The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
~— I
I
I
I
j
Monthly Labor Review
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
November 1990
J
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
In this issue:
Labor market movements and unemployment
Black college graduates In the labor market
EC1992 and U.S. workers
g
v ^
U.S. Department of Labor
Elizabeth Dole, Secretary
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Janet L. Norwood, Commissioner
The Monthly Labor Review is published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department
of Labor. Communications on editorial matters
should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief,
Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Washington, DC 20212. Phone: (202) 523-1327.
Subscription price per year—$20 domestic; $25 foreign.
Single copy, $5 domestic; $6.25 foreign.
Subscription prices and distribution policies for the
Monthly Labor Review (ISSN 0098-1818) and other Government
publications are set by the Government Printing Office,
an agency of the U.S. Congress. Send correspondence
on circulation and subscription matters (including
address changes) to:
Superintendent of Documents,
Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC 20402.
Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents.
The Secretary of Labor has determined that the
publication of this periodical is necessary in the
transaction of the public business required by
law of this Department. Second-class postage paid at
Washington, DC, and at additional mailing addresses.
Regional Offices and Commissioners
Anthony J. Ferrara
Region I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
1 Congress Street,
10th Floor
Boston, MA 02114
Phone: (617) 565-2327
Samuel M. Ehrenhalt
Region II
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Room 808
201 Varick Street
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (212) 337-2400
Alvin R. Margulis
Region III
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Region IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
3535 Market Street
R O. Box 13309
Philadelphia, PA 19101
Phone: (215) 596-1154
Donald M. Cruse
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30367
Phone: (404) 347-4416
Lois L. Orr
Region V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
9th Floor
Federal Office Building
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 353-1880
Bryan Richey
Region VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Room 221
Federal Building
525 Griffin Street
Dallas, TX 75202
Phone: (214) 767-6970
November cover:
Region VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Region VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Region IX
American Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands
Region X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
On the Boulevard,
a 1911 gouache on paper,
by Kazimir Malevich (1878-1935);
Photograph courtesy
of the National Gallery of Art,
Washington, DC,
Cover design by Melvin B. Moxley
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Gunnar Engen
911 Walnut Street
Kansas City, MO 64106
Phone: (816) 426-2481
Sam M. Hirabayashi
71 Stevenson Street
P O. Box 193766
San Francisco, CA 94119
Phone: (415) 744-6600
wir
Monthly Labor Review
November 1990
Volume 113, Number 11
Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chief
Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor
Articles
3
Labor market dynamics and trends in unemployment
cps
gross flow data identify labor market movements
that underlie changes in the monthly unemployment estimates
Wayne J. Howe
13
Black college graduates in the labor market, 1979 and 1989
Among college graduates, black and white women have similar earnings,
but substantial economic differences exist between black and white men
Joseph R. Meisenheimer II
22
The European Community 1992 program and U.S. workers
Experts agree that the European Community’s impending integration
will have an economic, political, and social effect on the U.S. labor force
Robert C. Shelburne and Gregory K. Schoepfle
28
Contributions to savings and thrift plans
Employers’ and employees’ annual contributions can vary widely,
depending on plan restrictions and employees’ earnings
Michael Bucci
Reports
37
New benchmarks, sic codes for Establishment Survey
Patricia M. Getz
40
Quality adjustment in cpi housing sample
Steven W. Henderson and Stephen A. Berenson
48
Setting new standards for skills in the workplace
Horst Brand
Departments
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2
37
43
44
48
51
Labor month in review
Technical notes
Major agreements expiring next month
Developments in industrial relations
Book reviews
Current labor statistics
Labor
month
in review
SAFETY SURVEY. The Bureau of La
bor Statistics reported results of its latest
survey of employer records ofjob-related
injuries and illnesses. The survey shows
nearly 6.6 million occupational injuries
and illnesses in 1989, about 136,000 more
than employers reported in 1988, but the
injury and illness rate of 8.6 per 100 full
time workers was unchanged because
employment and hours worked rose pro
portionately.
Commissioner of Labor Statistics
Janet L. Norwood announced that major
changes in the BLS survey are under way,
following recent congressional approval
for a multiyear redesign. When com
pleted, the new BLS survey will make pos
sible injury and illness profiles of women,
teenagers, health care providers, and
other specific worker groups, and will
help identify industry work hazards and
exposures more effectively. The program
also will include a systematic, verifiable
count of all fatal injuries on the job and
the circumstances surrounding these
events, making use of death certificates
and other administrative records.
Occupational injuries. In 1989, nearly
6.3 million job-related injuries were re
ported in the private sector. Injuries
from accidents at work are reportable if
they result in death, loss of conscious
ness, restricted work activity, transfer to
another job, or medical treatment be
yond first aid.
Manufacturing had about 20 percent
of the private sector employment in
1989, but 33 percent of total reported in
juries. In contrast, the services industry
had nearly 30 percent of the employ
ment total, but only 16 percent of the in
jury cases.
Nine individual industries reported at
least 100,000 injury cases each. The
industries were motor vehicle manufac
turing, eating and drinking places, whole
sale groceries, retail grocery stores, hos
pitals, trucking and over the road couri
ers, nursing and personal care facilities,
department stores, and hotels and mo
tels. Together, these industries accounted
for slightly more than one-fourth of
injury cases reported nationwide.
M SI
Almost half of the 6.3 million injury
cases were serious enough for the injured
worker to have work activity restricted or
to lose worktime. These cases resulted in
about 57 million lost workdays in 1989.
To account for differences in industry
employment and hours worked, the
Bureau calculates incidence rates relat
ing the number of injury cases to em
ployee hours in the workplace. Occupa
tional injuries for the private economy
occurred at a rate of 8.2 per 100 full-time
workers in 1989 and ranged from 14.2 in
construction to 1.9 in finance, insurance,
and real estate.
As in previous years, the injury rates
for the private sector varied widely by es
tablishment size. Rates for establish
ments with fewer than 50 employees or
with 1,000 or more employees were low
er than rates for mid-size establish
ments. This pattern, however, did not
hold for each industry division.
One tool for monitoring injury severi
ty is the incidence rate of lost workdays.
This measure represents the number of
workdays lost per 100 full-time workers,
that is, the number of days that injured
employees were away from work or re
stricted in their work activity. The rate of
lost workdays was 74.2 for the private
sector in 1989. Across all industry divi
sions, the rate ranged from 141.6 in con
struction to 16.5 in finance, insurance,
and real estate.
workers’ compensation claims, and oth
er reports to Federal and State agencies.
Occupational fatalities. Work-related
fatalities cannot be measured accurately
through a sample survey of this size. Al
though 3,600 work-related fatalities
were reported in private sector establish
ments with 11 employees or more in the
1989 survey, the Bureau believes that
this count significantly understates
work-related fatalities for the year.
To provide more complete data on this
basic element of workplace safety, b ls
has developed a plan to conduct a census
of fatal occupational injuries in 1991.
This new program, which will be im
plemented in stages, beginning in 1991,
will collect and verify information on all
fatal work-related injuries in adminis
trative records such as death certificates,
Background of the survey. The Annual
Survey of Occupational Injuries and Ill
nesses is a Federal/State cooperative pro
gram in which employer reports are col
lected and processed by State agencies
cooperating with the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. A sample of250,000 establish
ments representing the total private econ
omy (except for mines and railroads) was
surveyed for 1989.
Estimates based on a sample may dif
fer from those that would have been ob
tained from a census of establishments
using the same procedures. A relative
standard error was calculated for each
estimate from the annual survey and will
be published in a b ls bulletin that will be
available in the spring of 1991.
d
2 Monthly Labor Review November 1990
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Occupational illnesses. The survey
seeks to measure the number of work-re
lated illness cases which are recognized,
diagnosed, and reported during the year.
The overwhelming majority of these re
ported illnesses are those which relate to
workplace activity (for example, contact
dermatitis or carpal tunnel syndrome)
and therefore, are easy to identify. In
contrast, some conditions, such as long
term latent illnesses caused by exposure
to carcinogens, often are difficult to re
late to the workplace and are not ade
quately recognized and reported. These
long-term latent illnesses are believed to
be understated in the survey’s illness
measures.
The survey did find nearly 284,000
new cases of occupational illness among
workers in private industry during 1989.
Nearly three-fourths of these cases were
in manufacturing; the services industry
had about one-eighth of the cases.
Work-place illnesses associated with
repeated trauma (including conditions
due to repeated motion, pressure, or vi
bration such as carpal tunnel syndrome),
made up slightly more than half of the
illness cases in 1989. Over the past sever
al years, disorders associated with re
peated trauma have significantly in
creased both in number and as a percent
of total illnesses reported.
Labor market dynamics and trends
in male and female unemployment
"Gross flow ” data from the Current Population Survey
help to identify the labor market movements
that underlie changes in the monthly rates
of male and female unemployment over the past two decades
Wayne J. Howe
Wayne J. Howe is an
economist in the Office of
Employment and
Unemployment Statistics,
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
I
n the late 1960’s and throughout the 1970’s,
unemployment rates for adult women were
much higher than those for adult men. During
the 1980’s, a decade of generally higherjobless rates,
the female-male unemployment rate gap essentially
disappeared. (See chart 1.) What were the labor
market dynamics that caused this development?
Obviously, changes in a group’s jobless rate
often would reflect a change in the frequency of
job loss. But jobless rates can change without this
happening at all. For example, a rise might occur
because the unemployed face increased difficul
ties in finding jobs—and thus remain unem
ployed longer—or because persons move into
and out of the labor force more frequently. Of
course, while some forces are at work to raise a
group’s unemployment rate, others may tend to
offset these effects. And the dynamics of these
forces may change considerably over time.
The patterns of movements into and out of
employment, unemployment, and the labor force
have changed substantially over the last two de
cades. This article looks separately at the trends in
these patterns for adult men and women (20 years
and over), and the effect that they had on the
changes in the rates of male and female unem
ployment over the 1968-88 period. (See table 1.)
Labor market transitions
Data on the changing labor market status of the
population are collected monthly through the
Current Population Survey (CPS). Interviews are
conducted in approximately 60,000 households
to determine the labor market status of all
household members 16 years of age and over.
However, the published data based on the sur
vey are monthly levels from which can be de
rived only the net changes, from one month to
the next, in the numbers of persons employed,
unemployed, or not in the labor force. They do
not quantify the much larger gross movements
among these three labor market states.
For example, the monthly data do not show
that roughly half of all persons reported as unem
ployed in any given month become employed or
leave the labor force by the following month,
being replaced by other unemployed persons who
had jobs or were not in the labor force during the
previous month. In fact, the total unemployment
count could rise (fall) because more (fewer) peo
ple become unemployed, or because fewer
(more) leave unemployment, or both. By the
same token, periods of stability in the jobless rate
may be the result of large but offsetting move
ments between one labor market state and an
other.
Gross flow data. The size of, and changes in,
these labor market transitions can be determined
from the “gross flow data” that are generated as
part of the CPS. A household selected for the CPS
sample is interviewed for 4 consecutive months,
leaves the sample for the next 8 months, and
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
3
Labor Market Dynamics and Unemployment
Chart 1.
Seasonally adjusted unemployment rates for men and women age 20
and over, 1 9 6 8 -8 8
then reenters for a final 4 months. Thus, in any
particular month, the CPS sample consists of
eight “rotation groups,” each of which has been
in the survey for between 1 and 8 months.
Given that framework, the households in six
of the eight rotation groups (all except those in
their first and fifth months of survey participa
tion) have also been interviewed in the prior
month, a fact that permits tracking of the labor
market behavior of individual household mem
bers for at least 2 consecutive months. For these
households, it is possible to generate “gross
change” or “gross flow” data on the labor market
dynamics underlying changes in the numbers of
persons employed, unemployed, or out of the
labor force. There are small but systematic differ
ences between the labor force behavior reported
by persons covered by the gross flow data and
that reported by the entire CPS sample. Therefore,
there are also some systematic differences be
tween the net changes implicit in the gross flow
data and those derived from the published stock
data.1However, the gross flow estimates are more
suitable for this analysis than those based on pub
lished data because the latter show only the
changes between beginning and ending “stocks”
of persons in the various labor market categories,
Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for4 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
November 1990
and not the movements of individuals that re
sulted in those changes.
For any 2 consecutive months, the labor mar
ket experience of an individual, as derived from
the gross flow data, falls into one of nine combi
nations represented in the following matrix,
where: E = employed, U = unemployed, N =
not in the labor force, (?) represents the current
month, and (m ) represents the previous month.
Various combinations in the matrix, therefore,
denote the transitions from one specific labor
market state to another or the continuation in a
given state from one month to the next.
Labor force status in current month
Employed
Unem
ployed
Not in labor
force
Employed . . . ■ Et-iEt
Et-iUt
E,-iNt
Unemployed . . U,-iEt
Ut-iU,
Ut-iNt
Not in labor
force .......... . N, \Et
Nt-iUt
Nt-iNt
Labor force
status in
previous month:
For example, Ut-iNt represents the movement
of persons from unemployed status in the previ-
Table 1.
Civilian unemployment rates and percentage-point changes by sex and
detailed age groups, selected periods, 1968-88
Unemployment rate (annual average)
Percentage-point change
Sex and age
1968-79
1979-88
1968-88
1968
1979
1988
2.2
5.1
1.9
1.6
1.6
1.9
2.8
4.2
8.7
4.3
2.9
2.7
2.7
3.4
4.8
8.9
5.3
3.8
3.5
3.5
2.5
2.0
3.6
2.4
1.3
1.1
.8
.6
0.6
.2
1.0
.9
.8
.8
-.9
2.6
3.8
3.4
2.2
1.9
1.6
-.3
3.8
6.7
4.7
3.4
2.4
2.2
2.7
5.7
9.6
6.5
4.6
3.9
3.2
3.3
4.9
8.5
5.6
4.1
3.4
2.7
2.9
1.9
2.9
1.8
1.2
1.5
1.0
.6
-.8
-1.1
-.9
-.5
-.5
-.5
-.4
1.1
1.8
.9
.7
1.0
.5
.2
Men
20 years and over ......................
20 to 24 years ........................
25 to 34 years ........................
35 to 44 years ........................
45 to 54 years ........................
55 to 64 years ........................
65 years and over ..................
Women
20 years and over ......................
20 to 24 years ........................
25 to 34 years ........................
35 to 44 years ........................
45 to 54 years ........................
55 to 64 years ........................
65 years and over ..................
Note: These are the officially published unemployment rates and may differ slightly from those derived from the gross flow data.
ous month to out of the labor force in the current
month. Similarly, Et-iUt represents the transi
tion of employed persons to unemployment.
The probability of making such transitions in
successive months is calculated by dividing the
number of persons making a particular labor mar
ket transition from one month to the next by the
number of persons in the initial month. Each re
sulting labor market transition probability (P) will
be designated by subscript letters throughout this
article. For example, the likelihood that an em
ployed worker will become unemployed from
one month to the next is written as Peu-
Modeling transition probabilities
This analysis focuses on the relationship be
tween movements in unemployment rates and
changes in the flows of men and women into
and out of employment, unemployment, and the
labor force. The first step involves the compu
tation of the labor market transition probabilities
for adult men in 1968, 1979, and 1988, along
with a further breakdown of the same data into
10-year age groupings.2 Those data are pre
sented in table 2. Similar data for adult women
are shown in table 3. The probabilities of re
maining in one of the three labor market states
from one month to the next (JPee, Puu, and P nn)
are not used in the analysis, because the empha
sis is on the dynamic nature of the labor market.
In any case, the fraction of people remaining in
any one state between observations is equal to
1 minus the fraction who leave to enter the two
other states.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The second step in the analysis requires the
calculation of the male and female unemploy
ment rates in 1968, 1979, and 1988 using the six
dynamic labor market transition flow probabili
ties {Peu, Pen, Pue, Pun, Pne, and P m ).3 The
general form of the unemployment rate derived
from those transition probabilities is defined as
Urate = U/{U+E), where the numerator {U) is the
sum of the total probabilities of the transition
flows into unemployment. It therefore represents
the likelihood of employed persons as well as of
those not in the labor force becoming unem
ployed. The denominator in the above equation
represents the total flows into unemployment {U),
found in the numerator, in addition to the sum of
the total flow rates from unemployment and from
outside the labor force into employment (£),
which is likewise composed of direct and indirect
transitions. In other words:
Urate =
Peu + Pen ( 1 — (Pne / Pne + P nu))
Peu+Pen
(1
~(Pne IPne+Pnu))+Pue+Pun(Pne!Pne +Pnu)
The third analytical step is the calculation, for
both men and women, of the changes in the six
dynamic flow rates and the rates of unemploy
ment between 1968 and 1979 and between 1979
and 1988. In addition, the partial derivatives of
the group unemployment rates with respect to the
specific labor market transition probabilities be
tween 1968 and 1988 are computed and pre
sented in tables 2 and 3.4 These show how
sensitive a group’s jobless rate was to changes in
a particular labor market flow. As presented in
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
5
Labor Market Dynamics and Unemployment
the tables, they represent the overall estimate of
the percentage-point change in each group’s rate
of unemployment, given a 1-percentage-point in
crease in each transition probability.
Next, simulated changes in the rates of male
and female unemployment are computed. Each of
those simulated changes corresponds to a particu
lar transition flow rate, representing the amount
by which the male and female unemployment
rates would have shifted if only that specific tran
sition flow rate had varied while the others re
mained constant. The results of this step are used
to determine the proportion of the change in a
group’s unemployment rate attributable to a
change in a specific labor market transition flow.
Table 2.
The final step in the analysis can be illustrated
by looking at table 4: The change in the adult
male unemployment rate between 1968 and 1979
was 2.0746 percentage points. (Obviously, the
unemployment data are not accurate to four deci
mal places, but this presentation provides a more
precise picture of the relationship between the
actual and simulated rates of unemployment.) If
the probability of unemployed men finding a job
(PUe) had held constant during the 1968-79 pe
riod, the resulting rise in the male rate of unem
ployment would have been 1.3084 rather than
2.0746 percentage points. The simulated change
in the rate was 0.7662 percentage point lower
than the actual change, and represents 37 percent
Average monthly labor market transition probabilities and their relationship to the unemployment rates
of adult men by detailed age groups, 1968,1979, and 1988
Transition probability
Type of transition and year
Total, men
age 20 and
over
(in percent)
Men age—
20 to 24
25 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 and over
Employment to unemployment (Peuy.
1968 ......................................................
1979 ......................................................
1988 ......................................................
0.0081
.0123
.0140
0.0194
.0287
.0299
0.0084
.0133
.0162
0.0063
.0094
.0117
0.0061
.0078
.0096
0.0065
.0064
.0086
0.0063
.0061
.0045
Derivative1 ..................................................
2.01
1.67
2.00
2.17
2.31
2.30
1.70
Employment to not in the labor force {Pen)'
1968 ......................................................
1979 ......................................................
1988 ......................................................
.0152
.0156
.0159
.0392
.0301
.0315
.0053
.0081
.0096
.0043
.0059
.0062
.0067
.0071
.0085
.0161
.0194
.0241
.1012
.1045
.1076
Derivative ..................................................
.54
.47
.72
.80
.71
.58
.18
Unemployment to employment (Pue)'1968 ......................................................
1979 ......................................................
1988 ......................................................
.4386
.3195
.3117
.4901
.3526
.3534
.5077
.3312
.3279
.4717
.3365
.3140
.4059
.2895
.2761
.3521
.2378
.2017
.2273
.1690
.2093
Derivative ..................................................
-.07
-.11
-.08
-.06
-.06
-.08
-.05
Unemployment to not in the labor force (Pun):
1968 ......................................................
1979 ......................................................
1988 ......................................................
.1460
.1304
.1270
.1621
.1373
.1553
.0974
.1066
.1028
.0818
.0897
.0973
.1294
.1278
.1070
.1690
.1784
.2059
.3788
.3380
.3721
Derivative ..................................................
-.05
-.08
-.05
-.04
-.04
-.06
-.05
Not in the labor force to employment (Pne):
1968 ......................................................
1979 ......................................................
1988 ......................................................
.0587
.0487
.0445
.1635
.1600
.1611
.1644
.1515
.1317
.1298
.1192
.0917
.1025
.0640
.0778
.0620
.0386
.0338
.0270
.0200
.0167
Derivative ..................................................
-.16
-.09
-.04
-.04
-.06
-.31
-.90
Not in the labor force to unemployment (Pnu):
1968 ......................................................
1979 ......................................................
1988 ......................................................
.0157
.0213
.0206
.0491
.0878
.0771
.0570
.0926
.0988
.0561
.0628
.0668
.0387
.0384
.0384
.0165
.0142
.0132
.0036
.0027
.0018
Derivative ..................................................
.43
.28
.06
.06
.06
.86
7.75
1 Partial derivative of the group unemployment rate with respect to the
specific labor market transition probability, 1968-88. These statistics represent
the over-the-period estimates of the percentage-point change in each group’s
6 Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
November 1990
rate of unemployment, given a 1-percentage-point increase in each labor
market transition probability.
of the total over-the-period rise in the male rate.
In other words, the drop in the probability of
transition from unemployment to employment
among adult men was responsible for more than a
third of the 2.0746-percentage-point upswing in
their unemployment rate between 1968 and 1979.
A detailed review of the relationship between
changes in each of the six independent labor mar
ket transition flows and the changes in the male
and female rates of unemployment between 1968
and 1979 and from 1979 to 1988 follows. Exami
nation of the year-by-year transition probabilities
for men and women indicates that the results of
the analysis would have been fairly insensitive to
the selection of years studied.5
Unemployment rates for men
The increase in the probability that employed
workers would experience a spell of unemploy
ment (Peu) was responsible for 41 percent of the
rise in joblessness among adult men between
1968 and 1979. (See table 4.) Increases in this
labor market transition probability are highly
and positively associated with a rise in the male
rate of unemployment. As shown in table 2, a
1.00-percentage-point rise in the employmentto-unemployment transition probability corre
sponded, on average, to a 2.01-percentage-point
increase in the unemployment rate for men over
the two decades under study.
The propensity for employed men to lose or
leave their jobs (most often, lose)6 continued to
rise over the 1979-88 period. In part, this was due
to the fact that a high proportion of men were
employed in industries—particularly within man
ufacturing—in which payrolls were being re
duced as part of the restructuring made necessary
by declining demand and foreign competition. As
shown in table 4, the rise in the probability of
employed men experiencing a spell of unemploy
ment was responsible for almost 70 percent of the
increase in the male rate of unemployment be
tween 1979 and 1988.
As expected, an increase in the likelihood of
successful job search (PUe) corresponds to a lower
jobless rate. A sizable decline in the propensity
for men to go from unemployment to employ
ment accounted for more than a third of the rise in
their unemployment rate from 1968 to 1979. The
probability that jobless men would find a job con
tinued to decline between 1979 and 1988, but
more slowly, accounting for only 13 percent of
the rise in the male unemployment rate over that
period.
Returning to the period 1968-79, we see that
the increase in the probability of moving from out
of the labor force into unemployment (Pnu) «re
counted for 11 percent of the rise in the male rate
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
of unemployment. It should be noted, however,
that the over-the-period effect of the probability
of entering the labor force into joblessness on the
male unemployment rate may be somewhat over
stated because of distortions in the young adult
male labor market in 1968. The Vietnam conflict
simultaneously boosted demand for labor and
drew down the pool of young men (ages 20 to 34)
available for civilian work, with the result that the
probability of entering the labor force directly
into unemployment was particularly low among
these young men in 1968. In addition, even
though the magnitude of the rise in that transition
probability was similar among men and women,
the effect that it had on the male rates of unem
ployment was much smaller than its influence on
female unemployment between 1968 and 1979.
In large part, this was because male rates are
much less sensitive than female rates to changes
in the probability of making the not in the labor
force-to-unemployment transition.
Table 2 shows that, overall, the probability of
entry into unemployment from “not in labor
force” status edged down among men between
1979 and 1988, with declines in this probability
among men in the youngest and oldest age group
ings more than offsetting increases among work
ers in the middle age ranges. The slip in that labor
market transition probability between 1979 and
1988 meant that the male unemployment rate
would have been 6 percent higher had the transi
tion probability remained unchanged during that
period. (See table 4.)
Table 2 also shows that, in the aggregate, em
ployed men were only slightly more likely to
drop out of the labor force (Pen) in 1988 than they
were in 1968. The large increase in the same
likelihood among men 55 to 64 years of age over
the past two decades, however, represents the
more frequent use of early retirement options,
including special incentives offered by employers
to reduce staff. Men between 20 and 24 years of
age were the only males with a lower propensity
for leaving employment by withdrawing from the
labor force in 1988 than 1968. The overall decline
in this propensity for 20- to 24-year-old men oc
curred, in large part, because of a slide in the
proportion of those workers who exited the labor
force to attend school—from 68 to 60 percent
between 1968 and 1988. At first glance, this
would seem inconsistent with school enrollment
data, which show that full-time college enroll
ment among 16- to 24-year-old men was fairly
stable between 1970 and 1988, while the number
enrolled on a part-time basis rose substantially.
During that same period, however, the employ
ment-population ratio for 16- to 24-year-old men
enrolled in college on a full-time basis rose from
The likelihood of
an employed
woman becoming
unemployed
declined over the
1968-88 period.
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
1
Labor Market Dynamics and Unemployment
34 to 44 percent. It would appear, therefore, that
increasing numbers of young men have worked
their way through college over the past two de
cades, perhaps because of the tremendous rise in
the cost of a college education during that period.
Unemployment among women
The increase in the probability of moving from
outside the labor force into unemployment (Pnu)
accounted for more than three-fourths of the
total rise in the rate of adult female unemploy
ment between 1968 and 1979. (See table 4.) The
strong correlation between this probability for
women and their rate of unemployment is
Table 3.
illustrated by the fact that, over the two decades,
a 1.00-percentage-point rise in the transition
probability corresponded to a 1.70-percentagepoint increase in their jobless rate. (See table 3.)
Between 1979 and 1988, however, the probabil
ity that women would make the transition from
out of the labor force into unemployment was
little changed, and that transition probability
had very little influence on the change in
women’s unemployment rates.
Rising educational attainment and the higher
wages associated with educational gains helped
to increase the female labor force participation
rate over the period studied. The expansion in
labor force participation also increased the likeli-
Average monthly labor market transition probabilities and their relationship to the unemployment rates
of adult women by detailed age groups, 1968,1979, and 1988
Transition probability
Type of transition and year
Total, women
age 20 and
over
(in percent)
Women age—
20 to 24
25 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 and over
Employment to unemployment (Peu):
1968 ......................................................
1979 ......................................................
1988 ......................................................
0.0086
.0121
.0104
0.0149
.0221
.0200
0.0092
.0132
.0112
0.0085
.0109
.0090
0.0069
.0081
.0081
0.0031
.0046
.0039
0.0059
.0069
.0060
Derivative1 ..................................................
1.84
1.73
1.90
1.87
1.81
1.88
1.67
Employment to not in the labor force (Pen):
1968 ......................................................
1979 ......................................................
1988 ......................................................
.0642
.0446
.0341
.0702
.0536
.0456
.0739
.0420
.0305
.0591
.0405
.0259
.0501
.0349
.0270
.0311
.0275
.0317
.1419
.1067
.1114
Derivative ..................................................
.48
.61
.60
.48
.38
.32
.16
Unemployment to employment (Pue):
1968 ......................................................
1979 ......................................................
1988 ......................................................
.3130
.2616
.2542
.3512
.2882
.2814
.2888
.2607
.2412
.3125
.2637
.2523
.3195
.2406
.2630
.1831
.1568
.1429
.2333
.1316
.1143
Derivative ..................................................
-.08
-.13
-.10
-.07
-.05
-.04
-.05
Unemployment to not in the labor force (Pun):
1968 ......................................................
1979 ......................................................
1988 ......................................................
.3426
.2727
.2630
.3077
.2551
.2720
.3755
.2764
.2600
.3333
.2794
.2560
.3550
.2669
.2457
.2113
.2054
.1513
.4412
.4474
.4286
Derivative ..................................................
Not in the
1968
1979
1988
-.06
-.08
-.07
-.05
-.04
-.03
-.02
labor force to employment (Pne):
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
.0348
.0378
.0387
.0629
.0892
.1020
.0405
.0595
.0691
.0449
.0641
.0749
.0439
.0467
.0663
.1358
.0649
.0550
.0108
.0081
.0080
Derivative ..................................................
-.56
-.40
-.51
-.31
-.27
-.32
-2.15
Not in the labor force to unemployment (Pnu):
1968 ......................................................
1979 ......................................................
1988 ......................................................
.0096
.0166
.0164
.0293
.0620
.0634
.0138
.0324
.0389
.0114
.0248
.0308
.0092
.0154
.0177
.0228
.0154
.0132
.0011
.0012
.0008
Derivative ..................................................
1.70
.77
1.30
1.07
1.08
1.38
20.72
1 Partial derivative of the group unemployment rate with respect to the
specific labor market transition probability, 1968-88. These statistics represent
the over-the-period estimates of the percentage-point change in each group’s
8 Monthly Labor Review November 1990
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
rate of unemployment, given a 1-percentage-point increase in each labor
market transition probability.
hood that women (particularly new entrants or
reentrants to the labor force) would experience a
spell of unemployment. However, it should be
noted that, as was the case in 1968, men who
were out of the labor force were still more likely
than women to enter or reenter the labor force
(into unemployment or employment) in 1988.
(See tables 2 and 3.)
As shown in table 3, the probability of making
a transition from employment to unemployment
(.Peu) was highly correlated with joblessness
among women between 1968 and 1988. The rise
in the probability of moving from employment to
unemployment was responsible for 37 percent of
the rise in women’s rate of unemployment be
tween 1968 and 1979. (See table 4.)
In contrast to the situation for employed men,
the likelihood of an employed woman becoming
unemployed declined over the 1979-88 period.
The experience of women between 20 and 44
years of age was largely responsible for the overthe-period improvement in this transition proba
bility. As seen in table 4, the decline in the
likelihood that an employed woman would be
come unemployed caused the overall female job
less rate to fall by 37 percent more than it would
have had that transition probability been un
changed between 1979 and 1988.
The past two decades witnessed substantial
growth in women’s attachment to year-round,
full-time jobs. This was reflected in a sizable drop
(from 6.4 to 3.4 percent) in the rate at which
employed women left the labor force (JPen) be
tween 1968 and 1988. As shown in table 4, the
increase in the female rate of unemployment
would have been 55 percent higher had the proba
bility of women exiting the labor force from em
ployment not declined between 1968 and 1979.
In addition, the drop in this transition probability
among women accounted for 70 percent of the
decrease in the female jobless rate over the 1979—
88 period.
The strong relationship between the unem
ployment rate and this flow out of employment
may not be easy to discern, because unemploy
ment is not directly involved. The relationship
between the decrease in Pen and the decline in the
rate of unemployment is indirect, reflecting a re
duction in labor market friction (movements into
and out of the labor force), traditionally a major
component of unemployment among women.
The drop in the probability of employed
women exiting the labor force is probably a re
flection of both the postponement of marriage and
a sizable reduction in the number of women leav
ing the labor force due to child-rearing or
homemaking responsibilities. In 1968, for exam
ple, only one-fourth of all 25- to 44-year-old
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 4.
Average monthly transition probabilities and their
relationship to the changes in the adult unemployment
rate, by sex, 1968-79 and 1979-88
Period and
transition
probability
held constant
Actual
percentageSimulated
point change change in rate
in rate of
unemploymenti
Actual minus
simulated
change in rate
Percent of
change in rate
due to holding
transition
probability
constant
Men
1 9 6 8 -7 9
P u e ...................................
P n u ...................................
Total..............
2.0746
2.0746
2.0746
2.0746
2.0746
2.0746
1.2319
2.0528
1.3084
2.0013
1.9271
1.8514
0.8426
.0218
.7662
.0732
.1474
.2231
40.6
1.1
36.9
3.5
7.1
10.8
—
—
2.0746
100.0
.5849
.5849
.5849
.5849
.5849
.5849
.1806
.5662
.5063
.5589
.4917
.6210
.4043
.0188
.7866
.0260
.0932
-.0360
69.1
3.2
13.4
4.4
15.9
-6.2
—
—
.5849
100.0
1.6978
1.6978
1.6978
1.6978
1.6978
1.6978
1.0692
2.6232
1.2516
1.2557
1.8852
.4041
.6286
-.9254
.4462
.4420
-.1870
1.2936
37.0
—54.5
26.3
26.0
-11.0
76.2
1.6978
100.0
-.5742
-.2750
-.9927
-.9868
-.8616
-.8949
-.3428
-.6420
.0758
.0697
-.0550
-.0220
37.4
70.0
-8.3
-7.6
6.0
2.4
—
-.9170
100.0
1 9 7 9 -8 8
P u e ...................................
P n u ...................................
Total..............
Women
1 9 6 8 -7 9
P u n ...................................
P n u ...................................
Total..............
—
1 9 7 9 -8 8
P u e ...................................
P u n ...................................
P
Total..............
-.9170
-.9170
-.9170
-.9170
-.9170
-.9170
—
1 The rates of unemployment derived from the transition flow probabilities do not precisely
match those reported in the monthly c p s . However, the over-the-period changes resulting from
the two methods of calculating the rates are similar.
mothers whose youngest child was under age 3
were in the labor force. By 1988, more than half
of similarly aged mothers with toddlers were
labor market participants. Also over these two
decades, a gradually increasing proportion of
women chose not to have children (or to postpone
having them). In spite of these trends, however,
employed women were still far more likely than
their male counterparts to drop out of the labor
force as of 1988 (3.4 percent for women versus
1.6 percent for men). (See tables 2 and 3.)
The rising difficulties that unemployed
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
9
Labor Market Dynamics and Unemployment
Chart 2.
Ratio of female-to-male unemployment rates for persons age 20 and
over, annual averages, 1 9 6 8 -8 8
women faced in finding a job between 1968 and
1979, a deterioration shown by the fall in Pue, was
responsible for more than one-fourth of the in
crease in the female unemployment rate over the
period. A further decline in the propensity to find
a job between 1979 and 1988 put upward pressure
on women’s jobless rate. That is, the rate of female
unemployment would have fallen slightly more
than it did had the probability of a jobless woman
finding a job remained unchanged.
In general, an unemployed woman is less
likely to find a job as of the next month than is a
man. On average, roughly 25 percent of the
women and 31 percent of the men who were un
employed in any given month during 1988 were
likely to be employed in the following month. In
1968, these probabilities had been 31 and 44 per
cent, respectively. (See tables 2 and 3.) Overall,
the sizable decline in both male and female prob
abilities of moving from unemployment to em
ployment between 1968 and 1988 indicates that,
once they experienced a spell of unemployment,
both women and men had a much more difficult
time finding a job in 1988 than they did in 1968.
Women have become increasingly more likely
to go directly from being out of the labor force
Digitized for
10 FRASER
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
November 1990
into employment over the past 20 years. That
development placed downward pressure on fe
malejoblessness during that period. The over-theperiod increase in the likelihood of entering the
labor force directly into employment was partly
spurred by the substantial employment gains in the
service-producing sector of the economy, where a
large share of women are employed.
Finally, as was the case among men, there was
also a small negative association between the
probability of women ending a spell of unem
ployment by exiting the labor force (Pun) and the
female jobless rate over the past 20 years. The
sizable drop in this transition probability among
women between 1968 and 1979 (from 34.3 to
26.3 percent) accounted for more than one-fourth
of the increase in the female rate of unemploy
ment. During the 1979-88 period, the decline in
women’s joblessness would have been 8 percent
greater had that labor market transition probabil
ity not continued to decline. (See table 4.)
Gender differences in joblessness
The increased probability of job loss played a
prominent role in the rise in the adult male
unemployment rate during the past 20 years.
Also, once unemployed, men have faced increas
ing difficulties in finding a job, and this has further
contributed to the rise in their unemployment rate
and to the narrowing of the female-male unem
ployment rate gap. (See chart 2.)
For women, the rise in the rate of unemployment
between 1968 and 1979 was caused by increases in
the probabilities of entering unemployment from
outside the labor force and of employed women
becoming unemployed. Those changes tended to
increase the female-male unemployment rate dif
ferential during that period, while a drop in the
proportion of employed women leaving the labor
force helped to hold down their joblessness and
shrink the unemployment rate gap. The fall in the
female unemployment rate between 1979 and
1988 was mostly due to the continued decline in
the flow of employed women out of the labor
force. Over the 1979-88 period, a decrease in the
likelihood of employed women becoming unem
ployed also contributed to the decline in the fe-
male rate of unemployment and the narrowing of
the female-male unemployment rate differential.
a b r o a d e r c o n t e x t , the use of data on labor
market transitions in this analysis highlights the
variety of pressures that effect change in a demo
graphic group’s jobless rate, as well as the unem
ployment rate differential between groups. As the
results of this analysis suggest, strong offsetting
factors can be at work at the same time. For exam
ple, increased job market stability (less movement
into and out of the labor force) can serve to lower
unemployment rates at the same time that a rise in
the incidence of job loss is tending to force them
upward. Policies for dealing with structural
changes in unemployment should necessarily be
different depending on the cause of those changes.
The gross flow data, rarely used in the analysis of
labor market trends, provide some interesting and
useful insights into those complex forces that con
tribute to changing rates of unemployment.
□
In
Footnotes
1
It should be noted that gross flow statistics generateddata and, on average, results in an overestimate of the
monthly flows.
from the monthly CPS generally show movements into and
out of the various labor force categories which do not yield
For a more complete discussion of these problems and
the same net changes as are shown by the published data.
other issues related to gross flow data, see Paul O. Flaim and
Three major factors have been identified as possible reasons
Carma R. Hogue, “Measuring labor force flows: a confer
for this inconsistency and are reviewed briefly below:
ence examines the problems,” Monthly Labor Review, July
1985, pp. 7-17.
Rotation group bias. For reasons not completely understood,
2 Because the analysis is conducted over a discrete pe
the responses of persons interviewed in the first and fifth
riod, the choice of the starting and ending years may bias the
months in which the sample is taken tend to show higher
results. The years 1968, 1979, and 1988 are roughly similar
levels of unemployment, compared with subsequent months.
reference points because they all occur well into the expan
This leads to an overestimation of the outflows from unem
sionary phases of business cycles. Nevertheless, the Vietnam
ployment after the first and fifth months. Therefore, the
conflict was at its maximum level of intensity in 1968, and
movements reflected in gross flow data are rotation-group
this contributed to a very tight demand for labor, particularly
biased to some degree.
for men. As a result, the female-male unemployment rate
Exclusion o f noninterviews and movers. The basis for selec
tion of the cps sample is household units rather than individ
uals; therefore, common rotation groups reflect identical
households but not necessarily identical persons. The exclu
sion of nonidentical persons in the gross flows from month
to month further limits the size of the sample available for
gross flow analysis. In addition, nonidenticals were found to
have employment-population ratios considerably higher than
those for the total cps sample and out of labor force ratios
that are considerably lower than the published ones. The
exclusion of nonidenticals from the gross flow calculations
is thus a contributing cause for the discrepancies with the
changes in the published labor force totals.
Problems in matching data. In a survey as large as the cps ,
coding errors can never be eliminated entirely. It is thus
inevitable that some records will fail to match the month-tomonth flow estimates, even when the labor force status is
correctly recorded. There are also errors arising from incor
rect interpretation of the questions by respondents or inter
viewers, the miscoding of answers, the conditioning of
respondents to answer in certain ways, and so forth. While
such errors tend to offset each other in the monthly stock
measurement, their effect is cumulative in the gross change
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
differential may be somewhat inflated in that year. Historical
data show, however, that the gap still would have been large
at a business cycle peak, even in the absence of the (perhaps)
distorting affects of the Vietnam conflict on the civilian job
market. Data from 1989 are not used in the analysis because
the 1989 annual average monthly gross flow data used to
derive the labor market transition probabilities were not yet
available at the time of publication.
3 See Stephen T. Marston, “Employment Instability and
High Unemployment Rates,” Brookings Papers on Eco
nomic Activity, No. 1, 1976, pp. 171-73.
4 Marston, “Employment Instability,” pp. 202-03. As
shown by Marston, and outlined in the text, the calculated
unemployment rate is Urate = U/(U+E), where: U is equal
to the sum of the total probabilities of the flow into unemploy
ment— U = Peu + Pen(HPne/Pne+Pnu)), where the first term
on the right-hand side of the equation is the probability that
workers will take the direct route into unemployment, and
the second term is the sum of the probabilities that persons
will become unemployed after first dropping out of the labor
force and then reentering unsuccessfully. E is equal to the sum
of the transition probabilities from unemployment to employ
ment—£ = Pue + (Pne/Pne+Pnu)Pun— where the first term is the
probability of direct transition from unemployment to employ-
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
11
Labor Market Dynamics and Unemployment
ment, and the second term is the probability of indirect
transitions. In other words:
Urate — _________ Pen + Pen ( l — (Pne ! Pne + P nu)) _________
Peu+Pen (l-( Pne / Pne+Pnu))+Pue+Pun(Pne / Pne+Pnu)
The detailed calculations of the partial derivatives of the
unemployment rate presented in tables 2 and 3 are available
from the author. Those partial derivatives relate to each
specific transition flow probability and correspond to the
over-the-period percentage-point change in the rate of unem
ployment resulting from holding all the other transition flow
probabilities constant.
As explained by Marston, the calculated rates of unem
ployment are accurate, given the “steady state” assumption,
wherein the flows into employment and unemployment just
compensate for the flows out of those states. While the rates
of unemployment derived from the transition flow probabil
ities do not precisely match those reported in the monthly
cps (the author tried various adjustments to the gross flow
data which made no qualitative difference to the results),
mostly because of the rotation bias problem discussed in
footnote 2, the over-the-period changes produced by the two
methods of calculating the rates are similar.
5 A tabular presentation of the year-to-year changes in
the six independent labor market transition probabilities for
adult men and women is available from the author.
6 Technically, people showing up as Et.\Ut could have
left their jobs voluntarily. Aggregate cps data on reasons for
unemployment suggest, however, that increases in Peu for
men over this period did not stem from job leaving.
‘Old-old population’ growing fast
Over the past 40 years, the number of older people in the population has
grown steadily. In 1950, only 12 million Americans were age 65 or older;
today, the number is close to 30 million—roughly 12 percent of the
population. Demographic projections show that the size of the older pop
ulation will increase slowly for the next 20 years, only to rise dramatically
after 2010 as the large baby boom generation (bom between 1946 and
1964) begins to reach age 65. About 65 million people (or 20 percent of
the population) are expected to be age 65 or older by 2030.
The fastest-growing segment of this population group is among the oldold, those age 85 and older. Their numbers are expected to triple by 2030,
accounting for more than 8.6 million people. Because the need for supportive
services increases dramatically with age, the growing number of elderly who
are over the age of 85 is likely to place a significant claim on public sector
resources. California, Florida, New York, Texas, and Pennsylvania are ex
pected to have the largest number of people age 85 and older by the year
2010.
—William P. O ’Hare and Carol J. De Vita
America in the 21st Century: Governance and Politics
(Washington, Population Reference Bureau, Inc.,
1990), p. 3.
12 Monthly Labor Review November 1990
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Black college graduates
in the labor market, 1979 and 1989
Although college-educated black and white women
have very similar earnings,
substantial economic differences still exist
between college-educated black and white men
Joseph R.
Meisenheimer II
“There is no defense or security for any of us
except in the highest intelligence and develop
ment of all.”
—Booker T. Washington,
from a speech made
in Atlanta on
September 18, 1895
lack educator Booker T. Washington es
poused the philosophy that education is
the path to economic and social equality
for blacks. Indeed, education, particularly col
lege education, has long been regarded as the
path to expanded job opportunities, higher earn
ings, and enhanced social standing for all people.
A substantial educational gap between whites
and blacks has narrowed over time, but it still
persists. In 1979, 9 percent of blacks ages 25 to
64 had completed 4 or more years of college; by
comparison, 19 percent of whites had done so.
The 1980’s saw considerable progress for both
groups, but no narrowing of the gap; in 1989, 13
percent of blacks and 24 percent of whites had
completed 4 or more years of college.1
Many of the economic disparities between
blacks and whites have been attributed, in large
part, to the relatively lower educational levels
(human capital) of blacks.2 And much of the im
provement in the economic status of blacks over
time has been attributed to their increasing educa
tional levels.3 Differences in education, however,
do not completely explain the labor market dis
B
Joseph R. Meisenheimer II
is an economist in the
Division of Labor Force
Statistics, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
parities between blacks and whites. For example,
among college-educated men, black graduates
have substantially higher unemployment rates
and lower median earnings than their white coun
terparts.
This article compares the labor market experi
ence of civilian college graduates by sex and race
in 1989 and looks at the changes that took place
for these groups over the preceding decade. It
then examines the economic rewards of higher
education for blacks by comparing the employ
ment and earnings characteristics of black college
graduates with those of black high school gradu
ates. The data used are from the Current Popula
tion Survey (CPS), a sample survey of about
60,000 households, conducted monthly for the
Bureau of Labor Statistics by the Bureau of the
Census.4
College-graduate differences
Some differences between black and white col
lege graduates in their labor market characteris
tics stem from differences in the age and sex
composition of the two groups. For example,
black college graduates are somewhat younger
than their white counterparts. In 1989, 39 per
cent of black graduates (ages 25 to 64) were in
the youngest age group— 25 to 34— compared
with 34 percent of white graduates, reflecting
the fact that relatively fewer older blacks at
tended college. Another demographic difference
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
13
Black College Graduates in the Labor Market
between black and white college graduates is
that a larger share of black graduates are
women—54 percent in 1989 and 53 percent in
1979.5 By comparison, 44 percent of white
graduates in 1989 and 40 percent in 1979 were
women. These age and gender differences can
distort racial comparisons. For this reason, an
examination of labor force characteristics
should focus on specific age and sex groups.
Differences in
education do not
completely
explain labor
market
disparities
between blacks
and whites.
Labor force participation. The labor force par
ticipation rate is the proportion of a population
group that is either employed or actively seek
ing employment. The incidence of labor force
participation differs substantially between the
sexes, in that men participate at higher rates
than women at every age. As shown in table 1,
among men ages 25 to 64, black college
graduates’ rates were just below those of their
white counterparts in both 1979 (92.9 to 95.7)
and 1989 (93.3 to 95.1). The gap grows larger
at successively lower educational levels. For
example, among men with 4 years of high
school, the participation rate for blacks in 1989
was nearly 4 percentage points lower than that
for whites, and among those who did not com
plete high school, the spread was about 12
points.
Table 1 also shows that college-educated black
women participate in the labor force at much
higher rates than their white peers, although that
gap narrowed considerably during the 1980’s.
Table 1.
Labor force participation rates
for 25- to 64-year-olds by
educational attainment, sex,
and race, annual averages,
1979 and 1989
[In percent]
Educational
attainment and sex
1979
1989
Black
White
Black
White
92.9
86.5
95.7
70.3
93.3
88.4
95.1
80.4
91.3
78.7
93.2
62.5
90.1
80.2
92.6
75.0
90.5
69.7
92.5
58.8
86.8
72.9
90.4
67.7
76.6
48.1
81.6
43.5
67.0
46.6
78.5
47.2
4 or more years
of college
M e n ........................
Women ..................
1 to 3 years
of college
M e n ........................
Women ..................
4 years of high
school
M e n ........................
Women ..................
Less than 4 years of
high school
M e n ........................
Women ..................
14 Monthly Labor Review November 1990
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Other than the participation rates for high school
dropouts, which are essentially the same for both
races, black women have higher rates than white
women at each level of education. The gap is
largest among college graduates, however. Table
2 provides a more complete look at the participa
tion rates of college graduates by race, sex, and
age.
To shed some light on the gap in labor force
participation, it is helpful to look at the marital
status of women of each race. In all four educa
tional levels, a smaller proportion of black
women than white women is married (and living
with their husbands). In 1989, less than half of
black college-educated women lived with thenhusbands, compared with more than two-thirds of
college-educated white women. Additionally,
married black women participated in the labor
force at much higher rates than whites in both
years studied, despite a sharp increase in partici
pation among married white women during the
1980’s. In 1979, the labor force participation rates
were 83.7 percent for married black women and
63.2 percent for married white women. By 1989,
these rates were 85.7 percent for black women
and 75.1 percent for white women. These differ
ences cannot be explained by age. In fact, both
groups of married women had virtually identical
age distributions in the years studied. The follow
ing tabulation shows the percent distribution of
married female college graduates by age:
1979
Black
White
25 to 6 4 ........
25 to 34 . . .
35 to 44 . . .
45 to 54 . . .
55 to 64 . . .
100
44
27
19
10
100
44
26
17
12
1989
Black
White
100
35
37
19
9
100
34
37
18
11
The difference in labor force participation
rates between black and white married women
may be partly explained by the labor force experi
ence and educational level of their husbands. If a
husband is not employed or, if employed, has
relatively low earnings, the wife is more likely to
work. Also, if the wife has a higher level of edu
cational attainment and has a higher earnings po
tential than her husband, she would have greater
incentive to work.
In fact, the husbands of college-educated
black women have less schooling and make less
money than the husbands of white women. Half
of the husbands of college-educated black women
have completed 4 years of college, compared
with 72 percent of the husbands of college-edu
cated white women. Furthermore, 12 percent of
these married black women, compared with 7
percent of their white counterparts, had husbands
who were either unemployed or not in the labor
Table 2.
Population, labor force, and labor force participation rates of 25- to 64-yeair-olds
with 4 or more years of college by sex, race, and age, annual averages, 1979
and 1989
[Numbers in thousands]
1989
1979
Sex, race, and age
Population
Labor force
Labor force participation
rate
Population
Labor force
Labor force participation
rate
Men
Black, to ta l..................................
25 to 3 4 ..................................
35 to 4 4 ..................................
45 to 5 4 ..................................
55 to 6 4 ..................................
466
218
131
76
40
433
203
127
72
31
92.9
93.1
96.9
94.7
(1)
852
321
290
154
86
795
315
275
145
60
93.3
98.1
94.8
94.2
69.8
White, total..................................
25 to 3 4 ..................................
35 to 4 4 ..................................
45 to 5 4 ..................................
55 to 6 4 ..................................
10,490
4,320
2,732
2,106
1,331
10,040
4,170
2,687
2,050
1,133
95.7
96.5
98.4
97.3
85.1
14,406
4,531
5,012
2,890
1,972
13,694
4,392
4,930
2,798
1,575
95.1
96.9
98.4
96.8
79.9
Black, to ta l..................................
25 to 3 4 ..................................
35 to 4 4 ..................................
45 to 5 4 ..................................
55 to 6 4 ..................................
524
258
122
94
50
453
228
111
80
34
86.5
88.4
91.0
85.1
(1)
1,003
395
337
178
92
887
360
310
160
57
88.4
91.1
92.0
89.9
62.0
White, total..................................
25 to 3 4 ..................................
35 to 4 4 ..................................
45 to 5 4 ..................................
55 to 6 4 ..................................
7,059
3,281
1,711
1,185
882
4,959
2,456
1,203
833
467
70.3
74.9
70.3
70.3
52.9
11,411
4,342
3,913
1,945
1,210
9,174
3,638
3,224
1,607
705
80.4
83.8
82.4
82.6
58.3
Women
1 Data not shown where base is less than 75,000.
force in 1989. Among those women whose hus
bands were employed as wage and salary work
ers, 52 percent of whites, compared with 28
percent of blacks had husbands who earned $700
or more per week. In contrast, 43 percent of
blacks and 24 percent of whites had husbands
who earned less than $500 per week.
Among unmarried women ages 25 to 64 (and
the relatively few who are married, but not living
with their husbands), the participation rates for
blacks (91.1 percent) and whites (91.5 percent)
were virtually identical in 1989. But because a
much larger proportion of black than white
women was unmarried, this group, which has
high participation regardless of race, had a greater
effect on the overall participation rate for black
women than it did for white women.
Unemployment. Black labor force participants
have historically been more than twice as likely
as their white counterparts to be unemployed.
Although this differential has been attributed in
large part to the lower educational attainment of
blacks,6 the rates for blacks are also higher than
those for whites at each level of education. In
1989, the unemployment rate for college-edu
cated black men ages 25 to 64 was about three
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
times the rate for white men (5.6 versus 1.8
percent). This is higher than 10 years earlier,
when the unemployment rate for similarly edu
cated black men (3.7 percent) was two-and-ahalf times the rate for white men (1.5 percent).7
The unemployment rate for college-educated
black women was 3.9 percent in 1989, up
slightly from 3.4 percent in 1979, while that for
white women decreased to 2.3 from 3.1 per
cent.8
Earnings. A comparison of the earnings of
black and white college graduates can be af
fected not only by race, but other factors, in
cluding gender and age. Men generally earn
more than women, and older workers generally
earn more than younger workers.9 As stated
earlier, a greater share of black than white col
lege graduates are women, and black graduates
typically are younger than their white counter
parts.
Earnings comparisons can also be affected by
differences in the amount of time spent working.
For example, if the median annual earnings were
compared for two worker groups who have other
wise similar characteristics, the group with the
larger proportion of year-round, full-time workers
Black and white
college-educated
men have sharply
different
occupations.
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
15
Black College Graduates in the Labor Market
would likely have higher annual earnings. The
following tabulation shows that, among college
graduates who work, a slightly smaller percent
age of black men than white men do so year round
and full time (defined here as working at least 50
weeks in a year and at least 35 hours in a majority
of those weeks), while black women are consid
erably more likely than white women to do so.
1979
Black
White
Men ........
Women . . .
81
65
1989
Black
White
86
54
82
72
85
62
Because of the different proportions of black
and white men and women who work year round
and full time, median annual earnings are com
pared not only for all college graduates with earn
ings, but also for the more homogeneous group of
year-round, full-time earners. As the following
tabulation shows, when all 25- to 64-year-old
earners are compared, black men earn consider
ably less than white men, while black women
earn considerably more than white women.
Among year-round, full-time workers, the gap in
annual earnings between black and white men is
16 FRASER
Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 3.
still substantial, while the median earnings for
black and white women grow closer.
Black
1979
White
Black
1989
White
All earners:
Men ........ $17,083 $21,278 $27,966 $37,234
Women . . . 12,152
7,930 23,928
19,966
Year-round,
full-time
earners:
Men ........
Women . . .
$19,587 $23,085 $31,349 $41,653
15,283 14,066 26,765 27,473
While these data provide some insight into the
effects of race and sex on the earnings of college
graduates, they mask the effects of age. The sam
ple size of the March CPS, from which the data on
annual earnings are obtained, is not large enough
to provide reliable estimates of annual earnings
for race-sex-age groups. In order to deal with this
data limitation, annual averages of median weekly
earnings are compared for wage and salary work
ers who usually work full time (35 hours or more
per week). These averages, which are based on
data collected over an entire year, are more reli
able than the annual earnings estimates, which are
Median weekly earnings of employed full-time wage and salary workers ages 25
to 64 with 4 or more years of college by sex, age, and race, annual averages,
1979 and 1989
[Numbers in thousands]
Black
Sex and age
Number of
workers
Median
earnings
White
90-percent
confidence
interval
Number of
workers
Median
earnings
90-percent
confidence
interval
1979
Men 25 to 64 ..................
25 to 34 years..............
35 to 44 years..............
45 to 64 years..............
45 to 54 years............
55 to 64 years............
371
187
102
82
60
23
$338
303
369
398
418
353
$320 to $356
284 to 322
325 to 413
369 to 427
384 to 452
313 to 393
7,756
3,460
2,050
2,246
1,483
763
$399
339
440
480
488
457
$396 to $402
334 to 344
430 to 450
474 to 486
481 to 495
440 to 474
Women 25 to 6 4 ..............
25 to 34 years..............
35 to 44 years..............
45 to 64 years..............
45 to 54 years............
55 to 64 years............
403
204
94
105
74
31
261
243
273
286
279
301
253 to 269
232 to 254
255 to 291
271 to 301
261 to 297
276 to 326
3,482
1,792
780
910
585
325
265
250
281
292
292
294
262 to 268
247 to 253
274 to 288
285 to 299
283 to 301
283 to 305
Men 25 to 64 ..................
25 to 34 years..............
35 to 44 years..............
45 to 64 years..............
45 to 54 years............
55 to 64 years............
631
259
214
159
115
44
544
479
583
667
636
707
523 to 565
462 to 496
560 to 606
621 to 713
556 to 716
636 to 778
10,410
3,677
3,714
3,019
2,024
994
719
603
761
845
855
829
713 to 725
596 to 610
751 to 771
829 to 861
834 to 876
805 to 853
Women 25 to 6 4 ..............
25 to 34 years..............
35 to 44 years..............
45 to 64 years..............
45 to 54 years............
55 to 64 years............
768
301
274
193
142
50
486
426
516
522
521
535
475 to 497
41 Oto 442
498 to 534
497 to 547
498 to 544
359 to 711
6,536
2,800
2,186
1,550
1,102
448
510
480
533
559
557
569
507 to 513
475 to 485
522 to 544
544 to 574
540 to 574
540 to 598
1989
November 1990
based on data obtained in only a single month.10
But even in the case of weekly earnings, some
estimates still may have a wide margin of error
because they represent relatively small popula
tion groups. To aid in the analysis, the margins of
error— confidence intervals—have been esti
mated for the median weekly earnings of each
race-sex-age group.11
As table 3 shows, college-educated black men
ages 25 to 64 had median weekly earnings in
1989 of $544 (plus or minus $21), compared with
$719 (plus or minus $6) for their white counter
parts. This means that the median earnings of
these black men ranged from 72 to 79 percent of
the median for white men.12 This gap was greater
than that 10 years earlier, when college-educated
black men earned 80 to 90 percent as much as
their white counterparts. The increase in the earn
ings gap from 1979 to 1989 was concentrated
primarily among men ages 25 to 34. This is
shown in the following tabulation of confidence
intervals of the black-to-white earnings ratios for
each age group.
Table 4.
Men ages 25 to 64 ........
25 to 3 4 ......................
35 to 4 4 ......................
45 to 5 4 ......................
55 to 6 4 ......................
....
....
....
....
....
1989
72-79
76-83
73-81
63-86
75-97
1979
80-90
83-96
72-96
78-94
66-89
For the years studied, these confidence inter
vals overlap in all but the 25- to 34-year age
group. This means that the only statistically sig
nificant decline in the black-to-white earnings
ratio occurred among young men. It is possible,
however, that the earnings gap also increased for
the other age groups because, for all but 55- to
64-year-olds, the upper boundaries of the confi
dence intervals were lower in 1989 than in 1979.
In contrast to the substantial earnings gap be
tween black and white men, college-educated
women of each race had nearly equal median
weekly earnings in both years studied. This was
the case in all age groups, except for 25- to 34year-olds. There was little difference in the earn
ings of women in this age group in 1979, but 10
years later, the median for young black women
Employed 25- to 64-year-olds with 4 or more years of college by occupation,
sex, and race, annual averages, 1989
[Numbers in thousands]
Women
Men
White
Black
White
Black
Occupation
Employed Percent Employed Percent Employed Percent Employed Percent
T otal..............................
Managerial and professional
specialty ..............................
Executive, administrative, and
managerial............................
Professional specialty ............
Engineers ............................
Mathematical and computer
scientists............................
Natural scientists..................
Health diagnosing ................
Health assessment and treating
Teachers, college and
university............................
Teachers, o th e r....................
Lawyers and judges..............
Other professional specialty . .
Technical, sales, and
administrative support ..........
Technicians and related support
S ales......................................
Supervisors and proprietors . .
Finance and business ..........
Commodities except retail . . .
Retail and personal ..............
Administrative support,
including clerical..................
Service occupations..................
Precision production, craft, and
repair......................................
Operators, fabricators, and
laborers..................................
Farming, forestry, and fishing . . .
1 Less than 500.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
751
100.0
13,444
100.0
853
100.0
8,967
100.0
6,225
69.4
404
53.8
8,964
66.7
555
65.1
168
236
30
22.4
31.4
4.0
3.962
5,002
1,000
29.5
37.2
7.4
148
407
6
17.4
47.7
.7
1,705
4,521
68
19.0
50.4
.8
15
7
24
6
12
2.0
.9
3.2
.8
1.6
295
219
559
198
328
2.2
1.6
4.2
1.5
2.4
9
5
2
69
9
Ì.1
.6
.2
8.1
1.1
133
69
102
849
206
1.5
.8
1.1
9.5
2.3
63
16
63
8.4
2.1
8.4
794
526
1,084
5.9
3.9
8.1
218
10
78
25.6
1.2
9.1
2,007
137
949
22.4
1.5
10.6
187
38
75
22
21
16
15
24.9
5.1
10.0
2.9
2.8
2.1
2.0
2.962
533
1,912
596
609
475
231
22.0
4.0
14.2
4.4
4.5
3.5
1.7
250
45
42
14
16
3
9
29.3
5.3
4.9
1.6
1.9
.4
1.1
2,244
370
753
189
266
100
192
25.0
4.1
8.4
2.1
3.0
1.1
2.1
74
66
9.9
8.8
517
352
3.8
2.6
163
30
19.1
3.5
1,122
302
12.5
3.4
46
6.1
650
4.8
5
.6
67
.7
44
3
5.9
.4
360
156
2.7
1.2
13
(1)
1.5
(2)
81
47
.9
.5
2 Less than 0.05 percent.
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
17
Black College Graduates in the Labor Market
Table 5.
Employment-population ratios of blacks ages 25 to 64
by sex, age, marital status, and educational attainment,
annual averages, 1979 and 1989
[In percent]
1979
Sex, age, and
marital status
1989
4 or more years
of college
4 years of
high school
4 or more years
of college
4 years of
high school
M en..................
25 to 3 4 ........
35 to 4 4 ........
45 to 5 4 ........
55 to 6 4 ........
89.5
88.1
94.7
92.1
(1)
84.3
85.2
87.4
84.9
72.3
88.1
92.8
89.0
89.0
67.4
78.7
79.3
84.6
80.3
58.1
W om en............
25 to 3 4 ........
35 to 4 4 ........
45 to 5 4 ........
55 to 6 4 ........
83.4
84.5
87.7
84.0
(1)
63.5
62.9
68.6
63.9
51.4
85.0
85.1
89.9
87.6
62.0
66.2
63.1
74.7
70.9
47.1
Married women,
spouse present.
81.0
63.0
82.7
68.8
Unmarried
women2 ........
86.1
64.1
87.2
64.2
1 Data not shown where base is less than 75,000.
2 Includes married women not living with their husbands.
was 84 to 93 percent that of their white counter
parts. This divergence might be explained partly
by differences in the proportion of college-edu
cated women of each race who had some gradu
ate schooling. Workers with graduate schooling
tend to earn more than those with exactly 4 years
of college. In 1979, among full-time wage and
salary workers, nearly equal proportions of black
and white women ages 25 to 34 had completed
more than 4 years of college, whereas in 1989, a
substantially larger proportion of whites than
blacks had done so. This development does not
explain the divergence in earnings entirely, how
ever, because an earnings gap also developed
during the 1980’s among young black and white
women with exactly 4 years of college.
Why do black and white female college gradu
ates have very similar median earnings, while
black men earn less than their white peers? A
look at occupational employment characteristics
provides some answers. As can be seen in table 4,
black and white women work in very similar oc
cupations. Nearly equal proportions of employed
blacks (17 percent) and whites (19 percent) are
managers. Roughly half of both groups work in
professional specialty occupations, and, among
these professionals, over two-thirds of blacks and
nearly two-thirds of whites work either as teach
ers (below the college or university level) or in
health assessment and treating jobs (such as
nurses and therapists). The only significant dis
similarity in occupational distributions is that 19
Digitized for
18FRASER
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
November 1990
percent of blacks, and 13 percent of whites, work
in administrative support, including clerical jobs.
In contrast to the situation among women,
black and white college-educated men have
sharply different occupations and these differ
ences are consistent with the lower median earn
ings of blacks. For instance, in 1989, 22 percent
of employed black men, compared with 29 per
cent of white men, were managers. Black men
were also less likely than white men to work in
professional specialty occupations (31 versus 37
percent). Among professional men, more than
one-quarter of blacks, but less than one-sixth of
whites, worked in teaching, a relatively lower
paying professional occupation. Nearly half of
white professionals worked as engineers, mathe
maticians and computer scientists, lawyers and
judges, or doctors, while slightly more than onethird of black professionals worked in these
higher paying jobs.
College-educated black men are considerably
more likely than their white counterparts to work
outside of managerial and professional fields. In
fact, 31 percent of black men, compared with 14
percent of white men worked in one of the fol
lowing lower paying occupations that typically
do not require a college degree: administrative
support (including clerical work); service; preci
sion production, craft, and repair; and operators,
fabricators, and laborers.13
In addition to the occupational differences, a
number of other factors may contribute to this
earnings gap. These include the degree attained
(workers with master’s degrees tend to earn more
than those with bachelor’s degrees), the amount
of training received on the job, local labor market
factors, job performance, the size and financial
strength of employers, and racial discrimination.14
College versus high school
Two key economic rewards of higher education
are enhanced employment opportunities and
higher earnings. In the following analysis, these
economic rewards are examined for blacks by
comparing the labor market experience of black
college and high school graduates in terms of
employment and of median weekly earnings of
those employed as full-time wage and salary
workers.
The employment-population ratio—the pro
portion of a population group that is employed—
reflects both the extent of a group’s labor force
participation and the success of the participants in
finding work. College graduates participate in the
labor force—that is, work or actively seek
work—at a higher rate than do high school gradu
ates. In large part, this is because college gradu
ates have invested more in their education and
have greater expectations of employment than
high school graduates. Thus, college graduates
have more to lose by not going actively into the
labor market. Also, college graduates are more
likely to succeed in finding work. These two fac
tors result in higher employment-population ra
tios for college graduates.
Table 5 shows that, in 1989, the employmentpopulation ratio of college-educated black men
was 9 percentage points higher than that of black
male high school graduates. In 1979, the differ
ence was 5 percentage points. This widening re
sulted largely from a decline of nearly 4 percentage
points in the labor force participation rate of high
school graduates. High school graduates may have
become less likely to look for work due to a per
ception that their job prospects had worsened.15
Among black women, the employment ratio
for college graduates in both years studied was
about 20 percentage points higher than that for
high school graduates. The difference was even
larger among unmarried women (23 percentage
points in 1989) than it was for married women
(14 percentage points).
