....................
Real compensation per hour ..............
Unit labor costs ...............................
Unit nonlabor payments.....................
Implicit price deflator .................: . .
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............
Compensation per h o u r.....................
Real compensation per hour ..............
Unit labor costs ...............................
Unit nonlabor payments.....................
Implicit price deflator ........................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees.........
Compensation per h o u r.....................
Real compensation per hour ..............
Unit labor costs ...............................
Unit nonlabor payments.....................
Implicit price deflator ........................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ............
Compensation per h o u r.....................
Real compensation per hour ..............
Unit labor costs ...............................
Unit nonlabor payments.....................
Implicit price deflator ........................

A n n u a l r a te

Year

It e m
1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1 9 5 0 -8 3

1 9 7 3 -8 3

2.6
8.0
1.6
5.3
5.9
5.5

-2.4
9.4
-1.4
12.1
4.4
9.5

2.2
9.6
0.5
7.3
15.1
9.8

3.3
8.5
2.6
5.1
4.0
4.7

2.4
7.7
1.2
5.1
6.4
5.6

0.5
8.5
0.8
8.0
6.7
7.5

-1.2
9.4
-1.7
10.7
5.8
9.0

-0.5
10.4
-2.7
11.0
5.7
9.3

1.9
9.4
-0.9
7.3
14.6
9.6

0.2
8.1
1.9
7.9
0.1
5.3

2.7
4.3
1.1
1.6
6.3
3.0

2.2
65
2.0
4.2
3.7
41

09
85
01
76
71
71

2.4
7.6
1.3
5.0
1.3
3.8

-2.5
9.4
-1.4
12.2
5.9
10.2

2.0
9.6
0.4
7.5
16.7
10.3

3.2
8.1
2.2
4.7
5.7
5.1

2.2
7.5
1.0
5.2
6.9
5.7

0.6
8.6
0.8
8.0
5.3
7.1

-1.5
9.0
-2.0
10.7
4.8
8.8

-0.7
10.3
-2.8
11.1
7.4
10.0

1.5
9.6
-0.7
8.0
13.8
9.8

0.2
8.0
1.7
7.7
1.4
5.7

3.5
4.9
1.6
1.4
7.4
3.2

19
63
1.8
4.3
3.8
4.1

12
85
01
7.6
75
76

2.4
7.5
1.2
4.9
1.5
3.8

-3.7
9.4
-1.5
13.6
7.1
11.4

2.9
9.6
0.4
6.5
20.1
10.9

2.9
7.9
2.0
4.9
4.6
4.8

1.8
7.6
1.1
5.7
5.3
5.6

0.8
8.4
0.7
7.5
4.2
6.4

-0.2
9.4
-1.7
9.6
2.6
7.2

-0.9
10.3
-2.8
11.3
9.8
10.8

1.9
9.4
-0.9
7.4
15.1
9.8

1.0
8.0
1.8
6.9
2.3
5.3

3.3
4.2
0.9
0.8
7.9
3.1

(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)

11
85
0.1
74
71
73

5.4
7.2
0.9
1.7
-3.3
0.3

-2.4
10.6
-0.3
13.3
-1.8
9.0

2.9
11.9
2.5
8.8
25.9
13.1

4.5
8.0
2.1
3.4
7.5
4.6

2.5
8.3
1.8
5.7
6.5
6.0

0.9
8.3
0.6
7.3
2.7
6.0

0.7
9.7
-1.4
9.0
-2.6
5.7

0.2
11.7
-1.6
11.5
-2.1
7.9

3.1
9.4
-0.9
6.1
14.1
8.0

2.1
8.8
2.5
6.6
-1.0
4.7

4,3
3.4
0.2
-0.8
16.5
3.3

25
63
1.9
38
2.6
3.4

18
90
05
70
6.2
6.8

1Not available.

31.

Q uarterly indexes of productivity, hourly com pensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted

[1977 = 100]

Business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ...................
Compensation per hour .............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Unit labor costs.........................................
Unit nonlabor payments .............................
Implicit price deflator..................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ...................
Compensation per hour .............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Unit labor costs.........................................
Unit nonlabor payments .............................
Implicit price deflator..................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees.................
Compensation per hour .............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Total unit costs.........................................
Unit labor costs.................................
Unit nonlabor costs.............................
Unit profits ..............................................
Implicit price deflator..................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ...................
Compensation per hour .............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Unit labor costs.........................................

96

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Q u a r t e r ly in d e x e s