Table 6.
The 2 years selected for comparing black col
lege and high school graduates’ employment ra
tios were periods of economic expansion. If these
ratios had been compared for recession years, the
difference between college and high school grad
uates would have been even greater. This is
because the types of jobs held by college gradu
ates are less vulnerable to recessionary job
losses.16
In the future, regardless of the stage of the
business cycle, this employment gap between
black college and high school graduates may
grow. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics’
projections, the occupations expected to have the
fastest rates of employment growth between 1988
and 2000 are in managerial, professional, and
technical fields, which generally require higher
levels of education. In contrast, employment is
projected to grow more slowly or even decline in
many of the occupations requiring less educa
tion.17 How much the employment ratios of black
college and high school graduates will be affected
by these projected changes in the occupational
structure of the labor market depends, for the
The earnings gap
between black
college and high
school graduates
has increased in
the 1980’s.
Median weekly earnings of blacks ages 25 to 64 employed as full-time wage and
salary workers by sex, age, and educational attainment, annual averages, 1979
and 1989
[Numbers in thousands]
4 years of high school
4 or more years of college
Sex and age
Number of
workers
Median
earnings
90-percent
confidence
interval
Number of
workers
Median
earnings
90-percent
confidence
interval
$244 to $258
226 to 246
249 to 271
251 to 279
253 to 287
234 to 280
1979
Men 25 to 6 4 ..................
25 to 34 years ............
35 to 44 years ............
45 to 64 years ............
45 to 54 years ..........
55 to 64 years ..........
371
187
102
82
60
23
$338
303
369
398
418
353
$320 to $356
284 to 322
325 to 413
369 to 427
384 to 452
313 to 393
1,168
557
318
293
193
100
$251
236
260
265
270
257
Women 25 to 64 ............
25 to 34 years ............
35 to 44 years ............
45 to 64 years ............
45 to 54 years ..........
55 to 64 years ..........
403
204
94
105
74
31
261
243
273
286
279
301
253 to 269
232 to 254
255 to 291
271 to 301
261 to 297
276 to 326
1,095
508
341
246
170
76
174
174
174
175
176
171
170 to
169 to
167 to
167 to
167 to
158 to
Men 25 to 6 4 ..................
25 to 34 years ............
35 to 44 years ............
45 to 64 years ............
45 to 54 years ..........
55 to 64 years ..........
631
259
214
159
115
44
544
479
583
667
636
707
523 to 565
462 to 496
560 to 606
621 to 713
556 to 716
636 to 778
1,795
815
553
427
294
133
353
315
379
408
409
408
344 to 362
307 to 323
365 to 393
393 to 423
391 to 427
378 to 438
Women 25 to 64 ............
25 to 34 years ............
35 to 44 years ............
45 to 64 years ............
45 to 54 years ..........
55 to 64 years ..........
768
301
274
193
142
50
486
426
516
522
521
535
475 to 497
410 to 442
498 to 534
497 to 547
498 to 544
359 to 711
1,694
664
574
456
336
120
284
258
294
310
313
304
279 to 289
250 to 266
286 to 302
300 to 320
302 to 324
284 to 324
178
179
181
183
185
184
1989
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
19
Black College Graduates in the Labor Market
most part, on the future educational attainment of
the black population.
College-educated blacks not only are more
likely to have a job than blacks with a high school
education, but also, among-those employed full
time, college graduates earn considerably more.
In 1989, black male high school graduates ages
25 to 64 had median weekly earnings of $353
(plus or minus $9); college graduates earned
about one-and-a-half (1.44 to 1.65) times that
amount. The magnitude of this earnings gap was
greater in 1989 than in 1979 (1.24 to 1.45 times),
with men ages 25 to 34 accounting for most of the
overall increase. Earnings differences also in
creased among black women, and, as with men,
most of the widening occurred among younger
women. These young workers are the age groups
most affected by the labor market crowding that
resulted from the increased supply of workers as
sociated with the baby boom. In such a competitive
environment, employers can raise their educational
requirements for workers, giving college graduates
even more of an advantage over those with only a
high school education.18 Table 6 shows data on
the median weekly earnings of black college and
high school graduates by their sex and age.
These earnings comparisons show that the gap
between black college and high school graduates
has increased in the 1980’s. The data also suggest
that, for both men and women, black college
graduates’ earnings increase more with age than
do those of high school graduates. This can be
seen in the data for black men who were ages 25
to 34 in 1979 and, thus, 35 to 44 in 1989. In 1979,
the median weekly earnings of college graduates
in this cohort were 1.16 to 1.42 times those of
high school graduates, whereas in 1989, the me
dian for college graduates was 1.43 to 1.66 times
that of high school graduates.
Just as the higher starting pay of college grad
uates may reflect the value of additional years of
schooling, larger pay increases once they are em
ployed could reflect the differences in the amount
of training college and high school graduates re
ceive on the job. Job-related training, like formal
education, is a human capital investment, and,
according to a 1986 Rand Corporation study, col
lege graduates are more likely than high school
graduates to receive such training.19College grad
uates, then, have more opportunities to increase
their productivity throughout their careers, and
this may result in greater pay increases.
T h e n o t i o n t h a t a college education can contrib
ute to closing the economic gap between blacks
and whites appears to hold true for women. But the
theory may be questioned in terms of men because
substantial economic differences still exist be
tween college-educated black and white men, and
little progress toward narrowing the gap was made
during the 1980’s. Nevertheless, for all blacks,
college education does provide considerable eco
nomic rewards above those generally received
with only a high school education.
□
Footnotes
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The author thanks Ber
nard Altschuler, Patricia Merritt, and Ronald Richardson of
the Data Development Staff, Office of Employment and
Unemployment Statistics, for constructing the computer pro
grams used for this study.
1 Unless stated otherwise, all data in this article refer to
persons 25 to 64 years old. This age group has been selected
because it has the strongest attachment to the labor force.
Many people under age 25 have not yet completed their
formal education, and relatively few people over age 64
participate in the labor force.
2 For a discussion of how human capital differences
between blacks and whites relate to economic differences,
see James P. Smith, “Race and Human Capital,” American
Economic Review, September 1984, pp. 685-98. For a gen
eral overview of human capital theory, see Gary S. Becker,
Human Capital (New York, Columbia University Press,
1964 and 1975), or Jacob Mincer, Schooling, Experience,
and Earnings (New York, Columbia University Press, 1974).
3 See, for example, James P. Smith and Finis R. Welch,
“Black Economic Progress After Myrdal,” Journal o f Eco
nomic Literature, June 1989, pp. 519-64.
4 Current Population Survey data on educational attain
ment actually refer to years of school completed, rather than
degrees obtained. In this article, those who attended college
for 4 or more years are referred to as college graduates, and
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
November 1990
those who attended high school for 4 years are referred to as
high school graduates. Available data suggest that blacks
who report that they have completed 4 years of college are
less likely than whites to have obtained a degree. Current
plans are to change the information in the cps from a “years
of school completed” concept to a “degrees obtained” con
cept like that used in the 1990 census.
5
Part of the difference in the CPS estimates of the
number of black men and women ages 25 to 64 may result
from differences in the coverage of these two groups in the
1980 decennial census. Wliile evidence suggests that the
1980 census undercounted the number of black women in
this age group, the undercount of black men is believed to
have been much greater, cps population estimates are based
on decennial census figures, which are then adjusted over
time for estimated births, deaths, and net immigration. A
census undercount of the number of black men could result
in the number of black male college graduates being under
estimated in the cps . For a more detailed discussion of the
census undercount, see Coverage o f the National Population
in the 1980 Census, by Age, Sex, and Race: Preliminary
Estimates by Demographic Analysis, Current Population
Report, Series P-23, No. 115 (Bureau of the Census, 1982).
Despite the fact that the cps may understate the number of
black male college graduates, administrative data from the
U. S. Department of Education show that, in any given year,
the number of black women receiving college degrees sub-
stantially exceeds the number of black men. See, for exam
ple, U. S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, The Condition o f Education, 1989, vol.
2, Postsecondary Education, p. 68.
6 Curtis L. Gilroy, “Investment in human capital and
black-white unemployment,” Monthly Labor Review, July
1975, pp. 13-21.
7 It is important to note that in 1988 the unemployment
rate for college-educated black men (2.9 percent) was only
about one-and-a-half times the rate for white men (1.7 per
cent). Because the rate for college-educated black men is so
volatile from year to year, it is difficult to draw firm conclu
sions about changes in this group’s unemployment situation.
8 Because of the relatively small number of unemployed
black college graduates in the cps sample, it is not possible
to analyze unemployment rates in different age groups. More
reliable data would have allowed for the comparison of
unemployment of younger graduates with that of graduates
in older age groups.
9 See Gary S. Becker, Human Capital, pp. 16-37. Ac
cording to human capital theory, older workers generally
earn more than younger workers because they are more
experienced and thus more productive than younger workers.
This human capital explanation has been disputed, however.
Katharine G. Abraham and James L. Medoff, in Length o f
Service and the Operation o f Internal Labor Markets (Cam
bridge, m a , National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.,
1983), working paper no. 1085, argue that the relatively
higher pay of workers with more seniority “is to a significant
extent a reward to seniority per se, rather than simply a
reward for higher productivity.”
10 Annual earnings estimates are obtained from supple
mental questions asked in the CPS in March of each year. All
persons in the March cps sample are asked if they worked at
any time during the previous year. Those who worked are
asked what they earned in that year. For example, all sample
members in March 1980 who worked at any time during
1979 were asked their 1979 earnings. Estimates of usual
weekly earnings are obtained by asking one-quarter of the
wage and salary workers in each month’s cps sample their
usual weekly hours and earnings. Annual average estimates
of median weekly earnings are based on a sample size triple
that used for the annual earnings estimates from the March
supplement. The difference in sample sizes is shown by the
following:
Sample size in March for annual earnings estimates = S
Sample size for annual averages of median usual weekly
earnings = 12(1/4)(S) = 3S
A minor drawback to comparing weekly, rather than
annual, earnings is that the universe for weekly earnings,
unlike that for annual earnings, only includes wage and
salary workers. Information on weekly earnings is not ob
tained for self-employed workers, such as business owners
and some (though not all) doctors and lawyers. Although
many self-employed workers are college graduates, they
comprise only a small proportion of employed college grad
uates.
11 The results of any survey, whether based on a sample
or a complete census of the population, are subject to non
sampling, or response, variability. Nonsampling error can
result from a number of causes, such as incorrect recording
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
of the data, differences in the interpretation of questions, or
respondents’ inability or unwillingness to provide correct
information. Because the estimates used in this article are
based on one of many possible samples of the population,
they are also subject to sampling error—variation which
occurs by chance because a sample, rather than the entire
population, is surveyed. The measure of this sampling vari
ability is the standard error. The standard error and the
sample estimate enable confidence intervals to be con
structed. In this article, the 90-percent confidence interval—
the sample estimate plus or minus 1.6 times the standard
error—is the interval used to estimate median weekly earn
ings. For example, suppose that an estimate of median
weekly earnings was $338 and the standard error for this
median was $11; it can then be said with 90 percent confi
dence that the actual median is between $320 and $356 ($338
plus or minus 1.6 times $11). In other words, if 1,000
independent samples had been selected, the median would
fall between $320 and $356 in 900 of those samples.
12 The $544 median for black men is 76 percent of the
$719 median for white men. The lower and upper boundaries
of this ratio, 72 and 79 percent, respectively, are derived
from the following tabulations:
lower boundary of median for black men = $523 = 72 percent
upper boundary of median for white men
$725
upper boundary of median for black men = $565 = 79 percent
lower boundary of median for white men
$713
13 It is possible that the occupational differences be
tween black and white college-educated men vary by age.
For example, the occupational employment characteristics
of young blacks may be similar to those of young whites,
while the differences between older blacks and whites may
be sizable. This hypothesis cannot be tested accurately,
however, because the cps sample is not sufficiently large to
provide reliable occupational employment estimates for
black male college graduates in specific age groups.
14 The number of workers with more than 4 years of
college can be used as a rough approximation of workers
with graduate schooling. Among college-educated men em
ployed as full-time wage and salary workers in 1989, a larger
proportion of whites (44 percent) than blacks (34 percent)
had completed more than 4 years of college. To account for
this difference, median earnings were also tabulated for
workers with exactly 4 years of college. The black-white
earnings gap for this group was no different from that for
men with 4 years of college.
15 Wayne J. Howe, “Education and demographics: how
do they affect unemployment rates?” Monthly Labor Review,
January 1988, pp. 3-9.
16 Ibid.
17 George Silvestri and John Lukasiewicz, “Projections
of occupational employment, 1988-2000,” Monthly Labor
Review, November 1989, pp. 42-65.
18 Howe, “Education and demographics.”
19 L. A. Lillard and H. W. Tan, Private Sector Training:
Who Gets It and What are Its Effects? (Santa Monica, c a ,
Rand Corporation, 1986), p. 27.
Month ly Labor Review November 1990 21
The European Community
1992 program and U.S. workers
A conference on the implications for U.S. workers
of the European Community’s impending integration
brought together experts of all stripes
who agreed that the move will have not only an economic,
but also a political and social impact
Robert C. Shelburne
and
Gregory K. Schoepfle
he European Community’s plan to cre
ate, by 1992, a single market permitting
the free flow of goods, capital, and peo
ple among member countries has caught the
im agination and in terest o f many in the
United States. Numerous studies and con
ferences have investigated the potential im
pact of this plan, called EC 1992, on U.S.
companies. Little attention, however, has been
given to how U.S. workers are likely to be af
fected. To help fill this gap, and to raise explicitly
some issues of concern to U.S. workers, the Bu
reau of International Labor Affairs of the U.S.
Department of Labor, in conjunction with the
Center for Strategic and International Studies,
cosponsored a roundtable conference in March
1990 on “ EC 1992: Implications for U.S. Work
ers.” This conference brought together leading
experts from government, academia, business,
and labor to discuss the topic of European eco
nomic, political, and social integration and its
implications for U.S. workers. This report dis
cusses the major themes that evolved during the
conference.1
T
Overview
Robert C. Shelburne and
Gregory K. Schoepfle are
international economists in
the Bureau of International
Labor Affairs, U.S.
Department of Labor.
The conference opened with a review of the
major areas of concern for U.S. workers result
ing from the EC 1992 program. The importance
and interdependence of the economic relation
ship between the European Community and the
United States was emphasized. Each is the
other’s main trading partner and largest source
22FRASER
M on thly L a b o r R e v ie w
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
N o v e m b e r 199 0
of direct investments. U.S. exports to the Eu
ropean Community account for nearly a quarter
of total U.S. exports and support nearly two
million jobs in the United States. Besides inter
nal economic effects, EC 1992 will have inter
national strategic implications: a united Europe
will be able to assume more financial and polit
ical responsibility in the operation of the global
economic system.
The creation of a single market by the Eu
ropean Community is likely to alter the competi
tive position of firms in member countries
relative to U.S. firms in markets throughout the
world, but especially in Europe. Both the struc
ture and the volume of U.S. exports and imports
will be altered, with some U.S. workers facing
job dislocations as a result, while others enjoy
increased job opportunities. Estimations of the
direction and magnitude of these changes are
obviously important to U.S. workers.
Another area of concern is that EC 1992 will
make Europe a more attractive place in which to
invest, and this could displace some investment
that would have been made in the United States.
Since investment is a significant factor in deter
mining longrun growth in productivity and living
standards, a reduction in investment in U.S.
plants and equipment could prove detrimental to
U.S. workers.
Still another area of interest in EC 1992 is the
proposed “Social Dimension,” which, if enacted,
could lead to a broader application of worker
rights and labor standards across the continent.
These changes could directly affect the competi-
tiveness of European firms, but even more im
portant is their potential for altering U.S. labor
standards and benefits by the example they set.
The discussion that took place at the conference
attempted to ascertain the importance of each of
the foregoing three themes.
Aggregate economic effects
In a paper prepared for the conference, Profes
sors Richard Freeman and Lawrence Katz, of
both Harvard University and the National Bu
reau of Economic Research, assessed the overall
impact of EC 1992 on U.S. trade and employ
ment. They found that, compared to the rapid
“internationalization” of the U.S. economy in
the 1970’s and 1980’s and the massive trade
deficits of the 1980’s, the impact of EC 1992 on
U.S. trade flows and the U.S. labor market is
likely to be only minor to moderate. Using
estimates presented in the Cecchini Report (pre
pared for the Commission of the European
Communities in 1988) that European Commu
nity imports initially would drop 8 to 10 percent
as the result of increased intra-European trade,
Freeman and Katz projected a similar reduction
in U.S. exports to the European Community,
which would result in an overall reduction in
U.S. exports of 2.4 percent. Based on this pro
jection, they concluded that such a relatively
small change would not create any major dislo
cations of workers in the United States. How
ever, U.S. Department of Commerce estimates
show that even a 3-percent decline in U.S. ex
ports could displace up to 200,000 workers. In
the long run, EC 1992 is projected to increase
the rate of economic growth in Europe as firms
benefit from increased efficiencies and econo
mies of scale. There is a wide range of estimates
of these longrun growth effects, from negligible
increases to increases of up to 35 percent in the
present value of the gross domestic product. In
the longer run, increased growth in the Eu
ropean Community is likely to result in in
creased trade with the United States.
Professor Katz discussed his research regard
ing the effects of international trade on U.S. labor
markets. This research supports the conventional
wisdom that increased trade is more likely to ben
efit more educated and highly skilled workers
than lower skilled production workers in the man
ufacturing sector (for example, through increased
wages and employment). In addition, workers
displaced by increased imports have a more diffi
cult time gaining reemployment than other dis
placed workers and experience larger earnings
losses when they are reemployed. These conclu
sions tend to support the need for additional help
for such workers, perhaps through trade adjust
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ment assistance programs. Recently, several U.S.
legislators have proposed a small supplemental
tariff to help finance trade adjustment assistance.
It was pointed out that the European Community
was spending about $6,000 a year per worker for
training and retraining and that the United States
needs a similar program to maintain a competi
tive and mobile work force. It was also suggested,
by a U.S. trade unionist, that some protection
might be justified in the short run, given the large
shortrun costs of retraining the work force.
Professor Katz indicated that the U.S. labor
market effects that would result from the pro
jected long-term increase in U.S. trade with the
European Community would be similar to those
that occurred in the 1980’s. This conclusion was
questioned by some who observed that increased
trade with Europe is more likely to affect those
U.S. industrial sectors with more highly skilled,
high-technology workers than previous increases
in trade that have come from newly industrializ
ing economies. However, Professor Katz coun
tered that the recent U.S. import adjustment
problems were primarily due to imports from
Japan and that the percentage of U.S. imports
coming from the newly industrializing economies
had actually decreased during the 1980’s. An ad
ditional reason highly skilled labor may be more
affected is that the European Community is pro
moting the development of high-technology
areas, supplemented with massive labor retrain
ing efforts.
With regard to investment, the recent increases
in U.S. direct investments through both acquisi
tions and plant construction in Europe were
noted. However, a similar large flow of European
direct investments in the United States was cited
as evidence of a balanced relationship. A member
of the European Community delegation stated
that U.S. investment in Europe was motivated by
sound economic reasons and was not “forced in
vestment” resulting from attempts to avoid Eu
ropean Community trade barriers.
It was also suggested that EC 1992 would fur
ther hasten the process of corporate globalization.
With the European Community and the European
Free Trade Association (and, perhaps, Eastern
Europe) adopting similar product standards, com
mon European standards could become the global
standards. By replacing the United States as the
setter of international product standards, Eu
ropean companies would acquire a significant
competitive advantage in third-country markets.
The general consensus was that, as a result of
EC 1992, the United States will likely face in
creasingly more competition, but significant
changes in aggregate U.S. employment and
wages are unlikely. However, some unskilled
The European
Community and
the United States
are each other s
main trading
partner and
largest source of
direct
investments.
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
23
EC 1992 and U.S. Workers
U.S. workers may experience a small decline in
employment and wages. While projections of
economy wide effects in the U.S. were small, var
ious directives being proposed by the European
Community could have significant impacts on
specific U.S. industries and, thus, U.S. workers in
those industries. Three U.S. industrial sectors—
automobiles, electronics, and mass media and enter
tainment—that might be affected by European
economic integration were discussed in more detail.
These sectors were chosen because they typified
various potential trade problems, not because they
were deemed the sectors most likely to be affected.
Sector studies
A main issue was
whether cars
assembled in the
United States
that use some
Japanese
components will
be included in
quotas on
imports from
Japan.
Automobiles. The automobile industry is of
particular interest, not only because of its sig
nificant size (in terms of employment in both
the United States and the European Commu
nity), but because it is subject to a number of
European Community regulations that are po
tentially discriminatory in nature. These include
country-specific policies, laws, and regulations
relating to import quotas, technical product
standards, domestic content requirements, rules
of origin, national government subsidies, and
taxes. Also at issue are concerns about price
discrimination and dumping.
Currently, many European countries have im
port quotas on Japanese cars. For example, Italy
limits imports from Japan to only 2,500 cars a
year. The European Community is planning to
replace these national quotas with a community
wide restriction on imports from Japan that will
stabilize imports until 1992 and then slowly liber
alize them over a subsequent transitional period.
The main issue of concern to U.S. labor is
whether cars assembled in the United States that
use some Japanese components are to be included
in the European Community’s quota on imports
from Japan. (That is, would they be treated as
U.S. cars and not as Japanese cars?) The panel
felt that, as long as imports from the United States
were not dismptive to the European Community
market, they would be exempt. However, the
threat of restraints could limit planned U.S. pro
duction, and thus, any proposed Communitywide
quota system could effectively discriminate
against U.S. exports, even if they were currently
exempt from quotas. It was noted that the United
States has its own mles of origin covering auto
mobiles in the U.S.-Canada free trade agreement.
However, a significant difference was noted be
tween the European practice, which restricts, with
quotas and high tariffs, those cars not satisfying
the Community’s mles of origin, and the U.S.
practice, which has no import quotas and subjects
such cars only to a small tariff.
24 Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
November 1990
Electronics. Workers in the U.S. electronics in
dustry are concerned about developments in the
European Community because it is the largest
market for U.S. electronics exports and numer
ous discriminatory trade practices have been
proposed and implemented by the Community.
The electronics industry includes the manufac
ture of computers, semiconductors, and related
products and has important linkages to many
other industrial sectors (especially consumer
goods and informational and financial services).
Because of its high-tech nature and extensive
linkages, a competitive U.S. electronics industry
is deemed by many to be necessary for a healthy
domestic U.S. economy. In this regard, it is
perceived much as the steel industry was in
earlier decades. The electronics industry now
accounts for about 1 out of every 9 U.S. manu
facturing jobs, more than the chemical, automo
tive, and steel industries combined.
Discussion focused on the semiconductor
market and several proposed European Commu
nity policies that might adversely affect U.S. em
ployment. Foremost among these are several
policies that would have the net effect of requiring
U.S. firms to establish plants within the European
Community despite current excess capacity in the
United States. Three examples were cited in which
U.S. manufacturers had decided to build production
facilities in Europe—an Intel plant in Ireland, an LSI
logic facility in England, and a Texas Instruments
DRAM factory in Italy. Japanese firms (for example,
Fujitsu, Hitachi, and Mitsubishi) are also building
semiconductor wafer fabrication plants in Europe.
The specific European policies cited as causing this
investment by non-European Community countries
include high tariffs—especially a 14-percent tariff
on semiconductors—and the conditioning of eligi
bility for European Community government con
tracts on high levels of European content. As
proposed, wafer fabrication and the diffusion pro
cess of semiconductor fabrication must be done in
Europe for a semiconductor to be considered Eu
ropean. Increased investment in production facilities
in Europe, in turn, could result in excess capacity
within the European Community and increase the
pressure for additional protection.
The desirability of harmonizing the interna
tional mles concerning government procurement,
local content, and mles of origin within the Gen
eral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (g a t t ) was
also stressed. Some felt that too much attention
had been given to the agricultural sector, instead
of the more important electronics sector, in the
current GATT negotiations. Some fears were ex
pressed that trade relations between the European
Community and the United States in semiconduc-
tors might become as contentious as they have
become in agriculture.
Some participants expressed a more optimistic
view that the European Community would make
changes that might lead to liberalization. An ex
ample of this kind of change would be the re
placement of national research and development
efforts (now restricted to member states) with
community-sponsored efforts that would also be
open to foreign firms according to the principle of
national reciprocity. On the other hand, represen
tatives of the European Community expressed the
concern that they did not want Japan to do to the
European Community what Japan had done to the
United States.
Entertainment and mass media. The entertain
ment and mass media industry includes radio and
television programming, motion pictures, and
sound recordings. The market for these items
borders on the line between goods and serv
ices; therefore, it is unclear how existing in
ternational trade agreements apply. The serv
ice industries are not covered at present by
GATT rules, and a major objective of the
United States in the current Uruguay round
of multilateral trade negotiations is to bring
them under the GATT. The panel discussed sev
eral possible ways that EC 1992 could adversely
affect U.S. employment in the entertainment
and mass media industry.
The European broadcast industry has grown
strongly in the past and is projected to grow rap
idly over the next decade. Currently, the United
States provides a significant portion of program
ming to European Community broadcasters. The
European Community, however, has passed a di
rective which states that broadcasters should re
serve at least 50 percent of their programming for
European works “where practicable.” If adopted
strictly, this mling would be equivalent to setting
a quota on non-European Community program
ming. The objective of such a quota would be to
protect the European film and television industry
so as to ensure programming that would maintain
member countries’ cultural heritage. One Eu
ropean participant suggested that this might be a
legitimate objective that would justify trade re
straints. In response, a U.S. industry spokesperson
stated that the primary objective of the directive was
economic, and not cultural, protectionism.
The overall conclusion of the panel discussion
was that the broadcast directive will not have sig
nificant effects on U.S. employment because (1)
European production capacity will be strained to
keep up with the increased demand from all the
new European channels, and sizable imports (and
even additional imports from the United States)
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
will be needed to meet this demand; (2) Eu
ropean films and TV programs have not, and are
not likely to, become as popular in the United
States as U.S. programs are in Europe because
there is consumer resistance in the United States
to dubbed or subtitled programs; and (3) the
large English language market will continue to
allow U.S. firms to produce more expensive and
higher quality programming than the Europeans
will be able to produce.
Some concern was expressed about invest
ments currently being made in Europe by such
U.S. firms as Capital Cities/ABC Video, Para
mount Pictures, and Fox Television. However,
these investments were viewed more as firms par
ticipating in a new market and not as a substitution
for U.S. investment or U.S.-made programming.
Concerns were also expressed that the 50-percent
European-content requirement would only be a
minimum and that, in the future, it could be set
higher at the national level, as was done recently
by France. Some stated that a restriction on ad
vertising time, also included in the broadcast di
rective, could limit the income derived from the
sales of U.S. programming.
An additional aspect of EC 1992 that may cre
ate problems for U.S. competitiveness is the
likely adoption by the European Community of
high-definition television standards that differ
from those in the United States. The European
Community has already established a technical
format that is not consistent with the formats cur
rently under consideration by the United States.
Indeed, a serious degradation in quality results
when converting from one format to the other.
Thus, U.S.-produced programs could lose some
of their appeal in the European market because,
after conversion, they would be of inferior techni
cal quality. High-definition television will not be
come widely used until the mid-1990’s, so no
immediate impact from this disparity is predicted;
however, the impact could be quite significant in
the long run. Because adoption of the European
standards is not the result of a deliberate attempt
to distort trade in a discriminatory fashion, the
appropriate U.S. policy response is unclear. The
issue, however, does highlight concerns about in
ternational standards and the need for the United
States to at least consider, and even perhaps adapt
to, the standards established by the European
Community.
The studies of the automobile, electronics, and
entertainment and mass media industries revealed
important industry-specific effects stemming
from EC 1992 that were not obvious from the
aggregate analysis presented earlier. This was of
course the reason for choosing those particular
industries for special analysis.
Concerns were
expressed
regarding
broadcasting that
the 50-percent
Europeancontent
requirement
would only be a
minimum.
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
25
EC 1992 and U.S. Workers
The Social Dimension
The question
arises, Should
labor unions be
European
Community wide
and thus more
patterned after
the AFL-CIO in
the United States?
When EC 1992 was first outlined in a 1985
White Paper, there were no references to labor
markets or labor relations. Since that time, con
cern over these issues has increased, and supple
mental legislation dealing with the social
dimension of the program has been proposed.
Professor Duncan Campbell, of the University
of Pennsylvania, reviewed the social dimension
of the European Community single market and
its potential impact on U.S. workers.
The Social Dimension of EC 1992, as defined
in official documents, is broad in scope. Its cen
tral core is the Action Program of the Social
Charter, which includes proposals for as many as
70 European Community-wide laws in the social
field. Among these laws are provisions on the
free movement of labor, freedom of association
and collective bargaining, health and safety
standards and other working conditions, informa
tion, consultation and participation, vocational
training, and protections for women, minorities,
children, the disabled, and the elderly. The Social
Dimension also includes additional issues such as
funds for disadvantaged regions and the proposed
European Company Statute. The latter would
allow companies the option of a single act of
incorporation that would be valid throughout the
European Community, subject to European law
and independent of national company law, on the
condition that they accept some system of worker
participation, information, and consultation.
Although national governments and labor
unions continue to be accepted as dominant play
ers in European labor relations, there is consider
able controversy about the role of Brussels (the
seat of the European Community government) in
this process. The debate is part of a larger debate
over the role of the European Commmunity
Commission in formulating social policy. Is the role
of the European Community’s Federal bureaucracy
simply to monitor member nation-states in the ca
pacity of an intergovernmental organization, or is
the bureaucracy to play the role of a centralized
government in a federation of states? At the heart of
die debate is exactly which issues should be decided
at the European Community supranational level
and which should be resolved at the individual
national government level.
In regard to labor market intervention, the Eu
ropean Community Parliament and the Council of
Ministers have been assuming greater responsi
bility, while the individual national governments
have been attempting to deregulate their labor
markets and make them more flexible. These de
velopments reflect an attempt to deal with two
factors that lie beyond the control of national gov
ernments and require supranational regulation:
Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for 26
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
November 1990
the potential for social dumping (for example, the
lowering of national labor standards to the lowest
common denominator or the flight of industry from
countries with higher labor standards to those with
lower labor standards) and the increased power of
multinational corporations.
Recent institutional changes in the European
Community’s decisionmaking procedures are
also promoting European Community-wide in
volvement in the Social Dimension. The first
change is the decision to permit a “qualified ma
jority” of member states to pass laws and direc
tives in certain areas, instead of requiring
unanimous approval in the Council of Ministers.
The second is the increased power of the Eu
ropean Parliament in addressing the Social Di
mension. These changes should mitigate any
political obstacles that may exist to resolving
these issues.
A question was raised as to whether labor
unions should be organized by geographic region
or by industrial sector and whether the United
States was an appropriate model to copy in this
regard. Historically, unions in Europe have been
regional; but with the impending implementation
of EC 1992, the question arises, Should they be
European Community wide and thus more pat
terned after the a f l -CIO in the United States? Ob
viously, European Community-wide unions
would be a more effective restraint on social
dumping than would regional unions. In the view
of a European trade unionist, national labor feder
ations may be appropriate, as long as exchange
rates are flexible. However, national organization
is likely to create problems of competitiveness
when exchange rates are fixed, as is probable
after 1992. This will be especially true if the Eu
ropean Community decides to adopt a common
currency. European sentiment was strong for a
European Community-wide model formulated
along the lines of the German social model or
perhaps a model that is a hybrid of the German,
Italian, and British models. The U.S. model was
not viewed as desirable or relevant to the current
European situation. However, some U.S. trade
unionists expressed skepticism about the likeli
hood of a European solution, and a European
trade unionist expressed the need for legal guar
antees and regulation through the Social Charter.
The consensus that emerged was that, because
the United States and the European Community
were so different in their overall approaches to
labor relations, the United States could not serve
as a model for the European Community to fol
low and that future developments in Europe
might not be transferable to the United States. By
contrast, the fact that U.S. health and safety
regulations were being used as a model for the
European Community was offered as an exam
ple—the only one so far, besides statistical eco
nomic data collection—of U.S. standards being
applied in Europe.
In a move that would please U.S. workers con
cerned about possible European protectionism,
the European labor leaders who were present at
the conference stressed their commitment to free
trade. These functionaries emphasized their de
sire for retraining as a way to speed up workers’
adjustment to new jobs, instead of protectionism,
which would slow down their adjustment. The
different reactions of European and U.S. employ
ers to increased competition were also noted: Eu
ropean firms tend to increase their investments in
capital machinery so as to improve productivity,
while U.S. firms lean toward moving production
offshore to lower cost locations.
The conference also attempted to assess how
the current liberalization and reform in Eastern
Europe and the unification of Germany might af
fect the 1992 program. It was felt that Eastern
Europe, with its openness to foreign capital, edu
cated labor force, and geographical proximity,
would become a major competitor with Southern
Europe. The potential integration of Eastern Eu
rope with the European Community (either for
mally or informally) would provide additional
markets for European Community output, but
would also create additional adjustment costs. It
is even possible that the ongoing economic and
political restructuring of Eastern Europe would
increase resistance to implementing social legis
lation from the less developed member states of
the European Community, because these regions
would be under more competitive pressure. How
ever, the general assessment was that “widening”
the European Community to include Eastern Eu
rope would not decelerate the “deepening” of the
economic and social dimensions within the Eu
ropean Community.
Emerging themes
Several themes emerged from the conference on
the implications for U.S. workers of EC 1992.
Two related concepts that arose frequently were
the globalization of the world economy and the
role of national governments in any subsequent
restructuring and adjustment. The emergence of
the European Community must be viewed as
more than just the economic integration of the
member nations: it implies not only regional
economic integration, but also political and so
cial integration, at least to some extent.
Globalization and integration of the world
economy raise issues related to international
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
product standards, the mobility of capital, the role
of multinational corporations, and how each of
these will affect the competitiveness of nations
and their work forces. Increasingly, multinational
corporations have located production facilities (a
network of suppliers, manufacturers, assemblers,
and distributors) worldwide to take into account
changes in world economic conditions. In a very
real sense, multinational corporations are suprana
tional: what constitutes a U.S. or a German com
pany has become increasingly difficult to say. And
along with this development, national governments
are finding that it is becoming harder to monitor and
regulate multinational enterprises. The interests of
multinational corporations are not always in the na
tional (for example, the U.S.) interest; and, in turn,
the interests of U.S. businesses are not always the
same as the interests of U.S. workers. While in
dustrial enterprises are becoming transnational,
labor markets remain national and regionalized,
with labor mobility quite limited.
National governments are adopting different
strategies to cope with the restructuring and adjust
ment being brought on by the process of global
integration. In Europe, the unification of nation
states—first into an economic and now into a political
and social federation—is raising new questions such
as the following: How should substantial differences
in standards of living among member countries be
addressed? How should work be reorganized within
the social context so as to achieve higher productivity
and wages? Should there be statutory guarantees of
workers’ rights and labor standards, rather than a
reliance on collective bargaining? Should there be
federal (central) or local (nation-state) norms? What is
the proper role of national governments in the domes
tic and world economy—interventionist or preserv
ing of states’ rights? Whose responsibility is it to help
retrain workers, the private sector or the public sec
tor? How are economic and social forces from out
side the union to be dealt with? Answers to these and
other questions are still being hotly debated within
Europe and may be of considerable consequence to
workers in both Europe and the United States.
□
Footnote
1 The five papers commissioned for the roundtable con
ference, including a summary of the discussion after each
session, are available in Jorge F. Perez-Lopez, Gregory K.
Schoepfle, and John Yochelson, eds., ec 1992: Implications
fo r U.S. Workers, csis Significant Issues Series (Washington,
Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1990). Con
tributing authors to this volume are Thomas L. Brewer,
Duncan C. Campbell, Richard B. Freeman, Lawrence F.
Katz, Michael C. Maibach, and Stephen E. Siwek.
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
27
Contributions to savings
and thrift plans
New data show that average annual contributions
made by employers and employees
can vary quite widely , depending
upon individual plan specifications
and employees’ level of earnings
Michael Bucci
Michael Bucci is an
economist in the Division
of Occupational Pay and
Employee Benefit Levels,
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
articipants in employer-sponsored sav tion plans, savings and thrift plans are designed to
ings and thrift plans who earned $25,000 permit the accumulation of funds that may be
during 1989 could make annual contribu used for retirement or other future purposes. Final
tions ranging from less than $100 to more than accrual is dependent upon a number of variables,
$6,500 depending upon th eir p la n ’s ad including total plan contributions, investment
ministrative restrictions and the employee’s earnings, and length of participation in the plan.
Savings and thrift plans require a contribution
chosen rate of contribution. These disparities
from
both the employer and the employee.2 How
in allowable contributions exist among all oc
cupational groups, but are even more evident ever, because the employer is not obligated to
provide a certain level of benefits, the risk from
at higher compensation levels.
These findings are from analysis of individual investments is borne solely by the employee. The
savings and thrift plan provisions studied in the result of investment gains or losses is reflected in
Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 1989 Employee Bene the final benefit available to the employee.
Presently, the Employee Benefits Survey pro
fits Survey. The survey furnishes data on em
ployee benefit provisions in medium and large vides a variety of data regarding the provisions of
establishments in private industries located within savings and thrift plans. Included are information
the continental United States. The 1989 survey on maximum allowable employee contributions,
sample represents 109,000 establishments and permissibility of pretax employee contributions,
contains benefit data that pertain to 32 million employer matching percentages, available invest
ment opportunities, and vesting schedules.3 The
full-time employees.
new data on savings and thrift plans presented in
Two types of retirement plans were evident in
this article attempt to determine the average al
the survey—defined benefit pension plans, which
lowable annual contributions to these plans and
include specific formulas that are used to deter
the actual lump-sum benefit that would be avail
mine an employee’s benefit upon retirement, and
able to an employee upon retirement.
defined contribution plans which do not attempt
to provide a fixed benefit. Instead, defined contri
bution plans specify the level of the employer’s Overview of plans
annual contribution to the employee’s individual
account. Savings and thrift plans were the most Perhaps the most important reason establish
common type of defined contribution plans in the ments form savings and thrift plans is to provide
1989 Employee Benefits Survey, with 30 percent an additional or alternative source of retirement
of full-time workers participating in a savings income for workers. Many Americans are leav
plan that was at least partially financed by their ing the labor force before attaining age 65. At
employer.1 As with most other defined contribu the same time, average life expectancies con-
P
28 Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
November 1990
Table 1. Average contributions to savings and thrift plans by annual earnings and
allowable contribution levels, all full-time participants, medium and large
establishments in private industry, 1989
Employees’ contribution
Annual earnings
Minimum
Employers’ contribution
Combined contribution
Midpoint
Maximum Minimum Midpoint Maximum Minimum Midpoint Maximum
of range
of range
of range
All participants
$15,000 ......................
¿0,000........................
25,000 ........................
35,000 ........................
45,000 ........................
55,000 ........................
$188
249
310
433
555
678
$1,126
1,498
1,869
2,610
3,336
4,004
$2,064
2,746
3,429
4,787
6,116
7,330
$124
165
205
286
365
445
$468
622
774
1,075
1,375
1,674
$494
657
816
1,134
1,450
1,765
$312
414
516
719
921
1,124
$1,594
2,120
2,644
3,686
4,711
5,678
$2,559
3,403
4,246
5,921
7,567
9,096
192
256
319
446
573
701
1,131
1,508
1,885
2,636
3,376
4,070
2,071
2,761
3,451
4,826
6,178
7,440
131
174
217
303
389
474
493
656
818
1,143
1,466
1,789
522
694
866
1,210
1,553
1,896
323
430
537
750
963
1,175
1,625
2,165
2,704
3,779
4,843
5,860
2,593
3,456
4,318
6,037
7,731
9,336
191
253
316
442
567
692
1,131
1,506
1,882
2,630
3,364
4,041
2,071
2,760
3,449
4,818
6,161
7,389
130
173
216
302
387
472
478
635
790
1,097
1,403
1,709
504
669
830
1,152
1,474
1,796
322
427
533
744
955
1,165
1,609
2,142
2,673
3,727
4,768
5,750
2,575
3,429
4,279
5,970
7,636
9,185
181
238
295
410
525
639
1,115
1,478
1,840
2,563
3,266
3,896
2,049
2,717
3,385
4,716
6,007
7,154
110
147
182
251
320
389
432
572
710
980
1,245
1,511
455
603
748
1,031
1,311
1,589
291
385
478
662
845
1,029
1,547
2,051
2,551
3,543
4,512
5,408
2,505
3,321
4,134
5,748
7,318
8,744
Professionaladministrative
$15,000 ......................
20,000 ........................
25,000 ........................
35,000 ........................
45,000 ........................
55,000 ........................
Technical-clerical
$15,000 ......................
20,000 ........................
25,000 ........................
35,000 ........................
45,000 ........................
55,000 ........................
Production-service
$15,000 ......................
20,000 ........................
25,000 ........................
35,000 ........................
45,000 ........................
55,000 ........................
tinue to increase.4 These two factors have in
creased the need for sources of income that will
sustain individuals after retirement. Savings and
thrift plans permit the deferral of employee in
come and the receipt of matching employer
contributions, allowing employees to supple
ment the more traditional sources of retirement
income— defined benefit pensions and Social
Security payments.5 Data from the Employee
Benefits Survey show the increasing importance
of this type of capital accumulation plan: in
1988, 25 percent of full-time employees in me
dium and large private establishments partici
pated in a savings and thrift plan, compared
with 30 percent a year later.
The provisions of individual savings and thrift
plans can be quite disparate. However, all savings
and thrift plans follow the same procedural guide
lines: they require a basic employee contribution,
with minimum and maximum amounts that each
employee may contribute annually, frequently
subject to employer restrictions. These restrictions
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
are often stated as percentages of annual earnings.
For instance, an employee may be permitted to
contribute an amount equal to between 2 percent
and 15 percent of his or her annual earnings.
Savings and thrift plans also have ceilings on
the employer’s contribution to each employee’s
account. Typically, the employers limit the
amount of the employees’ contribution they will
match and then determine the level at which the
match will be made. Even if the employee con
tributes at the maximum allowable level of, say,
15 percent of earnings, plan guidelines may re
strict the employer from matching any amount
over the first 6 percent of earnings. The percent
age at which the employee contribution is
matched also varies among plans. In some cases,
this percentage is a flat amount, such as 50 cents
on the dollar, in other cases, it may depend on
company profits, employee years of service, or
levels of employee contributions.
Employee and employer contributions are
then invested. Restrictions on investments vary
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
29
Savings and Thrift Plans Contributions
among plans. In most cases, the employee is of
fered a variety of choices, including company
stock, equity funds, fixed interest bearing securi
ties, money market funds, real estate, and certifi
cates of deposit. However, employers may
require that all or some contributions be invested
in a specific area, such as company stock. In other
instances, the employees may be allowed to
choose among a number of investment options
with regard to their own contributions, but are
given no option on employer contributions.
While savings and thrift plans share the same
basic structure, each separate plan is subject to its
own constraints. For example, a plan’s adminis
trators can place their own restrictions on allow
able contributions. Also, it is difficult to predict
the actual dollar value of an employee’s contribu
Table 2.
Percent of full-time participants in savings and thrift
plans by employee contributions, earnings,
and selected allowable contribution levels, medium
and large establishments in private industry, 1989
Minimum allowable contributions
contribution
Less than $500 ........
$500-$999 ..........
1,000-1,499..........
1,500-1,999..........
2,000-2,499..........
2,500-2,999..........
3,000-3,499..........
$15,000
$20,000
100
(1)
—
—
—
—
—
97
3
(1)
—
—
—
—
$25,000
77
23
(1)
—
—
—
—
$35,000
76
21
3
O
—
—
$45,000
$55,000
6
71
21
2
0
0
()
76
21
2
0
Maximum allowable contributions
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$35,000
$45,000
$55,000
Less than $500 ........
$500-$999 ..........
1,000-1,499..........
1,500-1,999..........
2,000-2,499..........
2,500-2,999..........
3,000-3,499..........
1
5
5
31
41
10
6
1
1
5
5
28
6
43
—
1
1
4
5
14
17
—
1
1
1
4
4
1
—
1
3,500-3,999..........
4,000-4,499..........
4,500-4,999..........
5,000-5,499..........
5,500-5,999..........
6,000-6,499..........
6,500-6,999..........
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
5
6
1
—
—
—
—
19
26
5
5
1
1
—
14
14
5
17
26
4
2
4
1
14
4
4
2
18
—
4
1
—
13
1
14
7,000-7,499..........
7,500-7,999..........
8,000-8,499..........
8,500-8,999..........
9,000-9,499..........
9,500-9,999..........
10,000 or more ........
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
5
1
0
(1)
—
—
23
5
3
1
4
1
1
14
1
13
17
15
3
7
0
(1)
1
4
—
—
1
1
()
1
1
4
~~
1 Less than 0.5 percent.
2 There were no minimum allowable contributions after the $3,000-$3,499 range.
Note: Dash indicates no contributions exist at that range due to plan specifications and
income revels.
30 Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
November 1990
tion without knowing that employee’s level of
earnings. For reasons such as these, it is impossi
ble to estimate the current accruals and total ben
efits available at retirement from an employee’s
savings and thrift plan without making certain
assumptions. (Such assumptions and a full de
scription of the model used to derive these data,
are described in the appendix.)
Average annual contributions
Table 1 shows calculations of the average con
tributions made by employees and employers to
savings and thrift plans in 1989. The vast ma
jority of plans within the survey required em
ployees to contribute at least 1 percent of
annual earnings to be eligible to participate in
the plan. A small number of plans set mini
mum requirements at some other fixed percent
age of earnings or at a stated dollar level. The
average minimum allowable employee contri
bution levels ranged from $188 for workers
earning $15,000 to $678 for those earning
$55,000. These figures represent approximately
1.2 percent of annual earnings at both income
levels.
Table 1 also depicts average midpoint and maxi
mum levels of employee contributions allowed dur
ing the 1989 plan year. Employee midpoint
contribution levels were determined for each plan
by selecting the contribution rate that represented
the average of the minimum and maximum contri
bution rate permitted by the plan. For example, a
plan that permits annual employee contributions of
from 1 percent to 15 percent of earnings would have
a midpoint of 8 percent of earnings.
Maximum allowable employee contributions
also are usually expressed as a percentage of pay.
On average, these contribution levels vary quite
widely depending upon the employee’s annual
earnings. Table 1 shows that employees who
earned $15,000 in 1989 could make an average
maximum contribution of $2,064 or 13.76 per
cent of earnings. Employees earning $55,000 in
1989 were allowed average maximum contribu
tions of $7,330, or 13.33 percent.6
Employer contributions to savings and thrift
plans are usually less than those of employees.
However, as table 1 shows, the discrepancies be
tween employer and employee levels increase as
the employee’s level of contributions increases.
This stems from the provisions built into individ
ual plans. For instance, if a plan allows employ
ees to contribute from 1 percent to 15 percent of
earnings while providing for a dollar-for-dollar
employer match on the first 6 percent of earmngs,
employer and employee contributions would be
equal if the employee chose to contribute from 1
to 6 percent of earnings. However, when employ-
Table 3.
Percent of full-time participants in savings and thrift plans by employer
contributions, final year earnings, and selected allowable contribution levels,
medium and large establishments in private industry, 1989
Range of
contributions
Less than $500 ..
$500-$999 . . . .
1,000-1,499 . . .
1,500-1,999 . . .
2,000-2,499 . . .
2,500-2,999 . . .
3,000-3,499 . . .
3,500-3,999 . . .
4,000-4,499 . .
4,500-4,999 . . .
5,000 or more . .
Minumum allowable contributions
Maximum allowable contributions
$15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $35,000 $45,000 $55,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $35,000 $45,000 $55,000
99
1
(1)
—
—
O
97
3
o
0
(1)
—
_
_
—
—
—
—
—
—
93
6
1
(1)
(1)
91
6
2
(1)
88
9
2
(1)
(1)
0
_
—
—
(1)
(1)
_
—
—
_
62
31
4
2
(1)
(1)
64
33
3
(1)
(1)
26
58
15
1
(1)
18
54
17
10
1
(1)
9
27
44
9
9
1
(1)
(1)
_
(1)
—
(1)
rh
V
(1)
—
—
8
18
39
15
8
9
4
15
14
35
14
5
■)
1
3
2
-j
(1)
(1)
O
1 Less than 0.5 percent.
Note: Dash indicates no contribution at that range due to plan specification and income levels.
ees choose to contribute the maximum amount,
their contributions would be 2Vz times greater
than those of the employer, providing total contri
butions did not exceed Internal Revenue Code
limitations. If the employer’s matching rate was
only 50 cents on the dollar, the ratio of employeeto-employer contributions would be even greater
at all three levels of contributions.
There is little variation of allowable contribu
tions across the three different occupational
groups studied—professional and administrative,
technical and clerical, and production and ser
vice.7 This is caused in part by the model’s use of
equivalent earnings levels for all types of work
ers.8 Because all employees in a single establish
ment are typically covered by identical plan
provisions, it follows that minimum, midpoint,
and maximum contribution levels would be the
same for employees at equal compensation levels.
The slight variations that do exist result from dif
ferences in individual plan provisions. In 1989, 3
percent of production-service participants took
part in plans that had restrictions on minimum
and maximum contributions stated as dollar val
ues rather than as percentages of annual earnings.
This compared with only 1 percent of profes
sional-administrative and technical-clerical em
ployees who participated in such plans.9 These
dollar-value restrictions tend to correspond to
percentages of salary that are lower than the aver
age rates expressed in other plans.
Variations among plans
As mentioned previously, the individual con
straints placed upon savings and thrift plans by
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
administrators can vary quite widely. For exam
ple, table 2 depicts the final-year distribution of
allowable employee contributions given the re
straints of individual plans. Also, table 3 shows
the distribution of employers’ matching contri
butions.
In general, minimum contribution levels tend
to be similar among plans. However, the mini
mum contributions of employers cover a wider
range than do the minimum contributions made
by employees. This stems from the matching
rates that are built into individual plans. Under
some savings and thrift plans, employers may
match employee contributions at rates that exceed
basic dollar-for-dollar ratios. For instance, a plan
may specify that the first 1 percent of employee
earnings will be matched at the rate of $2 for every
$1, with additional employee contributions up to 6
percent of earnings being matched at a flat dollarfor-dollar rate. When this is the case, employees
who contribute only the minimum allowable
amount will actually have their annual contributions
exceeded by those of their employer.
Because the provisions of savings and thrift
plans do not change across earnings levels, the
deviations in distributions that are seen from one
level of earnings to the next are actually just fac
tors of the increases in earnings. This can be seen
in table 1. The average minimum and maximum
allowable contributions for employees at the
$45,000 earnings level are three times greater
than those of employees at the $15,000 earnings
level. It follows, then, that variations in plan pro
visions are best revealed through analysis of the
distribution of allowable contributions at a single
earnings level.
Of the three
variables that
affect final
distribution,
interest rate
differentials play
the greatest role.
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
31
Savings and Thrift Plans Contributions
compensation.10 In addition, nearly half of all par
ticipants were in plans where employer-matching
percentages were 75 percent or less. These two
factors combine to create a concentration of em
ployer contributions at the lower end of the distri
bution table.
It is clear from the wide range of values in
table 2 that permissible employee contributions at
the $55,000 earnings level vary quite markedly
among plans. Depending on administrative re
strictions, allowable employee minimum contri
butions can range from less than $500 (6 percent
of participants) to between $3,000 and $3,500
(0.33 percent of participants). As allowable con
tributions increase, the range of values also in
creases. When employees utilized their maximum
allowable contribution, 7 percent of participants
were permitted to contribute in excess of $10,000
annually, provided that restrictions in the Internal
Revenue Code were not surpassed.
As noted, the range of minimum-matching
employer contributions exceeds that of employee
minimum contributions. However, this is not the
case for maximum allowable contributions. There
are a number of reasons for this. First, while em
ployees may be allowed to contribute up to 25
percent of annual salary to their savings and thrift
plan (54 percent of participants could allocate 15
percent or more of salary in 1989), 83 percent of
all employees received employer-matching con
tributions on just 6 percent or less of their annual
Table 4.
Lump sums at retirement
Defined contribution plans require that employ
ers specify annual contribution levels to an
employee’s plan account, but such plans do not
specify ultimate payouts. The final lump-sum
benefit available to employees upon separation
from the plan is dependent upon three variables:
years of employee participation; annual contri
butions, often related to employee earnings; and
investment earnings. Each variable plays a sep
arate and distinct role in the final determination
of the benefit amount. Table 4 depicts the pro
jected average lump-sum benefits available
upon retirement to full-time participants who
contribute the midpoint of allowable amounts to
their savings and thrift plans each year and
receive the corresponding employer contribu-
Average lump-sum benefit available at retirement to full-time participants in
savings and thrift plans by years of plan participation, selected final annual
earnings levels, and selected rates of interest, medium and large
establishments in private industry, 1989
Interest rates and
annual earnings^
Years of participation
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
$10,663
14,223
17,783
24,633
30,641
36,668
$15,594
20,812
26,018
36,045
44,833
53,658
$20,338
27,150
33,948
47,045
58,508
70,027
$25,108
33,513
41,919
58,083
72,244
86,475
$30,385
40,564
50,727
70,314
87,464
104,700
$36,301
48,454
60,605
84,012
104,516
125,125
$42,620
56,917
71,220
98,711
122,836
147,055
13,159
17,552
21,946
30,399
37,814
45,252
21,146
28,224
35,283
48,883
60,800
72,770
30,395
40,581
50,744
70,330
87,463
104,684
41,598
55,526
69,465
96,254
119,725
143,317
56,531
75,480
94,396
130,872
162,803
194,898
76,672
102,342
128,022
177,503
220,853
264,428
102,519
136,955
171,443
237,627
295,790
354,127
14,635
19,520
24,407
33,808
42,055
50,327
24,744
33,027
41,287
57,203
71,147
85,155
37,554
50,142
62,703
86,909
108,078
129,360
54,543
72,807
91,092
126,220
157,022
187,944
79,337
105,937
132,488
183,702
228,530
273,590
115,922
154,731
193,566
268,405
333,975
399,886
167,260
223,479
279,811
387,821
482,815
578,042
6 percent
$15,000 ..................
20,000 ....................
25,000 ....................
35,000 ....................
45,000 ....................
55,000 ....................
10 percent
$15,000 ..................
20,000 ....................
25,000 ....................
35,000 ....................
45,000 ....................
55,000 ....................
12 percent
$15,000 ..................
20,000 ....................
25,000 ....................
35,000 ....................
45,000 ....................
55.000 ....................
1 Earnings levels are for 1989. Earnings levels for previous
years of service were produced by using yearly percentage
changes in salary levels based upon Social Security Administration national wage data for each preceding year.
32 Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
November 1990
Note: Data assume that employee contributes to plan at
the midpoint level and receives the corresponding employermatching contribution,
Table 5.
Average sources of funds in a savings and thrift plan account for an individual
with final year earnings of $35,000, by selected interest rates, medium and large
establishments in private industry, 1989
Years of participation
Interest rate
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
6 percent
Lum psum ............................
Employee percentage . . . .
Employer percentage........
Accrued interest................
$24,663
63
11
26
$36,045
56
9
35
$47,045
50
8
42
$58,083
45
8
47
$70,314
40
7
53
$84,012
35
6
59
$98,711
31
5
64
27,353
57
10
33
41,904
48
8
44
57,306
41
7
52
74,283
35
6
59
94,953
29
5
66
120,361
25
4
71
150,274
21
3
76
39,699
39
7
54
72,791
28
5
67
120,754
19
3
78
193,247
13
2
85
314,335
9
1
90
517,891
6
1
93
845,053
4
1
95
8 percent
Lum psum ............................
Employee percentage . . . .
Employer percentage........
Accrued interest................
>
15 percent
Lum psum ............................
Employee percentage . . . .
Employer percentage........
Accrued Interest................
Note: Data assume that employee contributes to the plan at the midpoint level and receives the corresponding employermatching contribution.
tion. The data show, for example that partici
pants who made identical final-year contribu
tions to the same employer-sponsored savings
and thrift plan and who retired in 1989 with
terminal earnings of $25,000 could receive final
lump-sum payments ranging from $17,783 to
$279,811 depending upon each employees’
length-of-plan participation and interest rate as
sumptions shown in table 4.11
The length of plan participation and level of
compensation both affect an employee’s retire
ment benefit. Employees who contribute equal
percentages of salary each year will find different
amounts in their individual accounts upon retiring
if their salary levels are different. The same is tme
if differences exist in years of plan participation.
However, the smaller the degree of difference be
tween these two factors, the smaller the difference in
actual accrual. Consider two employees who work
for the same company. Employee A has 25 years of
plan participation and retires with final earnings of
$20,000. Employee B retires with final earnings of
$25,000 and 20 years of plan participation. Both
employees make the midpoint allowable contri
bution and receive the same employer-matching
contribution. If both employees receive a 6-percent
return on their investments during the entire course
of plan participation, Employee A will receive a
lump-sum distribution of $33,513, while Employee
B will receive a total of $33,948. In effect, Employee
B’s additional earnings have been offset by Em
ployee A’s additional length of plan participation.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Now consider the case of two other employees
who participate in the same savings and thrift
plan. Employee C retires with terminal earnings
of $15,000 and just 10 years of plan participation.
Employee D has participated in the company’s
plan for 40 years and retires with a final salary of
$55,000. Once again, both employees contributed
at the midpoint allowable level, received equal
employer-matching contributions, and received a
6-percent rate of return on investments. The lump
sum available to Employee C is $10,663, while
Employee D receives a distribution of $147,055.
In this instance, it is plain to see the magnitude of
difference that can result from such wide ranges
in salary levels and plan participation length.
Of the three variables that affect the amount of
the employee’s final distribution, interest rate dif
ferentials play the greatest role. The data in tables
4 and 5 give an indication of the actual effect of
different interest rates on equivalent contribu
tions. Table 5 shows that a 2-percentage point
increase in the rate of interest can result in large
additions to an employee’s individual account.
Larger differentials lead to even greater accrual.
For example, an employee with 30 years of plan
participation who retires with an annual salary of
$35,000 would receive a final benefit of $70,314
if the return on all investments were 6 percent.
The same employee would receive $94,953 if the
rate of return had been 8 percent. This final ac
crual continues to increase at an even greater rate
with corresponding increases in the interest rate.
The length of
plan
participation and
level of
compensation
affect an
employee7s
retirement benefit.
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
33
Savings and Thrift Plans Contributions
If this same employee had benefited from a 15percent rate of return on investments, his or her
total distribution upon retirement would have
grown to $314,335.
Another way to measure the tremendous effect
of the interest rate variable upon the final distribu
tion is to look at the origin of the funds that make up
the employee’s final lump-sum benefit. In doing
this, it is necessary to determine the percentage of
funds that are the direct result of employee contribu
tions, employer-matching contributions, and ac
crued interest. Table 5 and Chart 1 do just this. Both
Ch a r t 1.
S o u r c e s of r e t i r e m e n t f u n d s
u n d e r s a v i n g s and t h r i f t pl ans
10 y e a r s ’ p a r t i c i p a t i o n
depict the origin of funds in the account of an
employee who retires with terminal earnings of
$35,000. Results similar to those displayed here
are found at each level of earnings.
At the lower interest rate and participation
levels, employee and employer contributions
make up the greatest percentage of the total ben
efit. Even at the lowest level of participation in
the model, however, accrued interest already ac
counts for 26 percent of the total distribution
received by the employee. As length of plan
participation and interest rates increase, the role
of accrued interest in the final distribution be
comes even more noticeable. In fact, at the extreme
levels of plan participation and interest rates, ac
crued interest comprises virtually the entire account
balance (95 percent of the funds available after 40
years of participation at an interest rate of 15
percent). This occurs despite the fact that em
ployee and employer contributions remain as a
constant percentage of compensation throughout
all years of plan participation.
□
Footnotes
1 According to data from the Employee Benefits Survey,
48 percent of full-time employees in medium and large
establishments in private industry participated in an em
ployer-sponsored defined contribution plan in 1989. After
savings and thrift plans, the next most common type of
defined contribution plan found in the 1989 survey was
profit-sharing (16 percent of employees), followed by money
purchase pension (5 percent) and stock ownership (3 per
cent). Complete data on defined contribution plan incidence
and provisions can be found in Employee Benefits in Medium
and Large Firms, 1989, Bulletin 2363 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 1990).
20 y e a r s ’ p a r t i c i p a t i o n
2 Defined contribution plans that do not provide for
employer contributions are excluded from the scope of the
Employee Benefits Survey.
3 Vesting refers to the years of plan participation re
quired before an employee’s benefits become nonforfeitable.
30 y e a r s ’ p a r t i c i p a t i o n
4 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services data
show that the average life expectancy at birth for Americans
of both sexes has increased from 70.9 years in 1970 to 75.0
years in 1987. See Health, United States, 1989 (Hyattsville,
m d , National Center for Health Statistics, Public Health
Service, 1990), p. 106.
H Accrued interest
I Employer contributions
[] E m p l oy e e c o n t r i b u t i o n s
NOTE: A s s u m i n g 8 p e r c e n t a n n u a l i n t e r e s t rate
and $ 3 5 , 0 0 0 f i n a l y e a r a n n u a l e a r n i n g s
Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for34
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
November 1990
5 Savings and thrift plans may also contain withdrawal
and loan provisions that allow participants to use these
accumulated funds for other purposes prior to retirement.
Seventy-one percent of participants in 1989 were permitted
to withdraw all or a portion of employer contributions pro
vided that plan provisions for such a withdrawal were met.
Thirty-six percent of employees in medium and large estab
lishments were allowed to borrow from their accounts.
6 The reason for the variance in allowable maximum
percentages contributed is the Internal Revenue Code’s re
strictions on tax-deferred contributions. If a plan allows only
tax-deferred dollars to be designated to the employee’s ac
count and that employee is highly paid, he or she may be
restricted by the Internal Revenue Code from contributing
the full maximum allowable percentage provided for by the
plan. For this reason, actual maximum contributions that are
made to the plan may be less than the plan’s allowable
maximum contributory rate. (See appendix.)
skilled trades; craft and production occupations; manual
labor; custodial occupations; and operatives.
8 Some of the earnings levels presented may not be
7
The Employee Benefits Survey collects data for threetypical for the three different occupational groups. When
broad occupational groups. Professional-administrative em
using these data, one should concentrate on the earnings
ployees include those workers who require a knowledge of
levels that are most appropriate for each occupational group.
the theories, concepts, principles, and practices of a broad
9 Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Firms, 1989.
field of science, learning, administration, or management
acquired through a college-level education or equivalent
10 Ibid.
experience. Technical-clerical employees include office and
11 The earnings levels used throughout this model for
sales clerical, technical support, protective services, and
previous years of service were derived from yearly percent
other such workers who do not require an indepth knowledge
age changes in Social Security data on national average wage
of a professional or administrative field of work. Productionlevels.
service occupations include skilled, semiskilled, and un
APPENDIX: The savings and thrift model
To create the savings and thrift model from which this
study draws its data, a formula was developed to take into
account a number of different variables. First, final salary
levels and years of plan participation were chosen.1Earn
ings levels for previous years of service were produced
by using yearly percentage changes in salary levels
based upon the Social Security Administration’s na
tional wage data for each preceding year.
The next step was to determine allowable levels of
employee contributions. By applying the six different
terminal earnings levels to the specific provisions of each
individual plan, it was possible to determine the
employee’s minimum and maximum allowable contribu
tion for each year of plan participation. The employee’s
midpoint contribution was then reached by simply av
eraging these minimum and maximum dollar values.
Allowable levels of employer contributions were
derived in much the same fashion. For this variable,
specific plan restrictions on maximum employer
matching levels were coordinated with the allowable
levels of employee contributions. In plans with a fixed
matching rate, this fixed rate was applied to the mini
mum, midpoint, and maximum employee contribu
tion. When matching rates varied according to profits,
years of service, or levels of employee contributions,
different variations were used:
• If matching rates varied from a minimum percent
age to a maximum percentage according to profit
levels (for example, from 25 cents on the dollar to
an even dollar-for-dollar match depending on divi
dends paid to shareholders), the model applied the
average of these two rates in each plan year.
• When the matching percentage varied depending
upon years of service (for instance, employees with
less than 5 years of service received 50 cents on the
dollar while those with greater than 5 years of ser
vice received even dollar-for-dollar matches), the
maximum matching rate was used for each year of
plan participation. This was done because most
plans employ the maximum matching percentage
at a relatively low service level.
• Finally, if the variation was dependent upon levels
of employee contributions (for example, employee
contributions up to 2 percent of earnings receive a
dollar-for-dollar match while contributions over 2
percent of earnings are matched at only 50 cents on
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the dollar), the maximum matching rate was ap
plied to the minimum employee contribution. All
additional employee contributions were considered
to be matched at the minimum employer rate.
Internal Revenue Code restrictions also apply to
savings and thrift plans. Under the law, the maximum
total annual allotment that may be made to an
employee’s account is the lesser of $30,000 or 25
percent of compensation. In addition, there is a limit
on the amount of tax-deferred income that may be
placed in a savings and thrift plan each year. In 1989,
that limit was $7,626. Each of these limits was built
into the model.2 In the occurrences in which plans
provided for a combination of before- and after-tax
contributions, it was assumed that the employee maxi
mized his or her level of tax-deferred savings. If per
missible, any additional employee contributions were
assumed to be made in after-tax dollars. When total
contributions would have exceeded the $30,000, or 25
percent restriction, it was assumed that employees
would use the maximum employer contribution and
would then make up the difference up to the Internal
Revenue Code limit.
The interest rate variables have been determined by
taking into account the range of investments that are
covered in the scope of the survey. These types of
investments include equity funds, money market
funds, fixed-interest bearing securities, government
securities, guaranteed investment contracts, and a
small assortment of other options.
The range of interest rates used in this study is
based on historical data relating to these different in
vestment schemes. For example, since 1950, the com
posite value of stocks traded on the New York Stock
Exchange has increased at an annual rate of 7.28 per
cent. The average annual increase in the 1950’s was 14
percent; during the period 1980-88, the exchange in
creased at the yearly rate of 11.53 percent. In turn,
Moody’s Aaa corporate bond rates in the period 192988 ranged from a low of 2.53 percent in 1946 to a high
of 14.17 percent in 1981. U.S. Treasury securities,
both short- and long-term, have experienced similar
swings in interest rate levels. Because the vast major
ity of the savings and thrift plans in question invest
their funds in one or more of these securities, the inter
est rate variables being used appear to be reasonable.3
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
35
Savings and Thrift Plans Contributions
Footnotes to the Appendix
1 In these two areas, this study uses the standard levels
used in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ defined benefit pen
sion and life insurance models. For a more detailed descrip
tion of these two models, see Donald G. Schmitt, “Today’s
pension plans: how much do they pay?” Monthly Labor
Review, December 1985, pp. 19-25, and Adam Z. Bellet,
“Employer-sponsored life insurance: a new look,” Monthly
Labor Review, October 1989, pp. 25-28.
2 The Internal Revenue Code limit on tax-deferred con
tributions has been adjusted several times. However, for the
purposes of this study, a limit of $7,000 was used for all
years prior to 1988. In 1988, the limit was raised to $7,313.
In 1989, the limit was adjusted again to $7,626.
3
While the Employee Benefits Survey does not collect
data on the actual investment choices of plan participants, it
is interesting to note the results of a 1988 survey conducted
by Charles D. Spencer and Associates. The survey, which
included more than 400 employers who sponsor profit-shar
ing plans, savings and thrift plans, 401 (k) plans, and Em
ployee Stock O w nership Plans, indicated that most
employees shy away from investments that are perceived as
carrying a high risk. When given a choice of investments,
an overwhelming majority of employees chose guaranteed
investment contracts. This was true for employees of all
incomes, including highest paid employees.
A note on communications
The Monthly Labor Review welcomes communications that supplement,
challenge, or expand on research published in its pages. To be considered for
publication, communications should be factual and analytical, not polemical
in tone. Communications should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief, Monthly
Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Wash
ington, DC 20212
36 Monthly Labor Review November 1990
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Technical
notes
New benchmarks
and SIC codes
for Establishment Survey
Patricia M. Getz
With the release of data for August
1990, the Bureau of Labor Statistics in
troduced its annual revision of national
estimates of employment, hours, and
earnings from the monthly sample sur
vey of nonfarm establishments. Each
year, the sample estimates are adjusted to
new benchmarks, which are comprehen
sive universe counts of employment
based primarily on unemployment insur
ance reports filed by all employers with
State employment security agencies.
Also effective with the August 1990
release, all industry series have been
converted to 1987 Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes.1 This new
structure replaces the 1972 SIC coding
structure previously in effect for the in
dustry estimates.
All data from April 1988 forward
have been revised to incorporate both
the March 1989 benchmarks and the
effects of the SIC revision. Historical
(pre-1988) data for industry series af
fected by Sic redefinitions have been
reconstructed where possible. Histori
cal data for industry series unaffected by
the SIC revision remain as previously
published.
As is the usual practice with the in
troduction of new benchmarks, the Bu
reau has also revised all seasonally
adjusted series for the previous 5-year
period and has introduced new seasonal
adjustment factors to be used to adjust
data in the months ahead.
In addition, all published constantdollar and indexed series have been rePatricia M. Getz is a supervisory economist in the
Division of Monthly Industry Employment Statis
tics, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
computed on a 1982 base, replacing the
previously published 1977-based data.
Conversion to 1987 SIC coding
The SIC coding system is periodically
updated to reflect structural and techno
logical changes in the economy. The
1987 SIC revision marks the first full Sic
restructuring since 1972; minor updates
were made to the SIC system in 1977.
There were almost no changes in
scope at the major industry division lev
els, with only very minor shifts between
wholesale and retail trade and between
the finance, insurance, and real estate
division and the services division. How
ever, there were several significant re
definitions at the two-digit level. In
manufacturing, a substantial realign
ment took place between electronic and
other electrical equipment (SIC 36) and
instruments and related products (Sic
38). In services, a new two-digit code
(SIC 87) was established for “engineer
ing and management services.” Most of
the activities under this new heading
had previously been classified as busi
ness services (SIC 73) or miscellaneous
services (SIC 89). At the three- and four
digit SIC levels, changes in scope were
both more prevalent and more substantial.
All restructured industries were
reestimated using the 1987 SIC-coded
sample data from January 1988 for
ward. Some aggregate-level indus
tries, without scope changes, have
also been affected by the retabulations
because they are formed from the
summation of restratified, reestimated
component industries.
For industries with relatively minor
scope changes, historical data were re
constructed back to the inception of the
series wherever possible. The recon
struction of historical series was done
by adjusting the existing 1972-based
employment series for the percentage of
employment lost or the percentage of
employment gained from other indus
tries, using ratios derived from firstquarter 1988 universe employment
data.2 Hours and earnings data for re
structured series were derived by com
puting a weighted average of the
component series they were derived
from. The weights are the percentages
of employment each old series contrib
uted to the new series.
Effect of revisions
The net impact of the SIC restructuring
and the adjustment to March 1989
benchmark levels on total nonfarm em
ployment was an upward revision of
only 9,000 from the previously pub
lished level. Table 1 presents, for March
1989, previously published estimates
based on the 1972 SIC codes, retabu
lated estimates based on the 1987 SIC
codes, and the newly published bench
mark levels. It displays separately the
revision effects due to SIC restructuring
and those due to benchmarking and
shows the net effect, which is the sum
of the two.
For total nonfarm employment, the
SIC revision effect, due entirely to
restratification and not to any scope
change, was 56,000, or less than 0.05
percent. At the detailed industry level,
the largest effects of the SIC revision
were in business services, instruments
and related products, and electronic and
other electrical equipment.
The benchmark effect shown in the
table represents a comparison of March
1989 estimates retabulated under the
1987 SIC structure with the March 1989
benchmark levels. For total nonfarm
em ploym ent, the benchm ark level
stands at 107,026,000. This represents a
benchmark adjustment of - 47,000, or
less than 0.05 percent. There were, how
ever, larger but essentially offsetting er
rors between the goods-producing and
service-producing sectors. Benchmark
revisions totaling -286,000 were spread
across all the major industry' divisions in
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
37
Technical Notes
Table 1.
Differences between nonfarm employment benchmarks and estimates, by industry, March 1989
[In thousands]
Industry
1972 SICbased
published
estimate
1987 SIC based
estimate
Benchmark
SIC
revision
effect
(2 -1 )
Benchmark
effect
(3 -2 )
Difference
between
benchmark
and estimate
(3 -1 )
(V
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
T ota l..............................................................
107,017
107,073
107,026
56
-A l
9
Total private......................................................
89,052
89,108
89,015
56
-93
-37
Goods-producing ........................................................
25,095
25,101
24,815
6
-286
-280
Mining1 ....................................................................
Oil and gas extraction..........................................
702
391
703
391
678
374
1
0
-25
-17
-24
-17
Construction1 ..........................................................
General building contractors................................
4,837
1,287
4,813
1,287
4,741
1,239
-24
0
-72
-48
-96
—48
Manufacturing..........................................................
Durable goods2 ....................................................
Lumber and wood products2 ............................
Furniture and fixtures........................................
Stone, clay, and glass products2 ......................
Primary metal industries ..................................
Blast furnaces and basic steel products . . . .
19,556
11,550
755
535
592
790
276
19,585
11,538
767
535
560
789
276
19,396
11,448
746
530
559
781
281
29
-12
12
0
-32
-1
0
-189
-90
-21
-5
-1
-8
5
-160
-102
-9
-5
-33
-9
5
Fabricated metal products2 ..............................
Industrial machinery and equipment2 ..............
Electronic and other electrical equipment2 . . . .
Transportation equipment2 ..............................
Motor vehicles and equipment......................
Instruments and related products2 ....................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ..........................
1,451
2,147
2,052
2,067
869
774
388
1,454
2,166
1,760
2,045
869
1,075
389
1,454
2,136
1,762
2,071
871
1,027
383
3
19
-292
-22
0
301
1
0
-30
2
26
2
-48
-6
3
-11
-290
4
2
253
-5
Nondurable goods2 ..............................................
Food and kindred products ..............................
Tobacco products ............................................
Textile mill products..........................................
Apparel and other textile products....................
8,006
1,599
55
727
1,102
8,047
1,598
55
727
1,106
7,948
1,583
51
725
1,086
41
-1
0
0
4
-99
15
-4
-2
-20
-58
-16
-4
-2
-16
Paper and allied products2 ..............................
Printing and publishing ....................................
Chemicals and allied products..........................
Petroleum and coal products............................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products2 ..
Leather and leather products............................
693
1,600
1,084
158
846
142
689
1,601
1,085
158
886
142
693
1,560
1,068
153
893
138
-4
1
1
0
40
0
4
-41
-17
-5
7
-4
0
-40
-16
-5
47
-4
Service-producing........................................................
81,922
81,972
82,211
50
239
289
Transportation and public utilities2 ..........................
Transportation2 ....................................................
Communication and public utilities2 ......................
5,607
3,404
2,203
5,646
3,443
2,203
5,549
3,341
2,208
39
39
0
-97
-102
5
-58
-63
5
Wholesale trade2 ......................................................
Durable goods2 ....................................................
Nondurable goods................................................
6,154
3,658
2,496
6,145
3,654
2,491
6,195
3,676
2,519
-9
-4
-5
50
22
28
41
18
23
Retail trade12 ..........................................................
General merchandise stores................................
Food sto re s..........................................................
Auto dealers and service stations........................
Eating and drinking places ..................................
19,059
2,398
3,184
2,129
6,164
19,023
2,386
3,184
2,126
6,164
19,115
2,452
3,121
2,084
6,264
-36
-12
0
-3
0
92
66
-63
-42
100
56
54
-63
-45
100
Finance, insurance, and real estate2 ......................
Finance2 ..............................................................
Insurance2 ............................................................
Real estate2 ..........................................................
6,723
3,306
2,115
1,302
6,714
3,304
2,115
1,295
6,639
3,288
2,089
1,262
-9
-2
0
-7
-75
-16
-26
-33
-84
-18
-26
^ to
Services12 ..............................................................
Business services2 ..............................................
Health services ....................................................
26,414
5,678
7,480
26,479
4,750
7,476
26,702
4,828
7,401
65
-928
-4
223
78
-75
288
-850
-79
Government ............................................................
Federal ................................................................
State ....................................................................
Local ....................................................................
17,965
2,976
4,213
10,776
17,965
2,976
4,213
10,776
18,011
2,976
4,257
10,778
0
0
0
0
46
0
44
2
46
0
44
2
1 Includes other industries not shown separately.
directly affected by the sic revision, but some estimates changed as a result of
2 Industry scope changed due to SIC revision. Other industries were not
restratification within the industry.
38 Monthly Labor Review November 1990
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 2.
Differences in seasonally adjusted levels and over-the-month
changes, total nonfarm employment, January 1989-May 1990
[In thousands]
Over-the-month
changes
Levels
Month
Previously
published
Previously
published
Revised
1989:
January..............
February............
March ................
A p ril....................
M a y ....................
June ..................
107,442
107,711
107,888
108,101
108,310
108,607
107,430
107,648
107,811
107,988
108,135
108,364
-12
-63
-77
-113
-175
-243
345
269
177
213
209
297
359
218
163
177
147
229
14
-51
-14
-36
-62
-68
J u ly ....................
August................
September ........
O ctober..............
November..........
December..........
108,767
108,887
109,096
109,171
109,452
109,570
108,490
108,628
108,868
108,980
109,245
109,383
-277
-259
-228
-191
-207
-187
160
120
209
75
281
118
126
138
240
112
265
138
-34
18
31
37
-16
20
1990:
January..............
February............
March ................
A p ril....................
M a y ....................
109,931
110,304
110,427
110,401
110,770
109,654
109,958
110,122
110,177
110,617
-277
-346
-305
-224
-153
361
373
123
-26
369
271
304
164
55
440
-90
-69
41
81
71
the goods-producing sector, continuing
the pattern of overestimation of these
industries over the last several years.
Offsets to this overestimation occurred
in the service-producing industries,
which were revised upward by a total of
239,000.
Revised estimates were computed
each month from March 1989 forward
(the postbenchmark period), based on
the new benchmark levels. On a season
ally adjusted basis, the monthly revision
increased from -77,000 in March 1989 to
-153,000 by May 1990, with larger dif
ferences in some of the intervening
months. These revisions reflect restratifica
tion effects from the SIC revision and a
recomputation of both the bias adjustment
and the seasonal adjustment factors. Table
2 shows the extent of the revisions for
1989 and 1990, in both level and
change, through a comparison of sea
sonally adjusted monthly data as pre
viously published and as revised.
Sources of differences
Differences between population bench
marks and sample-based estimates result
from both sampling and nonsampling
error. Sampling error occurs anytime a
sample is used to make inferences about
a population.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Difference
Revised
Difference
ment estimate at the basic cell level.
These revisions are then summarized and
incorporated into the broader industry
groupings. Production and nonsupervisory worker employment estimates are
used as weights in the estimation of hours
and earnings at aggregate industry levels.
Benchmark revisions to employment
may cause shifts in these weights, with
a minor effect on summary-level esti
mates of hours and earnings.
Seasonal adjustment procedure
Both the benchmark levels and the
sample-based estimates are subject to
several sources of nonsampling error,
chief among which are (1) the inability
to measure employment in new firms
from the time of their inception, due to
the time lag between the creation of new
firms and their inclusion in the sample;
(2) the procedures for handling changes
in industrial classification; (3) the qual
ity of the various source data used to
derive the benchmark; (4) the inability
to cover completely all firms in the tar
get population; and (5) other sources of
errors in coverage, response, process
ing, and collection.
Effect of revisions on other series
As with the all-employee data, esti
mates were recomputed from sample
data for women workers and production
workers and for hours and earnings in
industries affected by the SIC revision,
from January 1988 forward. At the total
private level, hours and earnings were
unchanged, and there were only minor
changes in major division-level data.
Benchmarks are not available for the
series on women, production and nonsupervisory workers, hours, and earn
ings. Women and production worker
series are revised by applying the sam
ple-derived ratio to the revised employ
Each year, employment, hours, and
earnings data from the new benchmark
levels are incorporated into the calcula
tion of new seasonal adjustment factors.
The Bureau uses the x - i i a r im a sea
sonal adjustment method, developed by
Statistics Canada,3 to seasonally adjust
establishm ent-based em ploym ent,
hours, and earnings data. The a r im a
option is used to project the unadjusted
data forward for 1 year prior to season
ally adjusting the series. The use of
a r im a projections lessens the need for
revisions of historical data in future sea
sonal adjustments.
All published seasonally adjusted
series have been revised for the most
recent 5 years (1985-90) for the incor
poration of new seasonal factors, as
usual. In addition, series affected by the
SIC revision which were reconstructed
for years prior to 1985 have again been
seasonally adjusted, based on the 1987
Sic-based estimates.
Publication of revised data
Revised estimates for all series appear
in the August 1990 issue of the Bureau’s
periodical, Employment and Earnings,
along with a more complete explanation
of benchmarking, SIC revision, bias fac
tors, and the new seasonal adjustment
factors.
Data for detailed industry categories
of employment, hours, and earnings will
be presented in the Bureau’s historical
bulletin, Employm ent, Hours, and
Earnings, United States, 1909-90. This
publication will contain all of the histor
ical data that were revised as a result of
the 1987 SIC revision, the March 1989
benchmarks, updated seasonal adjust
ment factors, and the rebasing of constant-dollar and indexed series, as well
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
39
Technical Notes
as prior data unaffected by these revi
sions. Estimates reflecting the new
benchmarks appear in the “Current
Labor Statistics” section of the Monthly
Labor Review, beginning with Septem
ber data in the November issue.
□
Footnotes
Table 1.
1990 structural change factors, by census region
[Percentage of rent]
Structural element
Central air conditioning ................
Number of bedrooms....................
Number of bathroom s..................
Number of other roo m s................
1 As defined in the 1987 Standard Industrial
Classification Manual, issued by the Executive
Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget.
Northeast
North Central
South
West
6.29
16.51
15.55
8.69
8.56
16.34
9.54
1.90
18.00
20.55
9.25
2.05
5.86
14.97
8.52
3.05
the change in quality is not known, there
is no direct imputed price used for the
given housing unit. Instead, the propor
All ratios are based on first-quarter 1988
tional weight for the unit is spread out
universe employment data. For additional infor
mation, see Employment Data under the New
among the other housing units in the
Standard Industrial Classification, First Quarter
same cell—or groups of similar cells if
1988, Report 772, October 1989.
the impact on one cell would be too
3
A detailed description of the procedure ap
large— in a process known as non
pears in The X - ll ARIMA Seasonal Adjustment
interview adjustment.
Method, by Estella Bee Dagum, Statistics Canada
Catalogue No. 12-564E, January 1983.
This noninterview technique of indi
rect quality adjustment performs well as
long as the price movements for the
items that change in quality are similar
to
the price movement of all other items
Quality adjustments
in the cell. If they are different—for
for structural changes
example, if the items that change in
in the CPI housing sample
quality always are experiencing signifi
cant price changes while the rest of the
sample is not—then we would be better
Steven W. Henderson
off trying to estimate the value of the
and Stephen A. Berenson
change in quality directly.1
Prior to February 1989, the CPI used
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) esti
the
noninterview indirect adjustment
mates the average change in prices paid
technique for observations in the rent
by the American public for a fixed set
sample that had a change in any of four
of consumer goods and services. When
structural characteristics: central air
a characteristic of a good or service used
conditioning,
the number of bedrooms,
in the index changes, the change may
the number of bathrooms, and the num
include a measurable difference in the
ber of other rooms.2 The rent sample
quality of the item or service being
from the CPI housing survey is the
priced from one time period to the next.
source of information on price changes
If so, an adjustment reflecting this dif
for the Residential Rent Index and the
ference will be made.
Owners’ Equivalent Rent Index. Quite
Quality adjustments can be direct or
frequently, changes in rent accompany
implicit. If the value of the change in
structural changes, and the indirect ad
quality can be measured, the measured
justment process underestimates the
amount is removed from the observed
former, thus overestimating changes in
price difference. If the value cannot be
quality. Accordingly, starting with the
measured, an implicit adjustment is
data used in the February 1989 indexes,
made for the item or service based on
the Bureau of Labor Statistics has made
the change of all other items in the same
direct quality adjustments in the CPI for
estimating cell. As an example, for the
rental
units with verified changes in
Rent Index, when a price comparison is
structural
quality.
canceled because the dollar amount of
This note describes the process of
adjusting for quality changes in struc
Steven W. Henderson is an economist in the Of
tural characteristics. CPI analysts now
fice of Prices and Living Conditions, Bureau of
make
direct dollar adjustments for
Labor Statistics. Stephen A. Berenson is an econ
omist formerly in the same office.
changes in the four structural character
Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for40
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
November 1990
istics mentioned above, in addition to
adjusting for changes in parking accom
modations, amount of furniture, number
and types of appliances, and utility bill
ing, a practice that already existed in
previous housing surveys.
Source of adjustments
The adjustment values for the changes
in structural characteristics are based on
hedonic regressions, which show the re
lationship between the logarithm of rent
and various structural and locational
variables that affect rent. These regres
sions provide a set of factors (regression
coefficients) for the different housing
characteristics. As a result of the semilogarithmic form of the regressions, the
factors give estimates of the value of the
structural characteristics that are per
centages of the rent. The BLS housing
team then estimates the dollar adjust
ment for each change by multiplying the
appropriate factor by the rent. Table 1
shows the 1990 structural change fac
tors, broken down by census region, for
the four characteristics of central air
conditioning, number of bedrooms,
number of bathrooms, and number of
other rooms mentioned above.
Hedonic regressions are run annu
ally for the four U.S. census regions,
shown in table 1. The primary purpose
of the regressions is to estimate the effects
of age bias on the housing indexes.3Using
them for quality adjustments is a spinoff
benefit.
Using the adjustments
Rental units in the CPI housing sample
are contacted twice a year, at which
times BLS agents obtain the rents for the
current and previous month. The CPI
estimates the average change in rent
over a 1-month period and over a 6month period. The movement of the CPI
Rent Index is a composite of these two
independently calculated estimates.
The new adjustments are made to cor
rect for structural changes both when
comparing the current rent to the previ
ous month’s rent and when comparing
the current rent to the rent from 6
months ago.
b l s makes the adjustments when (1)
there has been a change in the unit’s
description and (2) the followup verifi
cation question “Has this changed in the
past year?” is answered “Yes.” The ver
ification question is used to screen out
random differences in the reported de
scription due to miscounts and misinter
pretations of the questions. A direct
price comparison is made without any
quality adjustment if the description is
different and the difference is not a ver
ified change.
The movement of the Residential
Rent Index is based on changes in con
tract rent—that is, the amount that ten
ants pay or owners receive for rental
housing units. Contract rent includes all
services, facilities, and utilities paid for
by the rent payment. Contract rent is
adjusted to create what is called normal
ized rent, which is what the CPI housing
estimation program actually uses to
calculate the Rent Index. Normalized
rent is the rent paid by the tenant, plus
any other payments or payments-inkind paid to the landlord in the form of
subsidies or services, all put on a
monthly basis if paid otherwise. By con
trast, the Owners’ Equivalent Rent
Index, which measures the change in the
cost of shelter for people who live in
their own homes, uses the concept of
pure rent, which is derived by deducting
estimates of the charges for utilities and
furnishings (paid separately by homeowners) from the normalized rent.4
Calculating the adjustments
The quality adjustment used in the Res
idential Rent Index is a percentage of
the current rent, subtracted or added to
the normalized rent for the current time
period, depending on whether the unit’s
quality has improved or declined. The
adjusted rent is then compared with the
previous rent.
The adjustment process for the rental
units used in matching for the Owners’
Equivalent Rent Index is different
because that index uses pure rents,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
whose utility costs have been removed,
as opposed to contract rents, in which
utility costs are included if included in
the lease. The quality adjustment factors
for structural change are subtracted or
added to each previous pure rental
amount used in the rental equivalence
calculation.5 Although applied to the
pure rent, the adjustment is calculated
on the basis of the normalized rent.
For residential rent, the dollar adjust
ment for the 6-month comparison pe
riod is given by
(1)
ADJ = [(Normalized rentT) / (1+
Calculated factor)] - Normalized
rentT.
For Owners’ Equivalent Rent, the
dollar adjustment for the 6-month com
parison is
(2)
ADJ = [(Normalized rent™) x
( 1 + Calculated factor)] Normalized rentT-6.
when the length of occupancy is 1
month; when the length of occupancy is
2 to fewer than 6 full months,
(3b) ADJ = 0.00,
and when the length of occupancy is 6
full months or more,
(3c) ADJ = [(Normalized rentT) / (1 +
(1/6 x Calculated factor))] Normalized RentT.
For owners’ equivalent rent, the dol
lar adjustment for the 1-month compar
ison is given by
(4a) ADJ = [(Normalized renti-i) x
( 1 + Calculated factor)] Normalized rentT-i
when the length of occupancy is 1
month; when the length of occupancy is
2 to fewer than 6 full months,
(4b) ADJ = 0.00.
The adjustment for the 1-month
comparison is based on whether or not
a new tenant has moved into the unit. If
there is a new tenant in the unit at the
time the adjustment is contemplated, the
structural change likely occurred with
the occupancy by the new tenant. If the
tenant moved in during the current
month, then the 1-month quality change
is for the full amount. If the tenant
moved in between 2 and 6 months
earlier, it is assumed that the change
in quality occurred when the tenant
moved in and that there has been no
further change in quality since then. In
that case, there is no 1-month quality
adjustment.
If the same tenant is living in the unit
as was present during the previous col
lection period 6 months earlier, the
change in quality has an equal probabil
ity of occurring at any time in the last 6
months, so an adjustment of one-sixth of
the quality change factor is made. On the
individual unit level, the 1-month adjust
ment will be too high or too low under
these circumstances, but the overall ag
gregate adjustment will be accurate.6
For residential rent, the dollar adjust
ment for the 1-month comparison is
(3a) ADJ = [(Normalized rentT) / (1+
Calculated factor)] - Normalized
rentT
and when the length of occupancy is 6
full months or more,
(4c) ADJ = [(Normalized rentT-i) x
( 1 + (1/6 x Calculated factor))] Normalized rentT-i.
Examples
The factors derived from the semilogarithmic regression function are additive;
that is, when there are multiple struc
tural changes to a housing unit, the re
gression factors are summed. Thus, the
final factor for the change is the total of
the separate factors for the different
changes.
To dem onstrate the adjustm ent
process, suppose that a rental housing
unit in the Western census region has
added an extra bedroom and bathroom,
but has dropped central air condition
ing for the same tenant. Suppose also
that the normalized rent 6 months ago
was $400, last month’s rent was $500, this
month’s rent is $600, and there are no
utilities or furnishings included in the
rent. Then, using equations (1), (2), (3c),
and (4c), we arrive at the following
quality adjustments:
(a)
The 6-month adjustment for the
Residential Rent Index equals
[$600 / (1 +. 1497 +.0852 - .0586)]
-$ 6 0 0
Monthly Labor Review November 1990 41
Technical Notes
= ($600/1.1763)-$600
= -$89.926,
where .1497 is the increased value of the
bedroom, .0852 is the increased value of
the bathroom, and .0586 is the de
creased value of the removed central air
conditioning.
(b)
The 6-month adjustment for the
Owners’ Equivalent Rent Index
equals
[$400 x (1 + .1497 + .0852 .0586)] - $400
= ($400 x 1.1763)-$400
= + $70.52,
= $510.074/$400
= 1.2752.
(b)
$600 / ($400 + $70.52)
= $600/$470.52
= 1.2752.
(c)
(d)
where, again, the same three numbers as
before constitute the calculated factor.
(d) The 1-month adjustment for the
Owners’ Equivalent Rent Index
equals
[$500 x (1 + (1/6) x (. 1497 + .0852
- .0586))] - $500
= ($500 x 1.029)-$500
= +$14.50,
with the calculated factor the same
again.
Note that the relatives of change for
contract rent used in the Residential
Rent Index and for pure rent used in the
Owners’ Equivalent Rent Index after
quality adjustments are the same:
(a)
The 6-month contract rent com
parison becomes
($600 - $89.926) / $400
42 FRASER
Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The 1-month pure rent comparison
becomes
$600/($500+ $14.50)
= $600/$514.50
= 1.1662.
The 1-month adjustment for the
Residential Rent Index equals
[$600/(1 +(1/6) x(. 1497+ .0852
- .0586))] - $600
= ($600/ 1.029) -$ 6 0 0
= -$16.910,
The 1-month contract rent com
parison becomes
($600-$16.910)/$500
= $583.090/$500
= 1.1662.
where .1497, .0852, and .0586 are as
before.
(c)
The 6-month pure rent comparison
becomes
Summary
The use of hedonic regression factors
represents a new improvement and a
major change in calculating quality ad
justments in the housing indexes, even
though the impact of these factors is
limited. Verified structural changes for
rental housing were reported seven
times per month, on average, in 1988,
and verified changes to or from central
air conditioning were reported an aver
age of six times per month. Together,
the two kinds of change made up ap
proximately 0.3 percent of the number
of usable 6-month comparisons.
The percentage factors for structural
changes are updated with each recalcu
lation of age bias adjustments.
□
Footnotes
1 For a more detailed discussion of quality
adjustments, see Paul A. Armknecht and Donald
Weyback, “Adjustments for Quality Change in
the U.S. Consumer Price Index,” Journal o f Offi
November 1990
cial Statistics (Statistics Sweden), vol. 5, no. 2,
1989,pp. 107-23.
2 Chapter 19, “The Consumer Price Index,”
o f Methods, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, April 1988), p. 175, describes
the earlier, original process of canceling compar
isons when structural changes occurred.
bls Handbook
See W alter F. Lane, W illiam C. Ran
dolph, and Stephen A. Berenson, “Adjusting
the CPI shelter index to compensate for effect
of depreciation,” M onthly Labor Review, O c
tober 1988, pp. 34—37. The regression results
for structural changes used variables for loca
tion, services, neighborhood, structural char
acteristics, and depreciation.
4 The basic concepts of contract rent used in
the Residential Rent Index and pure rent used in
the Owners’ Equivalent Rent Index are described
in the bls Handbook o f Methods, pp. 174—76.
5 For reasons of complexity, the system was
designed to adjust each time period separately,
rather than adjusting the current normalized rent
for comparisons with previous time periods, as the
Residential Rent Index does. The calculations for
pure rent are as follows:
PurerentT =
Pure rentT-1 =
Contract rentT(Cost o f utilitiesT
+ Cost o f furniture)
+ Quality adjustmentT;
Contract rentr-i (Cost o f utilitiesT-i
+ Cost o f furniture)
+ Quality adjustmentT-i;
Pure rentr-6 =
Contract rentT-6 (Cost of UtilitieST-6
+ Cost o f furniture)
+ Quality adjustmentT-«.
6 The following equations for 1-month qual
ity adjustments are based on the assumption that
new tenants have occupied the unit and, hence,
changes in quality have occurred. For major util
ities, the housing form verifies 6-month changes
and 1-month changes separately. The system
makes 1-month quality adjustments for changes in
regard to the inclusion of electricity, natural gas,
and heating oil in the rent only when there is a
“Yes” response to “Has [the item in question]
changed since the first of last month?” Changes in
these utilities occur frequently enough, and the
difference in quality is significant enough, to de
termine precisely when the 1-month and 6-month
adjustments should be made.
Major
agreem ents
expiring
next month
This list of selected collective bargain
ing agreements expiring in December is
based on information collected by the
Bureau’s Office of Compensation and
Working Conditions. The list includes
agreements covering 1,000 workers or
more. Private industry is arranged in
order of Standard Industrial Classifica
tion. Labor organizations listed are af
filiated with the AFL-CIO, except where
noted as independent (Ind.).
Private industry
Construction
Constructors’ Labor Council of West Vir
ginia, Inc., West. Virginia; various unions,
6,000 workers
National Electrical Contractors Associa
tion, Pittsburgh, pa ; Electrical Workers
(ibew ), 2,000 workers
National Electrical Contractors Associa
tion, Portland, or ; Electrical Workers
(ibew ), 1,500 workers
West Virginia Contractors Bargaining
Association, Inc., West Virginia; Steel
workers, 2,000 workers
Textile mill products
Dan River, Inc., Danville, v a ; Textile
Workers, 5,000 workers
J P Stevens & Co., Roanoke Rapids,
n c ; Textile Workers, 3,500 workers
Electronic, other electrical equipment
New York Lamp and Shade Manufactur
ers Association, Inc., New York, NY; Elec
trical Workers ( ibew ), 1,500 workers
Transportation equipment
General Dynamics Corp., Fort Worth,
t x ; Office and Professional Employees,
1,500 workers
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries
Bic Pen Corp., Milford, CT; Rubber
Workers, 1,000 workers
Transportation
Pan American World Airways, Inter
state; Air Line Pilots Association, 1,500
workers
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Utilities
Northern States Power Co., Interstate;
Electrical Workers ( ibew ), 2,450 workers
Pacific Gas and Electric Co., California;
Electrical Workers (ibew ), Marine Engi
neers and others, 12,956 workers
Southern California Edison Co., Califor
nia; Electrical Workers (IBEW), 6,200 work
ers
Wholesale trades-nondurable goods
New York Oil Heating Association,
New York, NY; Teamsters, 1,700 workers
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Cemeteries agreement, New York and
New Jersey; Service Employees, 1,800
workers
Services
Illinois Association of Health Care Fa
cilities, Chicago, il ; Service Employees,
4,500 workers
Kaiser-Permanente, northern California;
American Nurses’ Association (Ind.), 6,200
workers
Mt. Sinai Hospital, New York, n y ;
American Nurses’ Association (Ind.), 1,500
workers
St. Lukes-Roosevelt Hospital Center,
New York, NY; American Nurses’ Associ
ation (Ind.), 1,300 workers
Public activity
Education
Aurora County (teachers), Colorado;
Education (NEA-Ind.), 1,500 workers
Boulder County, Colorado; Education
(NEA-Ind.), 1,250 workers
Cherry Creek (teachers), Aurora, CO;
Education (NEA-Ind.), 1,650 workers
Cincinnati Board of Education, Cincin
nati, o h ; State, County and Municipal Em
ployees, 2,500 blue-collar workers and
3,100 teachers
Colorado Springs Board of Education,
Colorado Springs, CO; Education (NEAInd.), 1,650 workers
Denver School District 1, Denver, CO;
Education (NEA-Ind.), 3,900 workers
Gary Board of School Trustees (teach
ers), Gary, in ; Teachers (aft ), 1,300 workers
Jefferson County Board of Education,
Colorado; Colorado Classroom Employees
Association (Ind.), 2,000 workers
Milwaukee City School District (teach
ers aide), Milwaukee, wi; Education (NEAInd.) 1,650 workers
General administration
Albuquerque (multidepartment-blue col
lar), Albuquerque, n m ; State, County and
Municipal Employees, 1,120 workers
Erie County, New York; State, County
and Municipal Employees, 2,200 blue-collar
and 4,000 white-collar workers
Essex County (clerical), New Jersey;
Electrical Workers ( ibew ), 1,100 workers
Fresno County (clerical), California;
Service Employees, 1,200 workers
Michigan State (human services and ad
ministrative employees), Michigan; Auto
mobile Workers, 21,500 workers
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin; State,
County and Municipal Employees, 8,000
workers
Monroe County (m ultiunit), New
York; State, County and Municipal Em
ployees, 3,000 workers
Onondaga County (multiunit), New
York; State, County and Municipal Em
ployees, 3,700 workers
Pittsburgh (blue collar), Pittsburgh, pa ;
Joint Collective Bargaining Committee
(Ind.), 1,050 workers
Rensselaer County (general unit), New
York; State, County and Municipal Em
ployees, 1,400 workers
Saratoga County (blue and white collar),
New York; State, County and Municipal
Employees, 1,300 workers
Health services
Essex County (nonprofessional-mental
health unit), New Jersey; Overbrook Em
ployees Association (Ind.), 1,500 workers
Milwaukee County (nurses), Wiscon
sin; Federation of Nurses and Health Pro
fessionals, 1,100 workers
New York City Health and Hospitals
Corp. (licensed practical nurses), New York,
n y ; Service Employees, 1,700 workers
Protective services
Columbus Police Department, Colum
bus, OH; Fraternal Order of Police (Ind.),
1,300 workers
D
Monthly Labor Review November 1990 43
Developm ents
in industrial
relations
Auto negotiations
United Automobile Workers’ (UAW)
agreements for some 500,000 workers
at General Motors (GM), Ford Motor
Co., and Chrysler Corp. expired Sep
tember 14, the first time in 11 years that
the three contracts expired on the same
date. Job security and cost-of-living ad
justments on pensions were expected to
be key negotiating issues, with wages,
job safety, and time off as other impor
tant topics.
The UAW began contract negotia
tions with the three automakers in midJuly. This year’s “strike target” (the
company the UAW focuses on in negoti
ations) was GM. (In selecting a strike
target, the union traditionally picks
the company that best fits its bargain
ing goals and strategy.) GM was chosen
because of its size, large parts opera
tions, and its history of plant closings
and layoffs since the 1987 contract was
signed.
In early August, GM had sustained a
6-day job action by u a w members at its
Flint, mi, plant that ended only after the
automaker agreed to invest $20 million
in new manufacturing technology, to
accept strict local limits on “outsourc
ing” (buying auto parts from outside
suppliers), and to guarantee jobs to the
2,800 employees at the Flint plant
through 1996. At its peak, the stoppage
led to layoffs at 16 other facilities. Many
industry observers viewed the job ac
tion as the UAW’s signal of their deter
mination to gain improved job security
during national auto negotiations.
As it usually does, the u a w broke off
contract talks with the other automakers,
and concentrated on signing an agreement
with GM before the expiration date of the
“Developments in Industrial Relations” is pre
pared by Michael H. Cimini of the Division of
Developments in Labor-Management Relations,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is largely based on
information from secondary sources.
44FRASER
Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1987 contract. When negotiators failed
to reach an agreement by midnight Sep
tember 14, the union extended the strike
deadline on a day-by-day basis (an un
usual, but expected move) until an ac
cord was reached.
The new 3-year agreement provides
enhanced income and job security for
g m ’s 300,000 salaried employees repre
sented by the UAW, in exchange for a
reduction of the work force through at
trition and “buyouts” of older workers.
The contract enhancements demonstrate
the u a w ’ s “building-block” approach
to bargaining, in which the union first
negotiates a basic benefit and then im
proves upon the level of the benefit
in subsequent negotiations. (Industry
analysts were speculating that GM’s goal
was to close three plants and to cut its
work force by 60,000.)
Under the new income and job secu
rity program, GM will spend about $4
billion (up from $2.3 billion under the
old contract) to guarantee income to
senior employees. In addition to re
stricting layoffs to no more than 36
weeks over the term of the contract, the
agreement provides laid-off workers
with up to 36 weeks of supplemental
unemployment benefits (SUB) equal to
95 percent of their take-home pay dur
ing the time they are laid off. After the
36 weeks, employees will be paid at 100
percent of their take-home pay during
the term of the contract if they still are
on layoff status.
To encourage employees to retire
early, the maximum monthly pension
benefit for early retirement (under age
62 with 30 years of service) will be
increased by $300 (to $1,800) over the
term of the contract, and restrictions on
outside income (the amount an em
ployee is permitted to earn before sacri
ficing benefits) will be raised from
$3,000 to $15,000. The agreement also
calls for “pre-retirement” leave that per
mits older employees to leave their jobs
and receive 85 percent of their full-time
November 1990
pay until they are eligible for retirement,
with their positions being filled by laidoff GM workers; a reduction in the min
imum retirement age, from 55 to 50; a
$3,000 to $7,000 increase in payments
under the voluntary separation program
(Voluntary Employment Termination
Program), under which employees are
given a lump-sum payment to quit, with
a maximum “buyout” of $72,000 (was
$65,000) and 6 months of free basic
health care insurance coverage for em
ployees with at least 25 years of service.
New contract language dealing with
job security provides for the right to
submit outsourcing disputes to arbitra
tion; increased “insourcing” (use of GM
employees to do work previously per
formed by a subcontractor) and use of
GM employees to do new work; and an
increase in the hourly excess overtime
penalty (previously, $1.25 an hour for
all hours of overtime), to $1.25-$5, with
the actual rate depending on the number
of excess overtime hours. (The penalty,
which is levied in an effort to decrease
overtime and enhance job opportuni
ties, is paid into the Joint Skill Develop
m ent and T ra in in g F u n d .) The
agreement also maintains the “one-fortwo” attrition formula that requires GM
to hire one worker for every two who
die, retire, or quit. In addition, the con
tract retains language barring plant clo
sures, even though GM had found a
loophole in the same language under the
prior agreement and “indefinitely idled”
four plants rather than “closed” them.
The contract calls for improved ben
efits for currently laid-off workers. The
currently laid-off workers who are be
tween the ages of 50 and 61 and who
have at least 10 years of service will be
eligible for special retirement during a
preset retirement “window.” The cur
rently laid-off workers with at least 10
years of service who are not eligible
for retirement will be eligible for an
additional 52 weeks of extended s u b
or special lump-sum payments if they
voluntarily quit their jobs under the vol
untary separation program, while those
with fewer than 10 years are eligible for
an additional 26 weeks of extended SUB,
or a special payment under the volun
tary separation program. Over and
above these benefits, workers who were
laid off at the four plants idled during
the 1987 contract are eligible for an
additional 12 weeks of s u b , and have
preferential hiring rights to openings at
other GM plants.
Other contract terms include a 3-per
cent general wage increase in the first
year, lump-sum payments in the second
and third years equal to 3 percent of an
employee’s gross earnings in the pre
ceding 12 months, and the roll-in to
wages of $1.68 of the $1.73 in c o l a
earned under the previous contract (cur
rent average hourly earnings reportedly
are $15.75); a $4.45 increase (to
$30.70-$31.45) over the term of the
contract in the monthly pension rate for
each year of credited service for future
retirees (employees retiring after Octo
ber 1,1990); for current retirees, a $ 1.25
increase in the monthly pension rate for
each year of credited service, with a
minimum $20 monthly pension rate
(previously, the highest minimum was
$16, and some employees received
less), and annual lump-sum payments of
$630 in the second and third years of the
contract; a $1,100 minimum monthly
pension for current retirees under “30and-out”; maintenance of the major cur
rent health care provisions (GM had
proposed an employee health care copay
ment), with an increase in dental benefits
and a new mental health and substance
abuse program; improvements in the profit
sharing plan, including benefits calculated
on a “first dollar” basis (previously, calcu
lated after profits were above 1.8 percent of
sales) and an increase in maximum nayout
(from 16 percent of profits on sales to 17
percent); elimination of the $600 annual
bonus for perfect attendance in exchange
for $600 Christmas bonuses in 1991 and
1992; increases in life insurance cover
age, sickness and accident insurance ben
efits, extended disability benefits, and
survivor income benefits; establishment
of a nationwide joint labor-management
ergonomics program; and a child care
program on a test basis.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The 1987 contracts with Ford and
Chrysler were automatically extended
beyond the September 14 expiration
date while the UAW completed negotia
tions with GM. In the past, the union has
taken the agreement with the target
company to the two other automakers
and modified it as necessary to reach an
agreement. By the end of October, Ford
and Chrysler had both signed tentative
3 -year agreements with the UAW that
reportedly mirrored the GM contract.
Settlement at “Big Brown”
Against the recommendations of their
union leaders and predictions of rejec
tion by dissidents within the union,
Teamsters rank-and-file union mem
bers ratified United Parcel Service of
America’s (UPS) second “final” contract
offer. Teamsters union leaders recom
mended that the proposal be voted down
because of “inadequate” wage increases
and the company’s insistence on both
the use of additional part-time workers
and adherence to strict production
standards. (UPS is the largest package
shipping company in the United States.)
The accord was seen by some in in
dustry as potentially setting the pattern
and the tone for the Teamsters’ 1991
master national freight negotiations.
The 3-year contract, which covers some
140,000 workers nationwide, boosted
hourly wages for full-time workers 50
cents each year, from about $16.10 an
hour, on average, to $ 17.60 an hour over
the term of the contract. Part-timers,
who currently start at $8-$9 an hour,
also received a $ 1.50 an hour increase
over the term of the contract. Full-time
workers received a $1,000 ratification
bonus, and part-timers received $500.
The company’s contribution rate for
health benefits and pensions was in
creased each year by 35 cents an hour
for each full-time employee (from
$8,330, on average, to $10,500 annually
over the term of the contract).
Other contract provisions include an
nual cost-of-living allowances in the sec
ond and third years of the contract, equal
to 1 cent (capped at 20 cents per hour
annually) for each 0.3-point increase in
the Consumer Price Index for Urban
Wage Earners and Clerical Workers; a
sixth week of vacation after 25 years of
service; establishment of labor-man
agement committees to study safety and
health issues, such as concerns about
equipment used by employees and the
handling of hazardous materials; main
tenance of strict production standards;
and the right of management to use ad
ditional part-time employees.
Grocery accord
The Food Employers Council Inc. and
10 locals of the Food and Commercial
Workers reached agreement on a 38month master contract, covering some
80.000 clerks and meat department
workers at six grocery chains in south
ern California. The agreement is ex
pected to set a pattern for an additional
20.000 grocery workers at several other
large food chains and independent gro
cery stores. (The Council bargained for
Albertson’s, Alpha Beta, Lucky Stores,
Ralph’s, Safeway Stores, Stater Bros.,
and Vons.) Health care, wages, staffing,
guaranteed hours of work, and use of
nonunion vendors were the major issues
in dispute.
Terms of the contract call for a general
wage increase of 60 cents per hour for
clerks and meatcutters in the first year, 55
cents in the second year, and 50 cents in
the third year. (Supermarket clerks earned
between $4.25 and $13.05 an hour under
the prior agreement; and meatcutters, be
tween $9.31 and $14.33.)
Regarding benefits, the current pen
sion plan benefits were increased 10
percent. In addition, a new optional con
tributory pension benefit plan, with em
ployee contributions of 10 cents an
hour, was established effective in the
third year of the contract. To preserve
health care benefit levels, employer
contributions to the health and welfare
fund were increased over the term of the
contract by 87 cents per hour worked (to
$2.92 an hour). The number of hours of
work needed to qualify for health cover
age in a quarter was increased to 76 (pre
viously, 64 hours) in any 2-month period
in the previous quarter. A $3 copayment
for prescription dmgs, previously paid
only by meat department employees, was
extended to the clerks. In addition, a new
managed health care program for mental
health and drug abuse was established.
Monthly Labor Review November 1990 45
Developments in Industrial Relations
Other terms include the protection of
full-time positions by filling vacant full
time positions with senior part-timers
(previously, the full-time positions were
converted to part-time positions); a 4hour increase (to 20 hours) in the guar
anteed number of hours per week for
part-timers; and the elimination of the 3
months of free health care coverage to
employees who leave the industry.
General Dynamics-Machinists pact
Negotiators for the General Dynamics
Corp. and three locals of the Machinists
union reached agreement on a 3-year
contract, covering about 4,900 workers
at the company’s Convair, Space Sys
tems, and Data Systems West divisions
in the San Diego, CA, area, and an addi
tional 415 workers off-site at Cape Can
averal, f l , and Vandenberg Air Force
Base, CA. The contract reportedly pro
vides the first wage increase in 6 years,
and is the first to be reached without a
work stoppage since 1981.
Terms call for a general wage in
crease of 4 percent in the first year, 3
percent in both the second and third
years, and a $2,000 signing bonus. (The
base hourly rate under the previous con
tract averaged $11.50.) The agreement
also restores merit increases and pro
vides for new labor grades and rate
ranges.
Several changes were made in the
health care area. Newly required em
ployee contributions to the three health
maintenance organization (h m o ) plans
were set at $2 per week for single cov
erage and $4 for family coverage effec
tive January 1, 1991, and $3 and $6,
respectively, effective January 1, 1993.
In addition, a new optional self-insured
medical plan was established effective
January 1,1991, with an annual deduct
ible of $100 per person and $200 per
family, “out-of-pocket” (catastrophic)
costs of $1,000 per person and $2,000
per family, a $500,000 lifetime benefit,
and weekly employee contributions of
$2 for single coverage and $4 for family
coverage. The deductible, “out-ofpocket,” and weekly employee contri
butions would increase 50 percent
effective January 1, 1993.
Other terms include the establish
ment of a joint labor-management com
46FRASER
Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
mittee to study ways to protect jobs
adversely affected by automation; bian
nual cost-of-living adjustment allow
ances, equal to 1 cent per hour for each
0.3-point rise in the Consumer Price
Index for Urban Wage Earners and
Clerical Workers; the roll-in to wages of
cost-of-living allowances paid under
the prior contract; a $3 increase (to $26)
in the pension rate for each year of cred
ited service for both past and future
service, with an additional $3 on Septem
ber 1, 1992; increases of 8 percent to 25
percent in pension benefits for retirees,
with the increase depending on the
employee’s date of retirement; a 10-centan-hour increase (to 35 cents) in the sec
ond shift premium; and military leave pay
for hourly workers in the reserves.
Beech Aircraft accord
Reflecting the improved financial con
dition of the company, Machinists Dis
trict Lodge No. 70 and the Beech
Aircraft Corp. signed a 3-year collec
tive bargaining agreement providing for
a 13.6-percent wage increase over the
term of the contract. The pact covers
5,090 workers in plants in Wichita and
Salina, KS. Wages and health insurance
premiums were the major sticking
points in the negotiations.
The accord calls for a 5-percent gen
eral wage increase in the first year, 4percent raises in the second and third
years, and a lump-sum payment in the
first year equal to 4 percent of an
employee’s gross earnings in the pre
ceding 12 months. (The average hourly
wage rate was $12.50 under the prior
contract.) The em ployees’ monthly
contributions for health care were main
tained, set at $4 for single coverage and
$ 12 for family coverage. (The company
had proposed that employees pay 10
percent of the premiums.)
Other terms include a 22-percent in
crease in the company’s pension contri
butions; increased pension benefits for
employees retiring after August 5,
1990; and 100-percent (previously, 50
percent) payment for unused sick leave
that accrued in the year.
The Beech contract was the first
signed in the current round of bargain
ing between the Machinists and the
three general aircraft manufacturing
November 1990
companies in the Wichita area. The
union’s contract with Cessna Aircraft
Co., covering about 2,500 workers, ex
pired October 7; and the contract with
Learjet, covering some 1,000 workers,
expired November 6.
Restoration contract in steel
At the 11th hour, negotiators for the
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. and 13
locals of the Steelworkers, representing
some 5,500 workers at the company’s
seven facilities in West Virginia, Ohio,
and Pennsylvania, signed a collective
bargaining agreement that reportedly
allows employees to approach compa
rability with workers at other major do
mestic steelmakers. The contract also
should help Wheeling-Pittsburgh, the
eighth largest steel company in the
United States, to emerge from the Chap
ter 11 bankruptcy protection it has been
under since April 1985.
Contract talks, the first held by the
parties since 1985, began in November
1989. The initial company proposal,
made in December 1989, was rejected.
Talks resumed, but stalled for several
weeks this spring because union leaders
refused to continue to negotiate until the
company’s Chapter 11 reorganization
plan was resolved, while the company
insisted on negotiating a new contract
before filing a revised reorganization
plan. A second proposal was rejected
last June, and a strike vote was taken in
early July (however, a work stoppage
never occurred). Union representatives
cited subcontracting, successorship
(recognition of the union if WheelingPittsburgh is sold), restoration of past
wage and benefit cuts, and local rules as
strike issues.
After negotiations resumed, a third
company proposal was rejected by the
unions’ negotiating team. Bargaining
continued, and an accord was reached
before the deadline set by the unions for
a job action.
The new contract will be effective
upon approval of the company’s reorga
nization plan by the bankruptcy court,
and will remain in effect until March 1,
1994. Terms provide for an immediate
$ 1.50-an-hour wage increase (which ef
fectively restores pay cuts agreed to
under the 1982 and 1985 agreements);
50-cent-an-hour wage increases on
April 1 of 1991 and 1992, and on Janu
ary 1,1993; an immediate $3,000 sign
ing bonus; and an additional $500 bonus
in 1991. (Union leaders had claimed
that hourly pay of their members was
nearly $5 an hour behind workers at the
other major steel companies. Report
edly, the members had not had a wage
increase for 10 years until the bankruptcy
judge permitted a 50-cent-an-hour raise in
July 1990.) The pact also restores 1 week
of vacation, vacation bonuses, five holi
days, time and a half for working on Sun
days, and incentive rates.
Other terms include the payment of
common stock (approximately 11 percent
of the company’s equity) in exchange for
the $26.8 million workers had in an em
ployee investment program; contract lan
guage “severely restricting” contracting
out of work; a successorship clause; a
career development program; improved
severance pay and supplemental unem
ployment benefits; company payment of
one-half of the premiums for optional
major medical insurance for retirees; and
a special enrollment period for retirees
not already under the optional major
medical plan.
Lockout ends at Western Union
Ending a 5-day lockout, negotiators for
the Western Union Corp. and the Com
munications Workers reached agree
ment on three 2-year contracts covering
about 2,500 operators, customer rela
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tions clerks, clerical workers, and field
technicians. The major issues in dispute
were wages, job security, health care
cost sharing, subcontracting, use of
part-time workers, and consolidation of
job classifications. (The ailing financial
and telecommunications company has
had financial problems over the last 6
years and is in the process of restructur
ing its debts.)
After the union refused to extend the
old contract 90 days, the company
locked out some 2,000 employees rep
resented by the Communications Work
ers, and “temporarily” replaced them
with trainees and management employ
ees. The union filed unfair labor prac
tice charges with the National Labor
Relations Board, alleging that Western
Union “selectively” locked out unionrepresented employees in particular fa
cilities and job functions. (The company
sent notices to the 2,000 workers telling
them not to report to work.)
M eanwhile, bargaining sessions
continued between company and labor
negotiators until agreem ents were
reached. Terms of the contracts pro
vided for a 3.5-percent wage increase for
full-time workers in each of the 2 years;
unspecified wage increases for part-tim
ers; contract language giving Western
Union more flexibility in using part-time
workers and subcontractors; reinstate
ment of locked out employees, and giving
them 4 days of back pay; preservation of
the profit-sharing plan; and maintenance
of the current pension benefit levels.
(Western Union currently has 3,400 em
ployees and 11,200 retirees.)
NBC im p le m e n ts fin a l o ffer
After 7 months of negotiations and the
rejection of two company proposed
contracts, the National Broadcasting
Company (NBC) implemented its “final
offer” to the National Association of
Broadcast Engineers and Technicians.
The union, which bargained for 2,373
engineers, news writers, traffic and
communications workers, couriers,
and building service employees cov
ered under 14 labor agreements, filed
unfair labor practice charges against
NBC, alleging that the company failed
to bargain in “good faith” and unilat
erally changed the terms and conditions
of employment prior to a deadlock in
bargaining. The major issue in the dis
pute reportedly was the question of ju
risdiction over personnel hired by the
day, rather than on a full-time basis.
The term s of the proposal im
plemented by n b c call for a 4-year con
tract with 3-percent wage increases in
the first and second years, a 4-percent
wage increase in the fourth year, and a
bonus in the third year equal to 5 percent
of an employee’s gross earnings in the
preceding 12 months. In addition, the
implemented proposal allows n b c to
employ more “daily hires” and permits
producers who lease or rent NBC studios
for new programs to use nonunion em
ployees.
□
Monthly Labor Review November 1990 47
Book
reviews
Setting new standards
for skills in the workplace
Horst Brand
A commission chaired by former U.S.
Secretaries of Labor Ray Marshall and
William E. Brock has published the
third, and in many ways, the most
alarming of recent reports about the
plight of the U.S. work force.
The report, America’s Choice: High
Skills or Low Wages, deals with workers
without a college education (roughly 70
percent) and youngsters not collegebound—a group the commission calls
the “frontline workers” who are “illequipped to meet employers’ current
needs and ill-prepared for the rapidly
approaching, high-technology, serviceoriented future.”
The commission’s concern is height
ened by the fact that it found little aware
ness of these skills problems during visits
to hundreds of firms in all sectors of the
economy and interviews with thousands
of employers, personnel managers, pro
duction supervisors, and ordinary workers.
Although more than 80 percent of
employers did express concern about
skills shortages, “they generally mean a
good work ethic and social skills.” The
commission says that “only 15 percent of
employers report difficulty finding work
ers with appropriate occupational skills,”
but these were in underpaid “women’s”
occupations and traditional craft trades.
The commission found little evidence of
a far-reaching desire for a more edu
cated work force.
Outmoded model
It is easy to determine why employers
find their workers’ skills and training
adequate to the needs of the jobs being
held. The commission reports that more
Horst Brand is an economist formerly with the
Office of Productivity and Technology, Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
than one-third of American workers
have only an eighth grade education,
and fewer than 30 percent are 4-year
college graduates.
This, the commission argues, is ad
equate for an organization of work
“largely modeled after the system of
manufacture made famous by Henry
Ford in the early 20th century,” and
conceived by Frederick W. Taylor—
with complex jobs fragmented into
many simple, repetitive tasks requiring
little skill and education, albeit super
vised by a knowledgeable planning and
managerial staff.1
The Taylor system came to be vir
tually synonymous with mass produc
tion; its influence has not been limited
to manufacturing but “still determines
the way we organize our schools, our
offices, our hospitals, and our banks.”2
But while the “America of the 1950’s
and 1960’s prospered with the Taylor
model,” mass production has come to
be outdated.3 It is no longer adequate
to today’s needs, which require higher
quality products and greater product
variety. The automated systems spells
greater complexity, and make it increas
ingly difficult for small groups of man
agers to centralize control in their hands.
“The reason why we have no skills short
age today,” writes the commission, “is
because we are using a tum-of-the-century work organization.”
As the report’s title indicates, the
commission views low wages as a
major problem for American society.
For the past two decades, it says, eco
nomic growth has stemmed mostly
from additions to the labor force rather
than from increases in productivity.
“Because our economic growth has
not come from improved productivity
our...w ages have not im proved.”4
Moreover, the failure of real wages to
rise—or their decline—has affected
workers unequally, so that the gap be
tween the upper 30 percent of earnings
recipients and the lower 70 percent has
widened over the past decade and a half.
For example, the pay differential be
48 Monthly Labor Review November 1990
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tween white-collar professionals and
skilled trades people has grown from 2
percent to 37 percent; that between pro
fessionals and clerical personnel from
47 percent to 86 percent.5
In arguing for a more participatory
work force, the commission confines
itself to detailing two examples of strik
ingly contrasting company work orga
nizations. One company has sought to
deskill its work force by replacing
higher paid workers who have seniority,
with younger, lower paid workers, and
subcontracting work to overseas estab
lishments. Unit costs were thus reduced
but no clear gain in productivity was
attained. The other company trained its
work force to become “multiskilled”
and enabled it to partake in shopfloor
decisions hitherto reserved for manage
ment. It also reduced the ratio of support
to “frontline” employees.6 Higher pro
ductivity resulted, but at the cost of sub
stantial investment in training. The large
majority of American firms, as the report
states, cannot afford (or believe they can
not afford) such investments.
The m i t Commission on Industrial
Productivity characterized the mass
production system as among the “out
dated strategies” of American business,
contrasting it, for example, with the
Japanese automobile industry, which
“is based on a system different in almost
every feature from Detroit’s mass pro
duction system .” Being based on
“technologies, product development
methods, and patterns of workplace
organization that allow them to reduce
the volume of production and increase
the speed with which new products are
brought to market,” this system “has
required the creation of a highly skilled
work force.”7 The MIT Commission
calls for “cultivating a new economic
citizenship in the work force,” and
states that “effective use of new tech
nology will require people to develop
their capabilities for planning, judg
ment, collaboration, and the analysis
of complex systems.”8
Human resource policy
The Skills Commission writes that“. . .
(W)ork organization is pivotal,” and
that “Work organization drives the de
mand for high skills.”9 The reasons it
cites why American business has tended
to adopt a low-wage rather than a highproductivity policy he outside the realm
of technology altogether; and its propos
als for raising productivity focus entirely
on human resource policy, examples of
foreign success with such policy being
given great weight in the argument. The
com m ission’s report suggests that
human resource policy drives techno
logical and hence productivity advance.
And the commission’s concerns are ev
idently fed by the conviction that social
progress and political balance in the
United States hinge on such advance
and the elevation of the human factors
that underlie it.
According to the commission, Amer
ican business has followed the “lowwage” path over the past two decades for
three reasons: (1) The initial investment
for retraining personnel and upgrading
technical skills required by the “high
productivity path” is costly, and com
panies run the risk of losing this invest
ment when trained employees leave.
(2) Such investment, moreover, de
mands a long-term horizon, but this
approach is vitiated by the “perverse
short-term financial horizons by which
most American companies operate.” (3)
There is the overarching problem of the
lack of a public policy commitment to
full employment, which encourages the
low-wage path by making it easier for
business to employ part-time or tempo
rary workers who can be laid off at will.10
Education and training
The commission presents a brief analy
sis and critique of the educational prep
aration for work in the United States.
“The educational performance of those
students who become frontline workers
is well below the average performance
of their counterparts in some newly in
dustrializing countries where labor
costs are only a small fraction of our
own. Our frontline workers. . . are fast
becoming unemployable at American
wage levels.”11 American high school
students “anchor the bottom” on most
international tests. In Japan, close to 80
percent of the students take algebra, and
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Three commissions studied the work force
America’s Choice:
High Skills
or Low Wages! The Report o f the
Commission on the Skills o f the Amer
ican Workforce. Rochester, NY, Na
tional Center on Education and the
Economy’s Commission on the Skills
of the American Workforce, 1990. $ 18
from the Center, 39 State Street, Suite
500, Rochester, NY 14614.
Investing in People: Strategy to
Address America s Workforce Crisis.
Report by the Secretary of Labor’s
Commission on Workforce Quality
and Labor Market Efficiency. Wash
ington, 1989. $3.75, Superintendent
of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, W ashington, DC
20402. The monographs underlying
the report are titled Investing in Peo
ple, Background Papers, Vol. I and
Vol. II, and are also available from
the U.S. Government Printing Office.
Made in America: Regaining the Pro
ductive Edge, by Michael L. Dertouzos
and other members of the MIT Commis
sion on Industrial Productivity. Cam
bridge, MA, The MIT Press, 1989.
score at the top; in the United States,
little more than 40 percent of students
choose algebra, and score the lowest.
The American educational system, the
commission asserts, “is almost wholly
oriented towards the needs of the col
lege-bound,” and the property tax,
which mostly funds the system, favors
those most likely to go to college.12 Al
most one-half of all high school students
are relegated to general curriculum
courses, which are of little value to their
subsequent pursuits. One-fourth of these
students attend vocational courses, with
only a small proportion going into occu
pations that relate to these courses. Em
ployers as a rule do not even expect
particular proficiencies of high school
graduates applying for jobs; “most em
ployers look at the high school diploma
as evidence of staying power, not aca
demic achievement.”13
Furthermore, the commission says,
no assistance is offered to youths not
bound for college in their transition
The concerns expressed in these
three reports have been shared
throughout the 1980’s by a number of
public and private bodies. Particularly
notable are:
Workforce 2000: Work and Work
ers for the Twenty-First Century. By
William B. Johnston and Arnold E.
Packer. Indianapolis, IN, Hudson In
stitute, 1987. Workforce 2000 was
written at the initiative of the U.S.
Department of Labor.
Building a Quality Workforce. A
joint initiative by the U.S. Departments
of Labor, Education, and Commerce.
W ashington, U.S. Department of
Labor, Employment and Training Ad
ministration, 1988.
The MIT study summarizes numer
ous related policy studies in Appendix
I (see especially p. 309 ff.), while
Building a Quality Workforce features
a selected bibliography bearing upon
the themes it discusses.
from school to work; many of them mill
about in the labor market from dead-end
job to dead-end job. Guidance services
are inadequate, there are no employ
ment services to aid them, and there are
very few apprenticeship programs. By
the time they reach ages 24 or 25, they
are “no match for the highly trained
German, Danish, Swedish or Swiss
youth of 19.”14
The education and training (or re
training) of more seasoned workers is
also lagging, according to the commis
sion. Of the estimated $30' billion spent
by employers on formal training, about
one-third is apportioned to frontline
workers, and only 8 percent of them
benefit by it. Moreover, approximately
15,000 firms account for nine-tenths of
business spending on training, and fewer
than 200 firms spend in excess of 2 percent
of their payroll for this purpose. “The fact
that employers in this country do not
spend much money on training of frontline
workers is not surprising. The ‘Taylor’
Monthly Labor Review November 1990 49
Book Reviews
model of work organization still fol
lowed by most of our companies does
not require skills from the vast majority
of their workers.”15
The force of the commission’s argu
ment regarding the inadequacy of the
education and training of frontline
workers is to an extent lessened by its
review of the many initiatives that have
been taken by the Federal Government
and many States to overcome such in
adequacy. Its survey of these initia
tives— for example, the community
college system that began in 1947; Pell
Grants and Guaranteed Student Loans
for postsecondary education; the Job
Training Partnership Act; and the many
“customized training” efforts made by in
dividual States to attract industry—is all
too brief, and its criticism that “The network
of public training activities... has... been
created as a result of unrelated educational,
social and economic development goals
rather than from any overall vision of
human resource development” is not
argued in sufficiently searching detail.16
The commission’s recommendations
draw upon the relevant programs and
policies in Germany, Japan, Sweden, and
Denmark, outlined in one of the report’s
chapters. First, the commission would
set a new, national educational perfor
mance standard for all students, to be met
by age 16. Based on an assessment of the
student’s performance in meeting the
standards, a Certificate of Initial Mastery
would be awarded. This certificate would
be required for all subsequent schooling,
and would attest to the student’s ability
to read, write, compute, and, generally,
perform “at world class levels” in gen
eral school subjects.17
The States would be responsible for
its students achieving the certificate,
and would also create and fund alter
native learning environments for youths
unable to meet the standard at age 16.
This inability often arises from a
youth’s preference for taking a job to
earn money over continuing his or her
education. Hence, local employers
should provide jobs for such youth on
the condition that their education con
tinue. The commission is particularly
concerned that the problem of high
school dropouts be overcome, in part,
by establishing strong ties between ed
ucational achievement and the provi
sion of private or public employment.
At the center of the commission’s
vision of a coherent human resource
policy lies the professionalization of the
work force not bound for college or
college-educated, by means of a system
of educational certificates, associate de
grees, and part-time work and training
by cooperating employers as part of a
general curriculum. The certification
system would be supervised by a na
tional board setting standards, and serv
ing under the Secretaries of Labor,
Commerce, and Education. The pro
gram would encompass all occupations
as defined or redefined by the proposed
board. The commission strongly argues
for governmental financing of its recom
mendation, citing the G.I. Bill as having
paid for itself many times over in in
creased income. “Our goal is to establish
a structure that will give our frontline
workers the systematic skills, profes
sional qualifications, and respect that thencounterparts enjoy in other countries.18
The final recommendation would in
tegrate American business in the pro
posed national education and training
effort. It would do so by requiring all
employers, regardless of size, to spend
an initial sum of at least 1 percent of
their payroll on certified education and
training programs; or to remit that sum
to a national skills development fund,
devoted to training disadvantaged or
dislocated workers.19 It cites a number
of foreign examples in amplifying this
recommendation. For example, German
corporations contribute close to 3.5 per
cent of their payrolls to training and
employment schemes through the na
tional unemployment insurance fund,
the apprenticeship system, and to local
chambers of commerce (which often
mandate such schemes as a condition
of membership). Likewise, Japanese
firms contribute 1 percent of payrolls
to the National Employment Insurance
Fund; and about one-half of the tax goes
to finance employment and training ini
tiatives.20 The commission also urges
government-run technical assistance ser
vices to promote the high-performance
work organizations which it believes necessaiy to supersede “Taylorism.”21
50 Monthly Labor Review November 1990
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
It is patent that the commission’s rec
ommendations would radically revamp
existing institutions of education and
training, and require new ones as well.