Annual
av e ra g e

It e m

1981

1982

1983

1984

1982

1983

100.9
155.0
97.3
153.6
136.8
147.9

103.7
161.7
98.4
156.0
145.5
152.4

100.3
147.6
95.4
147.1
139.6
144.6

100.9
151.4
96.9
150.0
138.0
145.9

100.3
153.9
97.2
153.4
137.0
147.9

100 9
156.7
97.3
155.3
135.8
148.7

101.6
158.4
98.0
155.9
136.5
149.3

102.2
160.2
99.0
156.8
139.8
151.0

103.6
161.0
98.5
155.4
144.6
151.7

104.3
161.8
98.0
155.1
147.9
152.7

104.7
164.2
98.4
156.8
149.1
154.2

105.7
166.7
98.6
157.7
151.6
155.6

106.8
167.5
98.2
156.9
156.3
156.7

100.0
154.5
97.0
154.5
136.9
148.6

103.4
162.0
98.6
156.6
147.0
153.4

99.2
147.3
95.2
148.5
138.5
145.1

99.8
151.0
96.7
151.4
136.9
146.5

99.4
153.2
96.8
154.2
137.5
148.6

100.3
156.0
96.9
155.6
136.8
149.3

100.5
157.9
97.7
157.1
136.4
150.2

101.6
160.1
99.0
157.6
140.6
151.9

103.6
161.5
98.8
155.9
146.4
152.7

104.1
162.4
98.3
155 9
149.4
153.8

104.4
164.0
98.2
157.1
151.4
155.2

105.2
166.5
98.5
158.3
152.2
156.3

106.4
168.0
98.5
158.0
155.8
157.2

102.6
154.6
97.0
154.3
150.6
164.8
84.6
146.3

106.1
161.0
97.9
155.2
151.8
164.9
117.2
150.9

101.3
147.1
95.1
148.7
145.2
158.5
100.2
143.1

102.2
151.1
96.7
151.5
147.9
161.6
89.4
144.3

102.1
153.5
97.0
154.0
150.3
164.3
86.8
146.3

103.3
156.2
97.0
154.7
151.3
164.4
86.6
146.9

103.2
157.7
97.5
157.0
152.9
168.8
75.6
147.7

104.0
159.2
98 4
156.7
153.1
167.0
92.5
149.4

105.8
160.6
98.2
155.2
151.7
165.1
111.8
150.2

107.2
161.8
98.0
154.4
150.9
164.4
126.6
151.2

107.2
162.6
97.4
154.7
151.7
163.3
135.9
152.6

108.1
164.8
97.5
155.0
152.5
162.0
143.2
153.6

108.6
165 8
97.2
155.3
152.7
162.8
147.9
154.5

107.1
158.0
99 2
147.6

111.6
163.4
99.4
146.4

104.0
149.8
96.8
144.0

105.5
154.3
98.8
146.2

106.3
157.2
99.4
148.0

108.8
159.8
99.2
146.9

107.8
161.0
99.6
149.3

109.1
162.7
100.6
149.1

110.8
163.0
99.7
147.0

113.4
163.5
99.0
144.1

113.1
164.6
98.6
145.5

114.2
167.1
98.9
146.4

115.2
168.3
98.7
146.1

IV

1

II

III

IV

I

II

I II

IV

I

II

32. P ercent ch an g e from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly com pensation, unit costs, and prices,
seasonally adjusted at annual rate
P e rc e n t c h a n g e fro m s a m e q u a r te r a y e a r a g o

Q u a r t e r ly p e r c e n t c h a n g e a t a n n u a l r a te

Business sector:
Output per hour of all persons
Compensation per hour
Real compensation per hour............
Unit labor costs.............................
Unit nonlabor payments
Implicit price deflator.....................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons.........
Compensation per hour...................
Real compensation per h our............
Unit labor costs.............................
Unit nonlabor payments .................
Implicit price deflator......................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees
Compensation per hour...................
Real compensation per h our............
Total units costs ..........................
Unit labor costs ........................
Unit nonlabor costs ...................
Unit profits ..................................
Implicit price deflator.....................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons.........
Compensation per hour...................
Real compensation per hour............
Unit labor costs.............................
1Not available.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

IV 1 9 8 2

1 1983

II 1 9 8 3

III 1 9 8 2

IV 1 9 8 3

11984

11982

II 1 9 8 2

III 1 9 8 2

IV 1 9 8 2

11983

to

to

to

to

to

to

to

to

to

to

to

to

1 1983

II 1 9 8 3

III 1 9 8 3

IV 1 9 8 3

1 1984

II 1 9 8 4

1 1983

II 1 9 8 3

III 1 9 8 3

IV 1 9 8 3

I 1984

II 1 9 8 4

2.1
4.4
41
22
10 2
46

59
22
-2.1
-3 5
14.5
1.9

2.8
2.0
-2.1
-0 8
9.5
2.5

1.4
6.1
16
4.6
3.1
4.1

4.0
6.2
1.2
2.1
7.0
3.7

4.0
1.9
-1.7
-2.0
12.9
2.7

1.2
5.8
2.1
4.5
1.3
3.5

3.3
4.6
1.3
1.3
5.5
2.6

3.4
3.3
0.7
-0.1
8.9
2.7

31
3.7
0.3
0.6
9.2
3.3

3.5
4.1
-0.4
0.6
8.4
3.0

3.1
4.0
-0.3
1.0
8.1
3.3

44
5.7
54
1.3
12.7
4.6

8.1
3.5
-0 8
-4.2
17.8
2.2

2.1
2.2
-1.9
0.1
8.4
2.7

1.0
4.1
-0.3
3.0
5.3
3.7

2.9
6.1
1.0
3.1
2.3
28

4.7
3.7
0.0
-0.9
9.7
2.5

1.8
6.0
2.4
4.1
2.7
3.7

4.3
5.4
2.0
1.1
6.5
2.8

3.9
4.1
1.5
0.2
9.2
3.0

3.9
3.9
0.6
0.0
10 9
3.3

3.5
4.0
-0.5
0.4
83
2.9

2.7
4.0
-0.3
1.3
6.4
2.9

32
39
3.5
-0.7
0.7
-4.1
124.6
4.7

7.5
35
-0 8
-3.9
-3.7
-4.5
112 8
23

53
31
-1.0
-2.0
-2.1
-1.7
64.8
2.8

-0.2
20
-2 4
0.8
2.1
-2.6
32 6
3.6

3.6
57
0.7
06
2.0
-3.2
23 4
2.7

1.7
2.3
-1.3
1.0
0.6
2.1
13.6
2.3

18
5.4
1.7
3.5
3.5
3.3
35
3.5

3.7
4.6
1.3
08
0.9
0.5
28 7
2.7

3.8
3.6
1.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.0
46 3
3.0

3.9
3.1
-0.2
-1.5
-0 8
-3.2
79.8
3.3

4.0
3.6
-0.9
-1.1
-0.4
-3.0
54 8
28

2.6
3.2
-1.0
0.1
0.7
-1 4
32.3
2.8

4.8
4.2
39
-0 5

6.4
0.6
-3.5
-5 5

9.7
1.3
-2.8
-7.7

-1.0
2.9
-1.5
3.9

3.7
6.2
1.1
2.3

3.6
2.9
-0.8
-0.7

3.4
5.5
1.8
2.0

4.3
3.6
0.3
-0.6

4.3
2.3
-0.3
-1.9

4.9
2.2
-1.0
-2.6

47
2.7
-1.7
'-1 .9

4.0
3.3
-1.0
r ~0 6

r

II 1 9 8 3

revised.

97

WAGE AND COMPENSATION DATA

D ata for the employment cost index are reported to the Bureau
of Labor Statistics by a sample of 2,000 private nonfarm estab­
lishments and 750 State and local government units selected to
represent total employment in those sectors. On average, each
reporting unit provides wage and compensation information on
five well-specified occupations.