Those recommendations are perhaps
more far-reaching than any others per
taining to the advancement of the ma
jority of the American work force that is
not bound for college.22 Although other
responsible panels that have examined the
issues discussed here may not agree with
the commission’s recommendations, all
seem to agree that fundamental changes
in human resource policy are urgently
needed. The MIT Commission on Indus
trial Productivity put it this way: “. . .
without major changes in the ways schools
and firms train workers over the course of
a lifetime, no amount of macroeconomic
fine-tuning or technological innovation
will be able to produce significantly im
proved economic performance and a ris
ing standard of living.”23
□
Footnotes
1 Am erica’s Choice: High Skills or Low
Wagesl The Report of the Commission on the
Skills of the American Workforce (Rochester, n y ,
National Center on Education and the Economy’s
Commission on the Skills of the American Work
force, 1990), p. 37.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid., pp. 37, 38.
4 Ibid., p. 19
5 Ibid., p. 20.
6 Ibid., p. 31.
7 See Michael L. Dertouzos and others, Made
in America: Regaining the Productive Edge
(Cambridge, m a , The mit Press, 1989).
8 Ibid., pp. 134-35.
9 America’s Choice, pp. 41-42.
10 Ibid., p. 40.
11 Ibid., p. 43.
12 Ibid., p. 44.
13 Ibid., p. 45.
14 Ibid., p. 46.
15 Ibid., p. 50.
16 Ibid., p. 53.
17 Ibid., p. 69.
18 Ibid., p. 77.
19 Ibid., p. 82.
20 Ibid., pp. 115, 117.
21 Ibid., p. 84.
22 Ibid, p. 84.
23 Dertouzos and others, Made in America,
p. 82.
Current
labor
statistics
Notes on Current Labor Statistics
XXXXXXXXXXXXf
TTTTTTTTTTTTT
..........................
52
1. Labor market in d icato rs..............................................................
2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in compensation,
prices, and productivity .................................................
3. Alternative measures of wage and compensation
changes .............................................................................
62
Comparative indicators
Labor force data
4. Employment status of the total population,
data seasonally a d ju sted ............................................................
5. Employment status of the civilian population,
data seasonally a d ju ste d ............................................................
6. Selected employment indicators, data seasonally adjusted . . .
7. Selected unemployment indicators,
data seasonally a d ju sted ............................................................
8. Unemployment rates by sex and age,
data seasonally a d ju ste d ............................................................
9. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment,
data seasonally a d ju sted ............................................................
10. Duration of unemployment, data seasonally a d ju s te d .............
11. Unemployment rates of civilian workers, by State .................
12. Employment of workers, by State .............................................
13. Employment of workers, by industry,
data seasonally ad ju sted ............................................................
14. Average weekly hours, by industry,
data seasonally ad ju sted ...................
15. Average hourly earnings, by industry,
data seasonally ad ju sted ............................................................
16. Average hourly earnings, by industry .......................................
17. Average weekly earnings, by ind u stry .......................................
18. Diffusion indexes of employment change,
data seasonally a d ju sted ............................................................
19. Annual data: Employment status of
the noninstitutional population.................................................
20. Annual data: Employment levels, by industry ........................
21. Annual data: Average hours and earnings levels,
by industry ............................................................
64
65
66
67
68
68
68
69
69
70
71
72
73
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
27. Average specified compensation and wage adjustments,
bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or m o r e .........
28. Average effective wage adjustments, bargaining
situations covering 1,000 workers or m o r e ............................
29. Specified compensation and wage adjustments,
State and local government bargaining situations
covering 1,000 workers or more .............................................
30. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more .................
82
83
83
83
Price data
31. Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average, by expenditure
category and commodity and service groups.........................
32. Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and local data,
all items ......................................................................................
33. Annual data: Consumer Price Index, all items
and major g ro u p s .......................................................................
34. Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing........................
35. Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product ...................
36. Producer Price Indexes for the net output of major
industry groups..........................................................
37. Annual data: Producer Price Indexes, by stage of
processing..................................................................
38. U.S. export price indexes, by Standard International
Trade Classification..................................................................
39. U.S. import price indexes, by Standard International
Trade Classification..................................................................
40. U.S. export price indexes by end-use c a te g o ry ........................
41. U.S. import price indexes by end-use categ o ry ........................
42. U.S. export price indexes, by Standard Industrial
C lassification.............................................................................
43. U.S. import price indexes, by Standard Industrial
Classification.............................................................................
84
87
88
89
89
91
92
93
93
93
94
74
Productivity data
75
75
Labor compensation
and collective bargaining data
22. Employment Cost Index, compensation,
by occupation and industry group ...........................................
23. Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries,
by occupation and industry group ...........................................
24. Employment Cost Index, benefits, private industry
workers, by occupation and industry g ro u p ............................
25. Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers,
by bargaining status, region, and area s iz e ..............................
26. Specified compensation and wage adjustments
from contract settlements, and effective wage adjustments,
situations covering 1,000 workers or more ............................
Labor compensation
and collective bargaining data—Continued
44. Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation,
and unit costs, data seasonally adjusted..................................
45. Annual indexes of multifactor productivity..............................
46. Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation,
unit costs, and prices ................................................................
47. Annual productivity indexes for selected industries ...............
94
95
95
96
International comparisons data
77
79
80
81
82
48. Unemployment rates in nine countries,
data seasonally adjusted............................................................ 98
49. Annual data: Employment status of the civilian working-age
population, 10 countries............................................................ 99
50. Annual indexes of productivity and related measures,
12 countries ................................................................................. 100
Injury and illness data
51. Annual data: Occupational injury and illness
incidence r a t e s ............................................................................
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
101
51
Notes on Current Labor Statistics
This section of the Review presents the
principal statistical series collected and
calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statis
tics: series on labor force; employment;
unemployment; collective bargaining set
tlements; consumer, producer, and inter
national prices; productivity; international
comparisons; and injury and illness statis
tics. In the notes that follow, the data in
each group of tables are briefly described;
key definitions are given; notes on the data
are set forth; and sources of additional
information are cited.
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 1982= 100, the hourly
rate expressed in 1982 dollars is $2 ($3/150
x 100 = $2). The $2 (or any other resulting
values) are described as “real,” “constant,”
or “ 1982” dollars.
Additional information
Symbols
n.e.c.
n.e.s.
p
r
= not elsewhere classified,
= not elsewhere specified.
= preliminary. To increase the
timeliness of some series, pre
liminary figures are issued based
on representative but incomplete
returns.
= revised. Generally, this revision
reflects the availability of later
data but may also reflect other
adjustments.
General notes
The following notes apply to several ta
bles in this section:
Seasonal adjustment. Certain monthly
and quarterly data are adjusted to eliminate
the effect on the data of such factors as
climatic conditions, industry production
schedules, opening and closing of schools,
holiday buying periods, and vacation prac
tices, which might prevent short-term eval
uation of the statistical series. Tables
containing data that have been adjusted are
identified as “seasonally adjusted.” (All
other data are not seasonally adjusted.) Sea
sonal 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 preced
ing years.
Seasonally adjusted data appear in tables
1-3, 4-10, 13-15, 17-18, 44, and 48. Sea
sonally adjusted labor force data in tables 1
and 4-10 were revised in the February 1990
issue of the Review and reflect the experi
ence through 1989. Seasonally adjusted es
tablishment survey data shown in tables
13-15 and 17-18 were revised in the Octo
ber 1990 Review and reflect the experience
through May 1990. A brief explanation of
the seasonal adjustment methodology ap
pears in “Notes on the data.”
Revisions in the productivity data in table
44 are usually introduced in the September
issue. Seasonally adjusted indexes and per
cent changes from month-to-month and
quarter-to-quarter are published for numer
ous Consumer and Producer Price Index se
ries. However, seasonally adjusted indexes
are not published for the U.S. average AllItems CPI. Only seasonally adjusted percent
changes are available for this series.
Adjustments for price changes. Some
data—such as the “real” earnings shown in
table 15—are adjusted to eliminate the effect
Digitized for
52FRASER
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Data that supplement the tables in this
section are published by the Bureau in a
variety of sources. News releases provide
the latest statistical information published
by the Bureau; the major recurring re
leases are published according to the
schedule appearing on the back cover of
this issue. More information about labor
force, employment, and unemployment
data and the household and establishment
surveys underlying the data are available
in Employment and Earnings, a monthly
publication of the Bureau. More data from
the household survey are published in the
data books—Revised Seasonally Adjusted
Labor Force Statistics, Bulletin 2306, and
Labor Force Statistics Derived From the
Current Population Survey, Bulletin 2307.
More data from the establishment survey
appear in two data books—Employment,
Hours, and Earnings, United States, and
Employment, Hours, and Earnings, States
and Areas, and the supplements to these
data books. More detailed information on
employee compensation and collective
bargaining settlements is published in the
monthly periodical, Current Wage Devel
opments. More detailed data on consumer
and producer prices are published in the
monthly periodicals, The C P I Detailed Re
port, and Producer Price Indexes. Detailed
data on all of the series in this section are
provided in the Handbook of Labor Statis
tics, which is published biennially by the
Bureau, bls bulletins are issued covering
productivity, injury and illness, and other
data in this section. Finally, the Monthly
Labor Review carries analytical articles on
annual and longer term developments in
labor force, employment, and unemploy
ment; employee compensation and collec
tive bargaining; prices; productivity;
international comparisons; and injury and
illness data.
November 1990
Comparative Indicators
(Tables 1-3)
Comparative indicators tables provide an
overview and comparison of major BLS
statistical series. Consequently, although
many of the included series are available
monthly, all measures in these compara
tive tables are presented quarterly and an
nually.
Labor market indicators include em
ployment measures from two major surveys
and information on rates of change in com
pensation provided by the Employment Cost
Index (ECl) program. The labor force partic
ipation rate, the employment-to-population
ratio, and unemployment rates for major de
mographic groups based on the Current Pop
ulation (“household”) Survey are presented,
while measures of employment and average
weekly hours by major industry sector are
given using nonfarm payroll data. The Em
ployment Cost Index (compensation), by
major sector and by bargaining status, is
chosen from a variety of bls compensation
and wage measures because it provides a
comprehensive measure of employer costs
for hiring labor, not just outlays for wages,
and it is not affected by employment shifts
among occupations and industries.
Data on changes in compensation,
prices, and productivity are presented in
table 2. Measures of rates of change of com
pensation and wages from the Employment
Cost Index program are provided for all ci
vilian nonfarm workers (excluding Federal
and household workers) and for all private
nonfarm workers. Measures of changes in
consumer prices for all urban consumers;
producer prices by stage of processing; and
overall export and import price indexes are
given. Measures of productivity (output per
hour of all persons) are provided for major
sectors.
Alternative measures of wage and
compensation rates of change, which re
flect the overall trend in labor costs, are
summarized in table 3. Differences in con
cepts and scope, related to the specific pur
poses of the series, contribute to the variation
in changes among the individual measures.
Notes on the data
Definitions of each series and notes on the
data are contained in later sections of these
notes describing each set of data. For de
tailed descriptions of each data series, see
B L S Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 2285
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988), as well
as the additional bulletins, articles, and
other publications noted in the separate
sections of the Review’s “Current Labor
Statistics Notes.” Users may also wish to
consult Major Programs of the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, Report 774 (Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 1990).
Employment
and Unemployment Data
(Tables 1; 4—21)
Household survey data
Description of the series
in this section are ob
tained from the Current Population Sur
vey, 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.
Households are interviewed on a rotating
basis, so that three-fourths of the sample
is the same for any 2 consecutive months.
E m ploym ent
d a ta
Definitions
Employed persons include (1) all civil
ians 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 enter
prise and (2) those who were temporarily
absent from their regular jobs because of
illness, vacation, industrial dispute, or
similar reasons. Members of the Armed
Forces stationed in the United States are
also included in the employed total. A
person working at more than one job is
counted only in the job at which he or she
worked the greatest number of hours.
Unemployed persons are those who
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
did not work during the survey week, but
were available for work except for tempo
rary 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 unem
ployed. The overall unemployment rate
represents the number unemployed as a
percent of the labor force, including the
resident Armed Forces. The civilian un
employment rate represents the number
unemployed as a percent of the civilian
labor force.
The labor force consists of all employed
or unemployed civilians plus members of the
Armed Forces stationed in the United States.
Persons not in the labor force are those not
classified as employed or unemployed; this
group includes persons who are retired,
those engaged in their own 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 per
sons 16 years of age and older who are not
inmates of penal or mental institutions, san
itariums, 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 res
ident Armed Forces) as a percent of the
noninstitutional population.
ally adjusted data for the previous 5 years are
revised, and projected seasonal adjustment
factors are calculated for use during the January-June period. In July, new seasonal ad
justment factors, which incorporate the
experience through June, are produced for
the July-December period but no revisions
are made in the historical data.
Additional sources of information
For detailed explanations of the data, see
Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 2285
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988), and for
additional data, Handbook o f Labor Statis
tics, Bulletin 2340 (Bureau of Labor Sta
tistics, 1989). Historical unadjusted data
from 1948 to 1987 are available in Labor
Force Statistics Derived from the Current
Population Survey, Bulletin 2307 (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 1988). Historical sea
sonally adjusted data appear in Labor
Force Statistics Derived from the Current
Population Survey: A Databook, Vol. II,
Bulletin 2096 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1982), and Revised Seasonally Adjusted
Labor Force Statistics, 1978-87, Bulletin
2306 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988).
A comprehensive discussion of the dif
ferences between household and establish
ment data on employment appears in Gloria
P. Green, “Comparing employment estimates
from household and payroll surveys,”
Monthly Labor Review, December 1969, pp.
9-20.
BLS
Establishment survey data
Description of the series
Notes on the data
E m ploy m en t , h o u r s , a n d ea rn ing s
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
intercensal years. These adjustments af
fect the comparability of historical data. A
description of these adjustments and their
effect on the various data series appears in
the Explanatory Notes of Employment and
Earnings.
Labor force data in tables 1 and 4-10 are
seasonally adjusted based on the experience
through December 1989. Since January
1980, national labor force data have been
seasonally adjusted with a procedure called
X - l 1 ARIMA which was developed at Sta
tistics Canada as an extension of the stand
ard X -l 1 method previously used by b l s . A
detailed description of the procedure appears
in the X -ll ARIMA Seasonal Adjustment
Method, by Estela Bee Dagum (Statistics
Canada, Catalogue No. 12-564E, January
1983).
At the end of each calendar year, season
d at a
in this section are compiled from payroll
records reported monthly on a voluntary
basis to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and
its cooperating State agencies by more
than 340,000 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 nec
essarily a firm; it may be a branch plant,
for example, or warehouse.) Self-em
ployed 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 ac
counts for the difference in employment
figures between the household and estab
lishment surveys.
Definitions
An establishment is an economic unit
which produces goods or services (such as
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
53
C u rren t L a b o r S ta tistics
a factory or store) at a single location and
is engaged in one type of economic activity.
Employed persons are all persons who
received pay (including holiday and sick
pay) for any part of the payroll period includ
ing the 12th of the month. Persons holding
more than one job (about 5 percent of all
persons in the labor force) are counted in
each establishment which reports them.
Production workers in manufacturing
include working supervisors and nonsupervisory workers closely associated with
production operations. Those workers men
tioned in tables 12-17 include production
workers in manufacturing and mining; con
struction workers in construction; and nonsupervisory workers in the following
industries: transportation and public utili
ties; wholesale and retail trade; finance, in
surance, and real estate; and services. These
groups account for about four-fifths of the
total employment on private nonagricultural
payrolls.
Earnings are the payments production
or nonsupervisory workers receive during
the survey period, including premium pay
for overtime or late-shift work but exclud
ing irregular bonuses and other special
payments. Real earnings are earnings ad
justed to reflect the effects of changes in
consumer prices. The deflator for this se
ries is derived from the Consumer Price
Index for Urban Wage Earners and Cleri
cal Workers ( cpi- w ).
Hours represent the average weekly
hours of production or nonsupervisory
workers for which pay was received, and are
different from standard or scheduled hours.
Overtime hours represent the portion of
average weekly hours which was in excess
of regular hours and for which overtime
premiums were paid.
The Diffusion Index represents the per
cent of industries in which employment was
rising over the indicated period, plus onehalf of the industries with unchanged em
ployment; 50 percent indicates an equal
balance between industries with increasing
and decreasing employment. In line with
Bureau practice, data for the 1-, 3-, and 6month spans are seasonally adjusted, while
those for the 12-month span are unadjusted.
Data are centered within the span. Table 18
provides an index on private nonfarm em
ployment based on 356 industries, and a
manufacturing index based on 139 indus
tries. These indexes are useful for measuring
the dispersion of economic gains or losses
and are also economic indicators.
Notes on the data
Establishment survey data are annually
adjusted to comprehensive counts of em
ployment (called “benchmarks”). The lat
Digitized for54
FRASER
M on thly L a b o r R e v ie w
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
est adjustment, which incorporated March
1989 benchmarks, was made with the re
lease of August 1990 data, published in the
October 1990 issue of the Review. Coinci
dent with the benchmark adjustments, sea
sonally adjusted data were revised to
reflect the experience through May 1990,
and industries are coded in accordance
with the 1987 Standard Industrial Classi
fication (SIC) Manual. Unadjusted data
from April 1989 forward and seasonally ad
justed data from January 1986 forward are
subject to revision in future benchmarks.
The bls also uses the X -l 1ARIMA meth
odology to seasonally adjust establishment
survey data. Beginning in June 1989, pro
jected seasonal adjustment factors are calcu
lated and published twice a year. The change
makes the procedure used for the establish
ment survey data more parallel to that used
in adjusting the household survey data. Re
visions of historical data will continue to be
made once a year coincident with the bench
mark revisions.
In the establishment survey, estimates for
the 2 most recent months are based on in
complete returns and are published as pre
liminary in the tables (13 to 18 in the
Review). When all returns have been re
ceived, the estimates are revised and pub
lished as “final” (prior to any benchmark
revisions) in the third month of their appear
ance. Thus, December data are published as
preliminary in January and February and as
final in March. For the same reasons, quar
terly establishment data (table 1) are prelim
inary for the first 2 months of publication and
final in the third month. Thus, fourth-quarter
data are published as preliminary in January
and February and as final in March.
Additional sources of information
Detailed national data from the establish
ment survey are published monthly in the
bls periodical, Employment and Earn
ings. Historically comparable unadjusted
and seasonally adjusted data will be pub
lished in Employment, Hours, and Earn
ings, United States, 1909-90, Bulletin
2370 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1990)
and its annual supplement. For a detailed
discussion of the methodology of the sur
vey, see b l s Handbook of Methods, Bulle
tin 2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1988). For additional data, see Handbook
o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2340 (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 1989).
A comprehensive discussion of the dif
ferences between household and establish
ment data on employment appears in Gloria
P. Green, “Comparing employment estimates
from household and payroll surveys,” Month
ly Labor Review, December 1969, pp. 9-20.
N o ve m b er 1 990
Unemployment data by State
Description of the series
Data presented in this section are obtained
from two major sources—the Current Pop
ulation Survey (CPS) and the Local Area
Unemployment Statistics ( l a u s ) program,
which is conducted in cooperation with
State employment security agencies.
Monthly estimates of the labor force, em
ployment, and unemployment for States and
sub-State areas are a key indicator of local
economic conditions and form the basis for
determining the eligibility of an area for
benefits under Federal economic assistance
programs such as the Job Training Partner
ship Act and the Public Works and Economic
Development Act. Insofar as possible, the
concepts and definitions underlying these
data are those used in the national estimates
obtained from the cps .
Notes on the data
Data refer to State of residence. Monthly
data for 11 States—California, Florida,
Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New
York, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Texas— are obtained
directly from the c ps , because the size of
the sample is large enough to meet BLS
standards of reliability. Data for the re
maining 39 States and the District of Co
lumbia are derived using standardized
procedures established by b l s . Once a
year, estimates for the 11 States are re
vised to new population controls. For the
remaining States and the District of Co
lumbia, data are benchmarked to annual
average cps levels.
Additional sources of information
Information on the concepts, definitions,
and technical procedures used to develop
labor force data for States and sub-State
areas as well as additional data on subStates are provided in the monthly Bureau
of Labor Statistics periodical, Employ
ment and Earnings, and the annual report,
Geographic Profile of Employment and Un
employment (Bureau of Labor Statistics).
See also b l s Handbook of Methods, Bulletin
2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988).
Compensation and Wage Data
(Tables 1-3; 22-30)
C om pen sa tio n a n d w age d a t a are gath
ered by the Bureau from business estab
lishments, State and local governments,
labor unions, collective bargaining agree
ments on file with the Bureau, and second
ary sources.
Employment Cost Index
Description of the series
The Employment Cost Index ( eci) is a
quarterly measure of the rate of change in
compensation per hour worked and in
cludes wages, salaries, and employer costs
of employee benefits. It uses a fixed mar
ket basket of labor—similar in concept to
the Consumer Price Index’s fixed market
basket of goods and services—to measure
change over time in employer costs of
employing labor. The index is not season
ally adjusted.
Statistical series on total compensation
costs, on wages and salaries, and on benefit
costs are available for private nonfarm workers
excluding proprietors, the self-employed, and
household workers. The total compensation
costs and wages and salaries series are also
available for State and local government work
ers and for the civilian nonfarm economy,
which consists of private industry and State and
local government workers combined. Federal
workers are excluded.
The Employment Cost Index probability
sample consists of about 4,200 private non
farm establishments providing about 22,000
occupational observations and 800 State and
local government establishments providing
4,200 occupational observations selected to
represent total employment in each sector.
On average, each reporting unit provides
wage and compensation information on five
well-specified occupations. Data are col
lected each quarter for the pay period includ
ing the 12th day of March, June, September,
and December.
Beginning with June 1986 data, fixed
employment weights from the 1980 Census
of Population are used each quarter to calcul
ate the civilian and private indexes and the
index for State and local governments. (Prior
to June 1986, the employment weights are
from the 1970 Census of Population.) These
fixed weights, also used to derive all of the
industry and occupation series indexes, ensure
that changes in these indexes reflect only
changes in compensation, not employment
shifts among industries or occupations with
different levels of wages and compensation.
For the bargaining status, region, and metropolitan/nonmetropolitan area series, however,
employment data by industry and occupation
are not available from the census. Instead, the
1980 employment weights are reallocated
within these series each quarter based on the
current sample. Therefore, these indexes are
not strictly comparable to those for the aggre
gate, industry, and occupation series.
Definitions
Total compensation costs include wages,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
salaries, and the employer’s costs for em
ployee benefits.
Wages and salaries consist of earnings
before payroll deductions, including produc
tion bonuses, incentive earnings, commis
sions, and cost-of-living adjustments.
Benefits include the cost to employers
for paid leave, supplemental pay (including
nonproduction bonuses), insurance, retire
ment and savings plans, and legally required
benefits (such as Social Security, workers’
compensation, and unemployment insur
ance).
Excluded from wages and salaries and
employee benefits are such items as pay
ment-in-kind, free room and board, and tips.
Notes on the data
The Employment Cost Index for changes
in wages and salaries in the private non
farm economy was published beginning in
1975. Changes in total compensation
cost—wages and salaries and benefits
combined—were published beginning in
1980. The series of changes in wages and
salaries and for total compensation in the
State and local government sector and in
the civilian nonfarm economy (excluding
Federal employees) were published begin
ning in 1981. Historical indexes (June
1981=100) of the quarterly rates of change
are presented in the March issue of the bls
periodical, Current Wage Developments.
Additional sources of information
For a more detailed discussion of the Em
ployment Cost Index, see the b l s Hand
book o f Methods, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 1988); Employment Cost
Indexes and Levels, 1975-88, Bulletin
2319 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988);
and the following Monthly Labor Review
articles: “Estimation procedures for the
Employment Cost Index,” May 1982; and
“Introducing new weights for the Employ
ment Cost Index,” June 1985.
Data on the eci are also available in bls
quarterly press releases issued in the month
following the reference months of March,
June, September, and December; and from
the Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bulletin
2340 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1989).
Collective bargaining settlements
Description of the series
Collective bargaining settlements data
provide statistical measures of negotiated
adjustments (increases, decreases, and
freezes) in compensation (wage and bene
fit costs) and wages alone, quarterly for
private industry and semiannually for
State and local government. Compensa
tion measures cover all collective bargain
ing situations involving 5,000 workers or
more and wage measures cover all situa
tions involving 1,000 workers or more.
These data, covering private nonagricultural industries and State and local govern
ments, are calculated using information
obtained from bargaining agreements on
file with the Bureau, parties to the agree
ments, and secondary sources, such as
newspaper accounts. The data are not sea
sonally adjusted.
Settlement data are measured in terms of
future specified adjustments: those that will
occur within 12 months of the contract effec
tive date—first-year—and all adjustments
that will occur over the life of the contract
expressed as an average annual rate. Adjust
ments are worker weighted. Both first-year
and over-the-life measures exclude wage
changes that may occur under cost-of-living
clauses that are triggered by future move
ments in the Consumer Price Index.
Effective wage adjustments measure
all adjustments occurring in the reference
period, regardless of the settlement date.
Included are changes from settlements
reached during the period, changes de
ferred from contracts negotiated in earlier
periods, and changes under cost-of-living
adjustment clauses. Each wage change is
worker weighted. The changes are pro
rated over all workers under agreements
during the reference period yielding the
average adjustment.
Definitions
Wage rate changes are calculated by di
viding newly negotiated wages by the
average straight-time hourly wage rate
plus shift premium at the time the agree
ment is reached. Compensation changes
are calculated by dividing the change in
the value of the newly negotiated wage
and benefit package by existing average
hourly compensation, which includes the
cost of previously negotiated benefits, le
gally required social insurance programs,
and average hourly earnings.
Compensation changes are calculated
by placing a value on the benefit portion of
the settlements at the time they are reached.
The cost estimates are based on the assump
tion that conditions existing at the time of
settlement (for example, methods of financ
ing pensions or composition of labor force)
will remain constant. The data, therefore, are
measures of negotiated changes and not of
total changes in employer cost.
Contract duration runs from the effec
tive date of the agreement to the expiration
date or first wage reopening date, if applica
ble. Average annual percent changes over
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
55
Current Labor Statistics
the contract term take account of the com
pounding of successive changes.
Notes on the data
Comparisons of major collective bargain
ing settlements for State and local govern
ment with those for private industry should
note differences in occupational mix, bar
gaining practices, and settlement character
istics. Professional and w hite-collar
employees, for example, make up a much
larger proportion of the workers covered by
government than by private industry settle
ments. Lump-sum payments and cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) clauses, on the other
hand, are rare in government but common in
private industry settlements. Also, State and
local government bargaining frequently ex
cludes items such as pension benefits and
holidays, that are prescribed by law, while
these items are typical bargaining issues in
private industry.
Additional sources of information
For a more detailed discussion on the se
ries, see the b l s Handbook of Methods,
Bulletin 2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1988). Comprehensive data are published
in press releases issued quarterly (in Janu
ary, April, July, and October) for private
industry, and semiannually (in February
and August) for State and local govern
ment. Historical data and additional de
tailed tabulations for the prior calendar
year appear in the April issue of the bls
periodical, Current Wage Developments.
Work stoppages
Description of the series
Data on work stoppages measure the num
ber and duration of major strikes or lock
outs (involving 1,000 workers or more)
occurring during the month (or year), the
number of workers involved, and the
amount of time lost because of stoppage.
Data are largely from newspaper ac
counts and cover only establishments di
rectly involved in a stoppage. They do not
measure the indirect or secondary effect of
stoppages on other establishments whose
employees are idle owing to material short
ages or lack of service.
Definitions
Number of stoppages: The number of
strikes and lockouts involving 1,000
workers or more and lasting a full shift or
longer.
Workers involved: The number of
workers directly involved in the stoppage.
Digitized for56
FRASER
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Number of days idle: The aggregate
number of workdays lost by workers in
volved in the stoppages.
Days of idleness as a percent of esti
mated working time: Aggregate workdays
lost as a percent of the aggregate number of
standard workdays in the period multiplied
by total employment in the period.
Notes on the data
This series is not comparable with the one
terminated in 1981 that covered strikes
involving six workers or more.
Additional sources of information
Data for each calendar year are reported in
a bls press release issued in the first quar
ter of the following year. Monthly and
historical data appear in the bls periodi
cal, Current Wage Developments. Histor
ical data appear in the Handbook of Labor
Statistics, Bulletin 2340 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 1989).
Other compensation data
Other bls data on pay and benefits, not
included in the Current Labor Statistics
section of the Monthly Labor Review, ap
pear in and consist of the following:
Industry Wage Surveys provide data for
specific occupations selected to represent an
industry’s wage structure and the types of
activities performed by its workers. The Bu
reau collects information on weekly work
schedules, shift operations and pay differen
tials, paid holiday and vacation practices,
and information on the incidence of health,
insurance, and retirement plans. Reports are
issued throughout the year as the surveys are
completed. Summaries of the data and spe
cial analyses also appear in the Monthly
Labor Review.
Area Wage Surveys annually provide
data for selected office, clerical, profes
sional, technical, maintenance, toolroom,
powerplant, material movement, and custo
dial occupations common to a wide variety
of industries in the areas (labor markets)
surveyed. Reports are issued throughout the
year as the surveys are completed. Summa
ries of the data and special analyses also
appear in the Review.
The National Survey o f Professional,
Administrative, Technical, and Clerical
Pay provides detailed information annually
on salary levels and distributions for the
types of jobs mentioned in the survey’s title
in private employment. Although the defini
tions of the jobs surveyed reflect the duties
and responsibilities in private industry, they
are designed to match specific pay grades of
Federal white-collar employees under the
General Schedule pay system. Accordingly,
November 1990
this survey provides the legally required in
formation for comparing the pay of salaried
employees in the Federal civil service with
pay in private industry. (See Federal Pay
Comparability Act of 1970, 5 u.s.c. 5305.)
Data are published in a bls news release
issued in the summer and in a bulletin each
fall; summaries and analytical articles also
appear in the Review.
Employee Benefits Survey provides na
tionwide information on the incidence and
characteristics of employee benefit plans in
medium and large establishments in the
United States, excluding Alaska and Hawaii.
Data are published in an annual bls news
release and bulletin, as well as in special
articles appearing in the Review.
Price Data
(Tables 2; 31-43)
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 (1982
= 100 for many Producer Price Indexes or
1982-84 = 100 for many Consumer Price
Indexes, unless otherwise noted).
Consumer Price Indexes
Description of the series
The Consumer Price Index ( cpi) is a mea
sure of the average change in the prices
paid by urban consumers for a fixed mar
ket basket of goods and services. The cpi
is calculated monthly for two population
groups, one consisting only of urban
households whose primary source of in
come is derived from the employment of
wage earners and clerical workers, and the
other consisting of all urban households.
The wage earner index (CPi-w) is a contin
uation of the historic index that was intro
duced well over a half-century ago for use
in wage negotiations. As new uses were
developed for the cpi in recent years, the
need for a broader and more representative
index became apparent. The all-urban con
sumer index (CPI-U), introduced in 1978,
is representative of the 1982-84 buying
habits of about 80 percent of the noninstitutional population of the United States at
that time, compared with 32 percent repre
sented in the CPi-w. In addition to wage
earners and clerical workers, the CPI-U
covers professional, managerial, and tech
nical workers, the self-employed, short
term workers, the unemployed, retirees,
and others not in the labor force.
The CPI is based on prices of food, cloth
ing, shelter, fuel, drugs, transportation fares,
doctors’ and dentists’ fees, and other goods
and services that people buy for day-to-day
living. The quantity and quality of these
items are kept essentially unchanged be
tween major revisions so that only price
changes will be measured. All taxes directly
associated with the purchase and use of
items are included in the index.
Data collected from more than 21,000
retail establishments and 60,000 housing
units in 91 urban areas across the country are
used to develop the “U.S. city average.”
Separate estimates for 27 major urban cen
ters are presented in table 32. The areas listed
are as indicated in footnote 1 to the table. The
area indexes measure only the average
change in prices for each area since the base
period, and do not indicate differences in the
level of prices among cities.
Notes on the data
In January 1983, the Bureau changed the
way in which homeownership costs are
measured for the CPI-U. A rental equiva
lence method replaced the asset-price ap
proach to homeownership costs for that
series. In January 1985, the same change
was made in the CPi-w. The central pur
pose of the change was to separate shelter
costs from the investment component of
homeownership so that the index would
reflect only the cost of shelter services
provided by owner-occupied homes. An
updated CPi-U and CPi-w were introduced
with release of the January 1987 data.
Additional sources of information
For a discussion of the general method for
computing the CPI, see b l s Handbook of
Methods, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 1988). The recent change in the
measurement of homeownership costs is
discussed in Robert Gillingham and Wal
ter Lane, “Changing the treatment of shel
ter costs for homeowners in the cpi,”
Monthly Labor Review, July 1982, pp. 9-14.
An overview of the recently introduced re
vised cpi, reflecting 1982-84 expenditure
patterns, is contained in The Consumer Price
Index: 1987 Revision, Report 736 (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 1987).
Additional detailed cpi data and regular
analyses of consumer price changes are pro
vided in the C P I Detailed Report, a monthly
publication of the Bureau. Historical data for
the overall CPI and for selected groupings
may be found in the Handbook of Labor
Statistics, Bulletin 2340 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 1989).
Producer Price Indexes
Description of the series
Producer Price Indexes ( ppi) m easure
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
average changes in prices received by do
mestic producers of commodities in all
stages of processing. The sample used for
calculating these indexes currently con
tains about 3,100 commodities and about
75,000 quotations per month, selected to
represent the movement of prices of all
commodities produced in the manufactur
ing; agriculture, forestry, and fishing;
mining; and gas and electricity and public
utilities sectors. The stage of processing
structure of Producer Price Indexes orga
nizes products by class of buyer and de
gree of fabrication (that is, finished goods,
intermediate goods, and crude materials).
The traditional commodity structure of ppi
organizes products by similarity of end
use or material composition. The industry
and product structure of ppi organizes data
in accordance with the Standard Industrial
Classification (sic) and the product code
extension of the sic developed by the U.S.
Bureau of the Census.
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 gen
erally collected monthly, primarily by mail
questionnaire. Most prices are obtained di
rectly from producing companies on a vol
untary and confidential basis. Prices
generally are reported for the Tuesday of the
week containing the 13th day of the month.
Since January 1987, price changes for the
various commodities have been averaged
together with implicit quantity weights rep
resenting their importance in the total net
selling value of all commodities as of 1982.
The detailed data are aggregated to obtain
indexes for stage-of-processing groupings,
commodity groupings, durability-of-product groupings, and a number of special com
posite groups. All Producer Price Index data
are subject to revision 4 months after original
publication.
Notes on the data
Beginning with the January 1986 issue,
the Review is no longer presenting tables
of Producer Price Indexes for commodity
groupings or special composite groups.
However, these data will continue to be
presented in the Bureau’s monthly publi
cation, Producer Price Indexes.
The Bureau has completed the first major
stage of its comprehensive overhaul of the
theory, methods, and procedures used to
construct the Producer Price Indexes.
Changes include the replacement of judge
ment sampling with probability sampling
techniques; expansion to systematic cover
age of the net output of virtually all indus
tries in the mining and manufacturing
sectors; a shift from a commodity to an in
dustry orientation; the exclusion of imports
from, and the inclusion of exports in, the
survey universe; and the respecification of
commodities priced to conform to Bureau of
the Census definitions. These and other
changes have been phased in gradually since
1978. The result is a system of indexes that
is easier to use in conjunction with data on
wages, productivity, and employment and
other series that are organized in terms of the
Standard Industrial Classification and the
census product class designations.
Additional sources of information
For a discussion of the methodology for
computing Producer Price Indexes, see b l s
Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2285 (Bu
reau of Labor Statistics, 1988).
Additional detailed data and analyses of
price changes are provided monthly in Pro
ducer Price Indexes. Selected historical data
may be found in the Handbook of Labor
Statistics, Bulletin 2340 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 1989).
International Price Indexes
Description of the series
The bls International Price Program
produces quarterly export and import price
indexes for nonmilitary goods traded be
tween the United States and the rest of the
world. The export price index provides a
measure of price change for all products
sold by U.S. residents to foreign buyers.
(“Residents” is defined as in the national
income accounts: it includes corporations,
businesses, and individuals but does not
require the organizations to be U.S. owned
nor the individuals to have U.S. citizen
ship.) The import price index provides a
measure of price change for goods pur
chased from other countries by U.S. resi
dents. With publication of an all-import
index in February 1983 and an all-export
index in February 1984, all U.S. merchan
dise imports and exports now are repre
sented in these indexes. The reference
period for the indexes is 1985=100, unless
otherwise indicated.
The product universe for both the import
and export indexes includes raw materials,
agricultural products, semifinished manu
factures, and finished manufactures, includ
ing both capital and consumer goods. Price
data for these items are collected quarterly
by mail questionnaire. In nearly all cases, the
data are collected directly from the exporter
or importer, although in a few cases, prices
are obtained from other sources.
To the extent possible, the data gathered
refer to prices at the U.S. border for exports
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
57
Current Labor Statistics
and at either the foreign border or the U.S.
border for imports. For nearly all products,
the prices refer to transactions completed
during the first 2 weeks of the third month of
each calendar quarter—March, June, Sep
tember, and December. Survey respondents
are asked to indicate all discounts, allow
ances, and rebates applicable to the reported
prices, so that the price used in the calcula
tion of the indexes is the actual price for
which the product was bought or sold.
In addition to general indexes of prices
for U.S. exports and imports, indexes are
also published for detailed product catego
ries of exports and imports. These categories
are defined by the 4- and 5-digit level of
detail of the Standard International Trade
Classification System (sitc ). The calcula
tion of indexes by SITC category facilitates
the comparison of U.S. price trends and sec
tor production with similar data for other
countries. Detailed indexes are also computëd and published on a Standard Industrial
Classification (sic-based) basis, as well as
by end-use class.
Notes on the data
The export and import price indexes are
weighted indexes of the Laspeyres type.
Price relatives are assigned equal import
ance within each weight category and are
then aggregated to the sitc level. The values
assigned to each weight category are based
on trade value figures compiled by the
Bureau of the Census. The trade weights
currently used to compute both indexes
relate to 1985.
Because a price index depends on the
same items being priced from period to pe
riod, it is necessary to recognize when a
product’s specifications or terms of transac
tion have been modified. For this reason, the
Bureau’s quarterly questionnaire requests
detailed descriptions of the physical and
functional characteristics of the products
being priced, as well as information on the
number of units bought or sold, discounts,
credit terms, packaging, class of buyer or
seller, and so forth. When there are changes
in either the specifications or terms of trans
action of a product, the dollar value of each
change is deleted from the total price change
to obtain the “pure” change. Once this value
is determined, a linking procedure is em
ployed which allows for the continued re
pricing of the item.
For the export price indexes, the pre
ferred pricing basis is f.a.s. (free alongside
ship) U.S. port of exportation. When firms
report export prices f.o.b. (free on board),
production point information is collected
which enables the Bureau to calculate a ship
ment cost to the port of exportation. An
attempt is made to collect two prices for
58 Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
imports. The first is the import price f.o.b. at
the foreign port of exportation, which is
consistent with the basis for valuation of
imports in the national accounts. The second
is the import price c.i.f. (cost, insurance, and
freight) at the U.S. port of importation,
which also includes the other costs associ
ated with bringing the product to the U.S.
border. It does not, however, include duty
charges. For a given product, only one price
basis series is used in the construction of an
index.
Beginning in 1988, the Bureau has also
been publishing a series of indexes which
represent the price of U.S. exports and im
ports in foreign currency terms.
Additional sources of information
For a discussion of the general method of
computing International Price Indexes,
see b l s Handbook of Methods, Bulletin
2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988).
Additional detailed data and analyses of
international price developments are pre
sented in the Bureau’s quarterly publication,
U. S. Import and Export Price Indexes and in
occasional Monthly Labor Review articles
prepared by bls analysts. Selected historical
data may be found in the Handbook of Labor
Statistics, Bulletin 2340 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 1989). For further information on
the foreign currency indexes, see “bls pub
lishes average exchange rate and foreign
currency price indexes,” Monthly Labor Re
view, December 1987, pp. 47^49.
Productivity Data
(Tables 2; 44^7)
Business sector and major sectors
Description of the series
The productivity measures relate real
physical output to real input. As such, they
encompass a family of measures which
include single-factor input measures, such
as output per unit of labor input (output per
hour) or output per unit of capital input, as
well as measures of multifactor productiv
ity (output per unit of combined labor and
capital inputs). The Bureau indexes show
the change in output relative to changes in
the various inputs. The measures cover the
business, nonfarm business, manufactur
ing, and nonfinancial corporate sectors.
Corresponding indexes of hourly com
pensation, unit labor costs, unit nonlabor
payments, and prices are also provided.
Definitions
Output per hour of all persons (labor
November 1990
productivity) is the value of goods and
services in constant prices produced per
hour of labor input. Output per unit of
capital services (capital productivity) is
the value of goods and services in constant
dollars produced per unit of capital ser
vices input.
Multifactor productivity is the value of
goods and services in constant prices pro
duced per combined unit of labor and capital
inputs. Changes in this measure reflect
changes in a number of factors which affect
the production process, such as changes in
technology, shifts in the composition of the
labor force, changes in capacity utilization,
research and development, skill and effort of
the work force, management, and so forth.
Changes in the output per hour measures
reflect the impact of these factors as well as
the substitution of capital for labor.
Compensation per hour is the wages
and salaries of employees plus employers’
contributions for social insurance and pri
vate benefit plans, and the wages, salaries,
and supplementary payments for the selfemployed (except for nonfinancial corpora
tions in which there are no self-em
ployed)—the sum divided by hours at work.
Real compensation per hour is compensa
tion per hour deflated by the change in
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Con
sumers.
Unit labor costs are the labor compensa
tion costs expended in the production of a
unit of output and are derived by dividing
compensation by output. Unit nonlabor
payments include profits, depreciation, in
terest, and indirect taxes per unit of output.
They are computed by subtracting compen
sation of all persons from current-dollar
value of output and dividing by output. Unit
nonlabor costs contain all the components of
unit nonlabor payments except unit profits.
Unit profits include corporate profits
with inventory valuation and capital con
sumption adjustments per unit of output.
Hours of all persons are the total hours at
work of payroll workers, self-employed per
sons, and unpaid family workers.
Capital services is the flow of services
from the capital stock used in production. It
is developed from measures of the net stock
of physical assets—equipment, structures,
land, and inventories—weighted by rental
prices for each type of asset.
Combined units of labor and capital in
puts are derived by combining changes in
labor and capital input with weights which
represent each component’s share of total
output. The indexes for capital services and
combined units of labor and capital are based
on changing weights which are averages of
the shares in the current and preceding year
(the Tomquist index-number formula).
Notes on the data
tors because the industry measures are de
veloped independently of the National In
come and Product Accounts framework
used for the major sector measures.
The output measure for the business sector
is equal to constant-dollar gross national
product but excludes the rental value of
owner-occupied dwellings, the rest-ofworld sector, the output of non-profit in
stitutions, the output of paid employees of
private households, general government,
and the statistical discrepancy. Output of
the nonfarm business sector is equal to
business sector output less farming. The
measures are derived from data supplied
by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S.
Department of Commerce, and the Federal
Reserve Board. Quarterly manufacturing
output indexes are adjusted by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics to annual estimates of man
ufacturing output (gross product originat
ing) from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Compensation and hours data are developed
from data of the Bureau of Labor Statistics
and the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
The productivity and associated cost
measures in tables 44-47 describe the rela
tionship between output in real terms and the
labor time and capital services involved in
its production. They show the changes from
period to period in the amount of goods and
services produced per unit of input. Al
though these measures relate output to hours
and capital services, they do not measure the
contributions of labor, capital, or any other
specific factor of production. Rather, they
reflect the joint effect of many influences, in
cluding changes in technology; capital in
vestment; level of output; utilization of
capacity, energy, and materials; the organi
zation of production; managerial skill; and
the characteristics and efforts of the work force.
The industry measures are compiled from
data produced by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, the Departments of Commerce,
Interior, and Agriculture, the Federal Re
serve Board, regulatory agencies, trade as
sociations, and other sources.
For most industries, the productivity in
dexes refer to the output per hour of all
employees. For some transportation industries,
only indexes of output per employee are pre
pared. For some trade and service industries,
indexes of output per hour of all persons (in
cluding self-employed) are constructed.
Additional sources of information
Additional sources of information
Descriptions of methodology underlying
the measurement of output per hour and
multifactor productivity are found in the
B L S Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 2285
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988). Histor
ical data are provided in Handbook of
Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2340 (Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 1989).
For a listing of available industry produc
tivity indexes and their components, see
Productivity Measures for Selected Indus
tries and Government Services, Bulletin
2322 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1989).
For additional information about the meth
odology for computing the industry pro
ductivity measures, see the b l s Handbook
o f Methods, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 1988), chapter 11.
Industry productivity measures
Definitions
Output per employee hour is derived by
dividing an index of industry output by an
index of aggregate hours of all employees.
Output indexes are based on quantifiable
units of products or services, or both, com
bined with fixed-period weights. When
ever possible, physical quantities are used
as the unit of measurement for output. If
quantity data are not available for a given
industry, data on the constant-dollar value
of production are used.
The labor input series consist of the hours
of all employees (production and nonpro
duction workers), the hours of all persons
(paid employees, partners, proprietors, and
unpaid family workers), or the number of
employees, depending upon the industry.
Notes on the data
Description of the series
International Comparisons
The BLS industry productivity data supple
ment the measures for the business econ
omy and m ajor sectors with annual
measures of labor productivity for se
lected industries at the 3- and 4-digit levels
of the Standard Industrial Classification
system. The industry measures differ in
methodology and data sources from the
productivity measures for the major sec
(Tables 48-50)
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
and unemployment—approximating U.S.
concepts—for the United States, Canada,
Australia, Japan, and several European
countries. The unemployment statistics
(and, to a lesser extent, employment statis
tics) published by other industrial coun
tries are not, in most cases, comparable to
U.S. unemployment statistics. Therefore,
the Bureau adjusts the figures for selected
countries, where necessary, for all known
major definitional differences. Although
precise comparability may not be achiev
ed, these adjusted figures provide a better
basis for international comparisons than
the figures regularly published by each
country.
Definitions
For the principal U.S. definitions of the
labor force, employment, and unem
ployment, see the Notes section on EM
PLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT
DATA: Household Survey Data.
Notes on the data
Labor force and unemployment
Description of the series
Tables 48 and 49 present comparative
measures of the labor force, employment,
The adjusted statistics have been adapted
to the age at which compulsory schooling
ends in each country, rather than to the
U.S. standard of 16 years of age and over.
Therefore, the adjusted statistics relate to
the population age 16 and over in France,
Sweden, and from 1973 onward, the United
Kingdom; 15 and over in Canada, Aus
tralia, Japan, Germany, the Netherlands,
and prior to 1973, the United Kingdom;
and 14 and over in Italy. The institutional
population is included in the denominator
of the labor force participation rates and
employment-population ratios for Japan
and Germany; it is excluded for the United
States and the other countries.
In the U.S. labor force survey, persons on
layoff who are awaiting recall to their jobs
are classified as unemployed. European and
Japanese layoff practices are quite different
in nature from those in the United States;
therefore, strict application of the U.S. defi
nition has not been made on this point. For
further information, see Monthly Labor Re
view, December 1981, pp. 8-11.
The figures for one or more recent years
for France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands,
and the United Kingdom are calculated
using adjustment factors based on labor
force surveys for earlier years and are con
sidered preliminary. The recent-year mea
sures for these countries are, therefore, sub
ject to revision whenever data from more cur
rent labor force surveys become available.
There are breaks in the data series for
Germany (1983), Italy (1986), the Nether
lands (1983), and Sweden (1987). For both
Germany and the Netherlands, the breaks
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
59
C u rren t L a b o r S ta tistics
reflect the replacement of labor force survey
results tabulated by the national statistical
offices with those tabulated by the European
Community Statistical Office (eurostat ).
The Dutch figures for 1983 onward also
reflect the replacement of man-year employ
ment data with data from the Dutch Survey
of Employed Persons. The impact of the
changes was to lower the adjusted unem
ployment rate by 0.3 percentage point for
Germany and by about 2 percentage points
for the Netherlands.
For Italy, the break in series reflects more
accurate enumeration of time of last job
search. This resulted in a significant increase
in the number of people reported as seeking
work in the last 30 days. The impact was to
increase the Italian unemployment rates ap
proximating U.S. concepts by about 1 per
centage point.
Sweden introduced a new questionnaire.
Questions regarding current availability
were added and the period of active work
seeking was reduced from 60 days to 4
weeks. These changes result in lowering
Sweden’s unemployment rate by 0.5 per
centage point.
Additional sources of information
For further information, see International
Comparisons o f Unemployment, Bulletin
1979 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1978),
Appendix B, and Supplements to Appen
dix B. The statistics are also analyzed peri
odically in the Monthly Labor Review.
Additional historical data, generally begin
ning with 1959, are published in the Hand
book o f Labor Statistics and are available
in statistical supplements to Bulletin 1979.
Manufacturing productivity and
labor costs
Description of the series
Table 50 presents comparative measures
of m anufacturing labor productivity,
hourly compensation costs, and unit labor
costs for the United States, Canada, Japan,
and nine European countries. These mea
sures are limited to trend comparisons—
that is, intercountry series of changes over
tim e—rather than level comparisons
because reliable international compari
sons of the levels of manufacturing output
are unavailable.
Definitions
Output is constant value output (value
added), generally taken from the national
accounts of each country. While the na
tional accounting methods for measuring
60 M on thly L a b o r R e v ie w
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
real output differ considerably among the
12 countries, the use of different proce
dures does not, in itself, connote lack of
comparability—rather, it reflects differ
ences among countries in the availability
and reliability of underlying data series.
Hours refer to all employed persons in
cluding the self-employed in the United States
and Canada; to all wage and salary employ
ees in the other countries. The U.S. hours
measure is hours paid; the hours measures
for the other countries are hours worked.
Compensation (labor cost) includes all
payments in cash or kind made directly to
employees plus employer expenditures for
legally required insurance programs and
contractual and private benefit plans. In ad
dition, for some countries, compensation is
adjusted for other significant taxes on pay
rolls or employment (or reduced to reflect
subsidies), even if they are not for the direct
benefit of workers, because such taxes are
regarded as labor costs. However, compen
sation does not include all items of labor
cost. The costs of recruitment, employee
training, and plant facilities and services—
such as cafeterias and medical clinics—are
not covered because data are not available
for most countries. Self-employed workers
are included in the U.S. and Canadian com
pensation figures by assuming that their
hourly compensation is equal to the average
for wage and salary employees.
Notes on the data
For most of the countries, the measures
refer to total manufacturing as defined by
the International Standard Industrial Clas
sification. However, the measures for
France (beginning 1959), Italy (beginning
1970), and the United Kingdom (begin
ning 1971), refer to manufacturing and
mining less energy-related products and
the figures for the Netherlands exclude
petroleum refining from 1969 to 1976. For
all countries, manufacturing includes the
activities of government enterprises.
The figures for one or more recent years
are generally based on current indicators of
manufacturing output, employment, hours
and hourly compensation and are considered
preliminary until the national accounts and
other statistics used for the long-term mea
sures become available.
Additional sources of information
For additional information, see the b l s
Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 2285 (Bu
reau of Labor Statistics, 1988), and peri
odic Monthly Labor Review articles.
Historical data are provided in the Hand
book of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). The
N o ve m b er 199 0
statistics are issued twice per year—in a
news release (generally in June) and in a
Monthly Labor Review article.
Occupational Injury and
Illness Data
(Table 51)
Description of the series
The Annual Survey of Occupational Inju
ries and Illnesses is designed to collect
data on injuries and illnesses based on
records which employers in the following
industries maintain under the Occupa
tional Safety and Health Act of 1970: ag
riculture, forestry, and fishing; oil and gas
extraction; construction; manufacturing;
transportation and public utilities; whole
sale and retail trade; finance, insurance,
and real estate; and services. Excluded
from the survey are self-employed indi
viduals, farmers with fewer than 11 em
ployees, employers regulated by other
Federal safety and health laws, and Fed
eral, State, and local government agencies.
Because the survey is a Federal-State
cooperative program and the data must meet
the needs of participating State agencies, an
independent sample is selected for each
State. The sample is selected to represent all
private industries in the States and territo
ries. The sample size for the survey is depen
dent upon (1) the characteristics for which
estimates are needed; (2) the industries for
which estimates are desired; (3) the charac
teristics of the population being sampled;
(4) the target reliability of the estimates; and
(5) the survey design employed.
While there are many characteristics
upon which the sample design could be
based, the total recorded case incidence rate
is used because it is one of the most import
ant characteristics and the least variable;
therefore, it requires the smallest sample size.
The survey is based on stratified random
sampling with a Neyman allocation and a
ratio estimator. The characteristics used to
stratify the establishments are the Standard
Industrial Classification (sic) code and size
of employment.
Definitions
Recordable occupational injuries and
illnesses are: (1) occupational deaths, re
gardless of the time between injury and
death, or the length of the illness; or (2)
nonfatal occupational illnesses; or (3)
nonfatal occupational injuries which in
volve one or more of the following: loss of
consciousness, restriction of work or mo
tion, transfer to another job, or medical
treatment (other than first aid).
Occupational injury is any injury, such
as a cut, fracture, sprain, amputation, and so
forth, which results from a work accident or
from exposure involving a single incident in
the work environment.
Occupational illness is an abnormal
condition or disorder, other than one result
ing from an occupational injury, caused by
exposure to environmental factors associ
ated with employment. It includes acute and
chronic illnesses or disease which may be
caused by inhalation, absorption, ingestion,
or direct contact.
Lost workday cases are cases which
involve days away from work, or days of
restricted work activity, or both.
Lost workday cases involving re
stricted work activity are those cases which
result in restricted work activity only.
Lost workdays away from work are the
number of workdays (consecutive or not) on
which the employee would have worked but
could not because of occupational injury or
illness.
Lost workdays—restricted work ac
tivity are the number of workdays (consec
utive or not) on which, because of injury or
illness: (1) the employee was assigned to
another job on a temporary basis; or (2) the
employee worked at a permanent job less
than full time; or (3) the employee worked
at a permanently assigned job but could not
perform all duties normally connected with
it.
The number of days away from work
or days of restricted work activity does not
include the day of injury or onset of illness
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
or any days on which the employee would
not have worked even though able to work.
Incidence rates represent the number of
injuries and/or illnesses or lost workdays per
100 full-time workers.
Notes on the data
is compiled and published by the Occupa
tional Safety and Health Administration.
Data on State and local government employ
ees are collected by about half of the States
and territories; these data are not compiled
nationally.
Additional sources of information
Estimates are made for industries and em
ployment-size classes and for severity
classification: fatalities, lost workday
The Supplementary Data System provides
cases, and nonfatal cases without lost
detailed information describing various
workdays. Lost workday cases are sepa
factors associated with work-related inju
rated into those where the employee would
ries and illnesses. These data are obtained
have worked but could not and those in
from information reported by employers to
which work activity was restricted. Esti
State workers’ compensation agencies.
mates of the number of cases and the num
The Work Injury Report program exam
ber of days lost are made for both cate
ines selected types of accidents through an
gories.
employee survey which focuses on the
Most of the estimates are in the form of
circumstances surrounding the injury.
incidence rates, defined as the number of
These data are not included in the Hand
injuries and illnesses, or lost workdays per
book o f Labor Statistics but are available
100 full-time employees. For this purpose,
from the bls Office of Safety, Health, and
200,000 employee hours represent 100 em
Working Conditions.
ployee years (2,000 hours per employee). A
The definitions of occupational injuries
few of the available measures are included
and illnesses and lost workdays are from
in the Handbook of Labor Statistics. Full
Recordkeeping Requirements under the Oc
detail is presented in the annual bulletin,
cupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.
Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in the
For additional data, see Occupational Inju
United States, by Industry.
ries and Illnesses in the United States, by
Comparable data for individual States are
Industry, annual Bureau of Labor Statistics
available from the bls Office of Safety,
bulletin; b l s Handbook of Methods, Bulletin
Health, and Working Conditions.
2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988);
Mining and railroad data are furnished to
Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2340
bls by the Mine Safety and Health Admin
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1989), pp. 411istration and the Federal Railroad Adminis
tration, respectively. Data from these
14; annual reports in the Monthly Labor
organizations are included in bls and State
Review; and annual U.S. Department of
publications. Federal employee experience
Labor press releases.
□
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
61
C u rren t L a b o r S ta tistics:
C o m p a ra tiv e In d ica to rs
1. Labor market indicators
II
I
IV
III
II
I
IV
III
19 90
1989
1988
1988
Selected indicators
Employment data
Employment status of the civilian noninstitutionalized population
(household survey):1
Labor force participation ra te .....................................................
Employment-population ra tio ......................................................
Unemployment rate ....................................................................
M e n ..........................................................................................
16 to 24 years ..................................................................
25 years and o v e r.................................................................
Women ....................................................................................
16 to 24 years ......................................................................
25 years and o v e r.................................................................
Unemployment rate, 15 weeks and o ver................................
65.9
62.3
5.5
5.5
11.4
4.2
5.6
10.6
4.3
1.3
66.5
63.0
5.3
5.2
11.4
3.9
5.4
10.4
4.2
1.1
66.0
62.3
5.5
5.5
11.5
4.2
5.5
10.5
4.3
1.3
66.1
62.6
5.3
5.3
11.1
4.1
5.3
10.3
4.1
1.2
66.3
62.9
5.2
5.2
11.2
3.9
5.2
10.2
4.1
1.1
66.5
63.0
5.3
5.1
11.1
3.9
5.4
10.4
4.2
1.1
66.5
63.0
5.3
5.2
11.4
3.9
5.4
10.5
4.2
1.1
66.5
63.0
5.3
5.3
11.8
4.0
5.4
10.4
4.3
1.1
66.5
63.0
5.2
5.2
11.0
4.1
5.3
10.2
4.2
1.1
66.5
63.0
5.3
5.4
11.4
4.1
5.2
10.2
4.1
1.1
Total ..............................................................................................
Private se cto r.............................................................................
Goods-producing........................................................................
Manufacturing..........................................................................
Service-producing ......................................................................
105,536
88,150
25,173
19,350
80,363
108,413
90,644
25,326
19,426
83,087
105,938
88,531
25,220
19,366
80,719
106,766
89,215
25,295
19,455
81,471
107,630
90,006
25,362
19,514
82,267
108,162
90,443
25,353
19,474
82,809
108,662
90,829
25,329
19,413
83,333
109,203
91,299
25,260
19,308
83,942
109,911
91,845
25,262
19,211
84,649
110,541
92,108
25,178
19,168
85,363
Average hours:
Private sector .............................................................................
Manufacturing .......................................................................
Overtime...............................................................................
34.7
41.1
3.9
34.6
41.0
3.8
34.7
41.1
3.9
34.7
41.1
3.9
34.6
41.1
3.9
34.6
41.0
3.8
34.6
41.0
3.8
34.5
40.7
3.7
34.5
40.8
3.6
34.6
40.9
3.7
Percent change in the ECI, compensation:
All workers (excluding farm, household, and Federal workers) ..
Private industry workers ..........................................................
Goods-producing2 .................................................................
Service-producing2 ...............................................................
State and local government workers......................................
4.9
4.8
4.4
5.1
5.6
5.0
4.8
4.3
5.1
6.2
1.4
.9
.6
1.2
2.8
1.0
1.0
.8
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.5
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
.6
1.6
1.2
1.1
1.3
3.3
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.7
1.6
1.8
1.5
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.3
.7
Workers by bargaining status (private industry):
U nion........................................................................................
Nonunion ..................................................................................
3.9
5.1
3.7
5.1
.7
1.0
.5
1.1
.8
1.4
1.0
1.2
.9
1.4
.9
1.0
1.5
1.7
.8
1.3
Employment, nonfarm (payroll data), in thousands:1
Employment Cost Index
1 Quarterly data seasonally adjusted.
,
.
.
2 Goods-producing industries include mining, construction, and manufacturing. Service-producing industries include all other private sector industries.
62 M on thly L a b o r R e v ie w
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
N o v e m b e r 1 990
2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in compensation, prices, and productivity
1988
Selected measures
1988
1989
1990
1989
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
Compensation data 1, 2
Employment Cost Index-compensation (wages, salaries,
benefits):
Civilian nonfarm ............................
Private nonfarm ..............................
Employment Cost Index-wages and salaries
Civilian nonfarm ...............................
Private nonfarm ................................
4.9
4.8
5.0
4.8
1.4
.9
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.6
1.2
10
1.1
1.6
1.3
4.3
4.1
4.4
4.1
1.4
.9
.9
1.0
1.1
1.0
.8
1.0
1.6
1.2
8
.8
1.2
1.3
Consumer Price Index (All urban consumers): All items ..
4.4
4.6
1.5
.6
1.5
1.5
.7
.9
2.1
.9
Producer Price Index:
Finished goods..........................
Finished consumer goods..................
Capital equipment ......................
Intermediate materials, supplies, components ......
Crude materials.......................
4.0
4.0
3.6
5.6
3.1
4.9
5.3
3.8
2.3
7.1
.8
1.0
.4
1.2
-1.2
1.3
1.1
1.8
.6
.6
1.9
2.2
.9
1.9
6.1
2.0
2.3
1.1
1.1
.9
-.6
-.8
1
3
-1.7
1.6
15
16
1.9
1.3
-4.4
2.0
2.2
1.1
-.2
-.3
-1.3
2.5
2.8
-.7
-1.2
.5
-.9
.5
-1.7
-2.5
.0
-.5
-1.4
-1.5
-.8
.8
20
22
-4.2
-2.2
1.7
Price data1
Productivity data3
Output per hour of all persons:
Business se cto r.............................
Nonfarm business sector ..............
Nonfinancial corporations 4 ............
................. ------------------ « .V , u ^ M , u g r i y L / c v , C M I U C I
V/l l a i i y c . U U Cll I d iy u ilc ll iy tJS
are calculated using the last month of each quarter. Compensation and price
data are not seasonally adjusted and the price data are not compounded.
2 Excludes Federal and private household workers.
3 Annual rates of change are computed by comparing annual averages.
dexes. The data are seasonally adjusted.
4 Output per hour of all employees.
3. Alternative measures of wage and compensation changes
Quarterly average
Components
1989
1990
III
Average hourly compensation:1
All persons, business sector..............
All persons, nonfarm business sector
Employment Cost Index-compensation:
Civilian nonfarm 2 ............................
Private nonfarm ............................
U nion..........................................
Nonunion.....................................
State and local governments.......
Employment Cost Index-wages and salaries:
Civilian nonfarm2 ......................................
Private nonfarm ....................................
Union ...................................................
Nonunion.............................................
State and local governments.................
Four quarters ended-
IV
1989
Il
1990
I
IV
2.0
2.0
2.4
1.5
1.3
1.8
2.6
2.7
3.8
3.2
6.1
5.8
4.1
4.1
3.4
3.2
2.4
2.4
2.1
2.0
2.5
2.3
3.4
3.4
1.2
1.2
.8
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.6
1.0
1.1
.9
1.7
1.6
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.4
1.3
.7
4.8
4.6
3.0
5.1
5.5
4.8
4.5
3.1
4.9
5.8
5.1
4.8
3.3
5.3
6.4
5.0
4.8
3.7
5.1
.6
1.2
.9
1.4
3.3
6.2
5.5
5.2
4.3
5.4
6.4
5.4
5.2
4.1
5.5
6.5
1.1
1.0
.7
1.3
.8
1.0
1.6
1.2
4.4
4.2
2.5
4.8
4.7
4.3
4.1
4.5
4.3
2.4
4.9
5.5
4.4
4.1
3.1
4.5
5.3
4.4
4.2
3.4
4.4
5.6
4.7
4.5
3.3
4.8
5.7
3.2
1.2
1.3
.7
3.2
1.3
1.2
.7
3.3
1.0
1.0
.8
.8
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.3
.7
1.4
1.1
.3
2.7
2.8
.8
.8
.6
.8
1.0
1.0
.5
1.3
3.1
.8
.5
.1
.3
.1
1.0
.3
.5
1.0
.4
.4
.7
.4
.6
.2
.6
1.3
.7
1.3
3.0
.9
1.3
.2
.2
.1
.3
.1
.3
.6
.8
.8
Negotiated wage adjustments from settlements:3
First-year adjustments ...................................
Annual rate over life of contract...................
3.2
3.1
3.9
3.3
3.6
3.0
4.9
4.0
3.7
3.3
4.7
4.2
2.7
2.5
3.2
2.9
3.5
3.0
4.0
3.4
4.0
3.4
4.2
3.6
Negotiated wage and benefit adjustments from settlements:4
First-year adjustment........................................................
Annual rate over life of contract.......................................
3.2
3.1
5.1
3.4
3.9
2.7
5.3
4.3
4.6
3.6
3.3
2.6
3.8
3.0
4.0
4.5
3.4
4.6
3.5
4.8
3.7
Total effective wage adjustments3
From current settlements......
From prior settlements..........
From cost-of-living provision ...
3
.8
Seasonally adjusted.
Excludes Federal and household workers.
Limited to major collective bargaining units of 1,000 workers or more. The
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
.8
.2
.6
2.6
4.6
5.0
2.8
1.2
1.4
.7
most recent data are preliminary.
4 Limited to major collective bargaining units of 5,000 workers or more. The
most recent data are preliminary.
M on th ly L a b o r R e v ie w
N o ve m b er 1 990
63
Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data
4. Employment status of the total population, by sex, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
1989
Annual average
Employment status
1989
1988
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
TOTAL
Noninstitutional population 1, 2 ...
Labor force2 .............................
Participation rate 3 ...........
Total employed 2 ..................
Employment-population
ratio 4 ..............................
Resident Armed Forces 1 ...
Civilian employed...............
Agriculture .......................
Nonagricultural industries
Unemployed.........................
Unemployment rate 5 ......
Not in labor force ...................