Data on negotiated wage and benefit changes are obtained from
contracts on file at the Bureau, direct contact with the parties, and
secondary sources.

and im p le m en ted w ith in the first 12 m on ths after the e ffe c tiv e d ate o f the
a g re em en t. Changes over the life o f the agreement refer to all ad ju stm en ts
s p e c ifie d in the co n tra ct, ex p r e sse d as an a v era g e annual rate. T h e se m e a s ­
ures e x c lu d e w a g e c h a n g e s that m ay o cc u r under c o s t-o f-liv in g ad justm en t
c la u s e s , that are triggered by m o v e m e n ts in the C o n su m er Price Index.

Wage-rate changes are ex p r e sse d as a p ercen t o f stra ig h t-tim e h ourly earn ­
in gs; compensation changes are ex p re ssed as a percen t o f total w a g e s and
b e n e fits.

Effective wage adjustments

re flect all n eg o tia ted c h a n g e s im p lem en ted

in the refe ren ce p erio d , reg a rd less o f the settlem en t d a te. T h ey in clu d e
c h a n g e s from s ettlem e n ts reach ed d urin g the p erio d , c h a n g e s d eferred from

Definitions

co n tra cts n eg o tia te d in an earlier p erio d , and c o s t-o f-liv in g a d ju stm en ts.
T h e d ata a ls o reflect co n tra cts p ro v id in g for n o w a g e ad justm en t in the

The

Employment Cost Index (E C I)

is a quarterly m easu re o f the a v era g e

ch a n g e in the co s t o f e m p lo y in g labor. T h e rate o f total c o m p e n sa tio n ,

p erio d . E ffe c tiv e ad ju stm en ts and ea ch o f their co m p o n e n ts are prorated
o v e r all w o rk ers in b argain in g u nits w ith at least 1,0 0 0 w ork ers.

w h ich c o m p r ise s w a g e s , sa la ries, and e m p lo y e r c o s ts for e m p lo y e e b en ­
e f it s , is c o lle c te d for w ork ers p erform in g s p e c ifie d task s. E m p lo y m en t in

Notes on the data

ea c h o cc u p a tio n is h eld con stan t o v e r tim e for all series p rod uced in the
E C I, e x c e p t th o se by re g io n , b argain in g statu s, and area. A s a c o n s e q u e n c e ,

T h e E m p lo y m en t C o st Index data series b eg a n in the fourth quarter o f

o n ly ch a n g e s in co m p e n sa tio n are m easu red . Industry and o ccu p a tio n a l

1 9 7 5 , w ith the quarterly percen t c h a n g e in w a g e s and sa la ries in the private

e m p lo y m e n t data from the 1970 C en su s o f P op u lation are u sed in d eriv in g

n onfarm secto r. D ata o n e m p lo y e r c o s ts for e m p lo y e e b en efits w ere in ­

co n sta n t w e ig h ts for the E C I. W h ile h o ld in g total industry and o ccu p a tio n a l

clu d e d in 1 9 8 0 , to p rod u ce a m easu re o f the percen t c h a n g e in e m p lo y e r s ’

e m p lo y m e n t fix e d , in the estim a tio n o f in d e x e s b y re g io n , b argain in g

c o s t fo r e m p lo y e e s ’ total c o m p e n sa tio n . S tate and lo ca l g o v er n m en t units

sta tu s, and area, the e m p lo y m e n t in th o se m easu res is a llo w e d to vary o v e r

w ere ad ded to the ECI c o v e r a g e in 1 9 8 1 , p ro v id in g a m easu re o f total

tim e in accord w ith c h a n g e s in the sa m p le. T h e rate o f c h a n g e (in p ercen t)

co m p e n sa tio n c h a n g e in the c iv ilia n nonfarm e c o n o m y .

is a v a ila b le for w a g e s and s a la ries, as w e ll as for total co m p e n sa tio n . D ata

D ata fo r the broad w h ite -c o lla r , b lu e-co lla r, and s e r v ic e w ork er g ro u p s,

are c o lle c te d for the pay p eriod in clu d in g the 12th d ay o f the su rv ey m on ths

and the m a n u fa ctu rin g , n o n m a n u fa ctu rin g , and se r v ic e industry g ro u p s are

o f M arch , Ju n e, S ep tem b er, and D e cem b er . T h e sta tistics are neith er a n ­

p resen ted in the E C I. A d d itio n a l o cc u p a tio n and in d u stry d eta il are pro­

n u a lize d nor ad justed for s ea so n a l in flu en ce .

v id ed fo r the w a g e s and sa la ries co m p o n en t o f total co m p e n sa tio n in the
private n onfarm secto r. For S tate and lo c a l g o v er n m en t u n its, a d dition al

Wages and salaries

c o n s is t o f earn in gs b efo re p ayroll d ed u c tio n s, e x ­

c lu d in g p rem iu m p ay for o v e r tim e , w ork on w e e k e n d s and h o lid a y s , and
sh ift d iffer en tia ls. P rod u ction b o n u s e s , in ce n tiv e ea r n in g s, c o m m is s io n s ,
and c o s t-o f-liv in g ad ju stm en ts are in clu d ed ; n on p rod u ction b o n u se s are

in d u stry d eta il is s h o w n fo r both total co m p en sa tio n and its w a g e s and
sa la ries c o m p o n e n t.
H isto rica l in d e x e s (June 1981 =

100) o f the quarterly rates o f c h a n g es

p resen ted in the ECI are a ls o a v a ila b le.

in clu d ed w ith oth er su p p lem en ta l pay item s in the b en efits ca teg o ry ; and
p a y m e n ts-in -k in d , free room and board , and tip s are e x c lu d e d . Benefits
in clu d e su p p le m e n ta l p a y , in su ran ce, retirem ent and s a v in g s p la n s, and
h o u rs-related and le g a lly required b en efits.