186,322
123,378
66.2
116,677
188,081
125,557
66.8
119,030
1¿8,428
125,725
66.7
119,121
188,580
125,857
66.7
119,294
188,721
126,192
66.9
119,540
188,865
126,246
66.8
119,588
188,990
126,094
66.7
119,560
189,090
126,308
66.8
119,713
189,198
126,498
66.9
120,003
119,580
189,901
126,300
66.5
119,298
190,002
126,568
66.6
119,499
63.0
1,627
117,953
3,085
114,867
6,814
5.4
63,369
62.8
1,640
117,658
3,137
114,521
7,003
5.5
63,601
62.9
1,601
117,898
3,181
114,717
7,069
5.6
63,434
91,240
69,459
76.1
65,596
91,271
69,809
76.5
65,867
189,763
126,394
119,989
189,607
126,466
66.7
120,019
63.3
1,630
118,389
3,348
115,041
6,447
5.1
63,141
189,326
126,543
189,467
126,643
66.8
66.8
119,773
66.6
62.6
1,709
114,968
3,169
111,800
6,701
5.4
62,944
63.3
1,688
117,342
3,199
114,142
6,528
5.2
62,523
63.2
1,702
117,419
3,219
114,200
6,604
5.3
62,703
63.3
1,709
117,585
3,197
114,388
6,563
5.2
62,723
63.3
1,704
117,836
3,160
114,676
6,652
5.3
62,529
63.3
1,700
117,888
3,197
114,691
6,658
5.3
62,619
63.3
1,697
117,863
3,134
114,728
6,535
5.2
62,896
63.3
1,678
118,035
3,079
114,957
6,594
5.2
62,782
63.4
1,669
118,334
3,200
115,133
6,495
5.1
62,700
63.3
1,657
118,116
3,133
114,983
6,770
5.3
62,783
63.3
1,639
118,350
3,305
115,045
6,653
5.3
62,824
89,404
68,474
76.6
64,820
90,283
69,360
76.8
65,835
90,456
69,360
76.7
65,681
90,535
69,599
76.9
66,046
90,606
69,635
76.9
66,011
90,678
69,725
76.9
66,143
90,772
69,539
76.6
65,943
90,822
69,639
76.7
66,108
90,874
69,712
76.7
66,208
90,942
69,779
76.7
66,043
91,014
69,737
76.6
66,058
91,087
69,599
76.4
66,000
91,168
69,544
76.3
65,740
72.9
1,529
64,482
3,624
5.2
72.9
1,525
64,618
3,582
5.1
72.6
1,523
64,420
3,597
5.2
72.8
1,506
64,602
3,530
5.1
72.9
1,497
64,711
3,505
5.0
72.6
1,499
64,544
3,735
5.4
72.6
1,472
64,586
3,679
5.3
72.5
1,465
64,535
3,599
5.2
72.1
1,462
64,278
3,804
5.5
71.9
1,475
64,121
3,863
5.6
72.2
1,441
64,426
3,943
5.6
Men, 16 years and over
Noninstitutional population \ 2 .
Labor force2 ...........................
Participation rate 3 .........
Total employed 2 .................
Employment-population
ratio 4 ............................
Resident Armed Forces 1
Civilian employed .............
Unemployed........................
Unemployment rate 5 ....
72.5
1,547
63,273
3,655
5.3
72.9
1,520
64,315
3,525
5.1
72.6
1,531
64,150
3,679
5.3
73.0
1,533
64,513
3,553
5.1
96,918
Noninstitutional population 1, 2 ....
54,904
Labor force2 ..............................
56.6
Participation rate 3 ............
51,858
Total employed2 ...................»
Employment-population
53.5
ratio 4 ...............................
162
Resident Armed Forces 1 .... . '
.
51,696
Civilian employed................
3,046
Unemployed...........................
5.5
Unemployment rate 5 .......
97,798
56,198
57.5
53,195
97,972
56,365
57.5
53,440
98,045
56,258
57.4
53,248
98,115
56,557
57.6
53,529
98,187
56,521
57.6
53,445
98,218
56,555
57.6
53,617
98,268
56,669
57.7
53,605
98,324
56,785
57.8
53,795
98,383
56,764
57.7
53,729
98,453
56,906
57.8
53,931
98,520
56,867
57.7
54,019
98,595
56,849
57.7
53,839
98,661
56,842
57.6
53,702
98,731
56,758
57.5
53,632
54.4
168
53,027
3,003
5.3
54.5
171
53,269
2,925
5.2
54.3
176
53,072
3,010
5.4
54.6
175
53,354
3,028
5.4
54.4
175
53,270
3,076
5.4
54.6
174
53,443
2,938
5.2
54.5
172
53,433
3,064
5.4
54.7
172
53,623
2,990
5.3
54.6
158
53,571
3,034
5.3
54.8
167
53,764
2,975
5.2
54.8
165
53,854
2,848
5.0
54.6
165
53,674
3,010
5.3
54.4
165
53,537
3,140
5.5
54.3
160
53,472
3,126
5.5
Women, 16 years and over
1 The population and Armed Forces figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation.
2 Includes members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States.
3 Labor force as a percent of the noninstitutional population.
64 Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
November 1990
4 Total employed as a percent of the noninstitutional population.
5 Unemployment as a percent of the labor force (including the resident Armed Forces).
5. Employment status of the civilian population, by sex, age, race and Hispanic origin, monthly data seasonally
adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
1990
1989
Annual average
Employment status
1988
1989
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
TOTAL
Civilian noninstitutional
population1 ....................................
Civilian labor fo rce .......................
Participation rate ..................
Employed ...................................
Employment-population
ratio2 ....................................
Unemployed...............................
Unemployment ra te ..............
Not In labor force ........................
184,613
121,669
65.9
114,968
186,393
123,869
66.5
117,342
186,726
124,023
66.4
117,419
186,871
124,148
66.4
117,585
187,017
124,488
66.6
117,836
187,165
124,546
66.5
117,888
187,293
124,397
66.4
117,863
187,412
124,630
66.5
118,035
187,529
124,829
66.6
118,334
187,669
124,886
66.5
118,116
187,828
125,004
66.6
118,350
187,977
124,836
66.4
118,389
188,136
124,767
66.3
117,953
188,261
124,660
66.2
117,658
188,401
124,967
66.3
117,898
62.3
6,701
5.5
62,944
63.0
6,528
5.3
62,523
62.9
6,604
5.3
62,703
62.9
6,563
5.3
62,723
63.0
6,652
5.3
62,529
63.0
6,658
5.3
62,619
62.9
6,535
5.3
62,896
63.0
6,594
5.3
62,782
63.1
6,495
5.2
62,700
62.9
6,770
5.4
62,783
63.0
6,653
5.3
62,824
63.0
6,447
5.2
63,141
62.7
6,814
5.5
63,369
62.5
7,003
5.6
63,601
62.6
7,069
5.7
63,434
80,553
62,768
77.9
59,781
81,619
63,704
78.1
60,837
81,790
63,771
78.0
60,729
81,905
63,918
78.0
61,026
81,968
63,967
78.0
61,033
82,055
64,071
78.1
61,154
82,168
63,958
77.8
60,976
82,248
64,101
77.9
61,172
82,378
64,183
77.9
61,270
82,487
64,251
77.9
61,138
82,581
64,312
77.9
61,265
82,676
64,364
77.9
61,345
82,790
64,344
77.7
61,196
82,862
64,362
77.7
61,143
82,940
64,573
77.9
61,264
74.2
2,271
57,510
2,987
4.8
74.5
2,307
58,530
2,867
4.5
74.2
2,330
58,399
3,042
4.8
74.5
2,304
58,722
2,892
4.5
74.5
2,292
58,741
2,934
4.6
74.5
2,293
58,861
2,917
4.6
74.2
2,269
58,706
2,983
4.7
74.4
2,254
58,918
2,929
4.6
74.4
2,268
59,002
2,913
4.5
74.1
2,258
58,879
3,113
4.8
74.2
2,388
58,877
3,047
4.7
74.2
2,400
58,945
3,019
4.7
73.9
2,262
58,934
3,148
4.9
73.8
2,246
58,897
3,219
5.0
73.9
2,295
58,969
3,309
5.1
89,532
50,870
56.8
48,383
90,550
52,212
57.7
49,745
90,771
52,358
57.7
49,984
90,860
52,281
57.5
49,796
90,952
52,541
57.8
50,043
91,042
52,586
57.8
50,048
91,091
52,686
57.8
50,255
91,157
52,814
57.9
50,287
91,237
52,800
57.9
50,344
91,330
52,954
58.0
50,427
91,414
53,146
58.1
50,709
91,495
53,174
58.1
50,776
91,581
53,211
58.1
50,719
91,688
53,315
58.1
50,699
91,765
53,121
57.9
50,489
54.0
625
47,757
2,487
4.9
54.9
642
49,103
2,467
4.7
55.1
660
49,324
2,374
4.5
54.8
641
49,155
2,485
4.8
55.0
624
49,419
2,498
4.8
55.0
618
49,430
2,538
4.8
55.2
594
49,661
2,431
4.6
55.2
582
49,704
2,527
4.8
55.2
648
49,696
2,456
4.7
55.2
669
49,758
2,526
4.8
55.5
680
50,029
2,438
4.6
55.5
700
50,077
2,398
4.5
55.4
585
50,135
2,492
4.7
55.3
639
50,060
2,616
4.9
55.0
619
49,870
2,632
5.0
14,527
8,031
55.3
6,805
14,223
7,954
55.9
6,759
14,166
7,894
55.7
6,706
14,107
7,949
56.3
6,763
14,097
7,980
56.6
6,760
14,067
7,889
56.1
6,686
14,034
7,752
55.2
6,631
14,008
7,715
55.1
6,577
13,914
7,846
56.4
6,720
13,852
7,681
55.4
6,551
13,832
7,545
54.6
6,376
13,806
7,298
52.9
6,268
13,764
7,212
52.4
6,038
13,711
6,983
50.9
5,815
13,696
7,272
53.1
6,144
46.8
273
6,532
1,226
15.3
47.5
250
6,510
1,194
15.0
47.3
229
6,477
1,188
15.0
47.9
252
6,511
1,186
14.9
48.0
244
6,516
1,220
15.3
47.5
286
6,400
1,203
15.2
47.3
270
6,361
1,121
14.5
47.0
243
6,334
1,138
14.8
48.3
285
6,435
1,126
14.4
47.3
206
6,345
1,130
14.7
46.1
237
6,139
1,169
15.5
45.4
249
6,019
1,030
14.1
43.9
239
5,799
1,174
16.3
42.4
251
5,564
1,168
16.7
44.9
266
5,878
1,128
15.5
158,194
104,756
66.2
99,812
159,338
106,355
66.7
101,584
159,549
106,393
66.7
101,579
159,644
106,618
66.8
101,862
159,736
106,834
66.9
101,991
159,832
106,896
66.9
102,032
159,938
106,884
66.8
102,074
160,007
107,080
66.9
102,117
160,076
107,061
66.9
102,206
160,170
107,133
66.9
102,027
160,271
107,353
67.0
102,362
160,365
107,273
66.9
102,461
160,468
107,230
66.8
102,260
160,550
107,135
66.7
101,968
160,640
107,451
66.9
102,260
63.1
4,944
4.7
63.8
4,770
4.5
63.7
4,814
4.5
63.8
4,756
4.5
63.8
4,843
4.5
63.8
4,864
4.6
63.8
4,811
4.5
63.8
4,962
4.6
63.8
4,856
4.5
63.7
5,106
4.8
63.9
4,991
4.6
63.9
4,812
4.5
63.7
4,970
4.6
63.5
5,167
4.8
63.7
5,190
4.8
20,692
13,205
63.8
11,658
21,021
13,497
64.2
11,953
21,085
13,518
64.1
11,938
21,108
13,507
64.0
11,923
21,136
13,576
64.2
11,954
21,164
13,522
63.9
11,920
21,163
13,510
63.8
11,978
21,188
13,437
63.4
12,030
21,211
13,581
64.0
12,148
21,228
13,570
63.9
12,161
21,261
13,587
63.9
12,179
21,289
13,472
63.3
12,064
21,318
13,379
62.8
11,870
21,337
13,366
62.6
11,791
21,361
13,470
63.1
11,839
56.3
1,547
11.7
56.9
1,544
11.4
56.6
1,580
11.7
56.5
1,584
11.7
56.6
1,622
11.9
56.3
1,602
11.8
56.6
1,532
11.3
56.8
1,407
10.5
57.3
1,433
10.6
57.3
1,409
10.4
57.3
1,408
10.4
56.7
1,407
10.4
55.7
1,510
11.3
55.3
1,575
11.8
55.4
1,631
12.1
Men, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional
population1 ....................................
Civilian labor fo rce .......................
Participation rate ..................
Employed ...................................
Employment-population
ratio2 ....................................
Agriculture...............................
Nonagricultural industries.......
Unemployed...............................
Unemployment rate..............
Women, 20 years ond over
Civilian noninstitutional
population1 ....................................
Civilian labor fo rce .......................
Participation rate ..................
Employed ...................................
Employment-population
ratio2 ....................................
Agriculture...............................
Nonagricultural industries.......
Unemployed...............................
Unemployment ra te ..............
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years
Civilian noninstitutional
population1 ....................................
Civilian labor fo rce .......................
Participation rate ..................
Employed ...................................
Employment-population
ratio2 ...................................
Agriculture...............................
Nonagricultural industries.......
Unemployed...............................
Unemployment ra te ..............
White
Civilian noninstitutional
population1 ....................................
Civilian labor fo rce .......................
Participation rate ..................
Employed ...................................
Employment-population
ratio2 ....................................
Unemployed...............................
Unemployment ra te ..............
Black
Civilian noninstitutional
population1....................................
Civilian labor fo rce .......................
Participation rate ..................
Employed ...................................
Employment-population
ratio2 ....................................
Unemployed...............................
Unemployment ra te ..............
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
65
Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data
5. Continued— Employment status of the civilian population, by sex, age, race and Hispanic origin, monthly data seasonally
adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
Annual average
1989
1990
Employment status
1988
1989
Sept
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept
13,325
8,982
67.4
8,250
13,791
9,323
67.6
8,573
13,894
9,342
67.2
8,564
13,936
9,339
67.0
8,595
13,977
9,424
67.4
8,672
14,019
9,495
67.7
8,691
14,080
9,440
67.0
8,763
14,119
9,400
66.6
8,666
14,159
9,565
67.6
8,831
14,198
9,618
67.7
8,850
14,238
9,669
67.9
8,927
14,277
9,651
67.6
8,967
14,317
9,665
67.5
8,899
14,356
9,707
67.6
8,951
14,396
9,643
67.0
8,808
61.9
732
8.2
62.2
750
8.0
61.6
778
8.3
61.7
744
8.0
62.0
752
8.0
62.0
804
8.5
62.3
671
7.1
61.4
734
7.8
62.4
734
7.7
62.3
768
8.0
62.7
742
7.7
62.8
684
7.1
62.2
767
7.9
62.3
757
7.8
61.2
835
8.7
Hispanic origin
Civilian noninstitutional
population1 ....................................
Civilian labor fo rce ........................
Participation rate ..................
Employed...................................
Employment-population
ratio2 ....................................
Unemployed...............................
Unemployment ra te ..............
1 The population figures are not seasonally adjusted.
2 Civilian employment as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.
NOTE: Detail for the above race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum to totals
6.
because data for the "other races” groups are not presented and Hispanics are included
in both the white and black population groups.
Selected employment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(In thousands)
1990
1989
Annual average
Selected categories
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
May
June
July
Aug.
118,116
64,544
53,571
40,730
118,350
64,586
53,764
40,881
118,389
64,535
53,854
40,554
117,953
64,278
53,674
40,545
117,658
64,121
53,537
40,604
117,898
64,426
53,472
40,919
29,618
6,291
29,742
6,325
30,046
6,400
29,856
6,467
29,909
6,380
29,949
6,365
29,780
6,382
1,578
1,375
118
1,620
1,457
115
1,621
1,429
112
1,728
1,502
101
1,685
1,507
106
1,628
1,377
96
1,666
1,357
93
1,808
1,275
112
105,747
17,626
88.121
1,035
87,086
8,733
256
106,117
17.607
88,510
1,021
87,489
8,628
313
106,029
17,724
88,306
1,003
87,302
8,852
261
105,938
17,816
88,122
957
87,165
8,716
258
106,176
18,113
88,063
941
87,122
8,783
254
105,985
17,863
88,121
1,056
87,065
8,759
226
105,885
17,788
88,097
989
87,108
8,709
269
105,691
17,842
87,849
1,033
86,816
8,629
229
105,800
17,555
88,246
1,074
87,171
8,810
235
4,802
2,277
2,106
15,388
4,983
2,402
2,255
14,931
4,887
2,307
2,211
15,381
5,004
2,476
2,127
15,464
4,871
2,407
2,138
15,193
4,831
2,439
2,052
15,592
5,013
2,499
2,224
15,125
4,870
2,565
2,070
15,311
5,036
2,424
2,123
15,377
5,365
2,654
2,462
15,283
4,554
2,111
2,051
14,983
4,729
2,240
2,172
14,515
4,703
2,183
2,173
14,924
4,747
2,293
2,050
14,975
4,630
2,218
2,096
14,804
4,666
2,317
2,004
15,064
4,734
2,284
2,141
14,627
4,710
2,408
2,048
14,922
4,780
2,242
2,069
14,899
5,093
2,481
2,386
14,858
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
1988
1989
114,968
63,273
51,696
40,472
117,342
64,315
53,027
40,760
117,419
64,150
53,269
40,649
117,585
64,513
53,072
40,839
117,836
64,482
53,354
40,886
117,888
64,618
53,270
41,041
117,863
64,420
53,443
40,982
118,035
64,602
53,433
41,347
118,334
64,711
53,623
40,989
28,756
6,211
29,404
6,338
29,506
6,429
29,544
6,354
29,767
6,351
29,695
6,349
29,897
6,215
29,704
6,378
1,621
1,398
150
1,665
1,403
131
1,680
1,424
132
1,678
1,406
124
1,687
1,373
122
1,677
1,369
125
1,634
1,354
107
103,021
17,114
85,907
1,153
84,754
8,519
260
105,259
17,469
87,790
1,101
86,689
8,605
279
105,476
17,613
87,863
1,065
86,798
8,581
279
105,504
17,595
87,909
987
86,922
8,610
280
105,960
17,681
88,279
1,051
87,228
8,528
264
105,643
17,728
87,915
1,077
86,838
8,653
251
5,206
2,350
2,487
14,963
4,894
2,303
2,233
15,393
4,864
2,321
2,161
15,506
4,767
2,314
2,082
15,368
4,803
2,297
2,162
15,254
4,965
2,199
2,408
14,509
4,657
2,143
2,166
14,963
4,605
2,165
2,095
15,076
4,526
2,166
2,021
14,936
4,552
2,132
2,097
14,805
Apr.
Sept
CHARACTERISTIC
Civilian employed, 16 years and
over.............................................
M e n ..........................................
W om en....................................
Married men, spouse present ..
Married women, spouse
present....................................
Women who maintain families .
MAJOR INDUSTRY AND CLASS
OF WORKER
Agriculture:
Wage and salary w orkers........
Self-employed workers............
Unpaid family workers.............
Nonagricultural industries:
Wage and salary workers .......
Government ..........................
Private industries...................
Private households.............
O the r...................................
Self-employed workers............
Unpaid family w orkers.............
PERSONS AT WORK
PART TIME1
All industries:
Part time for economic reasons .
Slack work ...............................
Could only find part-time work
Voluntary part time .....................
Nonagricultural industries:
Part time for economic reasons .
Slack work ...............................
Could only find part-time work
Voluntary part time .....................
1 Excludes persons “ with a job but not at work” during the survey period for such reasons as vacation, illness, or industrial disputes.
66 Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
November 1990
7.
Selected unemployment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(Unemployment rates)
1989
Annual average
1990
Selected categories
1988
1989
Sept.
O ct
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Total, all civilian workers.........................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years................................
Men, 20 years and o v e r.....................................
Women, 20 years and over................................
5.5
15.3
4.8
4.9
5.3
15.0
4.5
4.7
5.3
15.0
4.8
4.5
5.3
14.9
4.5
4.8
5.3
15.3
4.6
4.8
5.3
15.2
4.6
4.8
5.3
14.5
4.7
4.6
5.3
14.8
4.6
4.8
5.2
14.4
4.5
4.7
5.4
14.7
4.8
4.8
5.3
15.5
4.7
4.6
5.2
14.1
4.7
4.5
5.5
16.3
4.9
4.7
5.6
16.7
5.0
4.9
5.7
15.5
5.1
5.0
White, total .........................................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years.............................
Men, 16 to 19 years ...................................
Women, 16 to 19 years..............................
Men, 20 years and over ..................................
Women, 20 years and o ve r.............................
4.7
13.1
13.9
12.3
4.1
4.1
4.5
12.7
13.7
11.5
3.9
4.0
4.5
12.2
13.3
11.1
4.2
3.8
4.5
12.4
13.8
10.9
3.9
4.0
4.5
12.9
14.3
11.3
3.9
4.0
4.6
13.0
14.0
11.9
3.9
4.1
4.5
12.7
12.9
12.4
4.0
4.0
4.6
13.0
12.7
13.2
4.1
4.1
4.5
12.9
13.0
12.7
4.0
3.9
4.8
13.1
13.8
12.4
4.3
4.1
4.6
13.7
14.2
13.1
4.2
3.9
4.5
12.2
12.9
11.4
4.1
3.9
4.6
13.7
15.1
12.3
4.1
4.0
4.8
14.5
15.7
13.2
4.3
4.2
4.8
13.9
15.3
12.5
4.3
4.2
Black, total .........................................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years.............................
Men, 16 to 19 ye ars...................................
Women, 16 to 19 years..............................
Men, 20 years and over ..................................
Women, 20 years and over.............................
11.7
32.4
32.7
32.0
10.1
10.4
11.4
32.4
31.9
33.0
10.0
9.8
11.7
36.3
33.8
38.8
10.1
9.7
11.7
33.4
32.0
34.9
10.3
9.9
11.9
32.5
32.3
32.7
10.6
10.2
11.8
30.7
30.1
31.4
10.8
10.0
11.3
26.7
29.2
24.0
11.2
9.2
10.5
28.0
28.5
27.5
9.2
9.4
10.6
28.2
30.0
26.2
9.6
9.0
10.4
25.8
27.2
24.3
9.4
9.2
10.4
29.4
31.1
27.6
9.1
9.1
10.4
31.4
37.4
25.3
9.4
8.9
11.3
31.8
32.3
31.2
10.7
9.4
11.8
36.7
38.4
35.0
10.6
9.9
12.1
28.9
30.6
26.9
11.8
10.3
Hispanic origin, to ta l...........................................
8.2
8.0
8.3
8.0
8.0
8.5
7.1
7.8
7.7
8.0
7.7
7.1
7.9
7.8
8.7
Married men, spouse present............................
Married women, spouse present........................
Women who maintain families...........................
Full-time workers ................................................
Part-time workers ...............................................
Unemployed 15 weeks and over.......................
Labor force time lost1 ........................................
3.3
3.9
8.1
5.2
7.6
1.3
6.3
3.0
3.7
8.1
4.9
7.3
1.1
5.9
3.3
3.8
7.7
5.0
7.3
1.1
6.0
3.0
3.9
7.8
4.9
7.1
1.1
5.9
3.1
3.8
8.2
5.0
7.4
1.1
5.9
3.0
3.9
8.1
5.0
7.5
1.1
6.0
3.4
3.7
7.5
5.0
7.0
1.1
6.0
3.0
3.8
7.5
4.9
7.4
1.1
5.9
3.2
3.6
8.4
4.9
7.2
1.1
5.9
3.3
3.5
7.5
5.1
7.1
1.1
6.2
3.3
3.5
7.4
4.9
7.4
1.1
6.0
3.2
3.7
8.0
4.8
7.6
1.1
5.9
3.3
3.5
8.5
5.0
8.1
1.2
6.0
3.5
3.9
8.5
5.2
7.9
1.3
6.3
3.4
4.0
8.9
5.4
7.1
1.3
6.4
5.5
7.9
10.6
5.3
5.0
5.7
3.9
6.2
4.5
2.8
10.6
5.3
5.8
10.0
5.1
4.8
5.5
3.9
6.0
4.4
2.7
9.6
5.4
8.4
10.1
5.2
4.9
5.5
4.5
5.9
4.5
2.8
7.8
5.3
4.8
9.3
5.4
5.2
5.6
3.9
5.9
4.3
2.7
9.8
5.4
6.2
9.8
5.4
5.4
5.3
3.6
6.4
4.3
2.7
12.1
5.4
4.4
9.8
5.6
5.4
5.9
3.4
6.3
4.2
2.6
9.7
5.5
6.8
9.3
5.9
5.8
5.9
4.3
6.2
4.3
2.4
9.2
5.5
4.8
8.9
5.9
5.5
6.4
4.0
6.0
4.4
2.5
9.3
5.5
5.9
10.0
5.5
5.3
5.9
3.4
6.2
4.5
2.3
10.1
5.7
4.6
10.6
5.9
5.7
6.3
4.3
6.2
4.5
2.1
11.0
5.5
3.3
11.5
5.4
5.5
5.2
3.2
6.3
4.4
2.5
7.9
5.3
3.6
9.7
4.9
4.9
5.0
3.0
6.2
4.5
2.9
10.0
5.5
4.4
10.2
5.7
5.6
5.7
3.7
6.0
4.5
2.8
10.6
5.7
4.9
11.1
5.8
5.9
5.6
4.1
6.2
4.7
2.8
9.7
5.8
3.8
11.8
5.7
6.0
5.3
3.9
6.6
4.7
2.9
9.3
CHARACTERISTIC
INDUSTRY
Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers ....
Mining..................................................................
Construction.......................................................
Manufacturing .....................................................
Durable goods..................................................
Nondurable g oods...........................................
Transportation and public utilities ......................
Wholesale and retail tra d e .................................
Finance and service industries..........................
Government workers ...............................................
Agricultural wage and salary workers .....................
1 Aggregate hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons as a percent of potentially available labor force hours.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Monthly Labor Review November 1990 67
Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data
8.
Unemployment rates by sex and age, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(Civilian workers)
Annual
average
Sex and age
1988
1990
1989
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
1989
Dec.
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
June
May
July
Sept.
Aug.
5.6
11.5
16.7
19.2
15.0
8.8
4.4
4.6
3.5
5.7
11.6
15.5
18.4
14.4
9.6
4.5
4.7
3.3
Total, 16 years and o v e r.........
16 to 24 years........................
16 to 19 years.....................
16 to 17 years ..................
18 to 19 years ..................
20 to 24 ye ars.....................
25 years and over..................
25 to 54 years ..................
55 years and o v e r............
5.5
11.0
15.3
17.4
13.8
8.7
4.3
4.5
3.1
5.3
10.9
15.0
17.2
13.6
8.6
4.0
4.2
3.1
5.3
11.1
15.0
17.2
14.2
8.8
4.1
4.3
3.0
5.3
11.1
14.9
16.9
13.5
8.9
4.1
4.2
3.0
5.3
11.3
15.3
17.4
13.8
9.0
4.1
4.2
3.2
5.3
11.2
15.2
18.1
13.4
8.9
4.1
4.3
3.2
5.3
10.6
14.5
14.8
14.2
8.5
4.2
4.3
3.4
5.3
10.7
14.8
16.8
13.0
8.4
4.2
4.3
3.4
5.2
10.5
14.4
16.9
12.9
8.3
4.1
4.3
3.3
5.4
11.2
14.7
17.4
13.0
9.3
4.2
4.4
3.3
5.3
11.0
15.5
20.0
12.8
8.5
4.1
4.3
3.0
5.2
10.3
14.1
16.1
13.4
8.2
4.1
4.4
2.8
5.5
11.0
16.3
17.4
15.2
8.3
4.3
4.5
3.2
Men, 16 years and o ve r......
16 to 24 years ..................
16 to 19 years................
16 to 17 years.............
18 to 19 years.............
20 to 24 years................
25 years and o v e r............
25 to 54 years.............
55 years and over.......
5.5
11.4
16.0
18.2
14.6
8.9
4.2
4.4
3.3
5.2
11.4
15.9
18.6
14.2
8.8
3.9
4.1
3.2
5.4
11.9
15.7
19.5
13.7
9.8
4.1
4.1
3.5
5.2
11.7
15.9
18.5
14.2
9.3
3.9
4.0
3.2
5.3
12.0
16.7
19.0
15.1
9.4
4.0
4.1
3.5
5.3
11.8
16.1
19.6
13.8
9.5
3.9
4.0
3.6
5.3
11.2
15.1
14.2
15.6
8.9
4.2
4.3
3.6
5.2
10.9
14.9
16.5
13.7
8.6
4.1
4.2
3.5
5.1
10.9
14.7
16.9
13.6
8.8
4.0
4.2
3.4
5.5
11.8
15.4
18.1
13.8
9.8
4.2
4.4
3.5
5.4
11.2
16.0
20.6
13.4
8.6
4.1
4.3
3.4
5.3
11.1
15.4
16.4
14.8
8.9
4.1
4.3
3.1
5.6
11.6
17.5
18.4
16.3
8.5
4.4
4.5
3.6
5.7
11.6
17.8
21.5
15.5
8.5
4.6
4.6
3.8
5.8
12.0
16.7
18.8
16.2
9.5
4.6
4.7
3.8
Women, 16 years and over
16 to 24 years.................
16 to 19 years ..............
16 to 17 years ...........
5.6
10.6
14.4
16.6
12.9
8.5
4.3
4.6
2.8
5.4
10.4
14.0
15.7
13.0
8.3
4.2
4.4
2.8
5.2
10.2
14.4
14.7
14.6
7.7
4.1
4.4
2.4
5.4
10.4
13.8
15.0
12.8
8.5
4.2
4.4
2.8
5.4
10.4
13.8
15.7
12.3
8.5
4.2
4.4
2.9
5.5
10.4
14.3
16.5
13.0
8.2
4.3
4.6
2.7
5.2
10.1
13.7
15.5
12.6
8.0
4.1
4.3
3.3
5.4
10.4
14.6
17.3
12.3
8.1
4.3
4.5
3.3
5.3
10.0
14.0
16.9
12.0
7.7
4.2
4.4
3.3
5.4
10.5
13.9
16.7
12.1
8.7
4.2
4.4
2.9
5.2
10.7
14.9
19.4
12.2
8.4
4.1
4.4
2.5
5.0
9.3
12.8
15.9
11.9
7.5
4.1
4.4
,4
5.3
10.4
14.9
16.4
13.9
8.0
4.2
4.4
2.6
5.5
11.4
15.6
16.6
14.4
9.3
4.3
4.5
3.1
5.5
11.2
14.2
17.9
12.6
9.6
4.4
4.6
2.6
18 to 19 ye ars ..............
20 to 24 years ..............
25 years and over..........
25 to 54 years ...........
55 years and o v e r.....
9.
Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
1990
1989
Annual average
Reason for unemployment
1988
1989
Sept.
Nov.
Oct.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
3,092
851
2,241
983
1,809
816
2,983
850
2,133
1,024
1,843
677
2,932
852
2,080
1,034
1,920
648
2,979
780
2,199
994
1,890
685
3,092
969
2,123
1,049
1,845
695
3,097
957
2,140
1,055
1,853
686
3,183
1,033
2,150
1,016
1,730
640
3,103
964
2,139
1,006
1,805
680
3,038
941
2,097
1,014
1,859
644
3,147
999
2,148
1,179
1,780
617
3,171
979
2,192
1,014
1,820
683
3,151
918
2,233
995
1,789
534
3,088
960
2,128
1,027
1,960
687
3,367
973
2,394
984
1,879
677
3,511
1,127
2,384
934
1,985
656
46.1
12.7
33.4
14.7
27.0
12.2
45.7
13.0
32.7
15.7
28.2
10.4
44.9
13.0
31.8
15.8
29.4
9.9
45.5
11.9
33.6
15.2
28.9
10.5
46.3
14.5
31.8
15.7
27.6
10.4
46.3
14.3
32.0
15.8
27.7
10.3
48.5
15.7
32.7
15.5
26.3
9.7
47.1
14.6
32.4
15.3
27.4
10.3
46.3
14.4
32.0
15.5
28.4
9.8
46.8
14.9
31.9
17.5
26.5
9.2
47.4
14.6
32.8
15.2
27.2
10.2
48.7
14.2
34.5
15.4
27.7
8.3
45.7
14.2
31.5
15.2
29.0
10.2
48.7
14.1
34.7
14.3
27.2
9.8
49.5
15.9
33.6
13.2
28.0
9.3
2.5
.8
1.5
.7
2.4
.8
1.5
.5
2.4
.8
1.5
.5
2.4
.8
1.5
.6
2.5
.8
1.5
.6
2.5
.8
1.5
.6
2.6
.8
1.4
.5
2.5
.8
1.4
.5
2.4
.8
1.5
.5
2.5
.9
1.4
.5
2.5
.8
1.5
.5
2.5
.8
1.4
.4
2.5
.8
1.6
.6
2.7
.8
1.5
.5
2.8
.7
1.6
.5
PERCENT OF UNEMPLOYED
PERCENT OF
CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE
10.
Duration of unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
1990
1989
Annual average
Weeks of unemployment
1988
1989
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Less than 5 weeks ........................................... 3,084
5 to 14 weeks ................................................... 2,007
15 weeks and o ve r........................................... 1,610
801
15 to 26 weeks ..............................................
809
27 weeks and o v e r........................................
3,174
1,978
1,375
730
646
3,169
2,030
1,359
769
590
3,166
1,995
1,378
743
635
3,258
1,991
1,422
765
657
3,302
2,013
1,362
730
632
3,119
2,012
1,430
777
653
3,159
2,079
1,369
731
638
3,194
2,044
1,333
702
631
3,204
2,175
1,386
697
688
3,026
2,236
1,374
764
610
3,046
2,049
1,406
763
643
3,120
2,159
1,513
809
704
3,325
2,048
1,609
845
764
3,044
2,479
1,620
872
748
13.5
5.9
11.9
4.8
11.5
5.0
11.7
5.0
11.6
4.8
11.5
4.8
12.1
5.1
11.7
5.4
12.0
5.1
12.1
5.0
11.6
5.4
12.0
5.1
12.0
5.2
12.3
5.2
12.5
6.2
Mean duration in w eeks...................................
Median duration in weeks.................................
68 Monthly Labor Review November 1990
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
11. Unemployment rates of civilian workers by State, data not seasonally
adjusted
State
California...................................................
p -1
j-fA
Florida.......................................................
r
.
Hawaii.......................................................
Idaho ...............................................................................................
Indiana......................................................
In
V
'
Kentucky....................................................
Louisiana...................................................
M aine........................................................
Maryland....................................................
Massachusetts..........................................
tll.i-hinQn
Mississippi.................................................
NOTE:
12.
Aug.
1989
Aug.
1990p
7.4
4.7
6.2
6.5
4.7
7.6
5.5
5.7
6.1
5.4
5.1
40
31
4.7
5.4
4.6
5.2
4.4
6.1
6.8
5.6
1.5
4.9
5.8
4.3
5.6
2.5
5.0
6.3
6.5
4.3
3.8
5.4
7.5
3.2
4.0
4.4
4.9
6.4
4.2
3.6
3.9
6.7
4.0
7.3
49
4.4
6.4
7.4
4.3
7.9
5.7
Aug.
1989
Aug.
1990p
Montana ....................................................................................
Nebraska..................................................
Nevada .....................................................
New Hampshire ......................................
4.8
3.0
4.7
3.7
4.4
2.3
4.0
5.3
New Jersey..............................................
New Mexico.............................................
North Dakota...........................................
4.2
6.8
4.8
3.5
3.8
4.6
6.1
4.8
3.5
3.3
O h io .........................................................
Oklahoma ...............................................................................
Oregon .......................................................................................
Pennsylvania ........................................................................
Rhode Island .......................................................................
4.7
4.8
5.2
3.9
3.8
4.7
5.3
5.2
4.3
6.0
South Carolina ...................................................................
South Dakota ..........................................
Tennessee ...............................................
Texas.......................................................
U tah.........................................................
4.6
4.2
4.9
7.2
4.6
4.7
3.8
5.0
5.9
4.4
Vermont ...................................................
Virginia .....................................................
Washington..............................................
West Virginia ...........................................
Wisconsin.................................................
3.5
3.1
5.9
7.6
3.8
4.6
4.1
4.6
8.7
3.7
Wyoming ..................................................
6.1
State
4.0
I----------------
Some data in this table may differ from data published elsewhere because of the continual updating of the database.
Employment of workers on nonfarm payrolls by State, data not seasonally adjusted
(In thousands)
State
Arkansas ......................................................
Colorado ......................................................
Connecticut ..................................................
District of Columbia......................................
Aug. 1989
July 1990
Aug. 1990»
1,590.9
249.1
1,421.4
894.9
12,432.1
1,603.1
251.9
1,468.9
914.5
12,772.2
1,596.1
251.0
1,474.6
918.5
12,755.9
1,469.8
1,671.0
347.8
688.5
5,203.4
1,499.7
1,667.9
350.0
697.0
5,426.3
1,501.5
1,661.3
351.6
681.5
5,412.7
State
New Mexico ................................................
New York.....................................................
North Carolina ............................................
Oklahoma....................................................
Illinois ...........................................................
2,957.3
507.1
371.2
5,174.2
2,462.0
3,005.1
518.2
384.4
5,222.8
2,528.5
3,009 8
516.6
387.9
5,222.5
2,534.0
1,195.7
l'061.5
1,442.3
1,508.3
554.3
1,220.1
T079.7
1,471.0
1,529.3
533.9
1,219.5
1,084.4
1,473.8
1,528.4
537.5
2,153.8
3,098.3
3’887.1
2,104.7
915.2
2,315.6
293.3
2,186.1
3,024.2
3,897.7
2,136.9
927.0
2,327.5
297.1
2,177.7
3,010.0
3,876.5
2,141.6
924.8
2,324.3
298.1
South Dakota..............................................
Kentucky.......................................................
Louisiana......................................................
Utah ............................................................
Virginia........................................................
Minnesota.....................................................
Aug. 1989
July 1990
Aug. 1990p
703.9
593.7
523.2
719.6
627.3
502.3
721.9
629.3
505.7
3,725.4
561.2
8,253.7
3,052.2
260.1
3,754.3
566.9
8,280.1
3,067.7
265.6
3,745.5
565.4
8,261.0
3,077.1
265.3
4,830.3
1,145.1
1,218.9
5,101.6
460.1
4,934.0
1,160.0
1,244.6
5,128.7
447.8
4,941.1
1,164.6
1,254.8
5,113.9
449.4
1,506.7
278.3
2,171.2
6,803.5
692.0
1,541.7
282.0
2,170.3
6,930.3
719.2
1,547.3
281.7
2,183.3
6,936.3
723.8
259.5
2,871.5
2,065.7
610.0
2,249.9
253.3
2,932.1
2,139.4
630.6
2,283.7
252.9
2,928.7
2,151.4
618.4
2,290.3
199.9
823.0
43.3
199.9
871.8
41.5
199.7
842.8
41.9
p = preliminary
NOTE: Some data in this table may differ from data published elsewhere because of the continual updating of the database.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
69
Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data
13.
Employment of workers on nonfarm payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(In thousands)
Annual average
1989
1990
Industry
1988
TOTAL ...................................... 105,536
PRIVATE SECTOR ..................... 88,150
1989
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.p
Sept.p
108,413
90,644
108,868
90,985
108,980
91,096
109,245
91,344
109,383
91,456
109,654
91,656
109,958
91,917
110,122
91,963
110,177
91,922
110,617
92,120
110,829
92,282
110,740
92,300
110,657
92,307
110,556
92,240
GOODS-PRODUCING....................
Mining ...........................................
25,173
713
25,326
700
25,304
709
25,283
710
25,280
716
25,218
718
25,188
723
25,339
727
25,259
729
25,180
734
25,191
738
25,162
744
25,105
745
25,013
736
24,929
738
Construction ................................
General building contractors.......
5,110
1,353
5,200
1,338
5,225
1,343
5,239
1,338
5,258
1,339
5,216
1,335
5,294
1,361
5,368
1,368
5,313
1,351
5,256
1,338
5,286
1,334
5,270
1,334
5,229
1,319
5,194
1,306
5,174
1,308
Manufacturing..............................
Production w orkers.....................
19,350
13,221
19,426
13,257
19,370
13,204
19,334
13,171
19,306
13,144
19,284
13,124
19,171
13,009
19,244
13,084
19,217
13,061
19,190
13,046
19,167
13,023
19,148
13,007
19,131
13,010
19,083
12,967
19,017
12,911
Durable goods............................
Production w orkers.....................
11,381
7,596
11,422
7,615
11,369
7,567
11,337
7,541
11,314
7,519
11,296
7,506
11,192
7,400
11,278
7,488
11,261
7,479
11,229
7,461
11,217
7,450
11,201
7,439
11,179
7,438
11,130
7,396
11,072
7,347
Lumber and wood products.........
Furniture and fixtures...................
Stone, clay, and glass products ...
Primary metal industries ..............
Blast furnaces and basic steel
products......................................
Fabricated metal products...........
769
528
569
771
758
526
569
772
750
524
563
767
753
521
566
764
752
521
567
760
753
519
566
759
753
519
567
754
751
518
568
756
751
518
565
754
750
516
560
755
748
516
559
755
743
515
556
756
742
511
552
759
739
514
551
755
737
509
546
751
279
1,432
278
1,446
276
1,438
274
1,433
272
1,429
273
1,426
272
1,412
272
1,418
270
1,418
271
1,419
271
1,417
270
1,415
271
1,419
271
1,420
270
1,413
2,092
2,132
2,132
2,125
2,129
2,130
2,132
2,126
2,119
2,112
2,112
2,108
2,104
2,096
2,083
1,766
2,038
857
1,033
1,753
2,054
857
1,026
1,743
2,041
843
1,023
1,737
2,031
833
1,021
1,732
2,023
826
1,018
1,722
2,024
828
1,011
1,722
1,933
736
1,011
1,720
2,023
828
1,009
1,718
2,022
825
1,008
1,713
2,014
820
1,005
1,711
2,010
817
1,002
1,703
2,021
826
1,000
1,695
2,015
824
996
1,685
1,997
814
990
1,672
1,983
805
994
384
386
388
386
383
386
389
389
388
385
387
384
386
383
384
Nondurable goods.......................
Production workers.......................
7,969
5,625
8,004
5,642
8,001
5,637
7,997
5,630
7,992
5,625
7,988
5,618
7,979
5,609
7,966
5,596
7,956
5,582
7,961
5,585
7,950
5,573
7,947
5,568
7,952
5,572
7,953
5,571
7,945
5,564
Food and kindred products..........
Tobacco products.........................
Textile mill products.....................
Apparel and other textile
products......................................
Paper and allied products ...........
1,631
55
729
1,645
49
724
1,653
48
720
1,651
48
721
1,651
48
718
1,650
47
716
1,651
47
715
1,650
47
711
1,648
46
709
1,651
46
708
1,650
46
703
1,643
47
702
1,645
46
702
1,650
47
701
1,649
47
697
1,088
690
1,074
697
1,070
697
1,066
697
1,064
697
1,061
698
1,053
697
1,045
699
1,037
698
1,036
699
1,031
698
1,029
699
1,027
701
1,025
702
1,025
701
Printing and publishing.................
Chemicals and allied products.....
Petroleum and coal products.......
Rubber and mise, plastics
products......................................
Leather and leather products ......
1,548
1,059
160
1,564
1,074
157
1,566
1,075
157
1,567
1,076
158
1,571
1,077
158
1,573
1,081
157
1,576
1,081
158
1,576
1,083
159
1,578
1,083
159
1,579
1,084
159
1,581
1,085
159
1,582
1,086
160
1,583
1,088
160
1,583
1,087
161
1,581
1,089
162
868
143
884
136
880
135
878
135
875
133
873
132
869
132
865
131
867
131
869
130
868
129
871
128
874
126
873
124
870
124
SERVICE-PRODUCING .................
Transportation and public
utilities.........................................
Transportation..............................
Communications and public
utilities.........................................
80,363
83,087
83,564
83,697
83,965
84,165
84,466
84,619
84,863
84,997
85,426
85,667
85,635
85,644
85,627
5,527
3,312
5,648
3,450
5,656
3,483
5,671
3,500
5,693
3,523
5,776
3,548
5,790
3,568
5,804
3,583
5,808
3,589
5,809
3,588
5,833
3,613
5,846
3,627
5,841
3,625
5,845
3,630
5,859
3,644
2,215
2,199
2,173
2,171
2,170
2,228
2,222
2,221
2,219
2,221
2,220
2,219
2,216
2,215
2,215
Industrial machinery and
equipment....................................
Electronic and other
electrical equipment....................
Transportation equipment............
Motor vehicles and equipment....
Instruments and related products
Miscellaneous manufacturing
industries.....................................
Wholesale tra d e ..........................
6,055
6,271
6,303
6,313
6,335
6,344
6,356
6,357
6,361
6,363
6,369
6,383
6,374
6,375
6,374
Retail trad e ...................................
General merchandise stores.......
Food stores..................................
Automotive dealers and service
stations.......................................
Eating and drinking places..........
19,077
2,473
3,079
19,580
2,535
3,190
19,634
2,534
3,211
19,665
2,527
3,230
19,714
2,542
3,240
19,710
2,519
3,247
19,807
2,529
3,263
19,758
2,505
3,268
19,764
2,495
3,272
19,778
2,493
3,287
19,795
2,487
3,295
19,822
2,496
3,302
19,851
2,494
3,304
19,838
2,491
3,298
19,828
2,482
3,295
2,075
6,286
2,109
6,449
2,109
6,476
2,115
6,491
2,116
6,511
2,113
6,523
2,117
6,538
2,118
6,556
2,120
6,563
2,118
6,573
2,121
6,583
2,120
6,598
2,131
6,619
2,135
6,613
2,140
6,623
Finance, insurance, and real
estate...........................................
Finance ........................................
Insurance.....................................
Real estate...................................
6,649
3,283
2,079
1,287
6,724
3,307
2,103
1,314
6,753
3,317
2,111
1,325
6,756
3,320
2,109
1,327
6,774
3,327
2,114
1,333
6,785
3,329
2,119
1,337
6,794
3,327
2,124
1,343
6,817
3,340
2,128
1,349
6,821
3,333
2,135
1,353
6,823
3,336
2,135
1,352
6,838
3,338
2,139
1,361
6,844
3,344
2,143
1,357
6,842
3,341
2,147
1,354
6,850
3,348
2,151
1,351
6,843
3,345
2,151
1,347
Services........................................
Business services........................
Health services............................
25,669
4,669
7,121
27,096
4,931
7,551
27,335
4,980
7,648
27,408
4,970
7,690
27,548
4,990
7,743
27,623
4,986
7,789
27,721
4,993
7,837
27,842
5,010
7,889
27,950
5,021
7,936
27,969
5,026
7,984
28,094
5,048
8,040
28,225
5,060
8,096
28,287
5,051
8,132
28,386
5,053
8,194
28,407
5,037
8,239
Government .................................
Federal.........................................
S ta te .............................................
Local.............................................
17,386
2,971
4,076
10,339
17,769
2,988
4,175
10,606
17,883
2,992
4,215
10,676
17,884
2,986
4,202
10,696
17,901
2,982
4,212
10,707
17,927
2,977
4,206
10,744
17,998
3,000
4,225
10,773
18,041
3,005
4,239
10,797
18,159
3,089
4,249
10,821
18,255
3,151
4,252
10,852
18,497
3,346
4,262
10,889
18,547
3,338
4,296
10,913
18,440
3,164
4,298
10,978
18,350
3,049
4,317
10,984
18,316
3,010
4,297
11,009
p = preliminary
NOTE: See notes on the data for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.
70 Monthly Labor Review November 1990
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
14. Average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls by industry, monthly
data seasonally adjusted
Annual
average
1990
1989
Industry
1988
PRIVATE SECTOR
.....................................
34.7
1989
34.6
Sept.
34.6
Nov.
Oct.
Dec.
34.5
34.6
34.4
Jan.
34.4
Feb.
34.6
Mar.
34.6
Apr.
34.5
May
34.5
June
34.7
July
Aug.P
Sept.p
34.5
34.5
34.7
43.9
42.3
43.0
43.7
43.6
43.7
43.0
43.6
43.7
43.5
43.4
43.6
44.4
43.7
43.8
41.1
3.9
41.0
3.8
40.9
3.8
40.8
3.7
40.7
3.7
40.6
3.7
40.7
3.6
40.8
3.6
40.8
3.7
40.7
3.5
40.9
3.8
41.0
3.8
40.9
3.7
41.0
3.8
41.0
3.7
41.8
4.1
40.1
39.4
42.3
43.5
44.0
41.9
41.6
3.9
40.1
39.5
42.3
43.0
43.4
41.6
41.5
3.8
40.1
39.5
42.2
42.6
43.1
41.5
41.3
3.7
40.3
39.2
42.4
42.5
42.8
41.4
41.2
3.7
40.2
39.4
42.4
42.5
43.0
41.3
41.2
3.7
40.0
39.1
41.6
42.5
42.9
41.2
41.3
3.6
40.4
39.6
42.3
42.6
43.1
41.1
41.3
3.6
40.1
39.3
42.2
42.5
42.9
41.4
41.4
3.8
40.4
39.2
42.0
42.7
43.0
41.5
41.2
3.5
40.2
39.0
42.0
41.8
42.9
41.2
41.5
3.9
40.4
39.2
42.1
43.0
43.5
41.7
41.6
3.9
40.3
39.3
42.3
43.0
43.3
41.6
41.5
3.8
40.2
39.6
41.7
43.1
44.1
41.7
41.6
3.9
40.4
39.4
42.3
43.0
43.5
41.6
41.6
3.8
40.7
38.9
42.1
43.0
43.8
41.5
42.7
41.0
42.7
43.5
41.4
39.2
42.4
40.8
42.4
43.1
41.1
39.4
42.2
41.0
42.7
43.0
40.9
39.2
42.1
41.0
41.3
42.7
41.0
39.3
42.2
40.8
41.0
42.3
41.0
39.7
42.1
40.5
41.7
42.2
41.0
39.3
42.1
40.9
41.5
41.0
40.9
39.5
42.1
41.1
41.6
41.5
41.0
39.5
42.0
41.0
42.0
42.3
41.1
39.4
41.8
40.9
41.9
41.8
41.2
39.2
42.1
40.9
42.5
43.4
41.1
39.4
42.0
41.0
42.6
43.7
41.2
39.4
42.0
40.7
42.8
43.6
41.2
39.5
42.1
40.5
42.7
43.8
41.3
39.8
42.1
40.9
42.7
43.5
41.4
39.9
40.2
3.6
40.3
41.0
37.0
43.3
40.2
3.6
40.7
40.9
36.9
43.3
40.2
3.7
40.9
40.6
36.8
43.2
40.1
3.6
40.8
40.6
36.9
43.3
40.1
3.6
40.8
40.4
36.8
43.4
40.0
3.6
40.7
40.2
36.4
43.2
40.0
3.5
40.6
40.3
36.6
43.2
40.0
3.5
40.6
40.2
36.6
43.1
40.0
3.6
40.7
40.0
36.3
43.2
40.0
3.4
40.6
40.0
36.4
43.3
40.1
3.6
40.8
40.2
36.6
43.3
40.3
3.6
40.9
40.4
36.7
43.5
40.1
3.6
4Ü.5
40.2
36.6
43.5
40.2
3.7
40.9
39.9
36.6
43.5
40.1
3.6
41.1
39.7
36.7
42.9
38.0
42.2
41.7
37.5
37.9
42.4
41.4
37.9
38.0
42.5
41.1
38.2
37.8
42.5
41.1
37.7
37.9
42.4
41.1
37.6
37.7
42.6
40.9
37.4
37.9
42.7
40.8
37.4
37.9
42.4
41.2
37.7
38.0
42.5
41.4
37.7
37.8
42.6
40.9
37.5
37.9
42.6
41.4
37.4
38.0
42.6
41.6
37.5
38.0
42.4
41.5
37.4
38.2
42.5
41.3
37.7
38.0
42.7
41.3
37.4
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
38.8
38.9
38.8
38.8
38.6
38.6
38.3
38.7
39.0
39.0
39.1
39.2
39.0
39.0
39.3
WHOI ESALE TRADE
38.1
38.0
38.1
38.1
38.1
38.1
38.0
38.0
38.1
38.1
38.0
38.1
38.1
38.1
38.1
29.0
28.9
28.7
28.9
32.6
32.6
32.5
32.8
...........................................
m a n u f a c t u r in g
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products.....
SERVICES
.....................................
..........................................
29.1
28.9
28.9
28.9
28.8
28.8
28.8
28.9
29.0
29.0
29.0
32.6
32.6
32.6
32.7
32.6
32.6
32.5
32.6
32.5
32.6
32.5
= preliminary
NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark adjustment.
p
15. Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls by industry,
seasonally adjusted
Annual
average
1990
1989
Industry
June
July
Aug.P
Sept.P
1988
1989
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
PRIVATE SECTOR (in current d o lla rs).............. $9.28
$9.66
$9.73
$9.78
$9.78
$9.83
$9.82
$9.88
$9.93
$9.96
$9.98
$10.03 $10.07 $10.08 $10.14
Mining...................................................................
Construction.........................................................
Manufacturing ......................................................
Excluding overtime ............................................
Transportation and public utilities .......................
12.80
13.08
10.19
9.73
12.26
13.25
13.52
10.49
10.02
12.61
13.31
13.56
10.55
10.09
12.68
13.32
13.61
10.57
10.10
12.71
13.32
13.66
10.58
10.12
12.65
13.40
13.76
10.62
10.17
12.73
13.33
13.55
10.57
10.13
12.78
13.33
13.63
10.67
10.22
12.83
13.51
13.66
10.73
10.28
12.87
13.59
13.62
10.75
10.34
12.96
13.58
13.71
10.81
10.35
12.88
13.73
13.73
10.86
10.38
12.92
13.79
13.76
10.89
10.40
13.02
13.72
13.78
10.90
10.40
13.01
13.75
13.85
10.93
10.43
13.06
Wholesale trade...................................................
Retail trade...........................................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate ....................
Services..................................................................
9.98
6.31
9.06
8.88
10.39
6.53
9.54
9.39
10.48
6.57
9.65
9.49
10.54
6.60
9.72
9.55
10.55
6.61
9.66
9.55
10.60
6.64
9.75
9.61
10.57
6.68
9.73
9.63
10.62
6.69
9.77
9.67
10.67
6.73
9.82
9.72
10.74
6.74
9.88
9.79
10.74
6.76
9.87
9.80
10.80
6.78
9.98
9.85
10.84
6.79
10.08
9.92
10.84
6.82
10.04
9.92
10.92
6.85
10.14
9.99
PRIVATE SECTOR (in constant (1982) dollars)
7.69
7.64
7.64
7.65
7.62
7.63
7.54
7.55
7.56
7.57
7.58
7.58
7.58
7.53
- Data not available.
p s: preliminary
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-
NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent
benchmark revision.
Monthly Labor Review November 1990 71
Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data
16. Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls by
industry
Annual
average
1989
1990
Industry
1989
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
PRIVATE SECTOR................................................ $9.28
$9.66
$9.77
$9.81
$9.81
$9.84
$9.87
$9.91
$9.93
$9.97
$9.97
$9.98
MINING..................................................................
12.80
13.25
13.29
13.23
13.27
13.46
13.46
13.46
13.57
13.66
13.56
13.66
13.69
13.62
13.74
CONSTRUCTION..................................................
13.08
13.52
13.65
13.71
13.69
13.84
13.59
13.59
13.63
13.58
13.68
13.63
13.70
13.74
13.95
July
>
c
cp
1988
Sept.p
$10.00 $10.00 $10.17
MANUFACTURING................................................ 10.19
10.49
10.56
10.54
10.59
10.68
10.60
10.68
10.75
10.75
10.81
10.85
10.88
10.82
10.94
Durable goods .....................................................
Lumber and wood products................................
Furniture and fixtures..........................................
Stone, clay, and glass products.........................
Primary metal industries .....................................
Blast furnaces and basic steel products.........
Fabricated metal products ..................................
10.71
8.59
7.95
10.56
12.16
13.98
10.29
11.01
8.84
8.26
10.83
12.42
14.25
10.57
11.11
8.95
8.40
10.87
12.54
14.40
10.68
11.07
8.96
8.41
10.90
12.50
14.42
10.61
11.11
8.96
8.41
10.95
12.57
14.50
10.65
11.19
9.01
8.43
10.96
12.59
14.43
10.72
11.06
9.00
8.45
10.96
12.56
14.47
10.60
11.18
8.95
8.42
10.93
12.66
14.62
10.70
11.25
9.05
8.43
11.03
12.71
14.56
10.75
11.22
9.09
8.42
11.18
12.86
14.84
10.65
11.33
9.11
8.47
11.15
12.82
14.71
10.79
11.37
9.09
8.52
11.17
12.90
14.74
10.85
11.38
9.16
8.50
11.21
13.04
14.95
10.86
11.35
9.15
8.57
11.15
12.94
14.85
10.84
11.49
9.20
8.65
11.22
13.02
14.94
10.95
Industrial machinery and equipment...................
Electronic and other electrical equipment .........
Transportation equipment....................................
Motor vehicles and equipment.........................
Instruments and related products ......................
Miscellaneous manufacturing..............................
11.08
9.79
13.29
13.99
10.60
8.00
11.40
10.05
13.68
14.25
10.83
8.29
11.46
10.13
13.86
14.45
10.94
8.36
11.48
10.08
13.82
14.42
10.97
8.36
11.53
10.11
13.83
14.43
10.99
8.47
11.62
10.14
13.91
14.46
11.10
8.57
11.55
10.13
13.55
13.72
11.09
8.57
11.60
10.16
13.88
14.30
11.13
8.56
11.64
10.17
14.02
14.59
11.19
8.59
11.55
10.17
13.89
14.41
11.20
8.56
11.70
10.22
14.14
14.75
11.23
8.59
11.75
10.27
14.20
14.85
11.27
8.61
11.78
10.34
14.06
14.59
11.37
8.60
11.80
10.32
14.08
14.55
11.36
8.60
11.92
10.42
14.36
14.90
11.45
8.63
Nondurable goods ............................................... 9.45
Food and kindred products................................. 9.12
Tobacco products................................................ 14.67
Textile mill products............................................
7.38
Apparel and other textile products.....................
6.12
Paper and allied products ................................... 11.69
9.75
9.38
15.36
7.67
6.35
11.96
9.81
9.37
14.71
7.74
6.41
12.04
9.81
9.33
14.91
7.76
6.39
12.01
9.87
9.43
15.01
7.80
6.43
12.10
9.96
9.56
15.33
7.85
6.45
12.13
9.97
9.53
15.49
7.90
6.40
12.11
9.97
9.54
15.73
7.90
6.45
12.11
10.04
9.61
16.46
7.94
6.53
12.11
10.10
9.61
17.09
7.91
6.56
12.25
10.10
9.63
17.17
7.98
6.60
12.25
10.12
9.67
17.24
8.02
6.61
12.23
10.20
9.68
17.42
8.01
6.59
12.36
10.12
9.54
16.23
8.04
6.64
12.29
10.19
9.57
15.76
8.09
6.70
12.39
Printing and publishing........................................ 10.53
Chemicals and allied products............................ 12.71
Petroleum and coal products.............................. 14.97
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products..... 9.19
Leather and leather products ............................. 6.28
10.88
13.09
15.41
9.47
6.60
11.07
13.20
15.41
9.50
6.65
11.06
13.27
15.60
9.50
6.65
11.07
13.28
15.62
9.54
6.68
11.09
13.32
15.75
9.64
6.74
11.12
13.34
15.87
9.65
6.82
11.13
13.27
15.90
9.64
6.84
11.17
13.34
16.11
9.68
6.87
11.12
13.53
16.31
9.66
6.94
11.17
13.46
16.13
9.75
6.92
11.16
13.51
16.23
9.77
6.91
11.25
13.58
16.22
9.85
6.79
11.29
13.55
16.01
9.78
6.84
11.41
13.63
16.35
9.86
6.94
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES.... 12.26
12.61
12.73
12.74
12.71
12.76
12.79
12.87
12.83
12.96
12.82
12.86
12.99
12.97
13.11
WHOLESALE TRADE...........................................
9.98
10.39
10.48
10.51
10.56
10.63
10.61
10.66
10.66
10.78
10.73
10.76
10.82
10.77
10.92
RETAIL TRADE ....................................................
6.31
6.53
6.59
6.61
6.63
6.65
6.73
6.72
6.74
6.75
6.75
6.75
6.74
6.75
6.87
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE....
9.06
9.54
9.60
9.70
9.67
9.73
9.80
9.87
9.84
9.97
9.90
9.90
10.00
9.94
10.09
SERVICES .............................................................
8.88
9.39
9.49
9.58
9.61
9.68
9.72
9.75
9.76
9.82
9.77
9.75
9.79
9.77
9.99
p = preliminary
NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.
Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for72
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
November 1990
17.
Average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls by industry
1988
PRIVATE SECTOR
1989
1990
1989
Annual average
Industry
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.p
Sept.p
$348.00 $353.92
$322.02 $334.24 $339.02 $341.39 $338.45 $340.46 $336.57 $338.92 $340.60 $342.97 $342.97 $347.30 $349.00
336.66 338.39 337.41 338.15 337.81 341.85 343.58 343.62 344.31 348.04 347.42 347.76 351.86
262.80
259.51
262.31
260.62
261.01
266.79 264.22 265.69 266.29 263.59 264.74 259.10 259.91 259.60
_
MINING
.............................................................
541.44
569.75
584.76
583.44
581.23
588.20
586.86
582.82
583.51
588.75
585.79
606.50
596.88
597.92
608.68
506.53
522.58
532.93
524.71
535.86
545.45
495.73
512.41
526.89
537.43
520.22
512.08
510.98
506.91
516.58
418.81
346.98
430.09
339.99
435.07
340.96
431.09
336.26
435.25
338.98
441.08
342.99
430.36
331.30
431.47
330.88
437.53
333.48
427.85
325.61
442.13
335.97
445.94
336.81
440.64
331.81
441.46
329.20
450.73
447.68
344.46
313.23
446.69
528.96
615.12
431.15
458.02
354.48
326.27
458.11
534.06
618.45
439.71
463.29
361.58
336.84
464.15
536.71
620.64
445.36
458.30
363.78
334.72
468.70
530.00
612.85
440.32
461.07
359.30
334.72
466.47
536.74
623.50
445.17
468.86
362.20
338.89
453.74
541.37
623.38
450.24
455.67
359.10
332.09
453.74
536.31
625.10
435.66
458.38
351.74
326.70
448.13
535.52
624.27
439.77
465.75
363.81
328.77
457.75
542.72
624.62
446.13
452.17
364.51
319.96
467.32
534.98
635.15
426.00
470.20
369.87
328.64
472.76
551.26
641.36
448.86
474.13
370.87
333.98
476.96
557.28
645.61
453.53
466.58
366.40
330.65
470.82
558.11
659.30
444.17
467.62
371.49
339.37
476.11
551.24
641.52
447.69
479.13
376.28
341.68
477.97
562.46
654.37
456.62
473.12
401.39
567.48
608.57
438.84
313.60
483.36
410.04
580.03
614.18
445.11
326.63
484.76
417.36
593.21
627.13
447.45
328.55
482.16
414.29
570.77
620.06
449.77
331.89
488.87
416.53
571.18
619.05
454.99
340.49
499.66
420.81
591.18
620.33
463.98
342.80
487.41
415.33
560.97
559.78
454.69
336.80
487.20
415.54
574.63
589.16
456.33
335.55
490.04
416.97
593.05
622.99
461.03
338.45
468.93
402.73
566.71
589.37
451.36
326.99
491.40
414.93
605.19
647.53
458.18
337.59
494.68
421.07
607.76
653.40
464.32
340.10
490.05
414.63
589.11
617.16
461.62
333.68
490.88
415.90
589.95
618.38
464.62
340.56
503.02
427.22
614.61
655.60
474.03
344.34
379.89
367.54
583.87
302.58
226.44
506.18
391.95
381.77
591.36
313.70
234.32
517.87
397.31
388.86
592.81
317.34
236.53
526.15
395.34
383.46
600.87
317.38
237.07
521.23
398.75
388.52
585.39
318.24
238.55
528.77
402.38
394.83
584.07
317.93
236.72
532.51
396.81
384.06
582.42
316.79
232.32
525.57
394.81
379.69
593.02
314.42
234.78
518.31
399.59
385.36
638.65
316.01
236.39
519.52
395.92
382.48
651.13
308.49
230.91
520.63
404.00
391.94
673.06
320.00
240.90
529.20
407.84
395.50
680.98
325.61
243.91
530.78
406.98
393.01
672.41
318.00
239.22
533.95
407.84
394.96
618.36
323.21
243.69
530.93
412.70
400.03
611.49
325.22
246.56
537.73
400.14
536.36
664.67
412.35
555.02
682.66
425.09
561.00
684.20
419.17
562.65
705.12
422.87
567.06
699.78
424.75
575.42
715.05
418.11
569.62
698.28
419.60
561.32
699.60
425.58
566.95
712.06
415.89
576.38
725.80
419.99
570.70
712.95
419.62
575.53
759.56
424.13
571.72
725.03
432.41
571.81
701.24
439.29
582.00
724.31
383.22
235.50
392.06
250.14
392.35
254.03
392.35
252.04
394.00
250.50
399.10
254.77
393.72
253.70
394.28
255.13
399.78
256.25
387.37
252.62
403.65
259.50
407.41
263.96
402.87
253.95
401.96
259.92
409.19
259.56
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC
UTILITIES .........................................................
475.69
490.53
495.20
496.86
491.88
493.81
483.46
494.21
496.52
504.14
498.70
506.68
511.81
509.72
516.53
WHOLESALE TRADE...........................................
380.24
394.82
399.29
401.48
402.34
406.07
401.06
402.95
404.01
410.72
407.74
411.03
414.41
410.34
417.14
195.75
194.40
197.78
200.18
198.45
198.54
CONSTRUCTION...................................................
MANUFACTURING
Rubber and miscellaneous
RETAIL TRADE ...................................................
183.62
188.72
190.45
191.03
189.62
194.85
189.11
190.18
192.09
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE
.......................................................
325.25
341.53
341.76
350.17
344.25
346.39
348.88
352.36
350.30
359.92
351.45
354.42
362.00
354.86
365.26
SERVICES
289.49
306.11
308.43
314.22
312.33
314.60
314.93
315.90
316.22
320.13
315.57
318.83
323.07
320.46
326.67
....................................................