For a m ore d eta iled d is c u ss io n o f the E C I, se e ch ap ter 11, “ T h e E m ­
p lo y m en t C o st I n d e x ,’’ o f the B L S Handbook of Methods (B u lle tin 2 1 3 4 —
1), and the Monthly Labor Review articles: “ E m p lo y m en t C o st Index: a
m ea su re o f c h a n g e in the ‘p rice o f la b o r ,’ ” July 1 975; “ H o w b en efits w ill

Data on negotiated wage changes

ap p ly to private nonfarm industry

c o lle c tiv e b argain in g a g reem en ts co v e r in g 1 ,0 0 0 w ork ers or m o re. D ata

be in corporated in to the E m p lo y m en t C o st I n d e x ,” January 1978; and
“ T h e E m p lo y m en t C o st Index: recen t trends and e x p a n s io n ,” M ay 1 9 8 2 .

o n co m p e n s a tio n ch a n g e s ap p ly o n ly to th o se ag re em en ts co v e r in g 5 ,0 0 0

A d d itio n a l data fo r the ECI and oth er m ea su res o f w a g e and c o m p e n ­

w o rk ers or m ore. First-year w a g e or co m p en sa tio n ch a n g e s refer to a v era g e

sa tio n c h a n g e s ap pear in Current Wage Developments, a m o n th ly p u b li­

n eg o tia te d c h a n g e s for w ork ers c o v e red by s ettlem e n ts reach ed in the p eriod

ca tio n o f the B u reau .

98

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

33.

E m ploym ent C ost Index, by occupation and industry group

[June 1981 = 100]
P erc e n t change

C i v il ia n w o r k e r s 1

Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers............................................................
Blue-collar workers ............................................................
Service workers .................................................................
Workers, by industry division
Manufacturing ...................................................................
Nonmanufacturing..............................................................
Services ........................................................................
Public administration2 .....................................................
P r iv a t e in d u s tr y w o r k e r s

Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers .......................................................
Blue-collar workers .........................................................
Service workers..............................................................
Workers, by industry division
Manufacturing.................................................................
Nonmanufacturing............................................................
S t a t e a n d lo c a l g o v e r n m e n t w o r k e r s

Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers .......................................................
Blue-collar workers .........................................................
Workers, by Industry division
Services ........................................................................
Schools.....................................................................
Elementary and secondary .........................................
Hospitals and other services3 .........................................
Public administration2 .....................................................

1983

1982

S e r ie s

June

S e p t.

D ec.

M a rc h

June

1984

S e p t.

D ec.

M a rc h

June

3 m o n th s

1 2 m o n th s

ended

ended

June 1984

107.5

110.1

111.4

113.2

114.5

116.5

117.8

119.8

120.8

0.8

5.5

107.7
107.1
108.3

110.7
109.2
110.8

111.9
110.5
112 4

113.7
112.3
114.3

114.9
113.6
115.1

117.6
114.8
116.7

118.9
115.8
119.1

120.9
117.7
122.0

122.1
118 6
122.1

1.0
8
.1

6.3
4.4
6.1

107.2
107.7
109.2
109 1

109 3
110.5
113.5
112.8

110.4
111.8
115.0
113.6

112.5
113.5
116.6
116.2

113.5
114.9
117.1
117 0

115.0
117.2
121.1
119.8

116 0
118 6
122.6
121.4

117.9
120.7
125.0
122 9

119.1
121.6
125.5
123.7

1.0
.7
.4
.7

4.9
5.8
7.2
5.7

107.2

109 3

110.7

112.6

113.9

115.6

117.0

119.0

120.1

.9

5.4

1.3
8
-.2

6.3
4.3
5.8

1.0
.9

4.9
5.7

107.2
107.0
107.9

109 5
109.0
109 6

110.8
110.3
111.8

112.8
112.1
113.8

114.2
113.5
114.6

116.5
114.6
115.1

117.9
115.7
117.9

119 9
117.5
121.5

121.4
118.4
121.2

107.2
107.1

109.3
109 3

110.4
110.8

112.5
112.6

113.5
114.2

115.0
116 0

116.0
117.5

117.9
119.6

119.1
120 7

109 3

114.3

115.1

116.5

117.1

120.8

122.0

123.9

124.4

.4

6.2

109.5
108.9

114.9
112.7

115.8
113.0

117.0
114,9

117.5
115.8

121.5
118.0

122.6
119.2

124.5
121.9

125 0
122 3

.4
3

6.4
5.6

109.4
109.1
109 5
110.3
109.1

114.9
114.8
115.6
115.3
112.8

115 9
115.8
116.6
116.0
113.6

116.8
116.6
117.2
117.5
116.2

117.4
116.9
117.4
118 8
117.0

121.7
121.9
123.3
121.1
119.8

122.6
122.6
123.9
122.6
121.4

124.5
124.5
125.4
124.4
122.9

125.0
124.7
125.7
125.7
123.7

.4
.2
.2
1.0
.7

6.5
6.7
7.1
5.8
5.7

'Excludes farm, household, and Federal workers.
2Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

3Includes, for example, library, social, and health services.

99

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Current Labor Statististics: Wage and Compensation Data
34.

E m ploym ent C ost Index, w ages and salaries, by occupation and industry group

[June 1981 = 100]
P erc e n t ch an g e
1982

S e r ie s

June

S e p t.

1983

D ec.

M a rc h

June

1984

S e p t.

D ec.

M a rc h

June

3 m o n th s

1 2 m o n th s

ended

ended

June 1984

107.3

109.7

110.9

112.2

113.4

115.3

116.5

117.9

118.8

0.8

4.8

Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers............................................................
Blue-collar workers ............................................................
Service workers .................................................................

107.6
106.7
107 9

110.4
108,6
110.1

111.4
109.8
111.8

113.0
110.8
113.2

114.2
112 0
113 9

116,7
113.1
115.1

117.9
114.0
.117.4

119.3
115.3
120 0

120 4
116.1
119.8

9
.7
-.2

5.4
3.7
5.2

Workers, by industry division
Manufacturing ...................................................................
Nonmanufacturing..............................................................
Services........................................................................
Public administration2 .....................................................