- Data not available.
p = preliminary
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
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
73
Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data
18.
Diffusion indexes of employment change, seasonally adjusted
(In percent)
Time span
and year
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Private nonfarm payrolls, 356 industries
Over 1-month span:
1989 .....................................................................
1990 .....................................................................
64.5
55.6
58.7
58.6
58.0
53.7
57.0
49.9
55.6
55.8
57.3
49.9
55.8
50.8
57.7
47.3
50.0
44.0
55.2
59.6
56.6
Over 3-month span:
1989 .....................................................................
1990 .....................................................................
65.3
58.4
64.2
56.7
60.0
54.8
60.1
53.1
59.7
53.7
58.3
55.3
59.7
51.1
54.5
45.4
55.2
55.8
57.7
60.3
Over 6-month span:
1989 .....................................................................
1990 .....................................................................
67.6
57.3
65.4
56.5
65.0
55.5
61.0
55.9
61.2
52.0
58.7
48.6
57.0
58.1
56.2
58.3
57.4
58.4
Over 12-month span:
1989 .....................................................................
1990 .....................................................................
67.1
54.8
67.7
53.8
65.3
52.9
64.6
64.9
61.2
60.0
59.8
58.6
57.3
56.7
56.0
_
Manufacturing payrolls, 139 industries
Over 1-month span:
1989 .....................................................................
1990 .....................................................................
60.4
42.4
48.6
45.7
50.4
45.3
47.1
46.8
45.3
45.7
45.7
40.3
45.0
48.2
45.7
41.0
34.2
35.6
48.6
43.5
48.2
Over 3-month span:
1989 .....................................................................
1990 .....................................................................
54.0
40.3
54.7
37.1
45.3
44.2
43.9
41.4
43.2
40.6
42.8
44.2
41.7
40.6
33.1
32.7
36.3
_34.9
_41.7
39.2
Over 6-month span:
1989 .....................................................................
1990 .....................................................................
56.5
37.1
49.6
35.6
49.3
36.3
43.5
43.2
42.1
38.8
37.1
32.7
36.7
34.9
34.2
35.3
33.1
36.0
Over 12-month span:
1989 .....................................................................
1990 .....................................................................
53.6
31.3
55.0
30.9
49.3
30.2
45.3
43.9
39.9
37.1
35.6
33.8
32.4
30.9
31.7
- Data not available.
NOTE: Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus
one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent
indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing
74 Monthly Labor Review November 1990
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
_
_
_
_
_
_
employment. Data for the 2 most recent months shown in each span are
preliminary. See the “ Definitions” in this section. See "Notes on the data” for a
description of the most recent benchmark revision.
19.
Annual data: Employment status of the nonlnstitutional population
(Numbers in thousands)
Employment status
1981
1982
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1988
1989
Noninstitutional population.....................................
171,775
173,939
175,891
178,080
179,912
182,293
184,490
186,322
188,081
Labor force:
Total (number)...................................................
Percent of population......................... ..............
110,315
64.2
111,872
64.3
113,226
64.4
115,241
64.7
117,167
65.1
119,540
65.6
121,602
65.9
123,378
66.2
125,557
66.8
102,042
59.4
1,645
101,194
58.2
1,668
102,510
58.3
1,676
106,702
59.9
1,697
108,856
60.5
1,706
111,303
61.1
1,706
114,177
61.9
1,737
116,677
62.6
1,709
119,030
63.3
1,688
100,397
3^368
97,030
99,526
3,401
96,125
100,834
3,383
97,450
105,005
3,321
101,685
107,150
3,179
103,971
109,597
3,163
106,434
112,440
3,208
109,232
114,968
3,169
111,800
117,342
3,199
114,142
Unemployed:
Total (number)............................................
Percent of labor force ...................... ..........
8,273
7.5
10,678
9.5
10,717
9.5
8,539
7.4
8,312
7.1
8,237
6.9
7,425
6.1
6,701
5.4
6,528
5.2
Not in labor force (number) ................................
61,460
62,067
62,665
62,839
62,744
62,752
62,888
62,944
62,523
Employed:
Total (number).............................................
Percent of population ..................................
Resident Armed Forces............................
Civilian
Total ........... ............................................
Agriculture............................................
Nonagricultural industries.....................
20.
Annual data: Employment levels by industry
(Numbers in thousands)
Industry
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
Total employment....................................................................
Private sector.........................................................................
Goods-producing .................................................................
Mining.............................................................................
Construction ..................................................................
Manufacturing.................................................................
91,156
75,126
25,497
1,139
4,188
20,170
89,566
73,729
23,813
1,128
3,905
18,781
90,200
74,330
23,334
952
3,948
18,434
94,496
78,472
24,727
966
4,383
19,378
97,519
81,125
24,859
927
4,673
19,260
99,525
82,832
24,553
777
4,816
18,965
102,200
85,190
24,708
717
4,967
19,024
105,536
88,150
25,173
713
5,110
19,350
108,413
90,644
25,326
700
5,200
19,426
Service-producing................................................................
Transportation and public utilities...................................
Wholesale trade ..............................................................
Retail trade .....................................................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate ...............................
Services...........................................................................
65,659
5,165
5,376
15,172
5,298
18,619
65,753
5,082
5,296
15,161
5,341
19,036
66,866
4,954
5,286
15,595
5,468
19,694
69,769
5,159
5,574
16,526
5,689
20,797
72,660
5,238
5,736
17,336
5,955
21,999
74,967
5,255
5,774
17,909
6,283
23,053
77,492
5,372
5,865
18,462
6,547
24,235
80,363
5,527
6,055
19,077
6,649
25,669
83,087
5,648
6,271
19,580
6,724
27,096
Government...................................................................
Federal......................................................................
State..........................................................................
Local ............................................ .............................
16,031
2,772
3,640
9,619
15,837
2,739
3,640
9,458
15,869
2,774
3,662
9,434
16,024
2,807
3,734
9,482
16,394
2,875
3,832
9,687
16,693
2,899
3,893
9,901
17,010
2,943
3,967
10,100
17,386
2,971
4,076
10,339
17,769
2,988
4,175
10,606
NOTE:
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
75
Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data
21. Annual data: Average hours and earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on nonfarm
payrolls, by industry
Industry
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
35.2
7.25
255.20
34.8
7.68
267.26
35.0
8.02
280.70
35.2
8.32
292.86
34.9
8.57
299.09
34.8
8.76
304.85
34.8
8.98
312.50
34.7
9.28
322.02
34.6
9.66
334.24
Mining:
Average weekly hours ........................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ....................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)..................
43.7
10.04
438.75
42.7
10.77
459.88
42.5
11.28
479.40
43.3
11.63
503.58
43.4
11.98
519.93
42.2
12.46
525.81
42.4
12.54
531.70
42.3
12.80
541.44
43.0
13.25
569.75
Construction:
Average weekly hours ...............................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ........................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)..............................
36.9
10.82
399.26
36.7
11.63
426.82
37.1
11.94
442.97
37.8
12.13
458.51
37.7
12.32
464.46
37.4
12.48
466.75
37.8
12.71
480.44
37.9
13.08
495.73
37.9
13.52
512.41
Manufacturing:
Average weekly hours .................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) .............................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars).........................
39.8
7.99
318.00
38.9
8.49
330.26
40.1
8.83
354.08
40.7
9.19
374.03
40.5
9.54
386.37
40.7
9.73
396.01
41.0
9.91
406.31
41.1
10.19
418.81
41.0
10.49
430.09
Transportation and public utilities:
Average weekly hours ............................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ....................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars).......................
39.4
9.70
382.18
39.0
10.32
402.48
39.0
10.79
420.81
39.4
11.12
438.13
39.5
11.40
450.30
39.2
11.70
458.64
39.2
12.03
471.58
38.8
12.26
475.69
38.9
12.61
490.53
Wholesale trade:
Average weekly hours ...................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) .........................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars).....................
38.5
7.55
290.75
38.3
8.08
309.23
38.5
8.54
328.25
38.5
8.88
341.78
38.4
9.15
351.08
38.3
9.34
357.57
38.1
9.59
365.30
38.1
9.98
380.24
38.0
10.39
394.82
Retail trade:
Average weekly hours ..............................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) .............................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)..........................
30.1
5.25
157.99
29.9
5.48
163.83
29.8
5.74
171.13
29.8
5.85
174.47
29.4
5.94
174.81
29.2
6.03
175.80
29.2
6.12
178.80
29.1
6.31
183.62
28.9
6.53
188.72
Finance, insurance, and real estate:
Average weekly hours .............................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ...........................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars).............................
36.3
6.31
228.73
36.2
6.78
245.68
36.2
7.29
263.68
36.5
7.63
278.04
36.4
7.94
289.20
36.4
8.36
304.49
36.3
8.73
316.37
35.9
9.06
325.25
35.8
9.54
341.53
Services:
Average weekly hours .........................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) .................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars).......................
32.6
6.41
209.16
32.6
6.92
225.87
32.7
7.31
239.04
32.6
7.59
247.25
32.5
7.90
256.49
32.5
8.18
265.93
32.5
8.49
276.03
32.6
8.88
289.49
32.6
9.39
306.11
Private sector:
Average weekly hours.....................................
Average hourly earnings (In dollars)...........................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars) ..................
76 Monthly Labor Review November 1990
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
22.
Employment Cost Index, compensation,1 by occupation and industry group
(June 1989=100)
Series
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
Sept.
June
Percent change
1990
1989
1988
Dec.
Mar.
June
3
months
ended
12
months
ended
June 1990
Workers, by occupational group:
95.4
96.7
97.7
98.9
100.0
101.6
102.6
104.3
105.4
1.1
5.4
95.0
_
_
96.4
97.6
99.0
96.4
95.4
97.1
97.4
97.8
98.2
98.8
99.2
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
102.0
102.6
101.2
101.4
101.1
101.7
102.9
103.7
101.9
102.5
102.0
102.8
104.6
105.5
104.0
104.4
103.6
104.2
105.8
106.3
105.4
105.4
104.8
105.1
1.1
.8
1.3
1.0
1.2
.9
5.8
6.3
5.4
5.4
4.8
5.1
96.5
96.2
94.9
94.3
94.2
93.9
97.1
96.9
96.5
96.7
95.8
95.6
97.9
97.6
97.6
97.9
97.0
96.9
95.8
95.2
97.5
96.6
97.8
97.7
98.9
98.9
99.0
99.2
98.9
98.7
99.5
99.2
99.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.1
101.1
102.0
102.7
102.2
102.3
104.1
102.5
101.9
102.1
102.0
102.9
103.7
103.9
103.7
104.8
103.2
102.8
103.9
104.0
104.4
105.5
105.9
105.6
106.0
105.1
104.3
105.2
105.3
105.5
106.6
107.1
106.7
106.6
105.5
105.5
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
.6
.4
1.2
5.2
5.3
5.5
6.6
7.1
6.7
6.6
5.5
5.5
95.7
95.9
96.6
96.9
97.6
97.7
98.8
99.0
100.0
100.0
101.2
101.2
102.3
102.1
103.9
103.9
105.2
105.1
1.3
1.2
5.2
5.1
95.1
95.5
95.4
95.7
93.6
96.2
96.7
96.9
96.6
94.1
97.3
97.5
97.5
97.8
96.3
98.9
99.0
99.0
99.1
98.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.4
101.3
101.8
100.9
101.9
102.4
102.2
102.9
101.5
103.3
104.1
104.2
104.9
103.7
103.6
105.5
105.4
105.8
105.3
105.6
1.3
1.2
.9
1.5
1.9
5.5
5.4
5.8
5.3
5.6
95.3
96.6
97.3
98.9
100.0
101.2
102.3
104.2
105.3
1.1
5.3
96.4
96.8
95.8
97.0
96.2
97.1
97.3
96.5
97.9
97.0
97.9
98.0
97.6
98.2
97.7
98.8
98.7
98.9
99.0
98.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.1
101.2
100.9
101.2
101.3
101.9
102.0
101.8
101.4
102.2
103.5
103.4
103.7
103.1
103.6
104.7
104.7
105.0
104.3
104.7
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.1
4.7
4.7
5.0
4.3
4.7
95.6
97.1
98.2
99.2
100.0
101.1
102.5
103.9
104.9
1.0
4.9
95.5
96.6
97.5
98.8
100.0
101.4
102.4
103.8
105.1
1.3
5.1
96.5
96.5
96.4
96.4
96.6
95.7
96.4
96.2
96.4
96.3
96.1
95.9
96.5
95.6
97.1
97.1
97.2
97.1
97.1
96.2
97.2
96.9
97.1
97.1
96.7
96.4
97.0
96.5
97.9
97.9
97.8
97.7
98.0
97.0
98.0
97.6
97.7
97.7
97.6
97.3
97.7
97.5
98.9
98.9
99.0
99.0
98.9
98.9
99.0
98.9
99.0
99.0
98.8
98.8
99.0
98.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.1
101.1
101.2
101.2
101.1
100.9
101.2
101.1
101.1
101.1
101.1
100.8
101.1
101.2
102.1
102.2
101.9
102.0
102.3
102.2
102.4
102.0
101.9
101.9
102.1
102.1
102.2
101.9
103.9
103.9
104.1
103.9
103.9
104.0
103.1
104.0
104.1
104.0
104.0
104.1
104.0
104.1
105.2
105.1
105.3
105.2
105.1
104.4
104.3
105.3
105.3
105.1
105.2
104.5
105.1
105.5
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.2
.4
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.2
.4
1.1
1.3
5.2
5.1
5.3
5.2
5.1
4.4
4.3
5.3
5.3
5.1
5.2
4.5
5.1
5.5
95.1
95.4
94.7
95.1
96.2
95.6
96.8
96.9
96.7
96.9
96.7
95.8
96.2
94.7
96.2
96.3
96.8
97.2
96.2
96.7
95.9
96.6
97.1
97.1
97.5
97.6
97.3
97.5
97.1
96.8
97.3
95.6
97.2
97.3
97.1
98.5
97.3
97.5
97.2
97.5
97.5
98.4
97.5
97.3
97.7
97.5
98.0
97.6
98.2
96.1
97.7
98.4
98.2
99.6
98.8
98.9
98.8
99.0
98.7
99.3
98.7
98.8
98.8
98.5
99.2
98.9
99.2
98.5
98.9
99.1
99.8
100.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.3
101.2
101.4
101.4
101.1
101.1
100.7
100.5
101.0
101.0
101.0
101.6
101.3
102.6
101.8
101.1
100.8
100.4
102.3
102.1
102.6
102.3
101.1
102.5
101.2
100.8
101.7*
101.6
101.7
102.6
102.0
104.5
102.6
101.6
101.7
101.5
103.8
103.9
104.2
104.4
102.6
103.9
103.0
102.8
103.2
103.1
103.2
103.5
103.0
104.8
103.7
103.0
103.2
102.6
105.2
105.1
105.5
105.6
103.9
105.0
103.3
103.0
103.8
103.1
104.6
105.0
104.5
105.4
105.0
104.8
104.6
105.7
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.1
.3
.2
.6
.0
1.4
1.4
1.5
.6
1.3
1.7
1.4
3.0
5.2
5.1
5.5
5.6
3.9
5.0
3.3
3.0
3.8
3.1
4.6
5.0
4.5
5.4
5.0
4.8
4.6
5.7
Workers, by industry division:
«
Workers, by occupational group:
Executive, administrative, and managerial occupations
_
_
_
_
Administrative support occupations, including
Precision production, craft, and repair occupations.......
Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers ....
Workers, by industry division:
Service occupations.....................................................
Excluding sales occupations....................................
Service occupations ...................................................
Electric, gas, and sanitary services............................
Excluding sales occupations .....................................
_
_
_
-
_
_
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
77
Current Labor Statistics:
Compensation & Industrial Relations
22. Continued—Employment Cost Index, compensation,1 by occupation and industry group
(June 1989=100)
1988
1989
1990
Percent change
Series
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
3
months
ended
12
months
ended
June 1990
Finance, insurance, and real estate.................................
Excluding sales occupations ......................................
Banking, savings and loan, and other
credit agencies............................................................
Insurance .......................................................................
Services............................................................................
Business services..........................................................
Health services ..............................................................
Hospitals .....................................................................
Educational services .....................................................
Colleges and universities............................................
92.8
94.6
92.9
95.4
96.2
97.1
98.3
98.5
100.0
100.0
100.4
100.1
101.4
101.0
102.6
103.5
104.4
104.7
1.8
1.2
4.4
4.7
96.0
95.0
94.5
94.9
94.1
93.6
-
97.0
95.8
96.4
96.2
95.6
95.2
-
97.8
97.0
97.5
97.2
97.0
96.6
98.3
98.2
98.8
98.3
99.0
98.1
98.9
98.8
99.1
99.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.6
99.9
101.8
100.7
101.9
101.9
103.9
103.3
100.7
101.0
102.9
101.3
103.7
103.5
104.2
103.8
102.1
103.2
105.0
103.6
105.8
105.4
105.4
105.2
104.1
105.2
106.5
105.3
107.1
106.6
105.9
105.7
2.0
1.9
1.4
1.6
1.2
1.1
.5
.5
4.1
5.2
6.5
5.3
7.1
6.6
5.9
5.7
Nonmanufacturing ............................................................
White-collar occupations.............................................
Excluding sales occupations.....................................
Blue-collar occupations...............................................
Service occupations ...................................................
95.4
94.8
95.3
96.8
95.6
96.5
95.9
96.6
97.6
97.1
97.5
97.2
97.5
98.1
98.3
98.8
98.8
99.0
98.8
99.2
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.3
101.4
101.4
101.1
101.0
102.3
102.6
102.3
101.7
102.4
103.8
104.1
104.3
102.9
103.9
105.1
105.5
105.6
104.1
105.0
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
5.1
5.5
5.6
4.1
5.0
State and local government workers ...............................
94.5
97.1
98.2
99.4
100.0
103.3
104.3
105.8
106.5
.7
6.5
94.3
97.0
98.3
99.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
103.6
103.8
103.1
102.9
102.1
104.6
104.7
104.1
103.9
103.7
106.1
106.4
105.7
105.4
105.5
106.7
107.0
106.4
106.0
106.3
.6
.6
.7
.6
.8
6.7
7.0
6.4
6.0
6.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
103.8
102.5
103.1
103.2
104.1
104.4
104.6
103.4
102.5
104.7
103.2
104.2
104.5
104.9
105.3
105.5
104.7
103.2
106.1
105.4
106.2
106.0
106.2
106.4
106.5
106.1
105.1
106.8
106.4
106.9
107.0
106.8
106.9
107.1
106.3
105.5
.7
.9
.7
.9
.6
.5
.6
.2
.4
6.8
6.4
6.9
7.0
6.8
6.9
7.1
6.3
5.5
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers.........................................................
Professional specialty and technical.............................
Executive, administrative, and managerial ....................
Administrative support, including clerical.......................
Blue-collar workers...........................................................
Workers, by industry division:
Services ............................................................................
Services excluding schools5 ..........................................
Health services............................................................
Hospitals...................................................................
Educational services....................................................
Schools.....................................................................
Elementary and secondary ....................................
Colleges and universities.......................................
Public administration3 .......................................................
-
-
-
November 1990
-
95.4
97.0
97.5
99.3
94.0
94.8
94.4
94.8
93.7
93.8
97.0
96.5
96.5
97.0
97.2
97.4
95.8
97.5
98.5
97.8
97.3
97.6
98.7
99.1
97.8
99.5
99.1
98.8
98.6
99.5
99.6
99.6
99.6
99.2
-
-
-
1 Cost (cents per hour worked) measured in the Employment Cost Index
consists of wages, salaries, and employer cost of employee benefits.
2 Consist of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers)
and State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers.
3 Consist of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.
Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for78
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-
4 This series has the same industry and occupational coverage as the Hourly
Earnings Index, which was discontinued in January 1989.
6 Includes, for example, library, social, and health services.
- Data not available.
23. Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group
(June 1989 = 100)
Percent change
1989
Series
Sept.
Dec.
Sept.
Mar.
Dec.
Mar.
June
12
months
ended
3
months
ended
June 1990
Civilian workers
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar w orkers...................................
Professional specialty and technical.......
Executive, administrative, and managerial
Administrative support, including clerical .
Blue-collar workers......................................
Service occupations....................................
Workers, by industry division:
Goods-producing.................
Manufacturing ....................
Service-producing...............
Services..........................
Health services ............
Hospitals ....................
Educational services ....
Public administration 2 ....
Nonmanufacturing.............
Private Industry workers..................................................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers......................................................
Excluding sales occupations.....................................
Professional specialty and technical occupations......
Executive, administrative, and managerial
occupations................................................................
Sales occupations.......................................................
Administrative support occupations, including
clerical........................................................................
95.9
96.9
95.5
98.0
104.7
99.2
100.0
99.2
100.0
100.0
101.9
102.5
102.8
100.0
101.1
101.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.4
101.0
101.4
102.4
101.7
102.5
100.9
100.9
101.9
101.9
102.7
103.3
103.5
103.5
104.4
104.1
104.8
103.6
103.7
102.8
103.4
105.2
105.5
105.0
104.7
103.9
104.2
1.1
.7
1.4
1.0
1.1
.8
5.2
5.5
5.0
4.7
3.9
4.2
102.6
103.1
103.3
103.8
104.8
105.3
105.0
105.4
104.3
103.7
104.2
104.5
104.9
105.9
106.2
106.0
105.8
104.6
104.8
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.0
.9
1.0
.4
.3
1.1
4.2
4.5
4.9
5.9
6.2
6.0
5.8
4.6
4.8
103.3
96.8
96.2
97.4
97.9
98.1
98.7
99.0
99.4
96.9
96.8
95.4
94.9
94.4
94.3
97.4
97.3
97.0
97.2
96.1
96.0
98.1
98.1
98.0
98.3
97.4
97.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
96.4
95.6
98.1
97.1
98.4
98.0
99.0
99.0
99.2
99.4
99.0
98.9
99.5
99.4
99.2
96.1
96.3
97.0
97.3
98.0
98.0
99.0
99.1
100.0
100.0
101.2
101.1
102.0
101.9
103.2
103.2
104.5
104.4
1.3
1.2
4.5
4.4
95.6
95.9
95.9
96.7
97.1
97.4
97.8
98.0
97.9
99.0
99.2
99.3
100.0
101.4
102.4
100.0
101.2
101.6
102.5
103.6
103.7
104.1
104.9
104.8
104.8
1.3
1.1
.7
4.9
4.8
4.8
100.0
100.0
100.8
102.1
101.5
103.7
103.3
103.3
104.9
105.3
1.5
1.9
4.9
5.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.8
102.5
102.0
102.2
103.8
102.1
101.8
102.8
102.1
95.9
94.3
96.7
94.8
98.0
96.9
99.3
98.6
95.8
97.2
97.8
99.1
100.0
101.1
102.2
103.6
104.7
1.1
4.7
Blue-collar workers........................................................
Precision production, craft, and repair
occupations............................................................ —
Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors........
Transportation and material moving occupations.......
Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and
laborers......................................................................
96.8
97.4
98.2
99.0
100.0
101.0
101.6
102.7
103.8
1.1
3.8
3.6
4.2
3.1
Service occupations......................................................
96.4
Production and nonsupervisory occupations3 ...............
Workers, by industry division:
Goods-producing......................
Excluding sales occupations
White-collar occupations.......
Excluding sales occupations
Blue-collar occupations .........
Service occupations.............. .
Construction
96.8
96.5
97.4
97.2
97.1
98.4
97.9
98.1
98.6
98.8
99.0
99.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.0
100.6
101.2
101.6
101.6
101.2
102.5
103.0
102.0
103.6
104.2
103.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
96.9
97.6
98.3
99.1
100.0
101.1
102.0
103.0
104.4
1.4
4.4
97.7
98.7
99.4
100.0
100.9
102.3
103.1
104.2
1.1
4.2
104.3
1.1
4.3
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
.3
4.2
4.2
4.6
4.4
4.1
3.0
a
97.0
97.9
99.0
100.0
101.3
102.2
103.2
96.9
96.9
96.9
96.9
96.9
96.8
97.5
97.4
97.6
97.6
97.3
96.9
98.2
98.2
98.3
98.2
98.1
97.8
99.1
99.1
99.2
99.2
99.0
99.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
101.0
100.7
102.0
102.0
101.9
102.0
101.9
101.9
103.1
103.0
103.5
103.3
102.9
102.7
104.2
104.2
104.6
104.4
104.1
103.0
97.0
97.7
98.3
99.1
100.0
101.1
101.7
102.0
102.9
.9
2.9
103.3
103.7
103.4
103.1
102.9
103.2
103.6
104.5
104.7
104.4
104.4
103.2
104.3
104.8
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.3
.3
1.1
1.2
4.5
4.7
4.4
4.4
3.2
4.3
4.8
103.3
103.4
103.6
103.8
102.1
103.2
104.6
104.5
105.0
105.0
103.3
104.3
1.3
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.1
4.6
4.5
5.0
5.0
3.3
4.3
102.6
102.3
103.0
103.1
103.0
103. 2
102. 3
104. 1
104. 1
104. 2
.6
.0
1.1
1.0
1.2
3.2
2.3
4.1
4.1
4.1
96.0
f
100.0
100.0
Manufacturing..............................
White-collar occupations.......
Excluding sales occupations
Blue-collar occupations.........
Service occupations...............
Durables...................................
Nondurables..............................
96.8
96.9
96.8
96.8
97.0
96.9
96.5
97.3
97.5
97.4
97.2
97.2
97.4
97.2
98.1
98.2
98.0
98.1
98.1
98.0
98.2
99.0
99.2
99.1
98.9
98.9
99.0
99.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.9
100.9
100.9
100.9
100.7
100.7
101.1
101.9
101.8
101.9
Service-producing.........................
Excluding sales occupations ...
White-collar occupations..........
Excluding sales occupations
Blue-collar occupations ............
Service occupations..................
95.5
95.8
95.1
95.5
96.7
96.3
96.7
97.1
96.3
96.9
97.5
97.7
97.8
98.0
97.5
97.9
98.0
98.8
99.1
99.2
99.0
99.2
99.0
99.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.4
101.2
101.5
101.3
100.9
102.2
97.9
98.2
97.6
98.1
96.9
98.7
99.0
98.3
98.9
97.3
98.6
98.7
98.7
99.0
98.2
99.5
99.4
99.5
99.9
99.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.7
100.6
101.1
100.0
101.1
101.8
101.8
100.0
101.0
101.7
Transportation and public utilities......
Transportation...................................
Public utilities....................................
Communications.............................
Electric, gas, and sanitary services
100.8
102.0
102.0
101.9
101.8
101.8
102.5
102.1
100.9
102.3
101.2
100.7
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Monthly Labor Review November 1990 79
Current Labor Statistics:
Compensation & Industrial Relations
23.Continued— Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group
(June 1989=100)
1988
1989
1990
Percent change
Series
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
3
months
ended
12
months
ended
June 1990
Wholesale and retail trade.........
Excluding sales occupations ..
Wholesale trade .......................
Excluding sales occupations
Retail trade...............................
Food stores...........................
General merchandise stores ..
96.2
96.6
95.1
96.7
96.6
97.8
95.6
97.2
97.5
96.1
97.7
97.7
98.2
97.0
97.9
98.4
96.4
98.3
98.5
99.0
98.2
99.1
99.4
99.0
99.2
99.1
100.0
99.2
100.C
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.6
101.1
102.8
101.7
101.0
100.4
100.3
102.7
101.9
105.2
102.5
101.6
101.7
101.4
103.3
102.6
104.6
103.2
102.7
102.8
102.4
104.6
104.2
105.2
104.7
104.4
104.3
105.2
1.3
1.6
.6
1.5
1.7
1.5
2.7
4.6
4.2
5.2
4.7
4.4
4.3
5.2
Finance, insurance, and real estate......
Excluding sales occupations ..........
Banking, savings and loan, and other
credit agencies..................................
Insurance....................................
92.9
94.5
92.9
95.3
96.3
97.1
98.3
98.4
100.0
100.0
100.6
100.2
101.3
100.9
101.8
103.0
103.5
103.9
1.7
.9
3.5
3.9
96.0
95.4
97.0
96.2
97.8
97.4
98.8
98.5
100.0
100.0
101.1
99.6
100.9
100.8
101.6
102.3
103.6
104.1
2.0
1.8
3.6
4.1
Services............................. .
Business services.............
Health services .................
Hospitals ........................
Educational services ........
Colleges and universities
94.9
95.1
94.4
94.0
96.9
96.5
96.0
95.6
-
97.8
97.4
97.3
96.9
98.8
98.7
99.1
98.4
99.1
98.9
99.1
99.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.6
100.9
101.9
101.9
103.7
103.3
102.5
101.2
103.5
103.3
103.9
103.7
104.2
103.0
105.3
105.0
104.7
104.4
105.7
105.1
106.3
106.0
105.0
104.8
1.4
2.0
.9
1.0
.3
.4
5.7
5.1
6.3
6.0
5.0
4.8
Nonmanufacturing.....................
White-collar occupations........
Excluding sales occupations.
Blue-collar occupations..........
Service occupations ...............
95.8
95.2
95.6
96.9
96.3
96.9
96.4
97.0
97.7
97.7
97.8
97.6
97.9
98.1
98.8
99.1
99.1
99.2
99.0
99.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.4
101.5
101.3
101.0
100.8
102.2
102.5
102.0
101.3
102.3
103.2
103.6
103.8
102.2
103.2
104.5
105.0
105.0
103.2
104.3
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.0
1.1
4.5
5.0
5.0
3.2
4.3
State and local government workers .
95.2
97.7
98.7
99.5
100.0
103.1
103.9
105.1
105.7
.6
5.7
95.0
“
97.6
98.8
98.2
99.6
99.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
103.4
103.7
102.8
102.4
101.9
104.2
104.4
103.7
103.0
103.3
105.5
105.8
104.9
104.4
104.3
106.0
106.3
105.7
104.8
105.3
.5
.5
.8
.4
1.0
6.0
6.3
5.7
4.8
5.3
98.9
98.2
97.7
97.9
99.1
99.3
98.41
99.6
99.1
98.9
98.7
99.6
99.7
99.7
99.6
99.4Î
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
103.6
102.5
102.7
102.9
103.8
104.0
104.2
102.9
102.1
104.3
103.0
103.7
103.8
104.5
104.7
104.9
104.1
102.8
105.5
105.4
105.5
105.0
105.5
105.5
105.5
105.6
104.3
106.0
106.4
106.1
105.9
106.0
105.9
105.9
105.9
104.6
.5
.9
.6
.9
.5
.4
.4
.3
.3
6.0
6.4
6.1
5.9
6.0
5.9
5.9
5.9
4.6
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers.....................................
Professional specialty and technical........
Executive, administrative, and managerial.
Administrative support, including clerical ...
Blue-collar workers......................................
~
96.1
”
97.8
Workers, by industry division:
Services ....................................
Services excluding schools4 ....
Health services.....................
Hospitals............................
Educational services...............
Schools.................................
Elementary and secondary
Colleges and universities....
Public administration 2 ...............
94.9
95.5
94.4
94.8
“
94.6
94.5
~
96.4
97.7
97.3
96.7
97.0
97.7
97.8
98.1
—
hl uuouy wuitveis ^xciuamg rarm ana nousenoid workers)
and State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers.
2 Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.
3 This series has the same industry and occupational coverage as the Hourly
24.
Earnings Index, which was discontinued in January 1989.
4 Includes, for example, library, social and health services.
- Data not available.
Employment Cost Index, benefits, private industry workers by occupation and industry group
(June 1989 = 100)
1988
1989
1990
Percent change
*
Series
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
3
months
ended
12
months
ended
June 1990
Private industry workers .......................................
94.7
95.7
96.7
98.4
100.0
101.4
102.6
105.5
106.9
1.3
6.9
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers ................................................
Blue-collar workers.......................................................
94.0
95.7
95.0
96.5
96.2
97.4
98.3
98.6
100.0
100.0
101.4
101.4
102.6
102.6
105.6
105.2
107.1
106.6
1.4
1.3
7.1
6.6
Workers, by industry group:
Goods-producing .................................................................
Service-producing................................................................
Manufacturing ...............................................
Nonmanufacturing ...............................................................
95.7
93.8
94.9
94.5
96.5
94.9
95.8
95.5
97.3
96.1
96.6
96.8
98.7
98.2
98.8
98.2
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.5
101.4
101.6
101.4
102.6
102.6
102.3
102.8
105.7
105.3
105.5
105.4
107.2
106.6
106.9
106.9
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.4
7.2
6.6
6.9
6.9
80 Monthly Labor Review November 1990
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
25. Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and area size
(June 1989=100)
Percent change
1990
Series
Sept.
June
Dec.
Mar.
Sept.
12
3
months
ended
June
months
ended
June 1990
COMPENSATION
Workers, by bargaining status1
Union ................................................................
Goods-producing...........................................
Service-producing..........................................
Manufacturing................................................
Nonmanufacturing.........................................
97.0
97.1
96.9
96.4
97.5
97.7
97.7
97.6
97.0
98.3
98.2
98.4
97.9
97.8
98.5
99.0
98.9
99.1
99.0
98.9
Nonunion.................
Goods-producing ..
Service-producing .
Manufacturing ......
Nonmanufacturing
95.3
96.2
94.7
96.1
94.9
96.3
96.9
95.9
96.8
96.0
97.4
97.7
97.2
97.6
97.3
98.8
98.9
98.7
98.8
98.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Workers, by region 1
Northeast....................................................
South .........................................................
Midwest (formerly North Central)..............
W est...........................................................
93.8
96.7
96.2
96.3
95.0
97.4
97.0
97.0
96.7
98.1
97.9
97.7
98.7
99.0
98.9
98.8
Workers, by area size 1
Metropolitan areas.....................................
Other areas................................................
95.3
98.0
96.3
98.5
97.4
98.9
Workers, by bargaining status 1
Union ................................................................
Goods-producing...........................................
Service-producing..........................................
Manufacturing ............................................... ■
Nonmanufacturing.........................................
97.5
97.2
97.8
97.0
97.9
98.2
97.8
98.8
97.5
98.8
Nonunion.........................................................
Goods-producing ..........................................
Service-producing.........................................
Manufacturing...............................................
Nonmanufacturing........................................
95.6
96.8
95.1
96.7
95.3
W orkers, by region '
Northeast.........................................................
South ...............................................................
Midwest (formerly North Central)...................
W est................................................................
Workers, by area size1
Metropolitan areas.................
Other areas............................
100.0
100.0
100.9
100.9
100.8
100.8
100.8
101.8
101.9
101.7
102.0
101.6
103.3
103.3
103.2
103.6
103.0
104.1
104.5
103.6
104.7
103.7
0.8
1.2
.4
1.1
.7
4.1
4.5
3.6
4.7
3.7
104.1
104.2
103.9
104.2
104.0
105.5
105.5
105.5
105.5
105.4
1.3
1.2
1.5
1.2
1.3
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.4
101.4
101.3
101.5
102.4
102.3
102.4
101.4
102.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.8
101.2
101.0
101.0
102.9
102.2
101.9
101.8
104.4
104.0
103.5
103.3
105.3
105.7
104.8
104.5
5.3
5.7
4.8
4.5
98.8
99.4
100.0
100.0
101.4
102.2
102.0
103.9
103.6
105.1
105.2
5.1
5.2
98.5
98.4
98.8
98.3
98.8
99.2
99.0
99.6
99.0
99.4
100.6
100.6
100.7
100.5
100.7
101.6
101.6
101.7
101.7
101.5
102.6
102.3
102.9
102.6
102.5
103.3
103.5
103.1
103.8
103.0
.7
1.2
.2
1.2
.5
3.3
3.5
3.1
3.8
3.0
96.6
97.3
96.3
97.2
96.4
97.7
98.1
97.6
98.0
97.7
99.0
99.1
98.9
98.9
99.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.3
102.1
101.4
101.0
101.4
102.0
102.3
103.4
103.5
103.4
103.6
103.3
104.8
104.5
104.9
104.8
104.8
1.4
1.0
1.5
1.2
1.5
4.8
4.5
4.9
4.8
4.8
94.0
97.2
96.5
96.7
95.1
97.9
97.4
97.7
96.9
98.4
98.2
98.2
98.7
99.2
99.1
99.1
100.0
101.8
100.0
101.2
100.8
104.8
105.2
103.7
104.0
.8
1.6
1.1
1.5
4.8
5.2
3.7
4.0
95.7
98.4
96.7
98.7
97.8
98.9
99.0
99.6
100.0
100.0
104.4
104.6
1.1
1.6
4.4
4.6
101.2
100.8
102.1
WAGES AND SALARIES
1 The indexes are calculated differently from those for the occupation and
industry groups. For a detailed description of the index calculation, see the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
101.1
100.0
100.0
Monthly Labor Review
102.1
102.2
100.8
101.6
101.4
104.0
103.5
102.6
102.5
101.3
100.7
102.1
101.9
103.3
103.0
102.9
102.1
Technical
Employment Cost Index,” May 1982.
Note,
“ Estimation
..
procedures for the
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
81
Current Labor Statistics:
Compensation & Industrial Relations
26. Specified compensation and wage adjustments from contract settlements, and effective wage adjustments, private
industry collective bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or more (in percent)
Quarterly average
Annual average
1988
1990
1989
1988
Measure
1989
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
llp
lp
Specified adjustments:
Total compensation 1 adjustments,2 settlements
covering 5,000 workers or more:
First year of contract...........................................
Annual rate over life of contract.........................
3.1
2.5
4.5
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.5
2.1
3.2
3.1
5.1
3.4
3.9
2.7
5.3
4.3
4.6
3.6
5.8
4.8
Wage adjustments, settlements covering 1,000
workers or more:
First year of contract...........................................
Annual rate over life of contract.........................
2.5
2.4
4.0
3.4
2.7
2.8
2.6
2.2
3.2
3.1
3.9
3.3
3.6
3.0
4.9
4.0
3.7
3.3
4.7
4.2
2.6
.7
3.2
1.2
.8
.2
.5
.1
.5
.1
1.0
.3
1.0
.4
.7
.4
.6
.2
1.1
.3
1.3
.6
1.3
.7
.4
.2
.2
.2
.3
.1
.5
.2
.4
.2
.2
.1
.3
.1
.6
.3
Effective adjustments:
Total effective wage adjustment 3 .........................
From settlements reached in period ...................
Deferred from settlements reached in earlier
periods.................................................................
From cost-of-living-adjustments clauses.............
1 Compensation includes wages, salaries, and employers' cost of employee
benefits when contract is negotiated.
2 Adjustments are the net result of increases, decreases, and no changes in
compensation or wages.
3 Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts.
p = preliminary.
27. Average specified compensation and wage adjustments, major collective bargaining settlements in private
industry situations covering 1,000 workers or more during 4-quarter periods (in percent)
Average for four quarters ending-
III
1990
1989
1988
Measure
I
IV
III
II
IP
IV
IIP
Specified total compensation adjustments, settlements covering 5,000
workers or more, all industries:
First year of contract............................................................................
Annual rate over life of contract..........................................................
3.1
2.5
3.1
2.5
3.3
2.6
3.8
3.0
4.0
2.8
4.5
3.4
4.6
3.5
4.8
3.7
Specified wage adjustments, settlements covering 1,000 workers or
more:
All industries:
First year of contract.........................................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses.........................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ....................................................
Annual rate over life of contract.......................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses.........................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ....................................................
2.5
2.4
2.6
2.2
1.5
2.8
2.5
2.4
2.7
2.4
1.8
2.8
2.7
2.4
2.9
2.5
1.8
2.9
3.2
2.2
3.4
2.9
1.8
3.2
3.5
2.6
3.6
3.0
2.0
3.2
4.0
3.9
4.0
3.4
2.8
3.5
4.0
3.8
4.1
3.4
2.7
3.6
4.2
3.9
4.3
3.6
2.7
3.8
Manufacturing:
First year of contract .........................................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses.........................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ....................................................
Annual rate over life of contract.......................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses.........................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ....................................................
2.6
2.4
3.0
1.9
1.4
3.1
2.2
2.1
2.5
2.1
1.8
2.6
2.2
2.1
2.5
2.2
1.8
2.8
2.6
2.1
3.1
2.4
1.7
3.1
2.6
2.1
2.8
2.5
1.7
2.9
3.9
5.4
3.1
3.2
3.5
3.0
3.9
4.8
3.5
3.2
3.1
3.3
4.4
4.9
4.2
3.4
3.1
3.5
Nonmanufacturing:
First year of contract.........................................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses.........................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ....................................................
Annual rate over life of contract........................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses.........................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ....................................................
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.4
1.8
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.7
2.5
1.7
2.8
3.0
2.9
3.0
2.7
1.7
3.0
3.5
3.0
3.5
3.2
2.5
3.3
3.8
3.0
3.9
3.1
2.1
3.3
4.0
3.2
4.2
3.4
2.4
3.7
4.1
3.2
4.3
3.4
2.4
3.7
4.1
3.3
4.3
3.6
2.4
3.9
Construction:
First year of contract.........................................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses.........................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ....................................................
Annual rate over life of contract........................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses.........................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ....................................................
1 None of the settlements included COLA provisions.
2 Data do not meet publication standards.
p = preliminary.
82 Monthly Labor Review November 1990
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2.1
2.1
2.4
(')
0
2.4
2.7
2.2
2.6
(')
(1)
2.4
2.4
2.2
(’ )
(1)
2.6
2.7
2.4
(2)
(2)
2.9
(2)
(2)
2.8
2.6
f2)
i2)
2.9
(2)
f2)
2.9
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
3.1
3.0
(2)
(2)
3.5
(2)
f2)
(2)
(2)
3.9
(2)
f2)
28. Average effective wage adjustments, private industry collective bargaining situations covering 1,000
workers or more during 4-quarter periods (in percent)
_______________
Average for four quarters ending1990
1989
1988
Effective wage adjustment
III
IV
IP
IF
IV
I
II
For all workers:1
T o ta l....................................................................... •»............................
From settlements reached in period .................................................
Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period.......................
From cost-of-living-adjustments clauses...........................................
2.6
.7
1.3
.6
2.7
.8
1.3
.6
2.8
.7
1.3
.8
3.0
.9
1.3
.8
3.2
1.2
1.3
.7
3.2
1.3
1.2
.7
3.3
1.2
1.4
.7
For workers receiving changes:
T o ta l......................................................................................................
From settlements reached in period .................................................
Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period.......................
From cost-of-living-adjustments clauses...........................................
3.3
3.1
3.0
2.7
3.5
3.2
3.2
2.9
3.8
3.5
3.2
3.2
4.0
3.7
3.4
3.8
4.0
4.2
3.4
3.3
4.0
4.1
3.4
3.3
4.1
4.1
3.3
3.4
1
p
Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts.
= preliminary.
29. Specified compensation and wage adjustments from contract settlements, and effective wage adjustments, State and
local government collective bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or more (in percent)
Annual average
Measure
1988
1989
First 6 months
1990
5.4
5.3
5.1
4.9
5.5
5.4
5.1
5.3
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
4.7
2.3
2.4
(4)
5.1
2.5
2.6
(4)
1.7
.4
1.2
(4)
Specified adjustments:
Total compensation 1 adjustments, 2 settlements covering 5,000 workers or more:
Annual rate over life of contract..................................................................................................................................
Wage adjustments, settlements covering 1,000 workers or more:
Annual rate over life of contract..................................................................................................................................
Effective adjustments:
Total effective wage adjustment3 ..................................................................................................................................
From settlements reached in period.............................................................................................................................
Deferred from settlements reached in earlier periods .................................................................................................
1 Compensation includes wages, salaries, and employers' cost of employee
benefits when contract is negotiated.
2 Adjustments are the net result of increases, decreases, and no changes in
compensation or wages.
3 Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts.
4 Less than 0.05 percent.
30. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more
1990
1988
1989
Sept.
Number of stoppages:
JulyP
Junep
MayP
Sept.P
40
43
51
52
6
12
5
13
5
14
1
9
3
9
3
7
5
8
5
12
4
11
5
9
1
8
5
9
4
9
118.3
452.1
14.5
68.9
8.0
5.0
4.5
18.0
39.6
33.1
6.2
13.7
6.4
33.5
10.9
121.9
454.1
108.7
171.1
169.1
104.1
20.3
31.4
51.1
70.3
31.5
34.8
36.8
38.2
35.2
4,364.3 16,996.3
1,922.3
3,220.9
2,343.7
376.0
311.9
280.7
720.2
812.7
535.3
527.3
564.3
752.5
565.2
.01
.01
.03
.03
.02
.02
.03
.03
.03
Workers involved:
Beginning in period (in
In effect during period (in
Days idle:
Percent of estimated working
.02
.07
.09
.14
.11
1 Agricultural and government employees are included in the total employed and total
working time: private household, forestry, and fishery employees are excluded. An expla
nation of the measurement of idleness as a percentage of the total time worked is found
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Apr.P
Mar.P
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
>
c
cp
1989
Annual totals
Measure
.02
in ‘“ Total economy’ measure of strike idleness,”
pp. 54-56.
p = preliminary.
Monthly Labor Review, October
1968,
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
83
Current Labor Statistics: Price Data
31. Consumer Price Indexes for All Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: U.S. city
average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group
(1982-84 = 100, unless otherwise indicated)
Annual
average
Series
1989
1990
1988
1989
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
354
124.(
371.:
125.C
374.8
125.8
376.«
125.
377.
126.
377.8
127./
381.8
128.8
383.:
128.
385.
128.
386.
129.
386.<
129.«
389.
130./
390.
131.
394.
132.7
397.5
118.«
116.(
122.
114.:
108./
128.1
113.1
114.C
113.1
107.8
118.C
121.8
118.8
124.
125.£ Ì
125.
126.1
124.2 125.C
132./
134.8
121.: 122.8
115.8 116.1
138.C 136.8
119.1 119.7
119.4
121.2 121.3
111.3 111.0
125.5 126.7
127.4 128.8
123.5 124.8
126.:
126.8
125./
135.C
122./
118.2
137.1
120.3
126.
126.5
125.8
135.:
122.8
120.2
137.6
119.6
127.: 127./
126.8
136.1
123.6
122.6
136.7
120.1
130.C
130.
131.
136.6
126.6
125.6
153.7
121.C
130.5
131.: /
132.1 C
137./
126.7
126.6
157.6
121.6
121.8
111.8
127.2
129.1
125.2
121 C
in . :
127.3
129.8
125.5
121.5
111.0
127.6
129.8
125.6
123.8
112.4
128.3
130.3
126.2
123.4
113.3
128.9
131.0
126.9
131.«
131..
131.5
137.8
127.5
126.8
153.:
122.:
123.C
124.:
113.1
129.8
131.6
127.6
131.8
131.:
131.
138.£
128.:
125.:
149.C
122.:
123.6
124.C
112./
129.S
132.8
128.2
131.
131.
131.:
132.
130.S 131.'
139.:
140.1
127.8 129.E
124.- 124.E
147./ 147.1
122.8 123.1
124./
124.8
125.C 125.8
112.7 113.3
130.4 130.9
133.0 133.4
128.9 129.3
132./ 132.- C
132.8
140.8
130./
125.7
149./
123.8
124.9
126.8
114.C
130.9
133.9
129.9
132.
132.«
132."
141./
131.
127.:
146.1
124.:
125.1
127./
114.C
132 C
134 C
130.2
133.0
133.2
132.9
141.6
131.9
127.6
145.1
124.5
125.8
128.2
114.2
1 a? ?i
134 6
130.8
130.5
142 3
148.9
140 0
158.1
147.0
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR ALL URBAN CONSUMERS:
All ite m s.................................
All items (1967 = 100) ..................
Food and beverages ..................
Food.........................................
Food at home ............................
Cereals and bakery products.............
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs..........
Dairy products.............................
Fruits and vegetables.....................
Other foods at home..............................
Sugar and sweets........................
Fats and o ils .........................................
Nonalcoholic beverages.........
Other prepared foods......................
Food away from home .....................
Alcoholic beverages..................
Housing ...................................
Shelter ...................................
Renters’ costs (12/82=100)..................................................
Rent, residential ...............................
Other renters’ costs ....................
Homeowners’ costs (12/82 = 100)...........................................
Owners’ equivalent rent (12/82 = 1 00)..................................
Household insurance (12/82 = 100)........
Maintenance and repairs............
Maintenance and repair services .............
Maintenance and repair commodities.............
Fuel and other utilities..............................
Fuels .............................
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled g a s ...............................................
Gas (piped) and electricity.....................................................
Other utilities and public services............................................
Household furnishings and operations.......................................
Housekeeping supplies....................
Housekeeping services....................
118.5
127.1
133.6
127.8
134.8
131.1
131.1
129.0
114.7
117.9
110.4
104.4
98.0
78.1
104.6
122.9
109.4
105.1
114.7
114.3
123.0
132.8
138.9
132.8
140.7
137.3
137.4
132.6
118.0
120.6
114.6
107.8
100.9
81.7
107.5
127.1
111.2
105.5
120.9
117.3
124.3
134.1
139.4
133.9
139.1
138.9
139.0
133.6
118.6
120.9
115.6
109.7
103.5
79.3
111.0
128.1
111.7
105.7
122.3
117.5
124.4
134.8
140.0
134.7
139.2
139.7
139.9
133.7
118.6
121.0
115.5
108.0
101.0
82.0
107.6
127.6
111.9
106.1
122.5
117.4
124.5
135.2
140.1
135.2
138.0
140.3
140.5
133.8
119.3
121.7
116.2
107.5
99.9
83.9
106.1
127.9
111.9
106.0
122.5
117.6
124.9
135.6
140.1
135.5
137.2
140.9
141.0
134.0
119.5
122.2
115.8
108.4
101.2
88.7
107.0
128.2
111.7
105.5
123.6
117.6
125.9
136.3
142.0
135.8
143.6
141.1
141.2
134.1
120.4
123.7
116.0
110.8
104.5
113.1
107.5
129.3
112.1
106.1
123.2
117.9
126.1
136.6
143.5
136.0
149.3
141.0
141.1
134.5
120.8
124.6
115.9
110.2
103.1
95.4
108.3
130.0
112.8
106.9
123.5
118.4
126.8
137.8
144.8
136.5
152.7
142.2
142.4
134.8
121.2
124.8
116.4
109.9
102.3
91.5
107.9
130.7
112.8
106.9
123.4
118.7
126.8
138.0
144.7
137.0
150.7
142.5
142.7
134.4
121.2
125.6
115.4
109.4
101.2
89.6
106.8
130.9
112.8
106.6
123.9
119.1
127.1
138.3
144.4
137.3
148.5
143.1
143.2
134.9
122.2
126.2
116.7
109.9
101.9
88.0
107.8
131.2
113.2
106.7
125.0
119.5
128.3
139.5
145.3
137.9
150.1
144.4
144.6
135.2
121.8
125.4
117.0
112.2
105.4
84.9
112.4
131.8
113.1
106.3
125.8
119.8
129.2
141.1
148.7
138.7
161.4
145.4
145 7
135.3
122.1
125.6
1174
111.3
104.5
82.7
111 7
130.8
113.6
106.8
125.9
120.5
130.2
142 4
150.7
139.4
167.4
146.5
1/lfi 7
135 6
121.2
124.1
117 5
112.7
105.6
91.8
111 6
132.8
113.3
106 5
125.6
120.4
132.9
113 8
106 9
126 2
121.1
Apparel and upkeep ......................
Apparel commodities....................
Men’s and boys’ apparel.........
Women’s and girls' apparel .............
Infants’ and toddlers’ apparel................
Footwear...............................
Other apparel commodities....................
Apparel services..................
115.4
113.7
113.4
114.9
116.4
109.9
116.0
123.7
118.6
116.7
117.0
116.4
119.1
114.4
122.1
129.4
120.0
118.2
117.7
119.0
118.0
114.1
124.5
129.7
122.7
121.1
120.3
123.1
118.3
117.6
123.0
129.8
122.1
120.4
121.1
121.3
117.2
116.6
123.5
130.8
119.2
117.1
118.8
116.4
115.3
114.7
122.8
131.3
116.7
114.3
116.3
112.0
112.7
113.1
125.1
132.4
120.4
118.3
117.0
117.7
124.3
114.5
130.6
132.9
125.4
123.7
119.3
126.8
127.6
116.9
132.7
133.8
126.7
125.0
121.0
127.9
130.0
118.6
132.8
134.8
125.5
123.6
121.9
124.7
127.2
118.5
132.1
136.2
123.3
121.1
119.9
120.9
127.8
117.3
131.4
136.4
120.8
118.4
118.6
116.1
127.7
116.1
131.1
136.8
122.2
119.9
119.3
118.9
126.5
116.3
131.3
138.2
126.8
124 7
121.7
127.0
127.7
118.6
132 8
138.7
Transportation .......................
Private transportation...................
New vehicles............................
New ca rs...........................
Used cars ........................
Motor fuel ........................
Gasoline..................................
Maintenance and repair............................................................
Other private transportation.....................................................
Other private transportation commodities......
Other private transportation services.........
Public transportation.................
108.7
107.6
116.5
116.9
118.0
80.9
80.8
119.7
127.9
98.9
133.9
123.3
114.1
112.9
119.2
119.2
120.4
88.5
88.5
124.9
135.8
101.5
143.2
129.5
113.7
112.4
117.1
117.0
119.8
88.8
88.8
126.2
135.7
102.0
142.9
130.1
114.5
113.3
118.5
118.6
119.7
88.9
88.8
126.7
137.1
101.9
144.8
130.6
115.0
113.7
120.6
120.5
120.1
87.2
87.0
126.7
138.2
102.1
146.0
131.3
115.2
113.9
121.9
121.8
119.7
85.8
85.5
126.9
139.0
102.3
146.9
131.7
117.2
115.9
122.4
122.3
118.9
91.4
90.6
127.3
140.3
101.9
148.7
134.2
117.1
115.6
122.2
121.9
117.4
90.6
90.2
127.6
140.8
102.1
149.3
136.7
116.8
115.1
121.6
121.3
116.6
89.3
89.1
128.8
140.7
102.0
149.2
139.1
117.3
115.5
121.1
120.7
116.2
91.2
91.0
129.4
140.8
101.9
149.4
140.3
117.7
115.9
121.0
120.7
116.9
92.5
92.4
129.4
140.8
101.8
149.3
140.9
118.2
116.4
120.6
120.3
117.6
94.6
94.6
129.6
141.0
101.8
149.7
141.5
118.4
116.6
120.2
119.8
118.2
94.3
94.4
130.2
142.1
101.7
151.0
141.6
120.6
119.0
119.9
119.5
118.3
103.2
103.1
130.4
142.4
102.2
151.3
141.9
123.0
121.4
119.6
119.0
118.3
112.0
111.8
131.5
143.0
102.2
152.0
144.0
Medical c a re ..........................
Medical care commodities.................
Medical care services.............
Professional services..................
Hospital and related services.....
138.6
139.9
138.3
137.5
143.9
149.3
150.8
148.9
146.4
160.5
151.7
153.3
151.3
148.0
164.3
152.7
154.1
152.3
148.6
166.0
153.9
155.3
153.6
149.3
167.9
154.4
156.0
154.1
149.9
167.9
155.9
156.9
155.7
151.1
169.9
157.5
158.6
157.2
152.3
171.6
158.7
159.9
158.5
153.2
173.0
159.8
161.3
159.4
154.1
173.7
160.8
162.2
160.5
155.1
174.3
161.9
163.3
161.5
155.8
175.4
163.5
164.1
163.4
157.0
178.1
165.0
164.8
165.0
157.8
180.9
165.8
166.0
165.8
158.2
181.8
Entertainment .............................
Entertainment commodities .............
Entertainment services......
120.3
115.0
127.7
126.5
119.8
135.4
127.8
120.5
137.2
128.4
121.2
137.8
128.6
121.3
138.2
129.1
121.6
138.8
129.9
122.3
139.8
130.4
122.5
140.5
130.9
123.1
141.0
131.4
123.5
141.6
131.7
123.7
142.0
131.9
123.5
142.6
132.7
124.4
143.3
133.0
124.8
143.6
134.1
124.9
145.5
Other goods and services ...............
Tobacco products ......................
Personal care.............................
Toilet goods and personal care appliances.............................
Personal care services ........................
Personal and educational expenses...........................................
School books and supplies....................
Personal and educational services..........................................
137.0
145.8
119.4
118.1
120.7
147.9
148.1
148.0
147.7
164.4
125.0
123.2
126.8
158.1
158.0
158.3
151.2
168.2
125.9
124.0
127.7
162.9
163.0
163.1
151.8
168.8
126.4
124.4
128.5
163.5
163.6
163.7
151.9
168.6
127.0
125.1
129.0
163.5
163.9
163.7
152.9
171.9
127.1
124.7
129.7
164.0
164.0
164.2
154.0
174.1
127.6
125.1
130.3
165.1
167.9
165.1
154.7
175.0
128.4
126.0
130.9
165.6
169.7
165.6
155.2
175.1
129.0
126.9
131.2
166.3
169.9
166.3
155.8
175.6
130.3
128.3
132.3
166.6
169.9
166.6
156.6
176.7
130.2
128.3
132.1
167.7
169.9
167.7
157.8
180.9
131.0
129.2
132.8
168.0
169.8
168.1
159.2
185.7
130.6
128.4
132.9
168.9
170.3
169.01
160.4
185.8
130.6
128.1
133.3
171.2
170 5
171.5
162.6
185.8
131.3
128 8
133.9
175 1
173 8
175.4
_
See footnotes at end of table.
84 Monthly Labor Review November 1990
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
135 7
124 6
129.9
117 3
114.0
107.6
104.4
31. Continued— Consumer Price Indexes for All Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. U.S. city
average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group
(1982-84=100, unless otherwise indicated)
Series
__________________________________ _______________ ___
Annual
average
1988
1990
1989
1989
Sept.
Jan.
Oct.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
132.7
124.6
133.0
119.4
124.1
124.7
126.6
125.6
118.1
126.3
113.0
113.6
121.1
112.4
112.1
125.9
118.3
126.7
113.0
113.1
120.4
111.9
113.0
126.1
118.2
127.2
112.6
112.0
117.1
112.0
113.5
127.4
119.9
130.0
113.7
113.7
114.3
116.0
113.8
128.0
120.6
130.9
114.2
114.5
118.3
115.3
113.7
128.7
121.1
131.2
114.9
116.1
123.7
114.8
113.4
128.9
121.4
131.0
115.4
117.1
125.0
115.7
113.1
129.2
121.4
131.1
115.5
117.1
123.6
116.5
113.2
129.9
121.6
131.7
115.4
117.1
121.1
117.7
112.9
130.4
121.6
132.4
115.0
116.4
118.4
118.1
113.0
131.6
112.2
125.0
117.3
125.9
111.9
112.4
118.2
112.0
111.3
125.7
132.0
115.3
128.0
138.3
132.6
131.9
138.0
118.7
135.6
148.9
140.9
133.4
139.3
120.7
135.9
151.3
143.8
133.7
140.1
119.0
137.1
152.3
-144.3
134.1
140.5
118.5
138.0
153.6
144.6
134.6
140.9
119.0
138.6
154.1
145.1
135.4
141.6
119.6
140.2
155.7
146.1
136.0
142.0
120.3
141.1
157.2
146.6
136.9
143.3
120.5
141.9
158.5
147.2
137.1
143.5
120.1
142.4
159.4
147.8
137.6
143.7
142.5
160.5
148.5
138.8
145.0
123.1
142.9
161.5
148.9
139.9
146.7
122.6
143.8
163.4
149.6
140.9
148.1
123.2
144.0
165.0
151.0
141.4
147.9
123.8
145.2
165.8
153.5
118.3
115.9
119.5
117.0
107.7
105.8
104.0
124.8
122.6
126.3
123.4
112.4
112.9
112.4
119.3
137.0
131.6
95.9
129.1
130.0
120.1
125.4
123.1
126.8
124.0
113.4
114.1
128.3
124.3
89.3
122.3
123.4
115.8
80.8
127.9
123.7
121.6
125.3
122.4
112.0
111.7
111.3
118.2
135.1
130.1
94.3
128.1
129.0
119.6
87.9
134.4
125.8
123.5
127.1
124.4
113.0
112.6
112.5
119.8
137.8
132.6
93.2
130.6
131.5
135.8
88.3
136.5
125.6
123.3
127.0
124.2
113.4
113.6
112.4
120.0
137.2
132.1
93.2
130.4
131.3
121.6
87.0
137.0
86.4
137.5
126.7
125.0
128.7
125.7
114.1
114.2
116.1
122.0
138.9
133.4
97.6
131.5
132.0
121.0
94.2
138.4
127.3
125.7
129.5
126.2
114.6
115.0
115.5
122.9
139.8
133.9
96.4
132.3
132.8
122.2
91.3
138.9
128.1
126.2
130.1
126.9
115.4
116.5
115.2
123.8
140.3
134.7
95.5
133.3
133.9
123.4
89.8
140.0
128.4
126.5
130.4
127.1
115.9
117.4
116.0
124.2
140.6
134.9
95.7
133.5
134.2
123.7
91.2
140.3
128.7
126.7
130.6
127.3
115.9
117.5
116.8
124.2
141.2
135.3
96.7
133.7
134.4
123.6
92.2
140.7
129.4
127.3
131.2
128.0
115.8
117.6
118.0
124.6
142.5
136.5
99.5
134.2
134.8
123.2
93.7
141.6
130.0
127.5
131.6
128.5
115.5
117.0
118.3
124.6
143.0
137.5
98.9
134.8
135.5
122.9
93.2
142.8
131.3
128.6
132.8
129.6
117.2
119.9
121.9
126.3
143.8
138.5
103.6
135.6
136.4
123.2
102.1
144.0
132.6
130.1
134.1
130.8
119.8
124.1
125.9
128.7
145.0
139.0
108.8
136.3
137.2
124.5
111.4
144.5
84.6
28.2
80.7
26.9
80.0
26.7
79.6
26.6
79.5
26.5
79.3
26.5
78.5
26.2
78.2
26.1
77.7
25.9
77.6
25.9
77.4
25.8
77.0
25.7
76.7
25.6
76.0
25.4
75.4
25.2
117.0
348.4
122.6
365.2
123.6
368.3
124.2
369.8
124.4
370.6
124.6
371.1
125.9
375.0
126.4
376.6
127.1
378.5
127.3
379.2
127.5
128.3
382.1
128.7
129.9
131.1
379.9
383.4
386.9
390.5
Food and beverages ......................
Food.............................................
Food at hom e...........................
Cereals and bakery products ..
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs .
Dairy products........................
Fruits and vegetables.............
Other foods at home..............
Sugar and sweets................
Fats and o ils ........................
Nonalcoholic beverages......
Other prepared foods..........
Food away from home .............
Alcoholic beverages....................
117.9
117.9
116.2
122.2
114.1
108.1
127.6
113.0
113.9
113.0
107.7
117.8
121.6
118.3
124.6
124.8
123.9
132.4
125.6
125.8
124.6
134.6
122.7
115.9
136.1
119.6
120.9
126.0
126.2
125.0
135.1
126.4
126.6
125.5
135.3
122.9
120.0
137.0
119.8
120.7
120.9
111.3
127.1
129.4
125.1
126.9
127.1
126.2
136.0
123.8
129.7
130.1
130.5
136.8
126.7
125.7
152.9
121.3
122.5
123.4
112.7
128.2
130.2
125.9
130.6
131.1
131.6
137.4
126.6
126.9
157.7
130.9
131.2
131.5
137.6
127.8
126.8
153.3
123.0
123.2
113.6
128.7
130.9
126.7
123.1
124.0
113.4
129.5
131.7
127.4
130.7
130.9
130.6
138.8
128.1
125.1
147.9
122.1
123.7
124.1
112.7
129.7
132.3
128.0
130.7
131.0
130.4
139.2
127.8
124.6
146.4
122.6
124.4
124.9
112.9
130.2
132.8
128.7
131.5
131.8
131.4
140.0
130.0
124.8
146.6
123.1
124.6
125.4
113.6
130.8
133.2
129.1
132.1
132.4
132.2
140.4
130.5
125.5
148.9
123.5
124.9
126.4
114.2
130.7
133.7
129.5
132.4
132.7
132.4
141.3
131.2
127.3
145.6
124.2
125.7
127.3
114.6
131.8
134.1
129.8
132.7
133.0
132.6
141.5
131.9
127.6
144.4
124.4
125.8
128.1
114.2
132.3
134.5
130.4
Housing ........................................................
Shelter .......................................................
Renters’ costs (12/84 = 100).................
Rent, residential...................................
Other renters’ costs .............................
Homeowners’ costs (12/84 = 100).........
Owners’ equivalent rent (12/84 = 100)
Household insurance (12/84 = 100)....
Maintenance and repairs.......................
Maintenance and repair services .......
Maintenance and repair commodities ..
Fuel and other utilities..............................
Fuels ......................................................
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled g a s ............
Gas (piped) and electricity ..................
Other utilities and public services.........
Household furnishings and operations.....
Housefurnishings....................................
Housekeeping supplies..........................
Housekeeping services..........................
116.8
124.3
119.2
127.5
135.2
119.5
119.5
118.2
114.0
117.7
108.3
104.1
97.7
77.9
104.4
122.9
108.9
104.5
115.1
115.0
121.2
122.7
132.3
125.3
134.6
139.1
127.8
128.0
122.5
118.9
121.7
114.0
107.2
99.5
83.6
105.8
128.2
111.2
105.2
122.7
117.7
123.1
132.6
125.4
135.0
137.6
128.3
128.5
122.7
119.0
122.4
113.6
108.0
100.7
123.9
133.2
126.6
135.3
144.1
128.5
128.6
124.1
133.4
127.5
135.4
149.8
128.5
128.6
123.1
120.7
125.0
114.3
109.8
102.5
95.2
107.9
130.4
112.1
106.1
123.8
118.7
124.7
134.5
128.4
136.0
153.2
129.6
129.7
123.3
105.9
123.9
119.0
105.8
124.4
119.3
125.1
135.0
128.4
136.8
148.8
130.3
130.4
123.6
121.7
126.9
114.3
109.5
101.2
87.9
107.2
131.7
112.4
105.8
125.3
119.7
126.2
136.1
129.2
137.4
150.7
131.5
131.6
123.8
91.3
107.5
131.0
124.7
134.7
128.4
136.4
150.9
129.9
130.0
123.0
120.6
125.9
113.0
109.0
100.6
89.4
106.4
131.4
127.0
137.5
131.4
138.2
161.9
132.4
132.6
123.9
122.1
126.6
115.3
111.1
104.2
82.7
111.4
131.2
112.7
105.8
126.2
120.4
127.9
138.7
132.7
138.8
167.9
133.5
133.7
124.1
121.3
125.2
115.3
112.4
105.1
91.6
111.3
133.3
112.5
105.6
125.8
120.4
128.3
138.8
132.0
139.6
158.6
134.0
134.2
124.2
124.0
130.8
114.8
113.5
106.9
103.8
112.0
133.4
113.0
106.0
126.3
121.4
All ite m s.........................................................................