107.0
107.5
109 5
108.4

108 8
110.1
113.2
111.9

109.8
111.3
114.4
112.6

111.0
112.7
115.8
114.6

112.0
114.0
116 3
115.4

113.3
116.1
120.1
118.2

114.5
117.4
121.3
119.4

115 7
118.9
123.3
120.4

116.8
119.7
123.8
121.3

1.0
.7
4
.7

4.3
5.0
6.4
5.1

C iv ilia n w o r k e r s 1

P r iv a t e in d u s tr y w o r k e r s

Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers .......................................................
Professional and technical workers.................................
Managers and administrators .........................................
Salesworkers..............................................................
Clerical workers............................................................
Blue-collar workers.........................................................
Craft and kindred workers.............................................
Operatives, except transport...........................................
Transport equipment operatives......................................
Nonfarm laborers.........................................................
Service workers..............................................................
Workers, by industry division
Manufacturing.................................................................
Durables......................................................................
Nondurables ..............................................................
Nonmanufacturing............................................................
Construction ..............................................................
Transportation and public utilities....................................
Wholesale and retail trade..............................................
Wholesale trade .......................................................
Retail trade..............................................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate.................................
Services......................................................................
S ta te a n d lo c a l g o v e rn m e n t w o rk e rs

Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers .......................................................
Blue-collar workers .........................................................
Workers, by industry division
Services ........................................................................
SchoO'S.....................................................................
Elementary and secondary .........................................
Hospitals and other services3 .........................................
Public administration2 .....................................................

107.1

109.0

110 3

111.6

112.9

114.5

115.8

117.2

118.2

9

47

107.3
109 4
107.2
101.6
108.3
106.6
107 6
106 6
104.1
105.1
107.9

109.4
111.8
108.5
104.5
110.3
108.5
109 6
108.3
106.0
106.5
109.3

110.6
112.9
109.3
106.2
111.6
109.7
111.2
109.3
106.9
107.8
111.4

112.2
114.8
112.0
105.7
113.4
110.7
112 2
110,0
108.0
109.0
112.9

113.6
115 9
114.0
107.1
114.6
111.9
113.4
111.1
110.3
109.8
113.5

115.9
119.9
114.8
108.4
116.7
112.9
114.3
112.3
110.7
110.8
113.7

117.2
120.4
115.7
111.2
118.3
113.9
115.4
113.6
110.2
112.1
116 5

118.5
122.2
118.0
110 2
119.8
115.1
116.5
114.9
111.7
112.9
119.8

119.9
123.8
119 2
111.9
120.7
115.9
117.3
115.8
112.7
114,1
119.3

1.2
1.3
1.0
1.5
.8
.7
.7
.8
9
1.1
-.4

55
6.8
4.6
4.5
5.3
36
3.4
4.2
2.2
3.9
5.1

107.0
107.4
106.3
107.1
107.3
106 9
105.8
108 9
104.5
102 4
110 0

108.8
109.0
108.5
109.1
109.1
109.5
106.5
109.0
105.5
106.1
112.5

109.8
110.3
109.1
110.5
109.7
111.1
107.2
109 8
106.1
109 0
114.3

111.0
111.1
110 9
112.0
110.4
112 9
108.5
111.8
107.2
110.6
116.0

112.0
111.8
112.3
113.4
112.1
114.7
110.8
114.1
109.4
111.1
116.6

113.3
112.9
113.9
1152
112.2
115.7
111.5
115.7
109.9
113.5
120.4

114.5
114.4
114.6
116.5
112.9
116.8
112.3
116.5
110 6
116 9
121.9

115.7
115.7
115.8
118.0
113.3
118.5
114.3
118.2
112.8
116.1
124.2

116.8
' 116.6
117.1
119.0
114.0
119.3
116.0
120.0
114.4
116.9
124.7

1.0
.8
11
8
.6
.7
1.5
1.5
1.4
.7
.4

4.3
4.3
4.3
4.9
1.7
4.0
4.7
5.2
4.6
52
6.9

108.7

113.5

114.0

115.1

115.7

119.2

120 0

121.6

122.0

3

5.4

108.9
107.9

114.2
111.5

114.6
112.0

115.6
113.3

116.1
114.3

119.8
116.4

120.6
116.9

122.2
119.1

122.5
119.6

.2
.4

5.5
4.6

108 8
108.5
108.8
109.5
108.4

114.2
114.2
114.9
114.3
111.9

114,6
114.5
115.1
114.9
112.6

115.5
115.2
115.6
116.5
114.6

115 9
115.4
115.8
117.7
115.4

119.8
119.9
121.1
119.7
118.2

120.6
120.6
121.7
120.6
119.4

122.2
122.2
122.9
121.9
120.4

122 5
122.3
123.0
123.1
121.3

.2
.1
.1
1.0
.7

5.7
6.0
6.2
4.6
5.1

'Excludes farm, household, and Federal workers.
Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.

100

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

3lncludes. for example, library, social, and health services.

35.

E m ploym ent C ost Index, private industry w orkers, by bargaining status, region, and area size

[June 1981 = 100]
P e rc e n t c h a n g e
1982

S e r ie s

1984

1983

3 m o n th s

1 2 m o n th s

ended

ended

June

S e p t.

D ec.

M a rc h

June

S e p t.

D ec.

M a rc h

June

Workers, by bargaining status1
Union ..................................................................................
Manufacturing ...................................................................
Nonmanufacturing..............................................................

108.4
108.0
108.7

110.6
110.3
111.0

112.3
111.8
112.8

114.5
114.0
114.9

116.0
114.8
117.1

117.8
116.3
119.2

118.8
117.2
120.4

120.6
119.3
121.9

121.7
120.5
122.8

0.9
1.0
.7

4.9
5.0
4.9

Nonunion .............................................................................
Manufacturing ...................................................................
Nonmanufacturing..............................................................

106 5
106.6
106.4

108.5
108.4
108.6

109.7
109.2
109 9

111.5
111.2
111.6

112.8
112.3
113.0

114.4
113.8
114.7

115.9
114.9
116.4

118.0
116.6
118.6

119.2
117.9
119.8

1.0
1.1
1.0

5.7
5.0
6.0

111.7
110.6
108.6
112.9

112.6
112.5
110 9
115.4

114.3
113.5
112.5
116.6

116.0
115.6
113.9
118.0

117.5
117.1
114.7
120.0

118.9
119.7
117.2
121.0

120.7
120.7
117.9
122.2

1.5
8
6
1.0

5.6
6.3
4.8
4.8

June 1984

C O M P E N S A T IO N

Workers, by region1

Workers, by area size1
Metropolitan areas .................................................................
Other areas ..........................................................................

107.2
107.0

109.4
108.6

110.9
109.1

112.9
110.8

114.2
112.3

116.0
113.4

117.4
114.5

119.4
116.7

120.6
117.4

1.0
.6

5.6
4.5

Workers, by bargaining status1
Union ..................................................................................
Manufacturing ...................................................................
Nonmanufacturing..............................................................

108.1
107.3
108.8

110.3
109.5
111.1

111.8
110.8
112.7

112.9
111.4
114.3

114.2
112.3
116.0

116.0
113.7
118.3

116.9
114.8
118.9

118.1
116.1
120.1

119.0
117.1
120.7

.8
.9
.5

4.2
4.3
4.1

Nonunion .............................................................................
Manufacturing ...................................................................
Nonmanufacturing..............................................................

106.5
106.7
106.4

108.3
108.2
108.3

109.5
109.1
109.6

110.9
110.7
111.0

112.2
111.8
112.4

113.7
113.0
114.0

115.2
114.2
115.6

116.7
115.4
117.2

117.8
116.5
118.3

.9
1.0
.9

5.0
4.2
5.2

Workers, by region1
Northeast .............................................................................
South ..................................................................................
North Centra: ........................................................................
West....................................................................................

106.7
107.4
106.1
108.6

109 7
108.8
107.6
110.7

111.5
109.8
108.6
112.0

112.0
111.4
110.1
114.1

113.6
112.5
111.5
114.9

115.3
114.3
112.8
116.5

116.6
115.7
113.6
118.5

117.4
117.9
115.5
118.8

118.9
119.0
116.0
119.6

1.3
.9
.4
.7

4.7
5.8
4.0
4.1

Workers by area size1
Metropolitan areas .................................................................
Other areas ..........................................................................

107.1
106.8

109.1
108.3

110.5
108.8

111.9
110.1

113.2
111.4

114.9
112.3

116.2
113.4

117.6
115.1

118.6
116.0

.9
.8

'4.8
4.1

W A G E S A N D S A L A R IE S

1The indexes are calculated differently from those for the occupation and industry groups. For a
detailed description of the index calculation, see BLS Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 1910


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

101

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW November 1984 • Current Labor Statististics: Wage and Compensation Data
36.

W age and com pensation change, m ajor co llective bargaining settlem ents, 1979 to date

[In percent]
Q u a r t e r ly a v e r a g e
M e a s u re

1982
1979

1980

1982

1981

1983

1983

II

I II

IV

1

1984P

II

III

IV

I

II

Total compensation changes, covering
5,000 workers or more, all
industries:
9.0
6.6

10 4
7.1

10.2
8.3

3.2
2.8

3.4
3.0

2.6
2.1

6.2
4.7

3.3
4.8

-1.6
1.4

4.4
3.6

5.0
4.3

4.9
3.1

5.1
4.7

3.5
3.2

First year of contract .................
Annual rate over life of contract. . .

7.4
6.0

9.5
7.1

9.8
7.9

3.8
3.6

2.6
2.8

3.4
3.2

5.4
4.5

3.8
4.8

-1.2
2.2

2.7
2.8

3.7
3.6

4.2
2.8

2.9
3.2

2.6
2.7

Manufacturing:
First year of contract .................
Annual rate over life of contract. . .

6.9
5.4

7.4
5.4

7.2
6.1

2.8
2.6

0.4
2.1

1.8
1.7

5.1
39

4.1
4.5

-3.4
.9

1.3
1.7

3.4
3.5

2.9
3.1

2.5
2.5

2.2
2.2

Nonmanufacturing (excluding
construction):
First year of contract .................
Annual rate over life of contract. . .

7.6
6.2

9.5
6.6

9.8
7.3

4.3
4.1

5.0
3.7

6.6
6.1

5.5
4.8

3.6
5.2

3.3
5.3

5.9
5.2

5.8
4.3

4.8
2.7

4.4
4.8

4.3
4.2

Construction:
First year of contract .................
Annual rate over life of contract. . .

8.8
8.3

13.6
11.5

13.5
11.3

6.5
6.3

1.5
2.4

6.2
6.3

6.3
5.9

3.4
2.9

.7
2.4

1.7
2.1

1.5
2.9

1.1
2.6

-3.5
-2.8

1.0
1.4

First year of contract .................
Annual rate over life of contract. . .
Wage rate changes covering at least
1,000 workers, all Industries:

p = preliminary.

37.

Effective w age adjustm ents in collective bargaining units covering 1,000 w orkers or m ore, 1979 to date
Y e a r a n d q u a rte r
Year
M e a s u re

1982
1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

II

III

1983
IV

1

II

1984P
I II

IV

I

II

Average percent adjustment (including no change):
All Industries.........................................................
Manufacturing ..................................................
Nonmanufacturing .............................................

9.1
9.6
8.8

9.9
10.2
9.7

9.5
9.4
9.5

6.8
5.2
7.9

4.0
2.7
4.8

2.0
1.0
2.7

2.4
1.7
2.9

1.3
1.5
1.2

0.3
-.5
.9

1.3
1.1
1.5

1.2
1.2
1.2

1.1
.9
1.2

0.9
1.2
.7

1.0
1.0
.9

From settlements reached in period ..........................
Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period . . . .
From cost-of-living clauses......................................

3.0
3.0
3.1

3.6
3.5
2.8

2.5
3.8
3.2

1.7
3.6
1.4

.8
2.5
.6

.4
1.4
.2

.5
1.3
.6

.6
.4
.3

-.2
.4
.1

.3
1.0
.1

.2
.8
.2

.6
.3
.2

.1
.4
.4

.1
.7
.2

—

—

8,648

7,852

6,530

3,423

3,760

3,441

2,875

3,061

3,025

2,887

2,855

2,656

—

—

2,270

1,907

2,327

511

620

825

448

561

599

996

293

343

—

—

—

—

6,267
4,593

4,846
3,830

3.260
2,327

1,594
1,568

2,400
2,251

860
1,970

812
1,938

1,405
1,299

1,317
1,218

669
1,290

990
1,616

1,175
1,301

—

—

145

483

1,187

4,912

4,575

4,895

4,842

4,656

4,693

4,830

4,668

4,867

Total number of workers receiving wage change
(in thousands)1 ..................................................
From settlements reached
in period .........................................................
Deferred from settlements
reached in earlier period......................................
From cost-of-living clauses......................................
Number of workers receiving no adiustments
(in thousands) ..................................................