Commodities................................................................
Food and beverages.................................................
Commodities less food and beverages....................
Nondurables less food and beverages .................
Apparel commodities...........................................
Nondurables less food, beverages, and apparel
Durables..................................................................
Services.............................. ..............................................
Rent of shelter (12/8 2=1 0 0 )........................................
Household services less rent of’ shelter (12/82=100).
Transportation services.................................................
Medical care services....................................................
Other services................................................................
Special indexes:
All items less fo o d ...............................................
All items less shelter...........................................
All items less homeowners’ costs (12/82=100).
All items less medical ca re ..................................
Commodities less fo o d ........................................
Nondurables less food ........................................
Nondurables less food and apparel ...................
Nondurables.........................................................
Services less rent of’ shelter (12/82 = 100).......
Services less medical c a re .................................
Energy..................................................................
All items less energy ...........................................
All Items less food and energy ...........................
Commodities less food and energy....................
Energy commodities ...........................................
Services less energy...........................................
Purchasing power of the consumer dollar:
1982-84=$1.00......................................
1967 = $1.00............................................
118.3
111.5
118.2
107.3
105.2
113.7
103.2
110.4
124.0
116.7
124.9
111.6
111.2
116.7
111.8
111.0
88.0
112.8
120.1
137.0
131.8
94.6
129.9
130.9
121.2
121.2
120.8
122.8
132.7
116.8
119.5
119.9
122.1
112.9
112.8
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR URBAN WAGE EARNERS
AND CLERICAL WORKERS:
All ite m s.....................
All items (1967 = 100)
121.2
115.4
137.6
119.0
119.5
121.1
111.4
125.3
127.3
123.1
129.8
123.9
132.3
141.5
125.1
125.2
121.4
117.6
120.4
112.6
107.5
100.6
81.4
107.3
127.4
121.2
111.0
126.6
128.6
124.4
122.5
131.1
124.6
133.4
140.9
126.6
126.7
122.4
118.0
120.7
113.3
109.5
103.3
79.2
110.7
128.3
122.2
118.0
136.5
120.2
121.4
121.5
112.0
127.0
129.0
124.7
122.5
131.8
125.1
134.2
140.4
127.3
127.4
122.5
118.1
120.9
113.4
107.6
100.6
81.8
107.2
127.8
110.6 111.0 111.2
104.8 105.0 105.3
121.2 122.6 122.7
117.4
117.6
117.5
122.8
135.8
120.1
121.1
121.5
111.2
127.4
129.7
125.2
88.1
106.7
128.4
111.1
104.7
123.8
117.8
122.8
120.0
124.1
113.8
110.2
103.8
112.7
107.2
129.6
111.5
105.3
123.5
118.1
121.8 122.2
120.8
125.1
114.3
109.6
101.8
112.1 112.2
121.8
126.4
114.9
112.0
105.0
84.9
112.1
132.3
112.3
105.3
126.1
119.9
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
85
Current Labor Statistics: Price Data
31. Continued— Consumer Price Indexes for All Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: U.S. city
average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group
(1982-84 = 100, unless otherwise indicated)
Series
Annual
average
1989
1990
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
117.9
116.1
116.1
115.5
122.5
114.7
120.5
128.6
119.3
117.6
116.9
118.1
122.0
114.5
122.5
128.8
122.0
120.5
119.6
122.0
122.2
118.0
121.9
129.0
121.4
119.8
120.2
120.5
121.0
117.0
122.4
130.0
118.5
116.6
118.0
115.5
119.3
115.4
121.5
130.6
116.1
114.0
115.8
111.3
116.8
113.8
123.2
131.7
119.3
117.3
116.2
116.4
127.1
115.0
127.0
132.2
124.4
122.8
118.3
125.7
129.9
117.4
130.5
133.2
125.8
124.2
120.0
126.9
132.2
119.2
130.7
134.2
124.7
122.9
120.7
123.8
129.6
119.3
130.3
135.5
122.4
120.4
118.9
119.8
130.2
118.3
128.8
135.6
119.8
117.6
117.4
115.0
129.8
116.9
128.2
135.9
121.3
119.0
118.0
118.1
129.2
116.8
128.1
137.6
125.7
123.7
120.7
125.7
130.1
119.2
130.4
138.1
108.3
107.5
116.2
116.6
117.9
80.9
80.8
119.8
125.8
98.6
131.7
122.5
113.9
113.0
119.0
119.1
120.3
88.6
88.6
124.9
133.7
101.1
141.0
128.2
113.5
112.6
117.1
116.9
119.6
89.0
89.0
126.2
133.6
101.6
140.6
129.1
114.3
113.3
118.4
118.4
119.5
89.1
89.0
126.7
134.9
101.5
142.5
129.4
114.6
113.7
120.5
120.2
119.9
87.3
87.2
126.8
136.0
101.7
143.8
129.7
114.8
113.8
122.0
121.7
119.5
85.9
85.6
126.9
136.8
101.9
144.7
130.1
116.8
115.8
122.4
122.2
118.7
91.7
91.0
127.3
138.1
101.4
146.5
132.9
116.6
115.5
122.3
121.8
117.2
90.7
90.4
127.9
138.5
101.7
146.9
135.4
116.2
114.9
121.7
121.2
116.4
89.4
89.2
129.0
138.3
101.5
146.8
137.4
116.6
115.4
121.2
120.6
116.0
91.3
91.2
129.6
138.4
101.4
146.9
138.4
117.1
115.8
121.1
120.5
116.6
92.6
92.5
129.7
138.3
101.3
146.8
138.9
117.7
116.4
120.7
120.2
117.3
94.7
94.8
129.9
138.6
101.3
147.2
139.6
117.8
116.5
120.3
119.7
118.0
94.4
94.5
130.3
139.5
101.3
148.4
139.7
120.3
119.1
120.0
119.3
118.0
103.4
103.3
130.7
139.7
101.7
148.5
140.0
122.9
121.8
119.8
118.8
118.1
112.2
112.1
131.7
140.3
101.8
149.2
141.5
Medical c a re ..........................................................................
Medical care commodities ..........................................................
Medical care services..................................................................
Professional services................................................................
Hospital and related services ..................................................
139.0
139.0
139.0
137.7
143.3
149.6
149.7
149.6
146.7
159.4
152.1
152.2
152.1
148.4
163.3
153.0
153.1
153.0
149.0
164.7
154.2
154.2
154.2
149.6
166.5
154.7
154.8
154.7
150.2
166.8
156.1
155.7
156.2
151.5
168.4
157.6
157.4
157.7
152.6
170.1
158.8
158.6
158.8
153.5
171.3
159.8
160.0
159.7
154.3
172.1
160.8
161.0
160.7
155.3
172.7
161.8
162.1
161.7
156.1
173.8
163.3
162.9
163.4
157.2
176.3
164.7
163.7
165.0
158.1
178.8
165.5
164.9
165.7
158.5
179.7
Entertainment...................................................................
Entertainment commodities ...............................................
Entertainment services.............................................
119.7
115.1
127.2
125.8
119.9
135.1
127.0
120.6
137.1
127.7
121.3
137.6
127.9
121.4
138.0
128.4
121.7
138.7
129.1
122.3
139.6
129.5
122.4
140.4
130.0
123.0
140.9
130.6
123.4
141.6
130.8
123.6
141.9
131.0
123.4
142.5
131.7
124.2
143.1
132.1
124.7
143.4
132.9
124.5
145.4
Other goods and services .............................................................
Tobacco products ......................................................................
Personal care.............................................................
Toilet goods and personal care appliances.............................
Personal care services .............................................................
Personal and educational expenses...........................................
School books and supplies......................................................
Personal and educational services .........................................
136.5
146.0
119.3
118.0
120.5
147.4
147.1
147.7
147.4
164.2
124.8
123.3
126.6
157.3
156.9
157.7
150.8
168.0
125.7
124.1
127.5
161.8
161.7
162.1
151.4
168.6
126.3
124.6
128.2
162.5
162.8
162.7
151.5
168.5
126.8
125.1
128.7
162.5
162.8
162.8
152.7
171.8
126.9
124.7
129.4
163.1
162.9
163.4
153.9
173.8
127.3
124.9
130.1
164.2
166.9
164.3
154.6
174.8
128.1
126.0
130.5
164.8
168.5
164.8
155.1
174.8
128.7
126.8
130.8
165.6
168.7
165.7
155.7
175.3
130.0
128.2
132.1
166.0
168.6
166.1
156.3
176.4
129.9
128.1
131.9
166.5
168.6
166.7
157.8
180.6
130.7
129.1
132.6
166.9
168.6
167.1
159.4
185.4
130.3
128.2
132.8
167.7
169.2
167.9
160.5
185.5
130.5
128.2
133.2
169.9
169.6
170.3
162.4
185.5
131.1
128.8
133.7
173.5
172.9
173.9
All ite m s.................................................................
Commodities............................................................
Food and beverages ........................................................
Commodities less food and beverages......................................
Nondurables less food and beverages ....................................
Apparel commodities.....................................................
Nondurables less food, beverages, and apparel ..................
Durables................................................................
117.0
111.0
117.9
106.8
104.6
113.4
102.9
108.9
122.6
116.3
124.6
111.2
110.9
116.1
110.9
110.8
123.6
116.9
125.6
111.6
112.0
117.6
112.0
110.0
124.2
117.7
126.0
112.5
113.2
120.5
112.3
110.6
124.4
117.8
126.4
112.5
112.6
119.8
111.7
111.6
124.6
117.8
126.9
112.1
111.6
116.6
111.7
112.0
125.9
119.5
129.7
113.3
113.4
114.0
115.7
112.2
126.4
120.1
130.6
113.6
114.0
117.3
115.0
112.0
127.1
120.5
130.9
114.2
115.4
122.8
114.5
111.6
127.3
120.8
130.7
114.8
116.5
124.2
115.5
111.4
127.5
120.9
130.7
114.9
116.6
122.9
116.3
111.4
128.3
121.2
131.5
114.9
116.8
120.4
117.8
111.2
128.7
121.3
132.1
114.6
116.2
117.6
118.2
111.4
129.9
122.6
132.4
116.5
119.6
119.0
122.6
111.3
131.1
124.4
132.7
119.2
124.3
123.7
127.4
111.2
Services....................................................
Rent of shelter (1 2 /8 4 -1 0 0 )............................................
Household services less rent of shelter (12/84 —100).......
Transportation services.........................................
Medical care services.................................................
Other services .....................................................
124.7
119.4
105.9
127.1
139.0
131.4
130.8
124.8
109.1
134.8
149.6
139.6
132.3
126.0
111.0
135.0
152.1
142.3
132.6
126.7
109.3
136.3
153.0
142.9
132.9
127.1
108.8
137.1
154.2
143.2
133.4
127.5
109.3
137.8
154.7
143.8
134.2
128.0
110.0
139.4
156.2
144.7
134.8
128.2
110.6
140.2
157.7
145.3
135.6
129.3
110.7
140.7
158.8
145.9
135.8
129.5
110.3
141.1
159.7
146.6
136.2
129.8
110.9
141.2
160.7
147.1
137.4
130.8
113.3
141.5
161.7
147.5
138.3
132.2
112.7
142.4
163.4
148.1
139.3
133.4
113.3
142.5
165.0
149.4
139.9
133.5
113.9
143.5
165.7
151.8
Special indexes:
All items less food ..........................................
All items less shelter ..............................................
All items less homeowners’ costs (12/84=100)...........
All items less medical ca re ................................
Commodities less fo o d ......................................
Nondurables less food ...............................
Nondurables less food and apparel .....................
Nondurables.......................................................
Services less rent of shelter (12/84 = 100).........................
Services less medical c a re .............................................
Energy.....................................................
All items less energy ..........................................
All items less food and energy ........................................
Commodities less food and energy..........................................
Energy commodities ...........................................................
Services less energy................................................
116.7
115.2
110.4
115.8
107.2
105.3
103.7
111.5
115.6
123.3
88.6
121.0
121.9
114.7
80.9
127.0
122.0
120.9
115.7
121.2
111.6
111.3
111.2
118.0
121.7
129.0
93.9
126.7
127.3
118.6
88.2
133.4
123.1
121.8
116.6
122.2
112.0
112.5
112.3
119.1
123.3
130.4
95.5
127.7
128.3
119.0
88.4
134.8
123.6
122.3
117.1
122.7
112.9
113.6
112.7
119.8
123.2
130.6
94.2
128.5
129.1
120.1
88.7
135.5
123.8
122.5
117.3
122.9
112.9
113.1
112.1
119.7
123.4
130.9
92.8
128.9
129.6
120.5
87.2
136.0
124.0
122.6
117.4
123.1
112.6
112.2
112.2
119.5
123.9
131.4
92.7
129.1
129.7
120.2
86.4
136.4
124.9
124.2
118.8
124.4
113.7
113.9
115.8
121.8
124.9
132.2
97.1
130.1
130.1
119.9
93.9
137.3
125.3
124.8
119.4
124.9
114.0
114.5
115.3
122.6
125.7
132.7
96.0
130.8
130.8
120.8
91.4
137.8
126.1
125.3
119.9
125.5
114.6
115.8
114.9
123.4
126.1
133.4
94.9
131.6
131.8
122.0
89.8
138.8
126.4
125.5
120.2
125.7
115.2
116.9
115.8
123.8
126.3
133.6
95.4
131.9
132.2
122.3
91.4
139.1
126.7
125.8
120.3
125.9
115.3
117.1
116.7
123.9
126.8
133.9
96.3
132.0
132.3
122.2
92.5
139.4
127.4
126.4
121.0
126.6
115.4
117.3
118.0
124.4
128.0
135.1
99.2
132.5
132.7
121.9
94.1
140.3
127.8
126.5
121.3
127.0
115.1
116.8
118.3
124.4
128.4
136.0
98.7
133.1
133.3
121.7
93.6
141.3
129.2
127.7
122.4
128.2
117.0
119.9
122.3
126.3
129.1
136.9
103.7
133.8
134.1
122.0
102.6
142.5
130.6
129.3
123.7
129.4
119.6
124.2
126.5
128.7
130.1
137.5
109.1
134.5
134.9
123.2
111.8
143.0
85.5
28.7
81.6
27.4
80.9
27.2
80.5
27.0
80.4
27.0
80.3
26.9
79.4
26.7
79.1
26.6
78.7
26.4
78.5
26.4
78.4
26.3
78.0
26.2
77.7
26.1
77.0
25.8
76.3
25.6
1988
1989
Apparel and upkeep .....................................................................
Apparel commodities...................................................
Men s and boys’ apparel.........................................................
Women’s and girls’ apparel .....................................................
Infants’ and toddlers’ apparel...................................................
Footwear.....................................................................
Other apparel commodities......................................................
Apparel services................................................................
114.9
113.4
112.8
114.5
118.6
110.4
114.9
123.0
Transportation ....................................................................
Private transportation.......................................................
New vehicles...............................................................
New cars.................................................................................
Used cars .................................................................................
Motor fuel .................................................................................
Gasoline.................................................................................
Maintenance and repair............................................................
Other private transportation.....................................................
Other private transportation commodities.............................
Other private transportation services....................................
Public transportation...................................................................
Purchasing power of the consumer dollar:
1982-84 = $1.00...................................................
1967 = $1.00..............................................................
86 Monthly Labor Review November 1990
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
32.
Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and available local area data: all items
(1982-84 = 100, unless otherwise indicated)
Urban Wage Earners
All Urban Consumers
Area1
Pricing
schee2
Sept.
U.S. city average
Region and area size3
Northeast urban................
Size A - More than
1 , 200,000
Size B - 500,000 to
1, 200,000
Size C - 50,000 to
500.000 ..........................
North Central urban .........
Size A - More than
1.200.000 ................
Size C - 50,000 to
360.000 ..........................
Size D - Nonmetro
politan (less
than 50,0000 .................
South urban......................
Size A - More than
1.200.000 ................
1, 200,000
Size classes:
A (12/86=100)
B .......................
C ......................
D ......................
Selected local areas
Chicago, IL-Northwestern IN
Los Angeles-Long
Beach, Anaheim, C A .........
New York, NYNortheastern N J .................
Philadelphia, PA-NJ.............
San FranciscoOakland, C A ........................
Baltimore, MD ................
Boston, MA ...................
Cleveland, O H ................
Miami, F L .......................
St. Louis, MO-IL............
Washington, DC-MD-VA
Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX .
Detroit, M l................
Houston, TX ............
Pittsburgh, PA .........
May
June
July
Aug.
Oct.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
125.6
129.2
129.9
130.4
131.6
132.7
123.6
124.2
127.5
128.3
128.7
129.9
131.1
M
130.0
130.6
134.7
134.9
136.0
137.4
138.6
128.8
129.4
133.3
133.6
134.6
135.8
137.2
M
130.6
131.1
135.4
135.4
136.7
138.0
139.1
128.7
129.1
133.1
133.3
134.3
135.5
136.8
133.8
135.6
136.2
M
128.9
130.0
133.6
134.4
135.2
137.2
137.8
127.6
128.6
132.1
132.9
M
M
128.1
122.5
128.9
123.0
132.5
126.0
133.4
126.9
133.9
126.9
134.6
128.4
137.3
129.4
130.8
120.4
131.5
120.9
134.9
123.9
135.7
124.8
136.1
124.7
136.8
126.3
139.6
127.4
M
124.1
124.3
127.4
128.6
128.6
129.9
130.7
121.2
121.4
124.4
125.6
125.6
127.0
127.8
126.0
M
121.0
122.5
125.3
125.6
125.8
127.6
128.3
118.6
120.0
122.8
123.1
123.2
125.2
M
122.2
122.9
125.9
126.5
126.2
127.8
129.9
120.9
121.6
124.6
125.2
124.8
126.5
128.7
M
M
117.8
122.5
118.2
123.0
121.4
126.5
122.3
127.3
122.6
127.8
124.1
128.7
125.0
129.7
117.7
121.9
118.1
122.4
121.1
125.6
122.0
126.4
122.2
126.9
123.9
127.8
125.0
128.9
M
123.5
123.9
127.1
127.8
128.6
129.0
130.2
122.5
122.9
125.9
126.7
127.3
127.8
129.2
M
123.9
124.5
128.0
128.2
128.6
129.8
130.7
121.7
122.1
125.4
125.7
126.1
127.3
128.3
129.0
M
120.9
121.7
124.5
125.3
126.0
127.6
128.5
121.5
122.2
124.9
125.7
126.3
128.0
M
M
120.2
125.6
120.7
126.1
125.8
130.0
128.2
130.8
128.0
131.3
128.5
132.2
128.8
133.5
121.0
124.2
121.6
124.6
126.4
128.3
128.5
129.1
128.4
129.6
129.0
130.4
129.5
131.7
M
127.5
127.8
132.0
132.6
133.1
133.9
135.3
124.6
124.9
128.8
129.4
129.9
130.7
132.0
129.1
130.4
M
122.8
123.7
126.4
127.7
128.8
130.0
131.4
122.1
123.0
125.7
126.8
127.8
M
M
M
M
113.8
124.2
122.9
120.8
114.2
125.2
123.7
121.3
117.5
128.5
126.7
125.6
118.1
129.0
127.5
127.0
118.7
129.6
128.0
127.2
119.6
130.8
129.4
128.2
120.6
131.7
131.0
129.1
113.7
122.8
123.3
121.2
114.0
123.6
124.0
121.7
117.2
126.8
126.9
125.6
117.8
127.4
127.7
126.9
118.3
127.8
128.0
127.1
119.3
129.2
129.5
128.2
120.3
130.1
131.2
129.2
M
127.1
126.8
130.4
131.7
132.0
133.2
133.8
123.1
122.9
126.5
127.9
128.0
129.3
129.9
M
130.1
130.0
134.6
135.0
135.6
136.3
137.7
126.5
126.5
130.7
131.1
131.6
132.3
133.5
130.8
130.6
134.9
134.9
135.0
135.5
136.0
136.6
137.4
137.5
138.7
138.6
126.7
129.9
130.7
131.3
132.0
132.9
128.3
137.3
122.1
124.5
126.C
132.6
-
129.5
137.9
122.7
126.7
127.3
134.6
-
123.:
124.'
120.C
120.:
M
M
132.2
130.2
132.8
130.5
137.2
134.6
137.1
135.1
138.4
136.3
140.0
137.3
140.8
138.2
130.3
130.4
M
126.8
127.5
130.8
131.6
132.3
133.1
134.0
126.1
M
1
125.9
132 2
123.7
122.9
123.9
130.1
129.0
137.0
128.1
126.4
126.7
134.C
-
130.2
138.0
128.8
128.7
128.C
135.7
132.9
141.7
131.1
130.1
129.9
138.0
125.4
132.6
118.2
121.4
123.5
129.5
-
_
-
121.4
124.6
115.7
121.7
-
_
-
123.6
127.7
119.7
125.C
1 Area is the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA), ex
clusive of farms and military. Area definitions are those established by
the Office of Management and Budget in 1983, except for BostonLawrence-Salem, MA-NH Area (excludes Monroe County); and Milwau
kee, Wl Area (includes only the Milwaukee MSA). Definitions do not in
clude revisions made since 1983.
2 Foods, fuels, and several other items priced every month in all
areas; most other goods and services priced as indicated:.
M - Every month.
1 - January, March, May, July, September, and November.
2 - February, April, June, August, October, and December.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Sept.
Sept.
125.0
Size B - 450,000 to
Size C - 50,000 to
450.000 .........................
Size D - Nonmetro
politan (less
than 50,000) ..................
West urban......................
Size A - More than
1.250.000 ......................
Size C - 50,000 to
330.000 ........................
Oct.
M
Size B - 360,000 to
1, 200,000
1990
1989
1990
1989
-
-
-
126.C
129.^
121.!
127.
_
-
-
“
121.1
121.5
115.Ì
116.£
-
-
-
125.4
126.6
121.6
122.C
132.3
141.4
125.0
128.2
129.3
136.9
-
3 Regions are defined as the four Census regions.
- Data not available.
NOTE: Local area CPI indexes are byproducts of the national CPI
program. Because each local index is a small subset of the national in
dex, it has a smaller sample size and is, therefore, subject to substan
tially more sampling and other measurement error than the national in
dex. As a result, local area indexes show greater volatility than the na
tional index, although their long-term trends are quite similar. Therefore,
the Bureau of Labor Statistics strongly urges users to consider adopting
the national average CPI for use in escalator clauses.
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
87
Current Labor Statistics: Price Data
33.
Annual data: Consumer Price Index, U.S. city average, all items and major groups
(1982-84 = 100)
Series
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers:
All items:
90.9
10.3
96.5
6.2
99.6
3.2
103.9
4.3
107.6
3.6
109.6
1.9
113.6
3.6
118.3
4.1
124.0
4.8
93.5
7.8
97.3
4.1
99.5
2.3
103.2
3.7
105.6
2.3
109.1
3.3
113.5
4.0
118.2
4.1
124.9
5.7
90.4
11.5
96.9
7.2
99.5
2.7
103.6
4.1
107.7
4.0
110.9
3.0
114.2
3.0
118.5
3.8
123.0
3.8
95.3
4.8
97.8
2.6
100.2
2.5
102.1
1.9
105.0
2.8
105.9
.9
110.6
4.4
115.4
4.3
118.6
2.8
93.2
12.2
97.0
4.1
99.3
2.4
103.7
4.4
106.4
2.6
102.3
-3.9
105.4
3.0
108.7
3.1
114.1
5.0
82.9
10.7
92.5
11.6
100.6
8.8
106.8
6.2
113.5
6.3
122.0
7.5
130.1
6.6
138.6
6.5
149.3
7.7
90.1
7.8
96.0
6.5
100.1
4.3
103.8
3.7
107.9
3.9
111.6
3.4
115.3
3.3
120.3
4.3
126.5
5.2
82.6
9.8
91.1
10.3
101.1
11.0
107.9
6.7
114.5
6.1
121.4
6.0
128.5
5.8
137.0
6.6
147.7
7.8
91.4
10.3
96.9
6.0
99.8
3.0
103.3
3.5
106.9
3.5
108.6
1.6
112.5
3.6
117.0
4.0
122.6
4.8
Food and beverages:
Housing:
Apparel and upkeep:
Transportation:
Medical care:
Entertainment:
Other goods and services:
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and
Clerical Workers:
All items:
88 FRASER
Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
November 1990
34. Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing
(1982 = 100)
1989
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
108.0
106.2
112.6
113.6
112.1
118.7
114.9
113.3
119.5
114.9
113.2
120.1
115.4
113.9
121.1
117.6
116.7
123.9
117.4
116.4
124.6
117.2
115.9
124.4
117.2
115.8
123.2
117.7
116.5
124.5
117.9
116.7
124.5
118.0
116.9
124.9
119.2
118.4
125.0
120.3
119.8
124.1
103.1
97.3
113.8
114.3
108.9
103.8
117.6
118.8
110.3
104.8
120.0
120.5
109.9
104.3
119.6
120.8
110.4
105.0
119.7
120.8
113.2
109.2
119.1
121.2
112.4
107.9
119.4
121.6
111.8
107.1
119.2
121.9
112.2
107.7
119.3
122.2
112.7
108.3
119.4
122.2
112.8
108.2
120.2
122.3
112.9
108.5
120.1
122.5
115.1
111.5
120.0
122.9
117.7
115.1
119.9
122.9
107.1
112.0
112.3
112.0
111.9
113.4
112.5
112.4
112.8
113.1
112.9
113.0
114.4
116.3
113.2
106.0
112.9
118.7
112.3
118.1
112.7
118.5
123.6
116.4
117.9
113.1
117.0
123.1
117.2
117.7
115.4
116.7
121.9
117.3
117.4
115.5
116.6
120.3
117.4
117.6
115.5
116.7
120.1
118.1
117.5
114.9
117.1
119.0
118.2
117.9
115.8
117.0
120.0
118.5
118.2
117.2
117.0
120.8
118.7
118.4
120.4
117.0
120.7
118.7
118.4
120.9
117.2
120.0
118.7
118.4
120.9
116.9
120.3
118.8
118.7
120.5
116.7
121.6
118.9
119.3
118.8
118.7
122.2
119.1
116.1
71.2
120.1
113.7
121.3
76.4
125.4
118.1
122.3
77.8
126.3
118.3
122.1
76.3
126.8
118.3
121.7
77.3
126.7
118.3
121.8
84.2
127.3
118.8
121.9
79.4
127.4
118.5
122.5
77.8
127.4
118.7
123.0
78.0
127.8
118.9
123.2
78.4
127.7
119.4
122.8
78.4
127.7
119.2
122.9
78.3
127.4
119.5
122.9
85.7
127.6
119.3
123.2
94.0
127.6
119.7
96.0
106.1
85.5
103.1
111.2
93.4
102.1
107.9
94.0
102.6
109.9
93.5
104.2
112.6
94.3
106.5
113.5
97.5
106.8
113.9
97.6
105.6
115.3
94.9
103.0
115.1
91.0
104.7
117.0
92.5
101.0
115.2
87.9
101.2
115.4
88.0
110.2
113.5
103.2
115.1
110.8
112.4
106.5
59.8
115.8
116.3
117.0
111.8
65.7
121.2
122.1
122.1
113.3
65.8
122.7
123.6
123.9
113.1
64.6
123.0
123.8
124.0
113.5
64.8
123.5
124.5
124.4
115.5
72.7
124.6
125.9
124.8
115.1
69.2
125.1
126.5
125.2
114.8
67.0
125.2
126.5
125.4
115.2
68.0
125.0
126.1
125.6
115.5
68.5
125.6
126.8
125.9
115.6
67.6
125.9
127.3
126.3
115.8
67.8
126.1
127.4
126.5
117.3
74.4
126.2
127.5
126.6
119.1
82.0
126.1
127.2
126.8
118.5
124.0
126.0
125.9
126.5
127.0
127.4
127.5
127.7
128.1
128.8
128.8
128.9
129.0
122.0
128.8
130.4
130.5
131.6
132.7
133.2
133.5
133.8
134.4
135.0
135.2
135.3
135.7
106.9
109.5
70.9
114.6
111.9
113.8
76.1
119.5
112.4
112.3
77.5
119.6
111.9
113.2
76.0
119.5
111.9
113.0
76.9
119.2
113.4
113.2
83.7
119.5
112.5
111.0
79.0
119.4
112.5
111.4
77.4
119.7
112.8
112.5
77.7
120.1
112.9
115.9
78.0
120.4
112.8
115.5
78.1
120.2
112.8
116.1
78.0
120.3
114.4
115.0
85.3
120.4
116.4
113.9
93.5
120.9
115.2
120.2
120.3
120.0
119.7
120.0
120.0
120.3
120.6
120.7
120.5
120.5
120.8
121.4
82.6
117.9
131.3
78.6
119.7
134.2
73.1
120.5
137.8
74.5
122.1
138.8
69.5
120.4
137.1
69.4
120.7
137.7 I
87.1
119.9
139.9
97.9
118.1
140.6
Apr.
May
July
Aug.
Sept.
121.5
112.3
121.6
115.2
Intermediate materials, supplies, and
Materials and components for
Materials and components for
Crude materials for further processing ...
Special groupings:
Finished consumer goods less energy.....
Finished goods less food and energy.......
Finished consumer goods less food
Consumer nondurable goods less food
Intermediate materials less foods and
Intermediate materials less foods and
Crude nonfood materials less energy......
Sept.
1988
Finished consumer goods excluding
Materials for nondurable manufacturing .
Materials for durable manufacturing.......
1990
1989
Annual average
Grouping
67.7
112.6
133.0
75.9
117.7
137.9
76.6
115.1
137.6
76.9
115.8
134.3
78.5
117.1
132.0
82.3
117.8
132.1
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
35. Producer Price indexes, by durability of product
(1982 = 100)
Annual average
Grouping
Oct.
Total durable goo d s ...........................
Total nondurable goods......................
114.7
101.1
119.0
107.1
120.2
107.2
119.9
107.2
119.7
107.9
120.0
110.7
120.0
109.9
120.4
109.3
120.9
108.9
120.9
109.7
120.9
109.1
121.0
109.2
109.1
114.1
104.1
114.3
118.3
110.2
115.2
119.6
110.7
115.1
119.5
110.7
115.2
119.3
111.0
116.6
119.6
113.3
116.0
119.6
112.1
116.1
120.0
112.2
116.6
120.3
112.8
117.1
120.4
113.5
117.0
120.4
113.4
116.9
120.5
113.1
118.2
Total manufactures.............................
Durable.............................................
Nondurable ......................................
115.3
119.7
121.0
117.9
Total raw or slightly processed goods
Durable.............................................
Nondurable ......................................
95.9
148.0
93.4
101.3
151.6
98.9
100.4
146.5
98.3
100.2
141.2
98.3
101.8
105.5
138.7
103.9
105.6
136.0
104.1
103.8
140.7
102.0
101.2
146.0
99.1
102.2
147.7
100.1
100.6
144.7
98.5
101.4
145.1
99.3
106.6
150.7
104.5
110.1
152.6
108.1
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
138.0
100.1
120.8
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
89
Current Labor Statistics: Price Data
36.
Producer price indexes for the net output of major industry groups
(December 1984 = 100, unless otherwise indicated)
Annual
Industry
Total mining industries............................
Metal mining.........................
Anthracite mining (12/85=100) .............
Bituminous coal and lignite mining
(12/85 = 100) ................................
Oil and gas extraction (12/85 = 1 00).........
Mining and quarrying of nonmetallic
minerals, except fuels .................
Total manufacturing industries................
Food and kindred products..................
Tobacco manufactures .....................
Textile mill products ..................
Apparel and other finished products
made from fabrics and similar
materials.......................................
Lumber and wood products, except
furniture...................................
Furniture and fixtures.....................
Paper and allied products .................
Printing, publishing, and allied
industries....................................
Chemicals and allied products...................
Petroleum refining and related products ....
Rubber and miscellaneous plastic products
Leather and leather products .....................
Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products ..
Primary metal industries .........................
Fabricated metal products, except
machinery and transportation
equipment .....................................
1990
1988
1989
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
10
11
70.6
100.7
100.2
76.4
100.3
102.7
76.1
101.0
102.9
76.3
96.2
103.0
77.6
93.6
103.2
81.0
89.2
105.0
81.1
86.1
105.0
78.1
90.9
105.0
74.8
92.6
104.4
75.3
91.3
103.6
72.3
92.2
103.5
73.7
93.9
103.6
80.5
96.1
104.2
86.7
102.0
104.0
12
13
94.6
68.5
94.3
75.7
95.1
75.2
96.1
75.5
95.6
77.3
95.6
82.0
95.2
82.3
95.4
77.9
96.0
73.1
97.0
73.8
97.0
69.4
96.6
71.5
96.4
80.9
96 4
89.3
14
108.0
111.2
111.3
111.3
111.2
111.7
112.3
113.2
113.4
113.8
113.7
113.6
114.0
114.3
20
21
22
104.4
107.1
141.8
106.8
109.6
112.2
161.4
109.3
110.8
112.3
165.7
110.0
110.8
113.2
165.7
110.1
111.0
113.7
173.8
110.0
112.7
114.4
175.8
111.0
112.2
114.6
176.1
111.3
112.3
115.2
176.1
111.5
112.6
115.4
176.1
111.7
113.1
116.9
179.6
111.6
113.1
117.2
185.9
111.8
113.0
117.3
186.0
111.6
114 6
117 3
186.0
111.8
116 2
116.9
186 2
111.7
Sept.
23
107.2
110.2
111.1
111.3
111.6
112.3
112.3
112.5
112.7
112.7
112.7
113.1
113.5
113.6
24
25
26
109.2
111.4
113.7
115.3
115.6
120.8
118.1
117.0
121.7
117.3
117.0
121.7
116.1
117.2
121.6
116.3
117.7
121.6
116.9
118.0
121.6
117.6
118.1
121.5
119.2
118.5
121.9
118.8
119.0
121.6
117.7
119.2
121.7
117.9
119.2
121.7
117.1
119.3
121.8
116 7
119 5
122.0
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
118.2
113.0
67.7
106.7
113.4
105.8
113.0
124.7
119.6
75.7
110.2
118.0
107.9
118.8
126.0
118.7
77.4
110.3
119.5
108.3
118.8
126.3
118.7
75.9
110.3
119.4
108.5
118.0
126.4
118.6
76.0
110.5
120.2
108.6
116.6
128.2
119.0
87.4
110.9
121.1
109.3
116.1
128.7
119.5
80.3
110.7
121.8
109.5
115.2
129.1
119.8
76.5
111.0
122.5
109.7
116.3
129.4
120.0
79.9
111.0
122.3
109.9
116.6
129.9
120.1
80.2
111.3
123.0
110.0
116.7
130.0
120.3
78.7
111.3
122.6
110.3
116.2
130.2
120.2
77.0
111.1
122.8
110.3
116.5
130 8
120 5
90 3
110 9
123.0
110.3
117.3
131 3
121 6
111 1
123 3
110 4
117.7
114.5
114.6
114.7
114.9
115.1
115.1
115.3
115.4
34
107.4
112.6
113.6
113.8
113.9
114.3
35
106.4
110.7
111.8
112.1
112.2
112.8
113.0
113.3
113.5
113.7
113.9
113.8
114.1
114.4
36
37
104.6
107.8
107.1
112.1
107.8
115.0
107.8
114.6
107.8
114.6
108.4
114.2
108.4
114.5
108.5
114.4
108.6
114.5
108.6
114.4
108.7
115.0
108.9
114.9
108.9
115.0
108.9
114.7
38
107.0
110.8
111.9
112.1
112.4
113.3
113.6
114.0
114.3
114.5
114.5
114.7
114.8
115.0
39
107.5
111.8
112.7
112.8
113.1
113.7
114.3
114.5
114.5
114.6
114.8
115.0
115.3
115.3
94.8
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
95.5
95.5
95.5
95.5
95.5
95.8
95.8
96.2
96.2
Machinery, except electrical.....................
Electrical and electronic machinery,
equipment, and supplies..........................
Transportation equipment...................
Measuring and controlling instruments;
photographic, medical, optical goods;
watches, clocks.........................
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries
(12/85 = 100) .............................
Service industries:
Pipelines, except natural gas (12/86=100)
46
37.
1989
SIC
Annusi data: Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing
(1982=100)
Index
Finished goods:
Total ........................
Consumer goods ..
Capital equipment
1981
96.1
96.6
94.6
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.6
101.3
102.8
103.7
103.3
105.2
104.7
103.8
107.5
103.2
101.4
109.7
105.4
103.6
111.7
108.0
106.2
114.3
112.1
113.6
118.8
Intermediate materials, supplies, and
components:
Total .................................................................
Materials and components for
manufacturing.............................................
Materials and components for construction
Processed fuels and lubricants ...................
Containers ....................................................
Supplies.......................................................
98.6
100.0
100.6
103.1
102.7
99.1
101.5
107.1
112.0
98.7
97.9
100.6
96.7
96.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.2
102.8
95.4
100.4
101.8
104.1
105.6
95.7
105.9
104.1
103.3
107.3
92.8
109.0
104.4
102.2
108.1
72.7
110.3
105.6
105.3
109.8
73.3
114.5
107.7
113.2
116.1
71.2
120.1
113.7
118.1
121.3
76.4
125.4
118.1
Crude materials for further processing:
T o ta l.........................................................
Foodstuffs and feedstuffs ....................
Nonfood materials except fuel ............
Fuel ............................
103.0
103.9
101.8
84.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.3
101.8
100.7
105.1
103.5
104.7
102.2
105.1
95.8
94.8
96.9
102.7
87.7
93.2
81.6
92.2
93.7
96.2
87.9
84.1
96.0
106.1
85.5
82.1
90 Monthly Labor Review November 1990
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
103.1
111.2
93.4
85.3
38.
U.S. export price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification
(1985 = 100, unless otherwise indicated)
Category
Crude rubber..............................................................................................
Pulp and waste paper................................................................................
Rubber manufactures ................................................................................
1974
SITC
Dec.
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
Mar.
June
104.9
106.5
109.5
111.9
111.6
113.3
113.2
112.4
112.4
112.9
113.3
118.7
137.0
175.9
108.5
109.9
161.0
105.2
114.2
130.3
174.0
102.0
110.3
157.0
104.9
117.6
132.9
169.1
108.4
108.8
154.1
107.0
115.5
128.2
158.9
106.4
113.6
144.0
108.0
110.4
119.4
137.1
101.5
113.9
139.5
107.7
108.2
117.0
132.3
101.0
110.3
129.0
108.5
107.4
125.9
131.5
98.4
114.5
121.7
109.6
108.8
123.3
127.4
101.8
115.6
118.4
110.1
0
01
03
04
05
08
09
94.6
116.8
138.5
77.4
100.5
145.2
100.3
95.2
122.8
140.9
79.8
97.5
134.6
102.3
103.4
131.0
145.0
87.2
104.3
158.1
102.8
1
12
107.0
107.0
109.6
109.8
110.6
110.7
112.0
112.1
111.7
111.8
117.2
117.6
117.6
117.9
120.4
120.8
120.1
120.4
122.3
122.6
124.5
124.9
2
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
125.2
157.1
109.6
105.3
146.0
160.4
111.6
91.6
125.9
130.0
171.4
115.6
104.5
150.2
171.2
107.5
92.8
131.8
139.9
166.8
143.0
106.1
149.6
179.5
109.9
94.2
146.0
140.8
156.7
154.7
109.1
150.0
181.7
100.8
94.8
145.0
135.8
136.8
135.7
109.9
148.6
182.1
103.6
94.8
150.4
142.6
146.7
139.3
111.1
157.3
192.9
106.7
98.8
163.5
143.0
149.9
129.8
114.6
170.7
193.5
115.5
99.2
157.2
139.1
156.3
111.5
117.7
177.6
193.3
117.4
99.3
150.5
136.6
158.0
109.5
117.3
176.9
193.9
116.4
97.7
138.5
136.8
161.8
109.5
115.0
180.6
186.7
117.1
98.7
138.5
137.2
160.9
110.4
115.5
178.9
174.0
124.4
99.7
142.7
3
32
33
82.5
89.8
100.0
79.3
90.6
90.8
82.1
92.0
97.2
79.5
92.9
89.2
79.4
93.4
88.4
81.7
93.7
94.5
86.0
94.3
105.4
87.9
95.6
108.7
91.1
96.3
116.5
90.8
96.2
113.6
88.8
97.3
106.9
4
41
42
81.6
88.7
75.4
92.7
101.3
85.7
97.3
101.6
93.7
101.5
104.3
99.1
91.5
95.7
87.1
90.3
91.8
88.2
87.3
89.6
84.4
83.8
84.6
81.6
86.7
88.0
84.5
89.1
84.4
91.8
94.6
84.0
101.7
5
51
53
54
55
56
5758
112.9
123.5
108.5
105.4
108.4
106.5
124.8
98.2
117.9
135.1
109.1
109.3
111.2
110.6
129.4
100.3
121.6
144.6
110.1
106.3
113.6
109.8
137.5
101.7
124.9
153.3
111.5
105.9
120.2
116.4
138.2
104.1
125.5
150.8
113.0
107.5
122.4
119.9
132.5
105.4
125.5
149.6
115.5
109.0
125.3
119.4
125.8
108.4
121.9
145.0
116.5
108.9
124.7
108.0
118.6
109.4
117.7
134.0
118.3
109.3
122.4
108.9
111.6
109.5
115.2
127.8
117.3
108.5
122.9
94.8
111.5
110.2
115.4
123.0
118.8
109.6
125.0
94.7
117.1
112.8
115.9
120.9
119.7
109.9
126.1
102.8
115.8
113.8
6
61
62
64
65
66
67
68
69
111.2
118.0
104.1
122.4
105.2
111.3
102.9
124.4
103.4
114.4
125.7
105.2
126.2
106.5
113.4
106.1
134.0
104.5
117.7
125.1
108.8
129.0
107.9
114.1
110.8
143.5
107.6
119.6
128.6
109.4
130.2
108.6
115.6
111.4
149.1
109.9
120.6
125.0
110.4
131.1
111.6
116.8
112.1
150.0
110.9
122.6
118.3
113.0
132.5
113.9
120.4
116.0
151.7
112.6
123.1
120.7
112.9
133.7
115.4
122.4
117.2
145.8
113.9
122.8
121.7
113.4
132.9
115.8
123.9
116.7
140.4
114.4
122.5
124.8
114.0
130.9
117.0
124.8
116.4
135.9
115.3
122.8
124.5
114.3
130.8
119.0
127.7
116.2
131.2
116.7
122.9
125.6
114.5
130.0
118.4
127.5
117.4
132.5
116.8
7
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
102.4
105.2
100.9
108.2
105.4
95.5
101.9
101.8
104.6
103.2
107.0
102.1
109.3
106.7
95.8
102.8
103.1
104.5
104.0
108.4
103.6
110.8
108.1
95.7
104.6
103.4
104.9
104.8
108.5
104.7
111.0
109.3
96.8
104.1
105.3
105.4
105.8
109.3
106.0
114.4
110.3
96.4
105.1
105.7
106.8
106.7
111.8
107.3
115.7
112.7
95.8
106.7
106.1
107.2
107.2
112.8
108.8
117.3
113.3
94.8
107.5
106.5
107.8
107.9
114.5
109.9
117.7
114.2
94.8
108.7
106.9
108.8
108.6
114.7
111.4
118.6
115.3
94.8
109.5
106.9
110.0
109.5
116.3
113.1
119.6
117.2
110.0
117.3
113.2
120.6
118.1
107.8
110.4
107.4
110.8
79
106.6
107.4
109.6
109.7
111.9
113.5
114.7
114.8
116.0
117.9
121.2
8
82
105.6
110.0
106.9
111.2
108.1
111.4
108.9
111.7
110.5
114.2
111.4
114.3
112.8
117.3
113.6
117.3
114.9
119.0
115.4
120.5
116.4
121.8
87
107.1
110.0
111.1
112.5
113.9
115.5
118.2
119.5
121.3
122.7
124.8
98.2
97.6
112.1
112.6
Other transport equipment, excluding military and commercial
Professional, scientific, and controlling instruments and
Photographic apparatus and supplies, optical goods, watches, and
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Sept.
Dec.
Machinery and transport equipment, excluding military and
General industrial machines and parts, n.e.s.............................................
Office machines and automatic data processing equipment ...................
Telecommunications, sound recording and reproducing equipment.......
1990
1989
1988
1987
88
97.9
97.6
100.1
99.4
99.9
98.5
99.2
99.4
101.0
89
105.8
105.4
106.5
106.5
108.7
110.2
110.1
110.4
111.4
Monthly Labor Review November 1990 91
Current Labor Statistics: Price Data
39.
U.S. import price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification
(1985 = 100, unless otherwise indicated)
Category
1974
SITC
ALL COMMODITIES .............
ALL COMMODITIES, EXCLUDING FUELS ...
Food and live anim als.....................
Meat and meat preparations...........
Dairy products and eggs ...............
Fish and crustaceans................
Bakery goods, pasta products, grain, and grain preparations ....
Fruits and vegetables..........
Sugar, sugar preparations, and honey...................................................
Coffee, tea, cocoa.................
1988
June
126.7
1989
Dec.
June
119.8
118.4
127.6
119.9
128.5
121.0
129.7
119.0
129.1
111.3
106.1
124.1
120.3
121.6
141.6
119.1
114.4
62.5
108.2
134.1
123.2
122.1
142.9
128.2
117.0
5/.3
111.6
130.4
129.2
125.9
148.5
131.3
116.2
65.2
111.7
136.8
133.0
125.9
147.4
126.2
116.7
66.2
120.7
122.9
122.4
124.1
124.7
126.9
127.7
129.6
145.4
104.7
212.3
110.3
137.2
98.3
113.5
190.1
141.7
101.2
183.4
108.6
136.1
98.5
111.6
189.6
140.2
98.0
176.6
127.7
133.1
101.0
114.0
186.9
133.9
96.8
168.1
111.9
132.0
104.0
114.9
183.7
126.3
97.5
160.7
117.6
74.4
68.8
69.5
74.0
74.8
74.9
75.3
65.0
65.3
106.7
110.7
100.7
104.2
98.3
101.5
95.8
98.5
117.7
110.3
85.7
127.2
132.4
130.8
150.2
118.9
112.7
86.0
149.7
135.3
130.5
130.6
150.9
118.9
114.2
84.4
152.3
131.3
129.3
129.4
150.2
117.8
113.5
84.2
151.9
132.1
128.6
129.0
142.1
135.3
133.9
113.7
140.8
119.7
121.7
151.7
133.7
150.7
133.2
134.0
133.4
114.0
140.5
118.8
122.8
153.1
130.9
144.1
133.8
133.8
141.1
115.1
141.6
117.5
124.8
157.6
128.7
137.8
135.6
134.9
142.6
115.6
144.4
120.9
126.3
159.7
125.7
143.5
134.4
129.0
127.8
145.7
143.9
143.7
117.2
115.0
128.7
129.5
130.2
128.1
148.2
144.2
145.5
117.9
113.9
129.0
131.9
131.2
129.8
157.4
148.0
151.1
117.0
112.9
129.8
131.3
130.0
129.2
159.1
149.9
153.1
115.6
111.2
127.7
129.4
119.9
127.9
127.2
133.0
128.8
110.3
120.8
128.8
128.7
136.6
130.9
112.7
121.7
130.9
131.7
141.9
135.7
114.2
121.7
135.7
131.9
140.8
137.6
113.5
122.7
137.6
136.5
136.3
137.1
143.3
144.7
131.4
126.3
131.9
128.7
133.8
131.4
139.2
131.9
137.2
139.8
136.9
142.2
140.4
140.2
112.1
87.4
110.8
109.8
111.8
85.3
117.0
117.2
23
151.1
133.3
121.5
103.4
25
145.6
172.2
122.0
205.4
33
63.4
63.6
57.7
56.1
Fats and o ils .....................
Fixed vegetable oils and fats (9/87=100) ......
42
116.1
119.2
117.4
Chemicals and related p ro d u c ts .......
Organic chemicals..........................
Inorganic chemicals...................
Medicinal and pharmaceutical products.....
Essential oils and perfumes.................
Manufactured fertilizers............
Artificial resins and plastics and cellulose .......
Chemical materials and products, n.e.s......
51
52
54
55
56
58
59
Miscellaneous manufactured articles
Plumbing, heating, and lighting fixtures........
Furniture and p arts...................
Travel goods, handbags, and similar goods (6/85=100)
Clothing.........................
Footwear.......................
Professional, scientific, and controlling instruments and
apparatus.........................
Photographic apparatus and supplies, optical goods, watches, and
clocks...............................
Miscellaneous manufactured articles, n.e.s.
Mar.
110.0
141.9
Machinery and transport equipment
Machinery (including SITC 71-77) ..
Machinery specialized for particular industries.......
Metalworking machinery.............
General Industrial machinery and parts, n.e.s.........................................
Office machines and automatic data processing equipment
Telecommunications, sound recording and reproducing apparatus
Electrical machinery and equipment.....
Road vehicles and parts.........
Dec.
04
101.0
167.6
148.2
Intermediate manufactured products ...
Leather and furskins ...........................
Rubber manufactures, n.e.s...............
Cork and wood manufactures.........
Paper and paperboard products..............
Textiles...............................
Nonmetalllc mineral manufactures, n.e.s.................................................
Iron and ste e l...........................
Nonferrous m etals.......................
Metal manufactures..............
Sept.
06
115.3
151.5
103.3
204.3
IJO.j
__
116.4
107.3
115 1
96.1
140.3
126.2
136.3
124.3
148.5
127.6
153.4
132.2
132.3
93.1
145.4
114.0
86.6
1
O
o.D
130.5
139.9
130.3
143.5
129.5
1^4.0
130.2
142.1
129.8
6
61
62
63
64
138.2
118.3
66
142.5
139.7
141.9
147.5
149.5
133.6
158.6
132.6
127.3
126.4
149.8
143.7
150.8
143.7
119.5
113.8
124.2
139.6
118.7
113.9
125.9
144.2
118.7
115.5
129.3
149.1
142.9
144.7
119.6
115.7
145.7
139.5
143.0
133.8
68
7hyb
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
115.7
129.6
8
81
125.7
126.9
83
107.3
126.6
131.5
127.9
111.3
115.1
117.6
1
O
J.O
89 | 132.1
128.2
1990
June
126.1
27
28
29
Fuels and related p ro d u cts.......
Crude petroleum and petroleum products
Mar.
01
02
Beverages and tobacco ..........
Beverages.......................
Crude m a te ria ls.......................
Crude rubber (including synthetic and reclaimed)..
Cork and wood .....................
Pulp and waste paper...................
Textile fibers....................
Crude fertilizers and crude minerals .........
Metalliferous ores and metal scrap.......................................................
Crude animal and vegetable materials, n.e.s.
Sept.
131.4
131.7
.
92 Monthly Labor Review November 1990
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
40.
U.S. export price indexes by end-use category
(1985 = 100 unless otherwise indicated)
41.
June
Mar.
Dec.
Sept.
June
Mar.
Dec.
Sept.
June
1990
1989
1988
Category
110.1
118.3
104.3
104.8
124.5
118.7
104.9
106.5
117.4
118.6
105.7
107.7
120.8
120.7
106.7
108.1
117.2
120.9
107.4
108.6
110.3
119.5
108.2
109.4
108.2
118.7
108.8
110.7
107.3
118.7
109.9
111.2
108.8
118.2
110.5
111.6
110.6
108.7
110.4
110.9
111.3
109.3
110.7
120.6
112.9
110.0
112.6
114.0
115.3
111.4
115.4
117.7
115.6
111.5
115.4
116.1
116.5
111.7
116.5
111.2
117.1
112.7
116.8
109.8
118.9
114.2
118.6
109.5
119.6
115.0
119.3
111.4
109.7
110.8
111.6
112.9
113.1
113.0
113.1
113.7
113.8
U.S. import price indexes by end-use category
(1985 = 100)
126.2
All imports, excluding petroleum (6/88=100) ........................
125.4
128.3
128.0
129.0
June
Mar.
Dec.
Sept.
June
Mar.
Dec.
Sept.
June
1990
1989
1988
Category
127.1
128.0
129.2
128.5
112.0
102.6
75.2
125.5
112.6
97.6
65.4
124.3
Foods, feeds, and beverages...............................................
Industrial supplies and materials..........................................
Petroleum and petroleum products, excluding natural gas
Industrial supplies and materials, excluding petroleum.....
113.7
97.8
63.5
126.4
112.7
95.2
57.5
126.4
114.2
96.4
56.2
129.6
113.8
102.1
67.2
131.2
111.7
104.2
74.1
129.4
107.1
100.6
69.1
126.9
109.0
102.7
74.6
126.2
Capital goods, except automotive........................................
Automotive vehicles, parts and engines..............................
131.0
125.8
129.0
126.0
132.3
129.2
132.4
129.1
131.0
128.2
130.6
128.2
131.5
130.0
134.4
129.9
134.1
128.1
Consumer goods except automotive....................................
Nondurables, manufactured...............................................
Durables, manufactured.....................................................
126.3
124.2
125.5
125.0
123.8
124.5
127.4
125.4
127.4
128.7
126.5
127.9
129.1
127.5
127.9
129.5
128.5
127.8
130.8
129.9
128.6
133.0
132.7
130.4
133.1
133.5
129.5
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
42.
U.S. export price indexes by Standard Industrial Classification 1
(1985 = 100)
June
Manufacturing:
Sept.
1990
1989
1988
Industry group
Dec.
Mar.
June
June
125.1
145.4
112.9
129.8
122.3
128.9
146.1
112.9
133.1
125.4
123.5
144.0
115.3
135.6
125.5
124.5
151.7
115.2
139.9
125.9
122.7
164.4
116.0
141.4
122.5
119.5
171.2
116.5
141.6
118.5
117.2
170.7
118.1
140.4
115.9
118.7
173.5
119.6
137.7
116.6
117.7
172.3
120.4
133.6
117.3
77.8
133.8
101.3
103.7
109.1
110.8
73.7
133.5
102.2
104.9
109.4
112.0
75.4
133.6
102.8
105.4
110.9
113.4
79.8
130.8
103.4
106.3
111.8
114.5
86.9
125.7
103.7
106.8
112.7
116.7
88.7
122.5
104.4
107.5
113.4
117.7
94.4
122.9
105.2
107.7
114.5
119.7
90.4
122.5
106.3
108.3
115.1
120.0
85.5
119.1
106.6
108.4
116.5
121.3
1 SIC-based classification.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
93
Current Labor Statistics: Price and Productivity Data
43.
U.S. import price indexes by Standard Industrial Classification 1
(1985 = 100)
Sept.
June
1990
1989
1988
Industry group
Sept.
June
Mar.
Dec.
Mar.
Dec.
June
Manufacturing:
Food and kindred products......................................................
Textile mill products..................................................................
Apparel and related products ...................................................
Lumber and wood products, except furniture..........................
114.4
128.9
115.8
120.3
115.0
127.0
117.0
118.6
115.4
127.8
117.5
117.0
114.9
139.0
118.9
120.5
114.0
139.8
120.3
122.2
114.8
137.5
121.2
123.3
115.9
138.8
122.1
122.1
118.7
141.1
122.3
124.0
120.9
141.2
123.5
125.8
Furniture and fixtures................................................................
Paper and allied products ........................................................
Chemicals and allied products..................................................
Petroleum refining and allied products.....................................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products..........................
124.0
121.3
121.3
119.2
119.0
124.8
123.8
123.5
110.8
117.7
128.0
125.2
130.6
111.6
122.6
126.3
127.4
130.7
121.3
122.3
126.1
128.2
130.0
139.1
123.1
128.7
127.3
123.9
128.0
124.2
128.6
126.6
123.7
134.9
125.2
130.9
125.1
123.6
139.0
125.4
131.9
127.4
121.1
128.5
124.8
Leather and leather products ...................................................
Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products...............................
Primary metal products.............................................................
Fabricated metal products........................................................
Machinery, except electrical............. :.......................................
124.6
141.5
137.0
133.3
138.2
123.7
140.5
136.2
133.0
135.0
124.0
144.3
140.2
136.3
138.4
122.8
145.1
140.6
138.9
138.6
123.5
144.8
135.2
140.3
136.7
124.6
147.4
132.0
141.3
135.8
126.0
148.0
129.6
142.0
137.8
130.3
152.4
127.2
144.4
141.8
131.8
152.3
126.0
144.1
142.5
Electrical machinery and supplies............................................
Transportation equipment.........................................................
Scientific instruments; optical goods; clocks...........................
Miscellaneous manufactured commodities..............................
116.1
129.5
137.0
133.1
116.7
129.3
132.2
130.6
119.0
132.8
137.7
132.2
119.7
132.6
136.7
136.6
119.4
131.9
133.8
137.7
118.9
132.0
132.8
138.4
118.5
134.1
134.2
139.8
118.8
134.2
137.8
143.5
117.2
132.5
138.1
143.2
1 SIC - based classification.
44.
Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs, quarterly data seasonally adjusted
(1982 = 100)
Quarterly Indexes
IV
I
II
1990
1989
1988
1987
Item
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
Business:
Output per hour of all persons.............................
Compensation per h our........................................
Real compensation per h o u r................................
Unit labor costs .....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments .......................................
Implicit price deflator ............................................
112.0
125.6
105.0
112.1
123.2
115.7
113.1
126.9
105.3
112.2
124.5
116.2
112.8
128.6
105.5
114.0
125.0
117.5
113.5
130.3
105.6
114.8
127.4
118.9
113.1
131.5
105.5
116.3
128.8
120.3
113.3
132.2
104.6
116.7
130.8
121.2
113.3
133.0
103.7
117.4
133.2
122.5
112.8
133.4
103.3
118.2
133.8
123.3
112.3
134.3
103.0
119.6
134.4
124.3
111.9
135.5
101.9
121.1
135.5
125.8
112.3
137.5
102.5
122.4
137.0
127.1
Nonfarm business:
Output per hour of all persons.............................
Compensation per hour........................................
Real compensation per h o u r................................
Unit labor c o s ts .....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments .......................................
Implicit price d eflator............................................
110.9
124.9
104.4
112.6
124.1
116.2
112.1
126.2
104.7
112.6
125.4
116.6
111.9
127.7
104.8
114.1
125.8
117.8
112.7
129.4
104.9
114.8
127.4
118.8
112.8
130.8
104.9
115.9
130.6
120.5
112.4
131.4
104.0
116.9
130.9
121.4
112.2
131.9
102.9
117.5
133.9
122.7
112.0
132.5
102.6
118.3
134.7
123.5
111.4
133.4
102.3
119.8
135.3
124.7
110.8
134.4
101.1
121.3
135.7
125.8
111.2
136.3
101.6
122.6
137.5
127.3
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees........................
Compensation per hour........................................
Real compensation per h o u r................................
Total unit costs......................... ............................
Unit labor costs ..................................................
Unit nonlabor co sts ............................................
Unit profits.............................................................
Unit nonlabor payments .......................................
Implicit price deflator ............................................
112.9
122.6
102.5
106.8
108.6
102.2
174.0
116.1
111.0
113.8
123.8
102.7
107.1
108.8
102.6
176.6
116.9
111.4
113.7
125.3
102.8
108.2
110.2
102.9
178.1
117.5
112.6
113.5
126.8
102.8
109.7
111.8
104.2
171.4
117.2
113.5
113.2
127.9
102.6
110.9
113.0
105.6
179.1
119.8
115.2
112.5
128.9
102.0
112.7
114.6
108.0
162.3
118.5
115.9
112.1
129.4
100.9
114.1
115.4
110.6
162.9
120.7
117.1
112.3
130.0
100.7
115.0
115.7
113.3
159.3
122.2
117.8
111.1
130.7
100.2
117.0
117.6
115.2
147.2
121.4
118.9
110.5
131.4
98.8
118.1
118.9
116.2
147.6
122.3
120.0
111.0
133.3
99.3
119.2
120.1
116.8
152.9
123.8
121.3
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons.............................
Compensation per h our........................................
Real compensation per h o u r................................
Unit labor c o s ts .....................................................
126.1
120.4
100.7
95.5
126.7
122.4
101.5
96.6
127.5
123.1
100.9
96.5
128.8
124.3
100.7
96.5
129.2
125.7
100.8
97.3
130.1
126.5
100.2
97.3
130.9
126.6
98.7
96.7
130.5
127.6
98.8
97.8
131.3
128.4
98.5
97.8
133.0
129.2
97.2
97.1
134.3
131.2
97.8
97.7
94FRASER
Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
November 1990
45.
Annual indexes of multifactor productivity and related measures, selected years
(1977 = 100)
Item
Private business:
Productivity:
Output per hour of all persons.................
Output per unit of capital services...........
Multifactor productivity..............................
O utput..........................................................
Inputs:
Hours of all persons.................................
Capital services .......................................
Combined units of labor and capital input
Capital per hour of all persons...................
103.0
88.3
97.6
109.9
105.6
92.7
100.9
119.2
107.9
92.9
102.4
124.3
110.3
93.0
103.9
128.7
111.2
106.7
124.4
116.6
112.9
128.6
118.1
113.9
115.2
133.8
121.4
116.1
116.7
138.5
123.9
118.7
120.0
142.4
127.4
118.6
99.1
85.1
94.1
104.8
102.5
87.3
97.0
110.1
104.7
91.3
99.9
119.3
106.2
91.0
100.7
124.0
108.3
90.8
102.0
128.3
109.1
91.5
102.7
133.2
107.4
126.1
113.5
117.4
114.0
130.6
119.4
114.6
116.8
136.3
123.1
116.7
118.5
141.3
125.8
119.3
122.0
109.4
105.7
123.3
111.4
116.6
103.6
89.0
99.7
104.8
105.9
81.6
99.2
98.4
112.0
118.1
95.5
117.5
122.0
127.7
98.4
119.5
124.7
131.9
112.1
123.6
97.3
116.4
106.0
101.4
91.0
98.6
103.2
104.4
103.9
104.2
99.5
101.7
113.4
104.6
111.5
101.1
117.8
105.1
116.5
92.9
120.5
99.2
129.8
99.5
123.0
104.8
123.7
98.7
125.4
104.8
127.1
97.7
126.8
104.4
129.8
98.6
127.6
105.3
129.4
67.3
103.7
78.5
55.3
88.4
102.7
93.1
80.2
95.9
105.6
99.2
93.0
100.8
101.9
101.2
105.8
99.2
94.1
97.4
106.6
100.6
92.3
97.6
108.9
100.3
82.2
53.3
70.5
64.9
90.8
78.1
96.9
93.7
90.8
107.5
113.3
109.4
105.4
108.2
117.9
111.5
108.9
105.2
86.1
86.1
105.0
103.8
104.6
98.9
110.7
115.8
112.6
70.7
104.9
81.2
54.4
89.2
103.5
93.8
79.9
96.4
106.3
99.7
92.9
100.8
98.7
93.3
96.9
106.6
99.6
91.0
96.7
108.4
77.0
51.9
67.1
67.4
89.6
77.2
85.2
86.2
96.3
87.3
93.2
90.7
105.1
104.0
104.7
99.0
108.0
114.2
108.8
119.1
110.0
112.2
105.7
62.2
103.0
72.0
52.5
80.8
99.1
85.3
78.6
93.4
112.0
98.0
96.3
101.5
84.4
51.0
72.9
60.4
97.3
79.3
92.1
81.5
103.1
Private nonfarm business:
Productivity:
Output per hour of all persons................
Output per unit of capital services..........
Multifactor productivity.............................
O utput.........................................................
Inputs:
Hours of all persons.................................
Capital services ........................................
Combined units of labor and capital input
Capital per hour of all persons...................
Manufacturing:
Productivity:
Output per hour of all persons.....
Output per unit of capital services
Multifactor productivity..................
O utput............................................. .
Inputs:
Hours of all persons...................................
Capital services .........................................
Combined units of labor and capital inputs
Capital per hour of all persons.....................
46.
1987
1981
1980
1978
1960
88.0
101.9
101.2
106.0
86.0
98.3
83.4
102.0
101.6
86.6
95.2
105.4
121.8
86.7
105.0
104.7
93.5
120.8
99.7
129.3
93.7
104.7
133.4
145.5
129.6
119.2
102.0
123.6
130.1
Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years
_______________________ ,______________________________
(1982 = 100)
Item
Business:
Nonfarm business:
Unit nonlabor payments .......................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Manufacturing:
1960
1970
1973
1978
1980
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
66.0
21.2
69.2
32.2
34.0
32.8
87.4
36.9
91.9
42.3
43.6
42.7
95.0
45.4
98.7
47.8
53.3
49.6
100.7
70.1
103.8
69.7
78.3
72.5
99.2
85.1
99.7
85.8
86.9
86.2
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
102.4
103.8
100.6
101.4
107.3
103.3
105.0
108.1
100.4
103.0
114.8
106.8
107.1
112.8
101.2
105.4
118.1
109.5
109.5
118.6
104.4
108.4
119.0
111.8
110.7
123.1
104.6
111.2
122.5
114.8
113.0
129.1
105.3
114.3
126.5
118.2
112.8
133.1
103.5
118.0
133.1
122.8
70.1
22.3
72.8
31.8
34.0
32.5
89.2
37.3
92.7
41.8
44.1
42.5
96.6
45.7
99.3
47.3
51.0
48.4
101.8
70.2
104.0
69.0
77.6
71.7
99.9
85.1
99.6
85.2
86.8
85.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
103.0
104.0
100.7
101.0
108.8
103.5
105.1
108.1
100.4
102.8
114.9
106.6
106.5
112.5
100.9
105.6
119.0
109.8
108.6
118.2
104.1
108.8
120.0
112.3
109.8
122.5
104.1
111.6
123.6
115.3
112.3
128.3
104.7
114.3
127.4
118.4
111.9
132.1
102.8
118.1
133.7
123.0
71.8
23.4
76.4
31.0
32.7
26.6
76.2
36.2
33.8
90.0
38.1
94.6
40.7
42.3
36.4
66.6
42.3
42.3
96.6
46.1
100.1
45.6
47.7
40.1
83.6
48.5
48.0
100.4
70.4
104.2
67.3
70.1
59.9
129.9
73.5
71.2
99.0
85.2
99.8
83.7
86.1
77.5
108.5
83.5
85.2
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
102.7
103.2
100.0
100.0
100.4
98.8
141.4
107.0
102.6
105.2
107.1
99.4
100.8
101.8
98.4
174.0
113.0
105.4
106.9
111.3
99.9
102.9
104.2
99.6
169.5
113.1
107.1
109.4
116.7
102.8
105.7
106.7
103.0
156.8
113.4
108.9
112.1
120.5
102.4
106.2
107.5
102.7
171.1
115.9
110.2
113.4
125.8
102.6
109.0
111.0
103.8
176.3
117.8
113.2
111.9
129.6
100.9
114.7
115.8
111.8
157.9
56.9
22.5
73.2
39.5
52.8
42.6
75.2
35.9
89.3
47.7
56.4
49.8
86.9
43.0
93.5
49.5
62.2
52.5
95.3
68.2
101.0
71.6
89.6
75.9
95.3
83.7
98.0
87.8
85.9
87.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
105.2
102.5
99.3
97.5
112.9
101.1
110.8
106.0
98.4
95.6
121.8
101.8
115.9
111.1
99.6
95.9
114.6
100.4
120.2
116.1
102.3
96.6
118.9
101.9
124.7
119.0
101.1
95.5
121.5
101.7
127.6
123.4
100.6
96.7
130.1
126.7
98.6
97.4
117.4
- Data not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Monthly Labor Review November 1990 95
Current Labor Statistics: Productivity Data
47.
Annual productivity indexes for selected industries
(1977 = 100)
Industry
SIC
1970
1975
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
Iron mining, crude o re ......................................
Iron mining, usable ore ....................................
Copper mining, crude o re ................................
Copper mining, recoverable m etal...................
Coal mining..................................................
Bituminous coal and lignite mining ...............
Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels..................
Crushed and broken sto n e ...........................
1011
1011
1C21
1021
111,121
121
14
142
99.9
111.1
84.8
85.5
141.5
142.3
89.7
83.1
112.7
117.8
87.2
77.2
105.3
105.2
90.6
91.4
122.7
122.8
109.1
98.2
99.4
99.6
102.7
106.9
124.7
123.2
99.5
91.6
112.5
112.6
96.5
101.3
132.8
130.6
102.0
97.7
122.3
122.7
94.7
96.7
100.9
98.2
106.4
116.2
119.4
120.0
89.3
94.1
139.0
138.6
129.9
130.9
136.5
136.9
98.2
103.9
173.3
171.7
140.3
155.4
151.7
152.3
105.5
105.8
187.9
187.9
164.2
193.1
154.3
154.6
107.5
104.5
200.3
197.8
195.4
228.9
167.7
168.2
108.4
104.9
254.5
250.4
197.0
211.2
181.3
182.4
115.3
121.3
258.8
248.2
206.9
229.9
200.7
201.9
114.0
120.1
Red meat products..........................................
Meatpacking plants.......................................
Sausages and other prepared meats...........
Poultry dressing and processing.....................
Fluid m ilk..........................................................
Preserved fruits and vegetables .....................
Grain mill products............................................
Flour and other grain mill products ...............
Rice milling.................................................
Bakery products................................................
S ugar.................................................................
Raw and refined cane sugar.........................
Beet sugar......................................................
Malt beverages.................................................
Bottled and canned soft drinks........................
Total tobacco products....................................
Cigarettes, chewing and smoking tobacco....
Cigars........................................................
2011,13
2011
2013
2016,17
2026
203
204
2041
2044
205
2061,62,63
2061,62
2063
2082
2086
2111,21,31
2111,31
2121
77.3
78.7
72.8
78.3
73.7
79.7
79.7
76.6
82.0
87.5
85.9
86.1
92.9
56.7
70.0
86.8
85.3
88.4
84.4
88.6
74.8
87.9
95.5
93.7
87.1
85.8
90.4
93.4
94.0
90.8
98.1
86.1
89.5
93.9
93.3
93.7
101.7
104.6
95.0
106.1
115.6
98.9
101.0
97.3
96.3
95.0
103.1
101.5
104.6
109.9
103.4
102.1
102.4
101.4
107.0
108.9
102.3
105.7
123.9
100.8
105.3
94.8
111.8
93.7
100.1
99.3
102.1
116.0
106.9
102.1
101.8
106.4
107.9
113.9
95.0
116.4
128.0
99.2
110.9
96.7
117.9
96.2
98.8
98.8
98.7
118.3
110.6
100.5
99.6
107.3
112.3
119.5
96.5
125.6
135.3
107.9
121.0
104.1
104.5
103.3
90.4
87.6
94.8
122.6
114.1
100.7
99.5
111.4
115.9
123.4
100.0
131.7
143.1
110.8
125.5
110.4
103.3
106.9
98.6
100.0
94.5
131.3
121.5
105.1
104.1
112.3
117.0
125.6
99.5
130.3
149.5
112.4
132.8
114.9
93.2
106.8
99.7
94.7
108.8
137.9
131.0
110.3
107.2
141.4
119.5
130.1
98.8
133.2
155.0
113.4
140.9
122.9
103.2
108.5
105.5
108.7
100.7
130.3
136.7
113.4
111.7
129.3
117.3
126.2
98.7
127.3
162.4
118.3
142.1
126.6
112.6
114.4
110.1
109.6
111.8
152.3
146.6
117.2
115.5
133.1
115.3
126.2
94.5
135.4
168.0
116.4
149.6
129.9
120.6
113.3
125.5
117.1
139.2
165.7
158.1
124.2
123.1
139.1
86.7
94.3
101.2
95.2
98.8
100.2
97.8
97.5
98.0
97.2
96.9
85.5
86.7
99.8
98.5
96.2
86.5
100.7
107.9
103.8
96.9
106.3
92.2
94.5
101.5
101.6
105.1
102.8
107.2
105.4
98.0
104.6
106.9
112.2
105.0
107.4
99.7
97.3
104.2
93.6
102.8
99.9
97.2
102.3
112.1
112.1
105.2
94.6
101.6
111.0
94.3
107.4
122.0
103.1
98.8
107.9
96.4
106.9
103.0
97.3
110.5
114.0
108.8
104.4
92.3
104.5
109.8
91.4
112.5
114.2
118.2
95.2
117.1
86.1
114.4
104.7
98.2
115.9
104.3
107.4
111.3
95.3
104.2
111.9
86.3
121.6
118.0
128.5
90.2
126.8
87.9
121.1
110.1
103.8
121.6
108.6
112.0
119.5
102.9
104.5
114.0
94.0
119.8
119.9
129.6
96.9
132.3
88.7
120.0
112.2
105.5
122.7
109.5
117.8
121.0
105.6
102.4
118.9
104.5
123.7
118.5
134.5
106.3
139.2
85.7
125.1
112.5
104.4
124.6
108.8
116.7
123.1
107.1
99.6
122.5
101.4
132.8
121.0
141.1
107.5
155.1
90.0
128.8
118.5
111.9
127.1
117.9
117.8
133.5
112.3
101.4
126.7
105.4
132.1
118.3
162.6
105.8
151.1
94.1
132.1
118.3
110.5
125.2
130.9
118.7
138.0
110.5
98.1
123.3
107.5
84.0
84.5
92.5
94.0
94.2
114.6
115.0
105.3
94.0
104.8
90.3
115.7
106.0
83.6
100.8
89.3
120.9
104.2
76.1
99.8
80.8
103.6
107.0
84.0
106.5
85.8
126.2
114.3
86.2
113.8
95.0
125.3
116.4
85.2
121.5
91.5
135.8
118.1
87.3
125.6
90.6
146.2
121.8
94.3
127.7
92.0
156.4
120.9
96.2
135.3
85.3
86.7
88.7
113.4
102.0
94.9
98.9
97.2
94.2
103.9
97.7
83.7
87.2
94.5
79.4
105.3
106.2
81.8
113.9
119.8
92.5
112.5
115.6
102.6
119.6
110.0
113.8
132.1
129.4
120.1
91.8
86.2
101.3
98.5
84.7
91.0
89.1
93.1
95.5
91.9
97.5
107.3
94.8
100.2
102.4
96.0
95.9
91.6
85.4
110.2
92.7
99.9
102.4
95.7
99.1
105.2
87.0
97.6
94.0
84.9
109.6
90.4
93.1
118.1
98.5
95.6
110.1
91.1
100.7
97.3
84.3
111.1
88.5
95.4
128.2
110.1
106.4
105.8
94.0
102.6
103.3
88.6
100.0
91.0
90.6
136.1
107.2
103.9
108.5
108.4
105.4
101.1
85.5
121.6
97.6
93.7
146.8
110.5
105.7
128.0
125.3
111.3
110.4
93.3
115.1
99.2
96.3
146.7
113.0
107.3
127.0
128.3
112.8
112.6
100.4
114.1
100.5
97.4
151.4
114.1
109.3
138.9
135.5
115.6
114.5
98.7
122.9
105.9
100.1
162.2
125.4
107.7
153.6
143.8
119.9
120.0
104.9
121.9
102.1
104.5
106.9
96.8
100.6
100.4
106.5
113.3
99.7
98.1
100.3
103.6
103.9
95.8
102.1
92.8
102.3
102.9
90.8
99.8
99.8
103.7
105.3
100.0
94.1
100.0
102.6
98.4
99.7
102.1
90.6
99.9
112.0
92.7
91.6
90.0
118.6
124.4
103.8
97.9
96.8
108.1
95.2
94.6
98.5
90.4
101.4
90.9
93.7
89.0
88.4
128.0
128.5
103.0
106.0
99.2
118.5
92.8
102.3
99.5
96.0
98.1
116.8
98.3
89.9
90.2
141.2
138.3
111.5
121.1
110.4
120.5
88.8
93.2
103.0
99.7
104.7
131.3
106.8
98.8
103.5
148.0
151.9
125.4
128.1
116.2
123.0
89.5
102.0
107.9
102.8
110.4
139.5
104.2
95.6
101.0
181.5
189.8
125.4
122.0
115.6
125.6
90.1
101.6
117.7
106.3
104.7
141.8
107.4
100.3
104.3
210.8
229.2
134.0
130.4
125.0
126.0
89.2
105.0
117.7
104.1
108.7
152.3
108.8
95.0
104.3
259.8
296.9
133.3
135.5
128.4
132.6
93.9
109.3
117.7
104.9
115.6
105.3
100.5
102.8
93.3
105.4
95.1
101.3
94.9
103.6
95.1
105.1
105.2
104.5
101.5
104.4
103.0
110.8
109.6
Cotton and synthetic broad woven fabrics.......
Hosiery .............................................................
Nonwool yarn mills ...........................................
Men’s and boys’ suits and coats......................
Sawmills and planing mills, general .................
Millwork ........................................
Veneer and plywood.........................................
Household furniture ..........................................
Wood household furniture..............................
Upholstered household furniture....................
Mattresses and bedsprings............................
Office furniture..................................................
Paper, paperboard, and pulp m ills....................
Paper and plastic bags .....................................
Folding paperboard boxes................................
Corrugated and solid fiber boxes .....................
Industrial inorganic chemicals..........................
Industrial inorganic chemicals, not
elsewhere classified...............................
Synthetic fibers...............................................
Pharmaceutical preparations...........................
Cosmetics and other toiletries .......................
Paints and allied products ................................
Industrial organic chemicals, not
elsewhere classified........................................
Agricultural chemicals ......................................
Petroleum refining.............................................
2211,21
2251,52
2281
2311
2421
2431
2435,36
251
2511,7
2512
2515
252
2611,21,31,61
2643
2651
2653
281
2819 pt.
2823,24
2834
2844
2851
-
65.5
84.3
75.1
90.0
95.9
83.2
82.2
83.5
84.4
67.7
78.2
77.5
75.8
77.4
73.1
-
-
53.8
74.8
65.9
74.9
2869
287
2911
65.5
Tires and inner tubes ....................................
Miscellaneous plastic products........................
Footwear .................................................
Glass containers ............................................
Hydraulic cem ent...........................................
Structural clay products ....................................
Clay construction products...............................
Brick and structural clay tile ..........................
Clay refractories................................................
Concrete products ............................................
Ready-mixed concrete .....................................
3011
3079
314
3221
3241
325
3251,53,59
3251
3255
3271,72
3273
87.6
Steel ..........................................
Gray iron foundries........................................
Steel foundries ....................................
Steel foundries, not elsewhere classified ......
Primary copper, lead, and zinc ........................
Primary copper ...........................................
Primary aluminum.................................
Copper rolling and drawing ..............................
Aluminum rolling and drawing ..........................
Metal cans .................................................
Hand and edge to o ls...................................
Heating equipment, except electric..................
Fabricated structural m etal...............................
Metal doors, sash, and trim ..............................
Metal stampings.............................
331
3321
3324,25
3325
3331,32,33
3331
3334
3351
3353,54,55
3411
3423
3433
3441
3442
3465,66,69
102.2
82.1
86.4
93.3
97.0
107.5
107.7
85.3
83.0
96.2
76.8
87.5
87.0
93.9
80.4
97.4
89.3
93.2
Valves and pipe fittings.....................................
Farm and garden machinery............................
3494
352
93.6
75.7
92.4
97.7
See footnotes at end of table.
96FRASER
Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
November 1990
-
73.8
-
100.3
87.2
84.8
78.2
77.4
81.1
82.1
82.3
91.1
87.6
79.8
90.6
-
78.1
79.8
92.5
76.8
66.0
78.8
91.0
-
125.7
176.1
132.3
113.7
126.3
118.9
138.2
163.6
166.7
120.3
119.9
129.3
131.4
126.9
161.1
109.9
148.7
124.5
123.7
113.9
142.8
98.7
124.3
156.6
116.8
138.2
125.7
169.7
109.4
153.3
147.6
120.6
104.9
168.3
112.1
111.0
338.0
134.9
135.7
128.4
143.2
-
-
47. Continued—Annual productivity indexes for selected industries
(1977 = 100)
Industry
SIC
Construction machinery and equipment ..........
Oilfield machinery and equipment ....................
Machine to o ls ....................................................
Metal-cutting machine tools...........................
Metal-forming machine to o ls .........................
Pumps and compressors ..................................
Ball and roller bearings....................................
Refrigeration and heating equipment...............
Carburetors, pistons, rings, and valves............
Transformers ....................................................
Switchgear and switchboard apparatus...........
Motors and generators.....................................
Major household appliances.............................
Household cooking equipment.......................
Household refrigerators and freezers............
Household laundry equipment.......................
Household appliances, not elsewhere
classified.......................................................
Electric lam ps.................................................
Lighting fixtures ..............................................
Radio and television receiving se ts..................
Semiconductors and related devices...............
Motor vehicles and equipment.........................
Instruments to measure electricity....................
Photographic equipment and supplies.............
1970
1975
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
3531
3533
3541,42
3541
3542
3561,63
3562
3585
3592
83.4
86.4
91.7
89.5
98.5
85.8
85.5
88.4
-
93.9
107.9
103.0
102.9
104.0
91.4
97.5
89.9
100.1
100.3
105.6
102.0
103.0
99.2
102.9
105.8
101.4
94.6
97.4
104.0
98.8
100.6
93.5
100.2
95.4
93.8
90.3
96.1
104.7
96.5
98.9
89.4
102.4
94.3
99.4
91.7
88.9
98.4
88.0
89.2
85.0
95.9
83.3
100.1
92.0
88.2
91.8
83.0
81.1
87.6
100.2
86.3
100.9
99.6
102.6
87.5
93.6
93.3
93.7
106.1
94.4
105.5
110.3
104.1
79.9
96.7
96.4
96.6
106.8
92.1
103.7
114.0
107.1
73.2
97.7
97.6
97.1
108.3
95.6
101.5
111.1
100.8
75.6
110.8
112.4
105.9
115.4
103.6
107.9
118.8
101.6
72.0
106.0
95.1
127.4
106.3
_
3612
3613
3621
3631,32,33,39
3631
3632
3633
89.1
83.3
87.8
70.2
68.7
71.7
70.7
89.3
93.4
93.0
93.6
97.8
94.5
93.6
108.4
102.8
99.3
108.7
108.9
112.3
108.1
110.6
103.2
96.7
105.8
103.9
114.4
102.1
106.9
99.5
100.4
107.6
105.7
117.4
103.9
99.6
101.3
102.4
108.6
112.6
116.1
105.4
99.1
106.1
104.3
117.6
120.8
127.1
112.2
97.6
107.4
107.9
123.6
131.9
127.5
117.5
99.3
110.6
110.5
127.2
135.6
136.8
118.2
100.4
110.7
112.3
134.1
158.4
133.5
123.1
101.5
107.9
119.2
137.2
168.5
129.0
125.3
103.1
112.8
117.4
138.9
170.9
131.2
129.8
3639
3641
3645,46,47,48
3651
3674
371
3825
3861
70.4
88.3
78.1
70.6
70.5
102.6
105.2
94.6
118.5
138.1
97.8
100.2
120.6
99.1
103.2
93.3
116.9
149.4
90.8
108.4
112.7
100.4
106.9
88.7
133.6
171.6
93.1
111.9
111.2
94.7
108.4
91.0
163.9
197.9
96.9
119.2
110.2
103.7
124.8
96.3
196.1
211.5
109.6
121.8
124.8
109.8
131.9
102.2
236.9
229.2
115.7
133.7
131.8
110.0
126.9
107.1
249.8
206.4
121.2
130.4
131.1
113.1
131.1
113.9
278.1
215.6
121.7
122.2
144.3
120.1
144.5
109.9
257.7
292.2
129.1
132.2
153.4
117.7
150.4
109.8
258.5
318.2
133.8
_
67.6
88.8
96.4
89.2
90.1
56.0
87.7
95.9
92.9
Railroad transportation, revenue traffic............
Railroad transportation, car-miles.....................
Class 1 bus carriers..........................................
Intercity trucking................................................
Intercity trucking, general freight .....................
Air transportation ..............................................
Petroleum pipelines ..........................................
Telephone communications..............................
Gas and electric utilities...................................
Electric utilities................................................
Gas utilities ....................................................
Scrap and waste materials...............................
401 Class I
401 Class I
411,13,14 pts.
4213 pt.
4213 pt.
4511,4521 pt.
4612,13
4811
491,92,93
491,493 pt.
492,493 pt.
5093
77.7
89.1
107.3
83.5
76.8
71.4
79.5
62.1
83.1
77.1
102.1
-
89.5
98.3
97.0
89.2
88.4
87.6
95.7
85.9
94.7
92.9
101.4
-
104.7
102.9
98.3
116.7
116.4
113.1
101.7
110.8
97.6
95.4
103.4
110.6
107.3
107.9
100.9
107.7
107.5
106.2
93.0
118.1
96.2
94.0
102.1
108.2
111.5
107.6
90.7
116.3
117.2
104.9
86.0
124.4
94.4
93.0
98.1
104.8
115.8
110.1
98.8
108.0
107.8
114.9
89.2
129.1
89.3
89.5
89.0
103.0
141.9
128.9
95.4
130.7
136.0
126.7
94.3
145.1
88.4
90.9
81.1
123.5
152.9
137.7
90.9
135.1
137.6
131.7
104.5
143.0
91.6
94.4
83.6
122.2
161.7
138.9
87.4
130.2
131.7
136.3
104.9
149.8
90.9
93.5
82.1
127.9
178.1
148,2
86.8
134.5
140.9
137.9
107.0
161.3
90.6
95.8
74.1
133.8
206.4
167.5
90.6
138.9
144.9
146.1
104.9
165.9
93.5
100.7
71.6
138.7
226.5
179.4
_
_
_
140.8
110.7
176.7
97.9
105.6
74.7
-
Hardware stores................................................
Department stores............................................
Variety stores ....................................................
Retail food stores .............................................
Grocery stores................................................
Retail bakeries................................................
Franchised new car dealers.............................
Auto and home supply stores..........................
Gasoline service stations..................................
Apparel and accessory stores .........................
Men’s and boys’ clothing stores....................
Women’s ready-to-wear stores ......................
Family clothing stores....................................
Shoe stores....................................................
Furniture, furnishings, and equipment
stores.............................................................
Furniture and home furnishings stores .........
Appliance, radio, television, and music
stores.............................................................
Household appliance stores .......................
Radio, television, and music stores............
5251
5311
5331
54
5411
546
5511
5531
5541
56
5611
5621
5651
5661
_
77.5
124.9
107.0
74.6
81.3
82.7
76.5
75.2
95.3
97.8
89.7
122.5
98.8
98.6
93.1
95.0
89.9
85.3
105.0
102.3
106.5
109.5
95.1
114.8
104.4
102.4
98.3
99.0
98.6
97.7
103.2
107.4
112.9
108.6
116.0
108.2
112.8
111.6
103.8
107.8
100.3
100.1
102.5
99.6
106.7
105.1
117.9
107.1
117.9
123.7
110.3
107.5
109.9
118.8
97.1
97.9
97.9
98.1
109.2
106.7
123.9
116.4
127.8
132.4
114.2
109.2
112.4
113.0
95.5
97.9
90.6
100.4
107.2
111.8
126 4
116.6
142.0
140.7
110.2
111.4
119.5
121.5
95.2
98.6
88.4
109.4
118.9
122.5
132.9
119.5
151.3
149.2
107.9
121.1
126.6
126.8
95.6
100.1
78.9
110.4
118.4
129.1
140.9
125.1
158.3
145.8
110.9
124.6
129.2
118.5
95.8
98.4
69.8
109.7
124.7
134.3
146.3
131.4
162.8
138.5
118.7
137.4
135.3
101.1
93.7
96.3
73.6
110.7
125.6
143.9
153.5
135.0
176.4
136.0
127.5
140.3
138.5
97.2
92.7
93.8
78.9
107.4
134.1
139.8
142.3
134.0
166.1
128.8
119.9
150.6
141.7
93.8
91.8
92.1
76.9
111.8
136.6
141.5
141.2
133.7
162.8
128.0
118.2
57
571
80.1
79.3
91.9
90.1
107.6
104.8
107.4
98.0
112.6
101.2
109.2
97.6
118.4
104.1
129.4
113.1
133.5
108.7
144.4
115.5
146.8
113.0
154.4
111.0
572,73
572
573
81.2
94.8
89.5
98.0
112.4
111.3
112.7
124.0
109.9
131.5
132.4
114.9
140.5
128.7
102.0
142.4
143.4
111.8
159.5
158.5
139.2
165.9
180.0
154.6
190.2
198.9
177.2
206.5
211.9
172.1
226.7
243.2
177.2
269.5
Eating and drinking places ...............................
Drug and proprietary stores..............................
Liquor stores.....................................................
Commercial banking.........................................
Hotels, motels, and tourist courts.....................
Laundry and cleaning services ........................
Beauty and barber shops .................................
Beauty shops..................................................
Automotive repair shops...................................
58
5912
5921
602
7011
721
7231,41
7231
753
100.6
83.4
100.8
94.2
96.3
90.0
89.7
96.6
98.7
100.1
102.0
99.5
103.8
96.6
99.3
100.0
97.7
107.4
108.0
100.4
99.8
107.0
102.2
92.7
95.0
91.0
102.9
106.2
95.9
97.3
107.6
104.0
90.5
91.6
88.4
109.2
114.7
93.3
96.9
107.9
108.1
93.2
88.8
90.6
108.3
113.1
87.4
95.3
110.9
101.6
101.3
95.4
90.4
114.0
120.1
86.1
91.1
105.7
98.7
104.3
102.1
92.3
103.9
112.3
88.3
87.9
105.5
107.1
109.7
97.5
87.3
98.6
104.1
96.1
89.7
104.6
98.0
111.8
92.8
85.0
97.3
98.8
93.2
90.7
103.8
91.6
116.5
88.0
84.1
99.1
100.1
96.1
91.3
105.3
88.5
-
-
86.1
-
-
-
-
85.5
85.1
94.7
-
-
-
-
_
83.8
96.0
96.2
101.1
- Data not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Monthly Labor Review November 1990 97
Current Labor Statistics: International Comparisons Data
48. Unemployment rates, approximating U.S. concepts, in nine countries, quarterly data
seasonally adjusted
Annual average
1988
1989
1990
Country
1988
1989
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
Total labor force basis
United States.......................................
Canada .................................................
Australia...............................................
Japan ....................................................
5.4
7.7
7.2
2.5
5.2
7.5
6.1
2.3
5.2
7.7
6.7
2.4
5.1
7.5
6.6
2.3
5.2
7.5
6.1
2.3
5.2
7.4
6.0
2.2
5.3
7.6
5.9
2.2
5.2
7.5
6.2
2.1
5.2
7.4
6.4
2.1
France..................................................
Germany ..............................................
Italy 1, 2 ................................................
Sweden ................................................
United Kingdom ...................................
10.0
6.2
7.8
1.6
8.5
9.5
5.6
7.7
1.3
6.9
9.9
6.0
7.7
1.4
7.9
9.6
5.7
7.6
1.4
7.5
9.5
5.6
7.8
1.3
7.1
9.5
5.6
7.7
1.3
6.7
9.4
5.5
7.5
1.4
6.3
9.4
5.3
7.2
1.3
6.1
9.3
5.2
6.6
1.3
6.1
United States.......................................
Canada .................................................
Australia ...............................................
Japan ....................................................
5.5
7.8
7.2
2.5
5.3
7.5
6.2
2.3
5.3
7.7
6.8
2.4
5.2
7.5
6.6
2.4
5.3
7.6
6.1
2.3
5.3
7.4
6.1
2.3
5.3
7.6
5.9
2.2
5.2
7.6
6.2
2.1
5.3
7.4
6.4
2.1
France..................................................
Germany ..............................................
Italy', 2 ..................................................
Sweden................................................
United Kingdom ...................................
10.2
6.3
7.9
1.6
8.6
9.7
5.7
7.8
1.3
7.0
10.2
6.2
7.8
1.4
8.0
9.8
5.9
7.8
1.4
7.6
9.8
5.7
8.0
1.3
7.2
9.7
5.7
7.8
1.3
6.7
9.6
5.6
7.7
1.4
6.4
9.6
5.4
7.4
1.4
6.2
9.5
5.3
6.8
1.3
6.2
Civilian labor force basis
1 Quarterly rates are tor the first month of the quarter.
2 Many Italians reported as unemployed did not actively
seek work in the past 30 days, and they have been ex
cluded for comparability with U.S. concepts. Inclusion of
such persons would about double the Italian unemployment
rate in 1985 and earlier years and increase it to 11-12 per
Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for98
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
November 1990
cent for 1986 onward.
NOTE: Quarterly figures for France, Germany, and the
United Kingdom are calculated by applying annual adjust
ment factors to current published data and therefore should
be viewed as less precise indicators of unemployment under
U.S. concepts than the annual figures.
49. Annual data: Employment status of the civilian working-age population, approximating U.S. concepts,
10 countries
(Numbers in thousands)
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
108,670
11,899
6,810
56,320
22,950
27,540
21,320
6,080
4,327
26,590
110,204
11,926
6,910
56,980
23,160
27,710
21,410
6,140
4,350
26,560
111,550
12,109
6,997
58,110
23,140
27,670
21,590
6,170
4,369
26,590
113,544
12,316
7,135
58,480
23,300
27,800
21,670
6,260
4,385
27,010
115,461
12,532
7,300
58,820
23,360
28,020
21,800
6,280
4,418
27,210
117,834
12,746
7,588
59,410
23,440
28,240
22,290
6,370
4,443
27,380
119,865
13,011
7,758
60,050
23,550
28,380
22,350
6,540
4,480
27,720
121,669
13,275
7,974
60,860
23,590
28,580
22,660
6,560
4,540
28,150
123,869
13,503
8,237
61,920
23,750
28,790
22,530
6,650
4,599
28,250
63.8
64.1
62.1
62.6
57.2
54.7
48.2
55.3
66.9
62.5
63.9
64.8
61.9
62.6
57.1
54.7
48.3
56.6
66.8
62.2
64.0
64.1
61.7
62.7
57.1
54.6
47.7
56.5
66.8
61.9
64.0
64.4
61.4
63.1
56.6
54.3
47.5
56.1
66.7
61.6
64.4
64.8
61.5
62.7
56.6
54.4
47.3
56.2
66.6
62.1
64.8
65.3
61.6
62.3
56.3
54.7
47.2
55.7
66.9
62.2
65.3
65.7
62.8
62.1
56.1
54.9
47.8
55.9
67.0
62.3
65.6
66.2
63.0
61.9
55.9
55.0
47.6
56.7
67.1
62.7
65.9
66.7
63.3
61.9
55.5
54.9
47.4
56.3
67.6
63.5
66.5
67.0
64.2
62.2
55.5
55.0
47.1
56.7
68.1
63.6
Employed
United States...........................................................
Canada ....................................................................
Australia...................................................................
Japan .......................................................................
France .....................................................................
Germany..................................................................
Italy ..........................................................................
Netherlands..............................................................
Sweden....................................................................
United Kingdom.......................................................
99,303
10,708
6,284
54,600
21,330
26,490
20,200
5,510
4,226
24,670
100,397
11,001
6,416
55,060
21,200
26,450
20,280
5,540
4,219
23,800
99,526
10,618
6,415
55,620
21,240
26,150
20,250
5,510
4,213
23,560
100,834
10,675
6,300
56,550
21,170
25,770
20,320
5,410
4,218
23,450
105,005
10,932
6,494
56,870
20,980
25,830
20,390
5,490
4,249
23,830
107,150
11,221
6,697
57,260
20,920
26,010
20,490
5,640
4,293
24,150
109,597
11,531
6,974
57,740
20,950
26,380
20,610
5,730
4,326
24,300
112,440
11,861
7,129
58,320
21,020
26,580
20,590
5,890
4,396
24,860
114,968
12,245
7,398
59,310
21,180
26,770
20,870
5,940
4,467
25,740
117,342
12,486
7,728
60,500
21,440
27,140
20,770
6,050
4,538
26,270
Employment-population ratio2
United States...........................................................
Canada ....................................................................
Australia...................................................................
Japan .......................................................................
France .....................................................................
Germany..................................................................
Italy ..........................................................................
Netherlands..............................................................
Sweden....................................................................
United Kingdom.......................................................
59.2
59.3
58.3
61.3
53.5
53.1
46.1
52.0
65.6
58.1
59.0
59.9
58.4
61.2
52.8
52.5
45.9
51.6
65.1
55.7
57.8
57.1
57.3
61.2
52.3
51.6
45.2
50.7
64.7
54.9
57.9
56.8
55.3
61.4
51.8
50.6
44.7
49.2
64.4
54.3
59.5
57.5
56.0
61.0
51.0
50.5
44.5
49.3
64.5
54.8
60.1
58.5
56.5
60.6
50.4
50.7
44.4
50.0
65.0
55.2
60.7
59.4
57.7
60.4
50.2
51.3
44.2
50.2
65.2
55.2
61.5
60.4
57.9
60.1
49.9
51.5
43.8
51.1
65.8
56.2
62.3
61.6
58.7
60.4
49.8
51.5
43.7
51.0
66.5
58.1
63.0
62.0
60.2
60.8
50.1
51.9
43.4
51.5
67.2
59.2
Unemployed
United States...........................................................
Canada ....................................................................
Australia...................................................................
Japan .......................................................................
France .....................................................................
Germany..................................................................
Italy ..........................................................................
Netherlands..............................................................
Sweden....................................................................
United Kingdom.......................................................
7,637
865
409
1,140
1,470
770
920
350
86
1,850
8,273
898
394
1,260
1,750
1,090
1,040
540
108
2,790
10,678
1,308
495
1,360
1,920
1,560
1,160
630
137
3,000
10,717
1,434
697
1,560
1,970
1,900
1,270
760
151
3,140
8,539
1,384
641
1,610
2,320
1,970
1,280
770
136
3,180
8,312
1,311
603
1,560
2,440
2,010
1,310
640
125
3,060
8,237
1,215
613
1,670
2,490
1,860
1,680
640
117
3,080
7,425
1,150
629
1,730
2,530
1,800
1,760
650
84
2,860
6,701
1,031
576
1,550
2,410
1,810
1,790
620
73
2,410
6,528
1,018
509
1,420
2,310
1,650
1,760
600
61
1,980
Unemployment rate
United States...........................................................
Canada ....................................................................
Australia...................................................................
Japan .......................................................................
France .....................................................................
Germany...................................................................
Italy ..........................................................................
Netherlands..............................................................
Sweden....................................................................
United Kingdom.......................................................
7.1
7.5
6.1
2.0
6.4
2.8
4.4
6.0
2.0
7.0
7.6
7.5
5.8
2.2
7.6
4.0
4.9
8.9
2.5
10.5
9.7
11.0
7.2
2.4
8.3
5.6
5.4
10.3
3.1
11.3
9.6
11.8
10.0
2.7
8.5
6.9
5.9
12.3
3.5
11.8
7.5
11.2
9.0
2.8
10.0
7.1
5.9
12.3
3.1
11.8
7.2
10.5
8.3
2.6
10.4
7.2
6.0
10.2
2.8
11.2
7.0
9.5
8.1
2.8
10.6
6.6
7.5
10.0
2.6
11.2
6.2
8.8
8.1
2.9
10.7
6.3
7.9
9.9
1.9
10.3
5.5
7.8
7.2
2.5
10.2
6.3
7.9
9.5
1.6
8.6
5.3
7.5
6.2
2.3
9.7
5.7
7.8
9.0
1.3
7.0
Employment status and country
1980
Labor force
United States.............................. .............................
Canada ....................................................................
Australia...................................................................
Japan .......................................................................
France .....................................................................
Germany...................................................................
Italy ..........................................................................
Netherlands..............................................................
Sweden....................................................................
United Kingdom.......................................................
106,940
11,573
6,693
55,740
22,800
27,260
21,120
5,860
4,312
26,520
Participation rate1
United States...........................................................
Canada ....................................................................
Australia...................................................................
Japan .......................................................................
France .....................................................................
Germany...................................................................
Italy ..........................................................................
Netherlands..............................................................
Sweden....................................................................
United Kingdom.......................................................
1981
1 Labor force as a percent of the civilian working-age population.
2 Employment as a percent of the civilian working-age population.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for information on breaks in series
for Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden.
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
99
Current Labor Statistics: International Comparisons Data
50.
Annual indexes of manufacturing productivity and related measures, 12 countries
(1977 = 100)
1960
Item and country
1970
1973
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
Output per hour
United States...........................................................
Canada ....................................................................
Japan .......................................................................
Belgium....................................................................
Denmark..................................................................
France .....................................................................
Germany..................................................................
Italy ..........................................................................
Netherlands..............................................................
Norway ....................................................................
Sweden....................................................................
United Kingdom.......................................................
56.9
51.6
17.2
24.2
32.4
30.7
36.9
28.9
27.3
47.8
36.5
49.4
75.2
76.9
48.0
44.2
57.2
58.5
65.2
54.3
54.1
74.5
69.6
70.8
86.9
91.9
61.5
57.7
72.7
68.7
76.3
64.9
68.4
86.4
81.8
84.1
95.3
102.9
80.0
77.8
88.6
85.7
94.1
82.9
89.2
92.2
88.7
89.3
95.3
103.8
85.0
82.0
92.9
89.9
97.9
90.7
94.1
97.7
95.6
90.3
95.3
99.9
90.9
87.3
98.0
90.6
97.8
95.1
95.1
96.3
96.4
89.9
97.5
104.8
94.3
94.2
99.6
93.4
99.3
97.6
97.7
96.5
95.8
94.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
105.2
107.3
105.4
110.2
104.9
102.5
105.1
105.3
106.7
105.2
106.5
108.4
110.8
116.4
113.0
114.7
104.3
104.5
108.5
115.8
116.4
112.6
111.9
114.3
115.9
119.8
119.4
116.9
105.0
108.8
112.4
122.1
121.1
116.0
112.6
118.0
120.2
118.4
121.3
118.2
98.9
110.8
111.4
123.2
122.4
114.6
114.3
122.6
124.7
119.2
130.7
122.8
100.6
113.8
109.5
126.5
123.3
120.4
115.7
130.1
127.6
121.2
136.9
128.8
103.8
119.6
114.4
130.1
128.9
123.9
117.4
137.1
130.1
123.8
144.8
Output
United States...........................................................
Canada ....................................................................
Japan .......................................................................
Belgium....................................................................
Denmark...................................................................
France .....................................................................
Germany..................................................................
Italy ..........................................................................
Netherlands..............................................................
Norway ....................................................................
Sweden....................................................................
United Kingdom.......................................................
53.4
44.1
14.0
37.8
45.4
35.1
48.8
27.8
42.7
56.0
51.8
82.3
79.9
78.5
51.0
70.8
75.7
72.7
84.6
58.1
80.3
88.4
91.0
109.8
97.9
100.0
67.0
86.8
88.5
87.0
93.8
70.4
91.2
101.3
98.7
121.2
107.7
111.7
77.8
91.3
92.0
98.4
99.4
88.4
97.9
99.8
95.7
116.4
109.8
115.9
83.0
93.7
97.3
101.3
104.0
97.5
101.0
102.7
101.9
116.2
104.8
110.7
90.4
96.2
101.7
100.6
104.0
102.7
101.5
101.7
102.3
106.1
106.5
114.8
94.5
95.8
98.4
99.0
102.4
101.0
101.5
100.7
99.6
99.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
106.4
106.5
108.0
105.0
106.7
99.9
101.1
100.9
101.9
99.3
105.7
102.9
119.4
120.2
120.5
107.3
111.7
98.7
103.9
105.5
107.9
105.0
113.7
107.1
124.0
127.0
128.9
108.4
115.3
99.1
107.4
108.7
111.1
108.8
115.9
109.8
126.8
128.4
129.6
107.1
115.3
99.1
107.4
111.1
113.7
108.8
116.7
111.1
132.3
135.8
138.9
108.4
111.8
99.6
105.2
115.6
114.4
110.8
119.9
116.9
139.9
144.1
150.0
113.9
111.6
103.0
109.5
124.4
119.6
107.5
123.7
125.5
144.0
146.9
161.1
Total hours
United States...........................................................
Canada ....................................................................
Japan .......................................................................
Belgium....................................................................
Denmark..................................................................
France .....................................................................
Germany...................................................................
Italy ..........................................................................
Netherlands..............................................................
Norway ....................................................................
Sweden....................................................................
United Kingdom.......................................................
93.8
85.5
81.3
156.2
140.0
114.5
132.0
96.2
156.6
117.3
141.9
166.7
106.1
102.1
106.1
159.9
132.3
124.1
129.7
107.0
148.5
118.6
130.7
155.0
112.7
108.8
108.8
150.3
121.8
126.7
123.0
108.3
133.4
117.3
120.6
144.1
113.0
108.6
97.2
117.4
103.9
114.8
105.6
106.6
109.8
108.3
108.0
130.3
115.2
111.6
97.6
114.3
104.7
112.6
106.2
107.4
107.4
105.1
106.5
128.8
110.0
110.8
99.5
110.1
103.7
111.0
106.4
108.0
106.8
105.5
106.1
118.1
109.2
109.6
100.3
101.7
98.8
106.0
103.1
103.4
103.9
104.3
103.9
105.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.2
99.2
102.5
95.2
101.7
97.4
96.2
95.8
95.5
94.3
99.2
94.8
107.7
103.3
106.6
93.6
107.1
94.4
95.8
91.1
92.7
93.2
101.6
93.7
107.0
106.0
108.0
92.7
109.8
91.0
95.6
89.0
91.8
93.8
103.0
93.1
105.5
108.5
106.8
90.6
116.6
89.4
96.4
90.1
92.9
94.9
102.1
90.6
106.1
114.0
106.3
88.3
111.2
87.5
96.1
91.4
92.7
92.1
103.6
89.9
109.6
118.9
109.6
88.4
107.6
86.1
95.7
95.7
92.8
86.8
105.3
91.5
110.6
118.6
111.2
Compensation per hour
United States...........................................................
Canada ....................................................................
Japan .......................................................................
Belgium....................................................................
Denmark..................................................................
France .....................................................................
Germany...................................................................
Italy ..........................................................................
Netherlands..............................................................
Norway ....................................................................
Sweden....................................................................
United Kingdom.......................................................
22.5
16.4
6.5
9.1
7.7
7.4
13.7
3.9
9.1
9.9
9.3
7.2
35.9
28.7
24.8
23.1
22.3
17.8
35.1
11.6
28.5
24.6
24.4
14.9
43.0
35.9
40.4
35.5
34.5
25.5
48.9
17.7
44.1
35.3
34.3
22.6
68.2
64.4
78.1
71.5
67.7
55.4
78.6
49.4
78.8
70.9
70.5
55.1
74.9
71.0
83.1
77.9
75.6
62.9
83.9
59.8
85.0
74.7
76.1
65.6
83.7
78.6
88.4
86.3
83.4
72.8
90.4
70.2
89.6
81.2
84.5
79.7
91.8
90.4
95.0
95.9
91.9
84.3
96.2
84.8
93.7
90.3
93.0
91.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
102.5
106.1
103.0
106.0
106.9
110.4
104.4
117.0
104.6
110.3
109.9
106.9
106.0
111.1
106.1
114.8
113.0
120.0
108.9
134.3
107.9
120.9
119.3
114.2
111.1
116.8
110.9
121.8
120.6
130.2
115.1
150.9
113.6
132.2
130.9
122.6
116.1
121.4
116.3
126.6
123.1
135.9
119.7
157.1
117.1
145.0
141.8
132.1
119.2
126.3
119.0
129.4
135.7
142.7
125.0
166.7
120.7
165.6
151.6
140.5
123.5
132.5
121.6
131.6
140.5
148.7
130.1
175.6
123.8
175.9
162.9
149.2
128.8
143.8
129.9
Unit labor costs: National currency basis
United States...........................................................
Canada ....................................................................
Japan .......................................................................
Belgium....................................................................
Denmark...................................................................
France .....................................................................
Germany..................................................................
Italy ..........................................................................
Netherlands..............................................................
Norway ....................................................................
Sweden....................................................................
United Kingdom.......................................................
39.5
31.9
37.9
37.8
23.8
24.0
37.2
13.6
33.4
20.6
25.5
14.6
47.7
37.3
51.6
52.3
39.0
30.4
53.8
21.4
52.7
33.0
35.0
21.0
49.5
39.1
65.6
61.4
47.4
37.1
64.1
27.2
64.5
40.9
42.0
26.9
71.6
62.6
97.5
92.0
76.4
64.6
83.5
59.5
88.4
76.9
79.5
61.7
78.6
68.4
97.7
95.0
81.4
70.0
85.7
65.9
90.4
76.5
79.5
72.7
87.8
78.7
97.2
98.9
85.1
80.3
92.4
73.8
94.2
84.3
87.6
88.7
94.1
86.3
100.8
101.8
92.2
90.3
96.8
86.9
95.9
93.6
97.0
96.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
97.5
98.9
97.7
96.1
101.9
107.6
99.4
111.2
98.1
104.8
103.1
98.6
95.6
95.5
93.9
100.1
108.3
114.9
100.4
115.9
92.7
107.4
106.7
99.9
95.9
97.6
92.9
104.2
114.9
119.6
102.4
123.6
93.9
114.0
116.3
103.9
96.6
102.5
95.9
107.2
124.5
122.6
107.5
127.5
95.7
126.5
124.1
107.8
95.6
106.0
91.1
105.4
134.9
125.4
114.1
131.8
97.9
137.6
131.0
108.0
96.8
109.3
88.9
102.2
135.5
124.4
113.7
135.0
96.0
142.0
138.7
108.8
99.0
116.1
89.7
Unit labor costs: U.S. dollar basis
United States...........................................................
Canada ....................................................................
Japan .......................................................................
Belgium....................................................................
Denmark..................................................................
France .....................................................................
Germany..................................................................
Italy ..........................................................................
Netherlands..............................................................
Norway ....................................................................
Sweden....................................................................
United Kingdom.......................................................
39.5
40.6
26.2
34.7
28.8
32.2
21.7
29.6
23.7
18.7
31.0
23.4
47.7
44.1
35.9
48.2
43.4
36.2
35.8
46.2
38.9
29.8
42.5
28.7
49.5
48.2
60.3
72.5
65.7
55.0
58.8
63.4
62.0
46.0
60.6
37.7
71.6
67.8
116.6
133.9
115.7
94.4
101.1
95.0
109.3
94.7
110.7
67.7
78.6
72.1
111.5
148.2
129.1
108.2
113.5
107.4
120.4
97.5
116.6
88.3
87.8
83.1
107.3
155.0
126.2
125.2
123.6
116.8
126.8
110.2
130.2
118.1
94.1
88.9
113.8
125.9
107.8
109.2
104.3
103.3
103.0
105.2
120.4
112.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
97.5
99.0
102.5
86.1
92.9
92.9
94.5
99.1
91.8
92.6
84.5
85.5
95.6
91.0
98.5
79.3
87.3
86.5
85.7
89.4
77.2
85.0
81.0
76.4
95.9
88.2
97.0
80.4
90.4
87.7
84.5
87.7
75.6
85.7
84.9
77.1
96.6
91.1
141.9
109.8
128.3
116.4
120.2
115.8
104.4
110.4
109.4
90.5
95.6
98.6
156.9
129.1
164.4
137.2
154.1
137.6
129.1
131.8
129.7
101.3
96.8
109.7
172.7
127.1
167.7
137.3
157.1
140.3
129.7
140.5
142.1
110.9
99.0
121.0
161.8
157.7
128.2
146.8
143.4
117.5
130.0
147.4
106.9
- Data not available.
100 Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
November 1990
106.8
125.1
119.6
133.8
134.7
131.7
119.3
144.1
113.2
107.2
114.8
128.2
125.7
107.8
126.5
131.1
106.0
85.7
96.0
95.9
93.3
81.8
106.0
91.0
147.8
155.5
136.0
194.4
125.7
183.3
180.7
164.3
138.3
124.3
113.7
145.4
93.3
139.1
151.4
114.0
51.
Occupational injury and illness incidence rates by industry, United States
Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers2
Industry and type of case1
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
PRIVATE SECTOR3
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday cases ..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
8.7
4.0
65.2
8.3
3.8
61.7
7.7
3.5
58.7
7.6
3.4
58.5
8.0
3.7
63.4
7.9
3.6
64.9
7.9
3.6
65.8
8.3
3.8
69.9
8.6
4.0
76.1
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing3
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
11.9
5.8
82.7
12.3
5.9
82.8
11.8
5.9
86.0
11.9
6.1
90.8
12.0
6.1
90.7
11.4
5.7
91.3
11.2
5.6
93.6
11.2
5.7
94.1
10.9
5.6
101.8
Mining
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
11.2
6.5
163.6
11.6
6.2
146.4
10.5
5.4
137.3
8.4
4.5
125.1
9.7
5.3
160.2
8.4
4.8
145.3
7.4
4.1
125.9
8.5
4.9
144.0
8.8
5.1
152.1
15.7
6.5
117.0
15.1
6.3
113.1
14.6
6.0
115.7
14.8
6.3
118.2
15.5
6.9
128.1
15.2
6.8
128.9
15.2
6.9
134.5
14.7
6.8
135.8
14.6
6.8
142.2
15.5
6.5
113.0
15.1
6.1
107.1
14.1
5.9
112.0
14.4
6.2
113.0
15.4
6.9
121.3
15.2
6.8
120.4
14.9
6.6
122.7
14.2
6.5
134.0
14.0
6.4
132.2
Construction
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday cases ..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
General building contractors:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
Heavy construction contractors:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday cases ..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
Special trade contractors:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
16.3
6.3
117.6
14.9
6.0
106.0
15.1
5.8
113.1
15.4
6.2
122.4
14.9
6.4
131.7
14.5
6.3
127.3
14.7
6.3
132.9
14.5
6.4
139.1
15.1
7.0
162.3
15.5
6.7
118.9
15.2
6.6
119.3
14.7
6.2
118.6
14.8
6.4
119.0
15.8
7.1
130.1
15.4
7.0
133.3
15.6
7.2
140.4
15.0
7.1
135.7
14.7
7.0
141.1
Manufacturing
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
12.2
5.4
86.7
11.5
5.1
82.0
10.2
4.4
75.0
10.0
4.3
73.5
10.6
4.7
77.9
10.4
4.6
80.2
10.6
4.7
85.2
11.9
5.3
95.5
13.1
5.7
107.4
18.6
9.5
171.8
17.6
9.0
158.4
16.9
8.3
153.3
18.3
9.2
163.5
19.6
9.9
172.0
18.5
9.3
171.4
18.9
9.7
177.2
18.9
9.6
176.5
19.5
10.0
189.1
16.0
6.6
97.6
15.1
6.2
91.9
13.9
5.5
85.6
14.1
5.7
83.0
15.3
6.4
101.5
15.0
6.3
100.4
15.2
6.3
103.0
15.4
6.7
103.6
16.6
7.3
115.7
15.0
7.1
128.1
14.1
6.9
122.2
13.0
6.1
112.2
13.1
6.0
112.0
13.6
6.6
120.8
13.9
6.7
127.8
13.6
6.5
126.0
14.9
7.1
135.8
16.0
7.5
141.0
15.2
7.1
128.3
14.4
6.7
121.3
12.4
5.4
101.6
12.4
5.4
103.4
13.3
6.1
115.3
12.6
5.7
113.8
13.6
6.1
125.5
17.0
7.4
145.8
19.4
8.2
161.3
18.5
8.0
118.4
17.5
7.5
109.9
15.3
6.4
102.5
15.1
6.1
96.5
16.1
6.7
104.9
16.3
6.9
110.1
16.0
6.8
115.5
17.0
7.2
121.9
18.8
8.0
138.8
13.7
5.5
81.3
12.9
5.1
74.9
10.7
4.2
66.0
9.8
3.6
58.1
10.7
4.1
65.8
10.8
4.2
69.3
10.7
4.2
72.0
11.3
4.4
72.7
12.1
4.7
82.8
8.0
3.3
51.8
7.4
3.1
48.4
6.5
2.7
42.2
6.3
2.6
41.4
6.8
2.8
45.0
6.4
2.7
45.7
6.4
2.7
49.8
7.2
3.1
55.9
8.0
3.3
64.6
10.6
4.9
82.4
9.8
4.6
78.1
9.2
4.0
72.2
8.4
3.6
64.5
9.3
4.2
68.8
9.0
3.9
71.6
9.6
4.1
79.1
13.5
5.7
105.7
17.7
6.6
134.2
6.8
2.7
41.8
6.5
2.7
39.2
5.6
2.3
37.0
5.2
2.1
35.6
5.4
2.2
37.5
5.2
2.2
37.9
5.3
2.3
42.2
5.8
2.4
43.9
6.1
2.6
51.5
10.9
4.4
67.9
10.7
4.4
68.3
9.9
4.1
69.9
9.9
4.0
66.3
10.5
4.3
70.2
9.7
4.2
73.2
10.2
4.3
70.9
10.7
4.6
81.5
11.3
5.1
91.0
18.7
9.0
136.8
17.8
8.6
130.7
16.7
8.0
129.3
16.5
7.9
131.2
16.7
8.1
131.6
16.7
8.1
138.0
16.5
8.0
137.8
17.7
8.6
153.7
18.5
9.2
169.7
Durable goods
Lumber and wood products:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
Furniture and fixtures:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday cases ..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
Stone, clay, and glass products:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday cases ..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
Primary metal industries:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
Fabricated metal products:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses..................................................................................
Lost workdays....................................................................................
Machinery, except electrical:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
Electric and electronic equipment:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday cases ..................................................................................
Lost workdays...........................................................................................
Transportation equipment:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday cases ..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
Instruments and related products:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses..................................................................................
Lost workdays...........................................................................................
Nondurable goods
Food and kindred products:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday cases..................................................................................
Lost workdays...........................................................................................
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Monthly Labor Review November 1990
101
Current Labor Statistics: Injury and Illness Data
51. Continued— Occupational injury and illness incidence rates by industry, United States
Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers2
Industry and type of case1
1980
Tobacco manufacturing:
Total cases............................................................................................
Lost workday cases .............................................................................
Lost workdays...........................................................................................
Textile mill products:
Total cases............................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
Apparel and other textile products:
Total cases..............................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses..................................................................................
Lost workdays...........................................................................................
Paper and allied products:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses..................................................................................
Lost workdays...........................................................................................
Printing and publishing:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday cases ..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
Chemicals and allied products:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday cases ..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
Petroleum and coal products:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday cases ..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
Leather and leather products:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses..................................................................................
Lost workdays...........................................................................................
Transportation and public utilities
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday cases ..................................................................................
Lost workdays ..........................................................................................
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
8.1
3.8
45.8
8.2
3.9
56.8
7.2
3.2
44.6
6.5
3.0
42.8
7.7
3.2
51.7
7.3
3.0
51.7
6.7
2.5
45.6
8.6
2.5
46.4
9.3
2.9
53.0
9.1
3.3
62.8
8.8
3.2
59.2
7.6
2.8
53.8
7.4
2.8
51.4
8.0
3.0
54.0
7.5
3.0
57.4
7.8
3.1
59.3
9.0
3.6
65.9
9.6
4.0
78.8
6.4
2.2
34.9
6.3
2.2
35.0
6.0
2.1
36.4
6.4
2.4
40.6
6.7
2.5
40.9
6.7
2.6
44.1
6.7
2.7
49.4
7.4
3.1
59.5
8.1
3.5
68.2
12.7
5.8
112.3
11.6
5.4
103.6
10.6
4.9
99.1
10.0
4.5
90.3
10.4
4.7
93.8
10.2
4.7
94.6
10.5
4.7
99.5
12.8
5.8
122.3
13.1
5.9
124.3
6.9
3.1
46.5
6.7
3.0
47.4
6.6
2.8
45.7
6.6
2.9
44.6
6.5
2.9
46.0
6.3
2.9
49.2
6.5
2.9
50.8
6.7
3.1
55.1
6.6
3.2
59.8
6.8
3.1
50.3
6.6
3.0
48.1
5.7
2.5
39.4
5.5
2.5
42.3
5.3
2.4
40.8
5.1
2.3
38.8
6.3
2.7
49.4
7.0
3.1
58.8
7.0
3.3
59.0
7.2
3.5
59.1
6.7
2.9
51.2
5.3
2.5
46.4
5.5
2.4
46.8
5.1
2.4
53.5
5.1
2.4
49.9
7.1
3.2
67.5
7.3
3.1
65.9
7.0
3.2
68.4
15.5
7.4
118.6
14.6
7.2
117.4
12.7
6.0
100.9
13.0
6.2
101.4
13.6
6.4
104.3
13.4
6.3
107.4
14.0
6.6
118.2
15.9
7.6
130.8
16.3
8.1
142.9
11.7
5.0
82.7
11.5
5.1
82.6
9.9
4.5
86.5
10.0
4.4
87.3
10.5
4.7
94.4
10.3
4.6
88.3
10.5
4.8
83.4
12.4
5.8
114.5
11.4
5.6
128.2
9.4
5.5
104.5
9.0
5.3
100.6
8.5
4.9
96.7
8.2
4.7
94.9
8.8
5.2
105.1
8.6
5.0
107.1
8.2
4.8
102.1
8.4
4.9
108.1
8.9
5.1
118.6
7.4
3.2
48.7
7.3
3.1
45.3
7.2
3.1
45.5
7.2
3.1
47.8
7.4
3.3
50.5
7.4
3.2
50.7
7.7
3.3
54.0
7.7
3.4
56.1
7.8
3.5
60.9
Wholesale and retail trade
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday cases ..................................................................................
Lost workdays...........................................................................................
Wholesale trade:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses..................................................................................
Lost workdays...........................................................................................
Retail trade:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses..................................................................................
Lost workdays...........................................................................................
8.2
3.9
58.2
7.7
3.6
54.7
7.1
3.4
52.1
7.0
3.2
50.6
7.2
3.5
55.5
7.2
3.5
59.8
7.2
3.6
62.5
7.4
3.7
64.0
7.6
3.8
69.2
7.1
2.9
44.5
7.1
2.9
41.1
7.2
2.9
42.6
7.3
3.0
46.7
7.5
3.2
48.4
7.5
3.1
47.0
7.8
3.2
50.5
7.8
3.3
52.9
7.9
3.4
57.6
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday cases..................................................................................
Lost workdays...........................................................................................
2.0
.8
12.2
1.9
.8
11.6
2.0
.9
13.2
2.0
.9
12.8
1.9
.9
13.6
2.0
.9
15.4
2.0
.9
17.1
2.0
.9
14.3
2.0
.9
17.2
Services
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses..................................................................................
Lost workdays...........................................................................................
5.2
2.3
35.8
5.0
2.3
35.9
4.9
2.3
35.8
5.1
2.4
37.0
5.2
2.5
41.1
5.4
2.6
45.4
5.3
2.5
43.0
5.5
2.7
45.8
5.4
2.6
47.7
1 Total cases include fatalities.
2 The incidence rates represent the number of injuries and illnesses or lost
workdays per 100 full-time workers and were calculated as:
(N/EH) X 200,000, where:
N = number of injuries and illnesses or lost workdays.
102 Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
November 1990
EH = total hours worked by all employees during calendar year.
200,000 = base for 100 full-time equivalent workers (working 40 hours per
week, 50 weeks per year.)
3 Excludes farms with fewer than 11 employees since 1976.
New From BLS
SALES PUBLICATIONS
BLS Bulletins
Consumer Expenditure Survey, 1987. Bulletin 2354, 153 pp. (GPO Stock No.
029-001-03057-6.) $8. Presents detailed information from the Consumer
Expenditure Survey for 1987. Integrated data from the Diary and Interview
components of the survey provide a complete accounting of consumer
expenditures and income, which neither component alone is designed to do.
Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Firms, 1989. Bulletin 2363, 136 pp.
(GPO Stock No. 029-001-030-56-6.) $8. Presents results of a 1989 survey of
incidence and detailed provisions of selected employee benefit plans. The
Bureau’s 10th survey in this series provides representative data for 32.4
million full-time employees in the Nation’s private nonagricultural industries.
Employee Benefits Survey: An MLR Reader. Bulletin 2362, 166 pp. (GPO
Stock No. 029-001-03055-0.) $9.50. Presents articles from tht Monthly Labor
Review published between 1982 and 1990 that analyze data collected annually
by the Bureau o f Labor Statistics under its Employee Benefits Survey
program. A brief discussion of laws affecting employee benefits are presented
in the technical notes.
Geographic Profile of Employment and Unemployment, 1989. Bulletin 2361,
204 pp. (GPO Stock No. 029-001-03052-5.) $10. Includes labor force data
from the Current Population Survey (CPS) for States and selected large
metropolitan areas and central cities. Data are also provided on the employed
and unemployed by selected demographic and economic characteristics.
Heat Bum Injuries. Bulletin 2358, 26 pp. (GPO Stock No. 029-001-03054-1.)
$2. Summarizes results of a May 1985 survey of workers who sustained
job-related heat bums.
Occupational Outlook Handbook, 1990-91 Edition. Bulletin 2350, 492 pp.
(GPO Stock No. 029-001-03022-3.) $17, paper. (Stock No. 029-001-03021-5.)
$24, cloth. Biennial handbook of careers covering 250 occupations. Informa
tion is provided for each of these occupations on the nature of the work, work
ing conditions, 1988 employment, educational and training requirements, job
outlook through the year 2000, earnings, related occupations, and sources of
additional information.
Area fVage Surveys. These bulletins cover office, professional, technical,
maintenance, custodial, and material movement jobs in major metropolitan
areas. The annual series is available by subscription for $77 per year.
Individual area bulletins are also available separately.
Atlanta, Georgia, Metropolitan Area, May 1990. Bulletin 3055-15, 37 pp.
(GPO Stock No. 829-001-00343-7.) $2.25.
Decatur, Illinois, Metropolitan Area, July 1990. Bulletin 3055-20,26 pp. (GPO
Stock No. 829-001-00348-8.) $1.50.
Oakland, California, Metropolitan Area, February 1990. Bulletin 3055-9. 32 pp.
(GPO Stock No. 829-001-00337-2.) $1.75.
Employment and Earnings. This monthly report covers employment and
unemployment developments, plus statistical tables on national, State, and
area employment, hours, and earnings. $8.50 ($25 per year).
Occupational Outlook Quarterly. Each issue helps people planning careers,
guidance counselors, and others keep informed of changing career
opportunities. $2 ($5 per year).
To Order:
Sales Publications. Order bulletins by title, bulletin number and GPO stock
number from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC 20402, or from the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Publications Sales Center, P.O. Box 2145, Chicago, IL 60690. Subscriptions,
including microfiche subscriptions, are available only from the Superinten
dent of Documents. All checks— including those that go to the Chicago
Regional Office— should be made payable to the Superintendent of Docu
ments.
Other Publications: Request from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room 2831A, 441 G Street, NW, Washington, DC
20212, or from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Chicago Regional Office, P.O.
Box 2145, Chicago, IL 60690.
U.S. Postal Service
STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION
(Required by 39 U.S.C. 3685)
1B. Publication No. 00981818
1.—Title of Publication: Monthly Labor Review
2.
—Date of Filing: 10-1-90
3.
—Frequency of Issue: Monthly
4.
—Annual Subscription Price: $24
5.
—Location of Known Office of Publication: 441 G Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20212
6—
Location of the Headquarters of General Business Offices of the
Publishers: 441 G Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20212
7—
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, Editor-in-Chief, same address; Executive
Editor: Robert Fisher, same address
8—
Owner: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 441 G
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20212
9.—Known Bondholders, Mortgagees, and Other Security Holders Owning or
Holding 1 Percent or More of Total Amount of Bonds, Mortgages or
Other Securities: None
10.—Extent and Nature of Circulation:
Pawtucket— Woonsocket—Attleboro, Rhode Island— Massachusetts, Metro
politan Area, March 1990. Bulletin 3055-10, 29 pp. (GPO Stock No.
829-001-00338-1.) $1.75,
Average No.
Copies Each
Issue During
Preceding
12 Months
Phoenix, Arizona, Metropolitan Area, June 1990. Bulletin 3055-21, 36 pp.
(GPO Stock No. 829-001-00349-6.) $2.
St. Louis, Missouri— Illinois, Metropolitan Area, March 1990. Bulletin
3055-12, 39 pp. (GPO Stock No. 829-001-00340-2.) $2.25.
San Francisco, California, Metropolitan Area, March 1990. Bulletin 3055-14,
25 pp. (GPO Stock No. 829-001-00330-5.) $1.50.
San Jose, California, Metropolitan Area, March 1990. Bulletin 3055-11, 34 pp.
(GPO Stock No. 829-001-00339-9.) $2.
Washington, DC— Maryland— Virginia, Metropolitan Area, March 1990.
Bulletin 3055-13, 56 pp. (GPO Stock No. 829-001-00341-1.) $2.75.
Periodicals
CPI Detailed Report. This monthly publication provides a comprehensive
report on price movements for the month, plus statistical tables, charts, and
technical notes. $7 ($21 per year).
Current Wage Developments. Each issue of this monthly periodical includes
selected wage and benefit changes, work stoppages, and statistics on
compensation changes. $3 ($15 per year).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
A. Total number copies printed
(net press ru 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
other free copies) ...................................
E. Total distribution (sum of C and D) .............
F. Copies not distributed:
1. Office use, leftover, unaccounted,
spoiled after printing ........................
2. Returns from news agents.............
G. Total (sum of E, F1 and F2—should equal
net press run shown in A ) ......................
Actual No. of
Copies of
Single Issues
Published
Nearest To
Filing Date
13,126
12,701
2,420
9,439
11,859
2,415
9,340
11,755
1,222
13,081
901
12,656
45
NA
45
NA
13,126
12,701
I certify that the statements made by me are correct and complete.
(Signed) Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chief
Discover new
Government books about
Labor, Labor Relations,
Employment, and Occupations
You can find out about new United States Government books about labor,
labor relations, employment, and occupations through a new Priority
Announcement Service. This service lets you know about new books available
from the Superintendent of Documents as soon as they are published.
To get on this Priority Announcement mailing list, fill out the request form
below and mail it today.
Priority Announcement Request Form
Yes
______
! please put me on your free Priority Announcement List (N -9 15) so I can find
out about new books about labor, labor relations, employment, and occupations issued by the U.S.
Government and sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
PLEASE NOTE: If you have already asked to have your name placed on this list, please do not
complete this form. You will receive announcements of new books as soon as they are published.
(Please type or print. Thank you.)
(Name)
(Address)
(City, State, ZIP Code)
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Mail this form to:
Superintendent of Documents
Mail List Branch
Mail Stop: SSOM
Washington, DC 20401-9374
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Washington, D.C. 20212
Second-Class Mail
Postage and Fees Paid
U.S. Department of Labor
ISSN-0098-1818
Official Business
Penalty for private use, $300
RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED
MLR
LIBRA442LAISSDUE0Q5R
LIBRARY
FED RES BANK OF ST L OUI S
P 0 BOX 4 4 2
S A I N T L OU I S
MO
63164
Schedule of release dates for
bls
1
statistical series
Series
Release
date
Period
covered
Release
date
Period
covered
Release
date
Period
covered
Employment situation
November 2
October
December 7
November
January 4
December
November 6
3rd quarter
MLR table
number
1; 4-21
Productivity and costs:
Nonfinancial corporations
Nonfarm business and manufacturing
2; 44-47
December 5
3rd quarter
December 14
November
2; 44-47
2; 34-37
November 9
October
Occupational injuries and illnesses
November 14
1989
Consumer Price Index
November 16
October
December 18
November
January 16
December
2; 31-33
Real earnings
November 16
October
December 18
November
January 16
December
14-17
U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes
November 21
October
December 28
November
January 25
4th quarter
38-43
Employment Cost Index
January 24
4th quarter
22-25
Major collective bargaining settlements
January 24
1989
26-29
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
January 11
December
Producer Price Indexes
51
@FedFRASER