1The total number of workers who received adiustments does not equal the sum of workers that received
each type of adjustment, because some workers received more than one type of adjustment during the
period.

102

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

p = preliminary.

WORK STOPPAGE DATA

o r k s t o p p a g e s include all known strikes or lockouts involving
1,000 workers or more and lasting a full shift or longer. Data are
based largely on newspaper accounts and cover all workers idle
one shift or more in establishments directly involved in a stoppage.
They do not measure the indirect or secondary effect on other
establishments whose employees are idle owing to material or
service shortages.

W

38.

Estimates of days idle as a percent of estimated working time
measure only the impact of larger strikes (1,000 workers or more).
Formerly, these estimates measured the impact of strikes involving
6 workers or more; that is, the impact of virtually all strikes. Due
to budget stringencies, collection of data on strikes involving fewer
than 1,000 workers was discontinued with the December 1981
data.

W ork sto p p ag es involving 1,000 w orkers or m ore, 1947 to date
N u m b e r o t s to p p a g e s
M o n th a n d y e a r

W o r k e r s in v o lv e d

B e g in n in g in

In e ffe c t

m o n th o r y e a r

d u r in g m o n th

D a y s id le

B e g in n in g in

In e f fe c t

m o n th o r y e a r

d u r in g m o n th

( in t h o u s a n d s )

( in th o u s a n d s )

N um ber
( in th o u s a n d s )

P e rc e n t of
e s t im a t e d
w o r k in g t im e

1947 ...............................................................................
1948
1949 ...............................................................................
.....................
1950

270
245
262
424

1,629
1,435
2,537
1,698

25,720
26,127
43,420
30,390

.22
.38
.26

1951 .............................................................................
1952
........................................................................
1953 ...............................................................................
1954
.....................................................
1955

415
470
437
265
363

1,462
2,746
1,623
1,075
2,055

15,070
48,820
18,130
16,630
21,180

.12
.38
.14
.13
16

.............................................
..............................................................
..............
.................................................................
...................................................................

287
279
332
245
222

1,370
887
1,587
1,381
896

26,840
10,340
17,900
60,850
13,260

.20
.07
.13
.43
.09

1961 .............................................................................
1962 ...............................................................................
1963
......................................................................
1964
...............................
1965
..........................

195
211
181
246
268

1,031
793
512
1,183
999

10,140
11,760
10,020
16,220
15,140

.07
.08
.07
.11
.10

1966
1967
1968
1969
1970

.......................................................

321
381
392
412
381

1,300
2,192
1,855
1,576
2,468

16,000
31,320
35,567
29,397
52,761

.10
.18
.20
.16
.29

1971
1972
1973 ...............................................................................
1974
..........................................................
1975
............................................................

298
250
317
424
235

2,516
975
1,400
1,796
965

35,538
16,764
16,260
31,809
17,563

.19
.09
.08
.16
.09

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

......................................................................
..................................................
......................................................................

231
298
219
235
187

1,519
1,212
1,006
1,021
795

23,962
21,258
23,774
20,409
20,844

.12
.10
.11
.09
.09

1981
1982
1983

.......................................................
..........................................................

145
96
81

729
656
909

16,908
9,061
17,461

.07
.04
.08

1983

January ..........................................................
February..........................................................
March............................................................
Apri ..............................................................
May ..............................................................
June..............................................................
July ..............................................................
August............................................................
September.......................................................

1
5
5
2
12
16
10
7
7

3
7
10
9
17
25
23
19
19

1.6
14.0
10.5
2.8
24.9
63.3
64.5
615.8
20.8

38.0
50.4
54.9
52.4
34.2
81.2
99.8
669.7
49.5

794.8
844.4
1,131.5
789.5
488.5
689.1
1,270.1
8,673.2
567.1

.04
.05
.05
.04
.03
.03
.07
.41
.03

1984P

January ..........................................................
February ..........................................................
March............................................................
A p ril..............................................................
May ..............................................................
June..............................................................
July ..............................................................
August............................................................
September.......................................................

6
2
2
7
5
5
r8
5
8

12
12
9
13
15
14
r 20
19
17

28.9
8.7
3.0
28.5
8.1
23.7
r68.4
24.0
102.9

43.0
37.2
14.6
38.1
39.2
45.7
r104.1
103.4
119.7

507.3
365.5
284.2
651.0
581.2
754.8
r1,221.7
1,633.3
736.4

.03
.02
.01
.03
.03
.04
.06
.07
.04

1956
1957
1958
1959
I960

............................................................
..................................................
..................................................

......................................................................

p = preliminary.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

r = revised.

103

Published by BLS in September
S A LE S P U B L IC A T IO N S
BLS Bulletins
Business, Managerial, and Legal O ccupations. Bulletin 2205-2, 25
p p ., $1.50 (GPO Stock N o . 029-001-02769-9).
Engineering and Related O ccupations. Bulletin 2205-3, 15 p ., $1
(GPO Stock N o . 029-001-02770-2).
C om p uter and M ath em atics-R elated O ccu p ation s.
2205-4, 16 p p ., $1 (GPO Stock N o. 029-001-02771-1).

B u lletin

Physical and Life Scientists. Bulletin 2205-5, 11 p p ., $1 (gpo Stock
N o. 029-001-02772-9).
E ducation, Social Service, and Related O ccupations. Bulletin
2205-6, 28 p p ., $1.50 (gpo Stock N o. 029-001-02773-7).
M edical and Dental Practitioners and Assistants. Bulletin 2205-7,
17 pp., $1.25 (gpo Stock N o. 029-001-02774-5).
Dietetics, Nursing, Pharm acy, and Therapy O ccupations. Bulletin
2205-8, 15 p p ., $1 (gpo Stock N o. 029-001-02775-3).
Health Technologists and Technicians. Bulletin 2205-9, 16 pp.,
$1.25 (GPO Stock N o . 029-001-02776-1).
C om m unications, Design, Perform ing Arts, and Related O c­
cupations. Bulletin 2205-10, 23 p p ., $1.50 (gpo Stock N o.
029-001-02777-0).
Sales O ccupations. Bulletin 2205-11, 15 pp., $1 (gpo Stock N o.
029-001-02778-8).
>

Clerical and Other Adm inistrative Support O ccupations. Bulletin
2205-12, 22 p p ., $1.50 (gpo Stock N o. 029-001-02779-6).
Protective Service O ccupations and Inspectors. Bulletin 2205-13,
11 p p ., $1 (gpo Stock N o. 029-001-02780-0).
Service O ccupations: F ood, Cleaning, H ealth, and Personal.
Bulletin 2205-14, 14 pp. $1.25 (gpo Stock N o. 029-001-02781-8).
M echanics, Equipment Installers, and Repairers. Bulletin 2205-15,
25 p p ., $1.50 (gpo Stock N o. 029-001-02782-6).
Small Business O ccupations. Bulletin 2205-16, 11 p p ., $1 (gpo
Stock N o . 029-001-02783-4).
C onstruction O ccupations. Bulletin 2205-17, 27 p p ., $1.50 (gpo
Stock N o . 029-001-02784-2).
M etalworking O ccupations. Bulletin 2205-18, 12 pp., $1 (gpo
Stock N o. 029-001-02785-1).
Production O ccupations. Bulletin 2205-19, 21 pp. $1.25 (gpo
Stock N o . 029-001-02786-9).
Transportation and M aterial M oving O ccupations. Bulletin
2205-20, 13 p p ., $1 (gpo Stock N o. 029-001-02787-7).
C om plete set o f 20 reprints $9 (gpo Stock N o. 029-001-02767-2).
Supplem ent to Em ploym ent, H ours, and Earnings, States and
Areas, Data for 1980-83. Bulletin 1370-18, 339 p p ., $9.50 (gpo
Stock N o. 092-001-02822-9). The 19th reference volum e group­
ing together establishm ent data on em ploym ent, hours, and
earnings for States and areas. The data supersede those publish­
ed for recent years in Em ploym ent, H ours, and Earnings, States
and Areas, 1939-82 (Bulletin 1370-17). Em ploym ent data relate
to the nonfarm sector o f the econom y and exclude the Armed
Forces, proprietors, the self em ployed, dom estic workers in


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

private hom es, and unpaid family workers. H ours and earnings
for m anufacturing and m ining relate to production workers; for
construction, to construction workers; and for the remaining
nonagricultural com ponents, to nonsupervisory workers. This is
the first reference volume to contain employment data for Fitch­
burg— Leominster, and P ittsfield, Massachusetts; Glens Falls,
and Newburgh— M iddletow n, New York; Johnson City—
K ingsport— Bristol, Tennessee; Charlottesville, and Danville,
Virginia; and Sheboygan, and W ausau, W isconsin.

Industry W a g e Surveys
These studies include results from the latest bls survey o f wages
and supplem ental benefits, with detailed occupational data
for the N ation, regions, and selected areas (where available).
Data are useful for wage and salary adm inistration, union
contract negotiation, a r b itr a tio n , and G overnment policy
considerations.
A uto Dealer Repair Shops, Novem ber 1982. Bulletin 2198,
43 p p ., $2.25 (gpo Stock N o. 029-001-02821-1).
Grain Mill Products, September 1982. Bulletin 2207, 64 pp., $3
(gpo Stock N o. 029-001-02823-7).

P eriodicals
CPI Detailed Report. July issue provides a comprehensive report
on price m ovem ents for the m onth, an analysis o f the d if­
ferences between two major measures o f price change for con ­
sum ption goods and services: the Consumer Price Index (cpi -u )
and the Implicit Price Deflator for Personal Consum ption Ex­
penditures (pce ), plus statistical tables, charts, and technical
notes. 77 p p ., $4 ($25 per year).
Current W age Developm ents. July issue includes selected wage
and benefit changes; work stoppages historically through June;
m ajor agreements expiring in August; and statistics on com ­
pensation changes. 61 pp. August issue includes selected wage
and benefit changes; work stoppages historically through July;
m ajor agreements expiring in September; m ajor collective
bargaining settlements in private industry during the first 6 months
o f 1984, plus statistics on com pensation changes. 61 pp. $2
each ($21 per year).
Em ploym ent and Earnings. September issue covers em ploym ent
and unem ploym ent developm ents in August, plus regular
statistical tables on national, State, and area em ploym ent,
unem ploym ent, hours, and earnings. 142 pp., $4.50 ($31 per
year).
Producer Prices and Price Indexes. July issues include a com ­
prehensive report on price m ovem ents for the m onth, an ex­
planation o f additional data from the Producer Price Index
revision, plus regular tables and technical notes. 163 p p ., $4.25
($29 per year).

To order:
Sales pu b lica tio n s— Order from bls regional offices (see inside
front cover), or the Superintendent o f D ocum ents, U .S . G overn­
ment Printing O ffice, W ashington, D .C . 20402. Order by title and
gpo stock number. Subscriptions available only from the account
number or checks can be made payable to the Superintendent o f
D ocum ents. Visa and MasterCard are also accepted. Include card
number and expiration date.

For IOO Years, the
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
has provided the most comprehensive pertinent, and useful informar
tion anywhere in the world on employment and unemployment,
consumer, producer and international prices; wages and industrial
relations; productivity and technological impact; growth o f the
economy, birth and decline o f occupations; and developments in labor and
industry in other countries.

has provided incisive articles, challenging reports, and informative
statistics. Some recent Review articles are:
Job Training Partnership Act
Men’s and women’s earnings
Older workers in the labor market
lo:
Occupational winners and losers
Black worker's gains
Shortage o f machinists?
Price inflation remains low
Employment in energy industries
Collective bargaining
Work injuries from falls
The employment cost index
Youth joblessness
TO SU B SC R IB E TO T H E REVIEW , please fill out the following coupon and send to the Superintendent o f Documents,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
O r d e r fo r m

P lease send th e M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w fo r 1 year at $24 (Foreign s u b s c rib e rs add $6)
□
□
□

Enclosed is a check or money order payable to Superintendent of Documents.
Order N o ._____
Charge to GPO Deposit Account No---------------------------------------Credit Card No.
Credit Card Orders — □ MasterCard or □ VISA, on orders to
Superintendent of Documents only.
Expiration Date
Total charges $
Name

Organization (if appropriate)
Address
City, State, Zip Code

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Month/Year___


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis