The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1970
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Bureau of Labor Statistics
MANPOWER IMPLICATIONS
OF COMPUTER CONTROL
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
REGIONAL OFFICES AND DIRECTORS
R e gion I —
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
J. D. Hodgson, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Geoffrey H. Moore, Commissioner
Ben Burdetsky. Deputy Commissioner
Leon Greenberg. Chief Statistician
Peter Henle. Chief Economist
The Monthly Labor Review is fo r sale by
the regional offices of the Bureau of Labor Statistics
and by the Superintendent of Documents.
U. S. Government Printing Office
Washington D. C. 20402
S ubscription price per year —
$9 dom estic; S11 25 foreign.
Single copy 75 cents.
Correspondence regarding subscriptions
should be addressed to the Superintendent of Documents.
Communications on editorial matters
should be addressed to the Editor-in-C hief,
Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Washington. D. C 20212
Phone: (202) 961-2327.
Use of funds for printing this publication
approved by the Director of the Bureau
of the Budget /O ctober 31 1967)
B o s to n : Wendell D. Macdonald
1603-A Federal Building. Government Center, Boston. Mass. 02203
Phone; (617) 223-6727
C onnecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
R e gion II —
N ew Y o rk : Herbert Bienstock
341 Ninth Avenue. New York. N Y, 10001
Phone. (212) 971-5405
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
P h ila d e lp h ia : Frederick W, Mueller
R e gion I II —
406 Penn Square B uilding. 1317 Filbert Street. Philadelphia. Pa. 19107
Phone: (215) 597-7796
Delaware
D istrict of C o lum bia
Marvland
Pennsylvania
V irginia
West Virginia
A tla n ta : Brunswick A. Bagdon
R e gion IV —
1371 Peachtree Street. N.E.. Atlanta, Ga. 30309
Phone: (404) 526-5416
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
M ississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
R e gion V —
C h ic a g o : Thomas J. McArdle
219 S Dearborn Street. Chicago. III. 60604
Phone: (312) 353-7226
Illin o is
indiana
M ichigan
Minnesota
Ohio
W isconsin
R e gion VI —
D a lla s : Ja ck Strickland
411 N. Akard Street. Dallas, Tex. 75201
Phone: (214) 749-3516
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
O klah o m a '
R e g io n s V II and V III —
Kansas C ity : Elliott A. Browar
911 Walnut Street, Kansas City, Mo. 64106
Phone: (816) 374-2378
VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
V III
C o ver d e s ig n :
by Sally Motley
Arts and Graphics Division
U.S. Department of Labor
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
R e g io n s IX and X —
San F ra n c is c o : Charles Roumasset
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017. San Francisco, C alif. 94102
Phone: (415) 556-3178
IX
Arizona
C alifornia
Hawaii
Nevada
X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
o
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
Editor-in-Chief, Herbert C. Morton
Executive Editor, Henry Lowenstern
Arthur S. Herman
3
Manpower im plications of computer control
Expanded use of computers in manufacturing has created new jobs,
required some retraining but displaced few workers
William Deutermann
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
9
Educational attainm ent of workers, March 1969, 1970
Special Labor Force Report indicates that educational gap be
tween men and women has closed and that between blacks and
whites is narrowing
Alvin Bauman
17
Measuring employee compensation in U.S. industry
Report on BLS studies of wage supplements shows change in the
structure of compensation
Hazel M. Willacy
25
Changes in factory workweek as an economic indicator
Study of the relationship between number of hours worked and
employment in periods of recession and expansion
CONVENTIONS OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS
Michael H. Cimini
33
American Federation of Government Employees
Ronald W. Glass
34
American Federation of Teachers
Winston L. Tillery
36
National Association of Letter Carriers
Richard R. Nelson
37
United Federation of Postal Clerks
RESEARCH SUMMARIES
Joseph C. Bush
40
Earnings of hospital employees
Sandra L. Mason
41
Wages in miscellaneous plastics products plants
Shelby W. Herman
42
Productivity in the railroad industry
DEPARTMENTS
2
33
40
48
52
53
59
58
Labor month in review
Union conventions
Research summaries
Significant decisions in labor cases
Major agreements expiring next month
Developments in industrial relations
Book reviews and notes
Current labor statistics
OCTOBER 1970
VOLUME 93, NUMBER 10
. . . President George Meany of the
in one of his infrequent press interviews,
spoke with customary bluntness about the state
of the Nation, the labor movement, and other
subjects. Some excerpts from the transcript:
M eany on
a f l - c io ,
. . . strikes. Union members “have a greater
stake in the system now than they did 15 or 20
years ago because under the system and under
our trade union policy, they have become middle
class, if you want to say it.
“You can be quite radical if you are getting 30
cents an hour because if you pull an honest strike,
all you lose is 30 cents an hour. But you have
people who are making $8,000 or $9,000 a year,
paying off mortgages, with kids going to college,
so you have an entirely different situation when
you think about calling them on strike. They have
obligations that are quite costly—insurance pay
ments and all that sort of thing. So this makes the
strike much less desirable as a weapon.
“Naturally, we wouldn’t want to give it up
as a weapon, but I can say to you quite frankly
that more and more people in the trade union
movement—I mean at the highest levels—are
thinking of other means to advance without the
use of the strike method.”
. . . governm ent em ployees. “In the field of
government employees [President Nixon] has
certainly been more liberal than any man in the
White House before him because he has come out
for collective bargaining for government em
ployees at every level. He has come out for ex
tending to government employees practically
all of the rights that workers have in the private
sector. So we think this represents progress.”
“. . . Now, I feel that fighting for the theoret
ical right of Federal employees to strike is really
a waste of time. They do not have the right to
strike at the present time, under the law, but
2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
they do strike if they want to and they will
strike if conditions are not acceptable.”
. . . blacks in building trades. “We’ve had a
tremendous change in the position of the trade
unions. Not only are our unions saying in effect—
and these are the skilled unions—not only are we
saying we will take in blacks, we are saying also
that we will try to help recruit them. And the
recruitment is the problem. . . . [In one instance,
in Philadelphia] the representatives of the union,
with the cooperation of the black civil rights
organizations, succeeded in two predominantly
black high schools, out of an enrollment of 4,000
youngsters, they succeeded in getting five to agree
to take up the apprenticeship trade. Why they are
not more successful, I ’m not quite sure. Because
there is no question that the wages and the
possibility of making a living are good.”
. . . to d ay’s youth. “We don’t have much contact
with them. I don’t hold with the idea that this
generation of kids is exceptional, except in the
sense that they have had greater educational
opportunities. And the mere fact that they have
had greater educational opportunities doesn’t
indicate to me that they have got the answers
that the older generations haven’t got. I can’t
see that at all.”
“We are going to
take our policy from the women who are repre
sented in our unions and they are opposed to this
so-called equal rights amendment, unless there
would be some safeguard in there to preserve
protective legislation. The attitude of the profes
sional feminists is ‘we don’t want any protection.
We want absolute equality. If you give us protec
tion, we are not equal.’ . . . We have many,
many laws on the statute books that protect
women as working women. That this constitutes
some denial of their freedom, I don’t buy it; I
don’t see it.”
□
. . . equal rights am endm ent.
Six-industry survey finds
expanded use of computers
has created new jobs and
required retraining, but
has not displaced many workers
ARTHUR S. HERMAN
O n e o f t h e most important technological develop
ments of the past two decades has been the growth
of computer applications in the U.S. economy.
Initially used for numerous business and scientific
data processing functions (with manpower impli
cations for office and technical workers), com
puters recently have been applied to direct control
of industrial production processes and manufac
turing operations and their impact now extends
to blue-collar factory workers as well.1 Although
computer process control has not resulted in wide
spread displacement of workers, job duties have
been modified, new positions created, and training
required to provide workers with new skills.
Computer control of industrial processes was in
troduced in 1958 and first applied to processes that
require a high degree of control, such as petroleum
refining, chemicals production, electric power gen
eration, and steelmaking operations. However,
computer applications have expanded widely and
they are now being used in a growing number of
industries throughout the economy.
Computer systems have been applied to many
complex industrial production processes. Applica
tions in six process industries studied by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics included control of
ammonia and ethylene processes in chemical
plants; basic oxygen and hot strip mill operations
in steel mills; catalytic cracking and reforming,
and crude distillation units in petroleum re
fineries; electric generating equipment in power
plants; papermaking machines in paper plants;
and rotary kilns in cement plants. In other
industries, applications range from control of
hundreds of wells in oil fields to operation of
banks of machine tools in metalworking plants.
As of mid-1968, the latest date for which detailed
information is available, there were a total of
Arthur S. Herman is an economist in the Division of
Technological Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Manpower
implications of
computer control
in manufacturing
about 1,700 process computers installed or on
order in the United States. This number is only
a fraction of the total potential, with an estimated
5,900 to be in use by 1975. This article discusses
some of the information gathered in the Bureau of
Labor Statistics study as well as additional
information analyzed since the survey.
Advantages and applications
Computer control systems represent a signifi
cant advance over conventional control systems,
which were already highly instrumented, and
using automatic control techniques. Computers
provide simultaneous and interrelated automatic
control actions at different points of the produc
tion process. This advance is made possible by the
capacity of computers to react simultaneously and
instantaneously to information from multiple
sources. A computer can be directly connected
to an operating process or to the instruments
measuring operations, receiving information
about process conditions, comparing this informa
tion with a control program stored in its memory,
and sending back signals to automatically adjust
process operations almost instantaneously.
In addition to this control capability, the
computer system can acquire, store, and print
out operating data, prepare production reports,
and alert operators through alarm mechanisms
to impending equipment malfunction or other
process disturbance. The process computer, there
fore, assumes many of the important data handling
and control operations formerly done by operators.
Project groups, consisting of scientific and
technical personnel from both the user and the
seller, worked for periods generally exceeding 2
years on the various steps to get a process com
puter system into operation. Table 1 shows the
steps and personnel involved in a typical installa
tion of a computer system.
The number of man-years required ranged from
3
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
4
less than 2 for a fairly simple installation of a
replacement computer to 21 for installation of
computer control for a complex electric generating
system. User project group members generally
included process, chemical, electrical, and instru
ment engineers, and maintenance and instrument
technicians. The computer supplier provided
systems engineers, statisticians, mathematicians,
computer engineers, technicians, and programers.
As user personnel gained experience with process
computer technology and programing, they as
sumed some of the tasks previously performed by
the seller’s employees.
Costs of installing a process computer system
in the surveyed establishments were considerable,
ranging from $200,000 to $1,500,000 at the 12
plants visited. However, benefits from the instal
lation were significant.
One petroleum refinery reported net savings of
$100,000 a year for each of its two systems. This
gain was attributed to higher yields of more
valuable products, lower costs for raw material,
fuel, and maintenance, and more consistent
meeting of product specifications. A large new
chemical plant, built to encompass computer
process control, estimated that it was saving
$400,000 per year over a comparable plant using
conventional control.
New occupations required
Introduction of computer control of processes
led to an upgrading of the occupational structure
at most survey plants. A total of 68 new positions
were created to plan, program, operate, and
maintain the computer systems. Supervisors,
systems analysts, programers, and instrument and
Table 1. Personnel Involved in putting a process control
computer system into operation at a selected survey plant
Steps involved 1
Personnel and time required
Feasibility
study
Employees involved:
Systems engineer____________
Process engineer_____________
Instrument engineer__________
Programmer............. .................
Plant superintendent____ _____
1
1
1
Planning2
2
2
2
1
1
Installa
tion and Operational
checkout
2
1
1
1
1
Continuing
Time required to complete step (in
months)..........................................
3
12
1
Total number of man-hours worked..
9
96
5
1 First three steps implemented by user and seller, last step by user.
2 Including systems design, model building, and programing.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1
Table 2. Distribution of new computer occupations at
survey plants
Category and typical job title
Total______________________________ _________
Managing or supervising:
Coordinator of computer systems, chief systems analyst,
senior process engineer____________ ____________
Systems analysis, design, or related work:
Systems analyst, senior design engineer, process control
engineer....................................•.................................
Programing:
Programer, programing technician, junior programer,
programing assistant.................. ..................................
Instrument development, installation, maintenance or related
work:
Instrument technician, electronics specialist, assistant
test engineer...................................................................
Operating computer consoles and related equipment:
Computer console operator................1..............................
Number of
new jobs
Percent
of total
68
100.0
12
17.6
24
35.3
22
32.4
5
7.4
5
7.4
maintenance technicians accounted for over 90
percent of the new jobs. (See table 2.) Only a few
new jobs, such as computer console operator, were
created for operating workers since the functions
of monitoring the computer equipment generally
were assumed by existing process operators.
Supervisors, usually experienced engineers, were
in charge of a specific process computer project or
a permanent computer control group, compris
ing systems analysts, process engineers, and
programers.
Systems analysts designed and implemented the
comprehensive plan needed to install computer
control of the production process. Their duties
included making a detailed analysis of the process,
preparing a mathematical process model, develop
ing a logical sequence of control actions, and
assisting in the selection of the computer and
related equipment.
Programers were involved in translating the
plans developed by the systems analyst into a
series of specific operations for the computer to
follow and “debugging” the programs to verify
that the computer instructions were correct. A
number of new junior programers or programing
assistant positions were created in the surveyed
plants. These positions which entailed less complex
programing tasks than regular programing posi
tions, were filled by employees who were not col
lege graduates. With these employees involved in
maintaining an existing set of process computer
programs, and making program changes to adjust
for changes in process operations, regular
programers could move on to more complex
operations.
Instrument and maintenance technicians installed
and maintained the complicated electronic equip-
MANPOWER IMPLICATIONS OF COMPUTER CONTROL
ment and specialized instrumentation needed for
process computer installations. At a few plants
they also maintained the computer, although
computer maintenance usually was accomplished
under contract by the seller’s technicians.
Computer console operators monitored the con
trol console, which provided a communications
link between the operator and the process. They
also observed the status of the process using visual
display devices and computer printouts, and
could operate the console to bring about changes
in process conditions.
Employees selected for new computer jobs gen
erally were recruited from among existing staff at
survey plants. The procedure at most plants was
to train engineers and other technical staff in the
skills needed to accomplish the process computer
installation rather than hire from outside the firm.
The most important prerequisite for systems
analyst and programing jobs, for example, was a
good working knowledge of the process. This was
felt to be of more importance than previous expe
rience with business or scientific computers. Other
important criteria used for staffing new jobs were
prior work experience, education, and motivation.
Aptitude tests were used in selecting employees in
a few instances.
While college graduates staffed about 2 of every
3 new computer jobs, high school graduates and
employees with some college filled a significant
number of key new positions. At one of the steel
mills, for example, four clerks, including two with
only 3 years of high school, achieved the highest
scores in a series of aptitude tests and were selected
and trained as computer console operators.
Employees assigned to new computer jobs
generally were upgraded in title and grade from
thqir former jobs. In many cases, wages were
increased 20 percent or more. A powerhouse fire
man at a papermill, who had some college training,
passed a programing aptitude test and was picked
for programer training. He was upgraded to com
puter programer at a wage rate 50 percent above
his previous job. A few employees assigned to new
computer jobs were transferred at the same
grade. No employees were downgraded.
Worker displacement
Very few employees lost their jobs, and no lay
offs occurred in units with operations placed under
computer control. Displacement of workers was
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
5
reported at only two survey plants. At a large
chemical plant, seven out of a total of 57 labora
tory analyst jobs were eliminated when a process
computer was introduced in a production control
laboratory. The computer system automatically
provided quick and accurate chemical analysis of
a large volume of samples and carried out much
of the computational, analytical, and data-logging
operations formerly done manually by lab ana
lysts. Of the seven employees displaced, five were
transferred and upgraded to higher paying tech
nician jobs within the plant, one died, and the
other went on military leave. At a petroleum
refinery, elimination of the jobs of three operating
employees per shift—a stillman and two stillmen’s
helpers—resulted from installation of advanced
forms of instrumentation as part of two computer
control systems. A total of 13 employees in the
two units were reassigned to jobs elsewhere in
the plant.
Among the reasons given for the small displace
ment impact at survey plants was that savings
on labor costs were not the most important
objective of computer control since labor costs
in the industries studied generally represented a
small proportion of total costs. Most plants
relied on extensive instrumentation prior to com
puter control and operating crews already were
small. Also, at various times, some units normally
shifted from computer to conventional control
depending upon the type of product made. As
a general rule, most units retained the same
size crew after computer control as before, in the
event that the unit had to shift back to conven
tional control because of computer malfunction.
Impact on job duties
The most widespread effect upon employees of
the introduction of process computers in produc
tion units were changes in job duties. Some of
these changes involved (1) a shift from manual to
automatic data logging; (2) reduction in interpre
tation of process data and manual manipulation
of dials, instruments, and related devices; and (3)
additional tasks relating to installation and serv
icing of computer equipment and new instrumen
tation. The workers mainly affected included
operators, instrument technicians, maintenance
workers, clerks, and laboratory analysts. A com
puter installed to control a paper machine, for
example, assumed such duties as setting flows,
6
pressures, and speeds and monitoring operations,
which were formerly done by a machine tender in
a papermill. The machine tender retained some of
his manual control and monitoring tasks and was
available to take over control of the unit in the
event of computer malfunction. The head operator
in a chemical plant formerly controlled his unit
by reading and logging data and manually adjust
ing 40 to 60 controls and gages on a 40-foot control
panel on the plant floor. Under computer control,
he operates the unit sitting in front of a miniatur
ized control panel in an air-conditioned room. The
computer system records data and controls the
unit automatically, and the operator monitors the
computer console and adjusts dials and levers only
when problems arise or when the process must be
shifted to a different operating level.
More detailed insight into job changes due to
computer control is revealed by the experience at
a hot strip mill in a steel plant. Under conven
tional control, operators took about 2 minutes to
adjust the mill for a new steel order. The speed of
the mill was limited by the ability of the operators
to react to changing conditions. In comparison,
the computer resets the mill in 6 to 8 seconds and
reacts and adjusts to changing conditions almost
instantaneously. Of 35 positions per shift in the
hot strip mill nine were modified by computer
control and two new jobs were added. (See table 3.)
With the mill under computer control, such tasks
as checking rolling schedules, maintaining an
hourly production report, operating controls to
adjust the mill, and setting guides to the proper
width of the strip, formerly done by operating
workers, are accomplished automatically by the
computer system.
An unusual development at a number of the
surveyed plants was that operators were required
to continue to read gages and manually record
information about process variables, although the
computer system was logging the same data
automatically. This was done to provide a basis
for manual operating control. In the event of an
emergency the operators would be able to take
over from the computer.
Maintenance workers, electricians, and instru
ment men also experienced changes in job duties
due to computer control. At most plants these
workers became involved with installation and
maintenance of the instrumentation and control
equipment needed for computer control and in
some plants they maintained the computer. For
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
example, at a petroleum refinery, nine instrument
men were trained and assigned to perform normal
maintenance and repairs on the computers and
related instrumentation installed in two units.
Few production workers in affected units experi
enced a change in grade or an increase in wage rate
due to computer process control. Job modifications
usually encompassed only a portion of the worker’s
duties and generally were not considered sufficient
to warrant a reclassification. Moreover, job de
scriptions were general, allowing considerable
change in job content before necessitating position
and pay adjustments. There were a small number
of cases, however, in which employees’ wages were
increased. The installation of a process computer
in a chemical plant, for example, resulted in the
upgrading of four operators by one rate step. A
formal job evaluation study indicated that these
operators had assumed additional responsibilities
because of computer control. They were required
to use the additional information supplied by the
computer to run their unit closer to operating
limits.
Training for com puter control
Training of managerial, professional, technical,
and operating personnel was a key factor in the
introduction of computer control. Computer sellers
provided extensive training, in some cases as part
of the purchase agreement for the computer
system. Courses dealing with computer concepts,
programing, and maintenance were provided to
user personnel in classroom and laboratory sessions
at the seller’s facilities, as well as user sites. Train
ing varied greatly in length and content depending
upon the job duties and skill levels needed for
computer control. Workers whose jobs were not
significantly changed required only a few hours of
orientation, while employees who had to learn
completely new techniques required longer periods
of formal and on-the-job instruction.
The seller’s training courses ranged from a
single onsite session of a few hours to familiarize
dispatchers in a steel plant with the computer sys
tem to a year of classroom and on-the-job training
to prepare a program maintenance technician in a
chemical plant to work with a complex set of pro
grams for a multicomputer installation. Orienta
tion and computer concept courses ranged from a
few hours to about 3 weeks and were given to most
members of the project group. Programing courses
7
MANPOWER IMPLICATIONS OF COMPUTER CONTROL
generally lasted from 2 to 6 weeks and were pro
vided to user engineers, systems analysts, pro
gramed, programing technicians, and some super
visory workers. Maintenance courses ranged from
a few hours to about 4 months and were given to
instrument engineers, electronic and instrument
mechanics, and maintenance and instrument
supervisors.
Training provided by user firms to operating
workers, maintenance technicians, engineers, pro
gramed, and supervisory workers also was impor
tant in the implementation of computer process
control at survey plants. Instructors generally
were user engineers and supervisors who had pre
vious process computer experience or who had
attended the seller’s schools.
Training by user firms intended to provide
operating employees with the skills needed to
work with process computers was typically brief.
Courses ranged from 6 to 80 hours of instruction
and averaged about 20 hours at survey plants.
The method of instruction consisted mainly of onthe-job sessions designed to familiarize the em
ployee with the new equipment and provide him
with techniques needed to operate the unit under
computer control. Training for maintenance
workers usually was more extensive, ranging from
2 to 7 weeks. Most of this instruction consisted of
on-the-job sessions in computer and instrument
maintenance techniques.
Labor-management adjustments
The introduction of process computers in survey
plants generally caused minimal adverse manpower
effects. Therefore, it produced few serious labormanagement problems. Workers were represented
by unions at 9 of the 12 surveyed plants. Because
process computers caused almost no displacement,
contract provisions dealing with protection of
workers during layoffs, downgrading, transfers, or
similar adverse action generally did not have to
be used. However, provisions dealing with advance
notice to affected employees, procedures for staffing
new jobs, eligibility for training, and related topics
were resorted to.
Formal notice of the imminent installation of
process computers was provided at 10 of the 12
surveyed plants, at periods ranging from 4 months
to 2 years in advance of installation. The most
prevalent method used to inform employees of the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 3. Extent of job modifications in a hot strip mill
Job title of affected workers
Number
of major
duties
Major dutie performed
automatically under computer
con trol
Number
Percent
Total___________________
84
26
31.0
Recorder..........................................
Assistant roller________________
Coiler operator.................................
No. 1 rougher operator____ ______
No. 2 rougher operator__________
Speed operator...............................
Crop shearman.................................
Roll hand...................... ......... .........
Assistant speed operator..................
10
12
8
13
12
8
9
6
6
5
5
3
4
3
2
2
1
1
50.0
41.7
37.5
30.8
25.0
25.0
22.2
16.7
16.7
change was a special meeting between supervisors
and workers in the affected unit.
Special negotiations relating to the introduction
of process computers occurred at only two plants.
In one plant, the union won jurisdiction for its
workers to perform normal computer maintenance
and repair minor difficulties. These tasks pre
viously were scheduled to be done by the computer
supplier. At another plant, the abolition of two
jobs from the operating crew after the shakedown
period of a new computer controlled unit was con
tested unsuccessfully by the union. A key union
complaint was that these additional workers were
needed to check out numerous alarms about unit
operations provided by the computer. Since the
release of th e two o p e ra to r jobs w as agreed to by
the union prior to the startup of the unit the
arbitrator ruled in favor of the company.
Most of the local union representatives at sur
veyed plants did not express great concern about
the effects of process computers on workers. In
general, they were more worried about the intro
duction of other technological changes at their
plants, such as basic oxygen furnaces in the steel
industry and centralized control of operations in
the electric power and petroleum refining indus
tries. However, several union officials felt that the
potential for displacement by computers would
expand in the future as the level and scope of
computer control is extended.
Outlook for technology and manpower
Changes in process computer technology in the
near future are expected to lead to continued
growth in installations and an expansion in the
type and scope of applications. Two trends in the
manufacture of process computers are underway.
One trend is toward small, low-cost computers
8
which are economically feasible for control of a
single small process. The other trend is toward
large-scale computers capable of controlling many
different units in a plant, thereby lowering the cost
of control over individual processes. In addition,
process computers are becoming more reliable in
operation, and new instrumentation designed for
use with computer control is being developed.
Advanced computer control techniques are be
coming more prevalent. Direct digital control, a
technique which eliminates much of the conven
tional control instrumentation, is expected to grow
in use. The connection of general purpose and
process control computers at different levels of a
plant or company to form a hierarchal computer
system is an innovation that is growing more
important.
Advances also are underway in programing and
model building techniques. These include special
ized computer languages designed to assist engi
neers in programing for process computer appli
cations, standardized program packages, consisting
of a set of general programs that can be easily
modified to fit individual control projects, and
standardized process models for commonly used
proéessés. These techniques should serve to cut
the time, effort, and costs of computer control
installations greatly.
The anticipated growth in process computer
utilization probably entails significant manpower
implications. Demand for systems analysts, con
trol and process engineers, and other technical
personnel skilled in process computer applica
tions—all of whom are presently in short supply—
can be expected to increase greatly. Jobs for pro
gramed, programing technicians, and programing
assistants also are expected to grow. Demand for
electronic and instrument technicians and other
skilled maintenance workers, needed to install and
repair process computer equipment and instru
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
mentation, are likely also to increase greatly in
demand. Firms will need to give special attention
to training people to fill these jobs.
Process computers, however, are expected to
reinforce the declining demand for operating
workers in the process industries. New plants
designed and built to encompass process computers
will probably require fewer operating workers
than similar plants without computers. This type
of labor savings was observed at a large chemical
plant in the survey, which was built for computer
control. Company officials estimated that if this
plant were using conventional control it would
require an additional 20 production employees
above the 300 needed to operate the plant under
computer control. Thus, as computers are ex
tended to control overall plant operations, demand
for operating workers can be expected to decline
further. A complete plant, for example, may be
run with a crew the size of those which presently
run a single unit, providing a significant decrease
in operating manpower. As process computer
applications increase in scope and as installations
spread into more labor-intensive industries, their
displacement effect may become even more
pronounced.
□
--------- F O O T N O T E --------1 While information about the technical aspects of
computer process control is generally available, informa
tion about manpower effects is scarce. In view of the favor
able prospects and potential for change of this new tech
nology, the Bureau of Labor Statistics undertook a study
of the manpower implications of computer control in six
process industries which were among the earliest users.
This article is based on information collected from 12
plants. The full study is contained in O u tlo o k f o r C o m p u te r
P rocess
C o n tr o l: M a n p o w e r
I m p lic a tio n s
in
P ro cess
In
Bulletin 1658, 1970) and is available from
regional offices of the Bureau or from the Superintendent
of Documents for 70 cents.
d u s tr ie s
(bls
Special Labor Force Report indicates
that the gap in educational attainment
between men and women workers
has closed, and that the gap between
white and black workers is narrowing
WILLIAM DEUTERMANN
I n 1970, for the first time, the educational level of
men in the labor force equaled that of working
women—a median of 12.4 years of schooling for
each group. This was in decided contrast to 1940
(the first year for which figures are available)
when the median for women workers was almost
2y2 years higher than that for men. While levels
of education have risen steadily for both groups,
the much more rapid rise for men has now closed
the gap.
Also in 1970, only a little more than half a year
separated the median educational attainment of
white workers from that of Negroes (and members
of other minority races). More progress along
this line is expected as the Negro educational level
continues to advance.
A major influence in these and other changes
reported here is the influx into the labor force
of young workers with more education, while
attrition—by death or retirement—removes many
of the older, less educated workers. The labor
force increased by 3.9 million workers between
March 1968 and March 1970. This increase re
sulted from a net increase of 2.2 million workers
with 1 year of college or more and another 2.7
million who were high school graduates, and a net
loss of 1 million workers who had less than 8 years
of formal schooling.
This article is based primarily on information
from supplementary questions in the March 1969
and March 1970 surveys of the labor force con
ducted for the Bureau of Labor Statistics by the
Bureau of the Census through its Current Popu
lation Survey.1 The sections that follow describe
and analyze changes occurring in these 2 years,
some reasons for these changes, and the likely
effects in coming years.
Substantial numbers of more educated workers
William Deutermann is an economist in the Division
of Labor Force Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Educational
attainment
of workers, March
1 9 6 9 and 1 9 7 0
entered the labor force between March 1968 and
March 1970. The overall improvement in educa
tional attainment, however, was at least partially
attributable to the net loss of about 1 million
workers with less than 8 years of schooling. In past
years, workers with so little formal education who
left the work force were mainly older men. In 1969
and 1970, however, many of these workers were
under 35 years of age. Indeed, there was a net ad
dition to the labor force of about 100,000 workers
age 65 years and over who had 8 years or less of
education. The reasons for these older workers
rejoining or remaining in the labor force include
changes in allowable incomes for social security
recipients and the continuing economic expansion
felt through the first three quarters of 1969.
A large part of the increase in the number of
workers with some college education took place
between 1969 and 1970. This period saw an addi
tion of 1.4 million workers with at least 1 year of
college. Of these, 300,000 were college graduates,
compared with an increase of 100,000 graduates
from 1968 to 1969. The greater increase may be
accounted for by the “baby boom” children of
1947 who are now graduating from college.
The education of working women
In March 1969, women continued to lead men
in educational attainment, but by a small margin.
The median school years for all women in the
labor force in 1969 was 12.4 years, compared with
12.3 years for men. In 1970, this educational gap,
which has been steadily decreasing since the end
of the Second World War, disappeared as both
groups achieved a median of 12.4 years.
Gains among young adults reflect both the
greater availability of educational opportunity
and the success of efforts aimed at influencing
them to stay in school longer. In 1970, 80 percent
of working women 18 to 34 years old, and 74
9
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
10
percent of working men, had a high school diploma
or better. This age group has shown continuing
growth in educational attainment since 1940,
when the corresponding proportions for women
and men were 51 and 36 percent, respectively.
Younger men and women, in particular, are
achieving higher levels of education prior to
entering the labor force. In the 20- to 24-year age
group, 87 percent of working women and 78 per
cent of working men have at least 12 years of
education. Of those not in the labor force, 73
percent of the women and 91 percent of the men
are high school graduates, and many of them,
especially men, are enrolled in college.
In 1940, the median educational attainment
for women workers 18 to 64 years old was 11.0
years, that for men only 8.6 years. Limited job
opportunities for less educated women—and the
prevalent view that women’s place was in the
home—helped to keep less educated women out
of the labor force. By 1952, the median education
of working women had risen to 12.0 years. It has
advanced very slowly since, to 12.4 years in 1967
through 1970. In the same period, the median
educational attainment of working men age 18
to 64 has risen much more sharply—to 10.6 years
in 1952, and 12.4 years in 1970. In the late 1930’s
and early 1940’s, 8 years of education was con
sidered adequate for men entering the blue-collar
labor force. Technological evolution has led to an
increased demand for more educated workers,
and increasing affluence and changing attitudes
helped make additional education both desirable
and attainable. These factors contributed to the
rapid rise in the educational attainment of working
men relative to working women.
Of the 3.9 million net increase in the labor force
between 1968 and 1970, 57 percent were women,
of whom 1.8 million were married. This continues
a trend of increased female participation in the
labor force that characterized the economic ex
pansion of the sixties. Historically, there has been
a strong relationship between women’s educa
tional attainment and their propensity to seek
work. This has been true of all age and marital
groups. Participation rates for women with less
than a high school education have remained fairly
constant, while the rates for those with 12 years
or more of education have consistently increased.
This propensity resulted in a rising educational
level in the female labor force, as women con
tinued to lead men in educational attainment in
the population as a whole.
Nevertheless, median education for the female
labor force has remained comparatively stable
since 1952, when it reached 12.0 years. In the 18
Table 1. Educational attainment of the civilian labor force 18 years old and over, by sex and race, selected years, 1952-70
Female
Male
Both sexes
Years of school completed and year
Total
White
Negro and
other races
Total
White
Negro and
other races
Total
White
Negro and
other races
Percent of civilian labor force completing specified years of school1
Elementary— 8 years or less2
March 1970..........................................
March 1969.............. ............................
March 1964________ _____________
March 1959...........................................
October 1952_________ ___________
17.5
18.6
24.6
30.5
37.9
16.2
17.1
22.6
27.7
34.9
28.0
31.2
40.8
53.8
66.5
19.8
20.9
26.9
33.2
41.2
18.4
19.3
24.9
30.4
38.7
32.4
35.1
44.7
58.1
69.5
13.7
14.9
20.2
24.9
31.0
12.4
13.2
18.0
21.7
26.5
22.3
26.3
35.3
47.1
62.3
High school— 4 years or more
March 1970............................................
March 1969..........................................
March 1964......... .................................
March 1959................................. .........
October 1952.........................................
65.2
63.6
56.2
49.8
43.3
67.5
66.0
58.9
52.6
46.1
47.3
44.0
34.5
25.0
17.4
62.7
61.0
53.7
46.6
39.9
64.9
63.3
56.2
49.4
42.1
43.0
40.1
30.9
21.7
15.1
69.4
67.9
61.0
55.9
50.6
71.8
70.6
64.2
59.8
55.1
52.9
49.0
39.7
29.9
20.4
College— 4 years or more
March 1970....... ............... ...................
March 1969.................................. .........
March 1964.._______ _____________
March 1959..........................................
October 1 9 5 2 ......................................
12.9
12.6
11.2
9.7
8.0
13.6
13.3
11.8
10.3
8.6
7.4
6.7
5.7
4.0
2.6
14.2
13.9
12.1
10.5
8.1
15.0
14.7
12.7
11.2
8.6
6.8
6.4
6.1
3.6
1.9
10.7
10.4
9.5
8.0
7.7
11.1
10.9
10.1
8.6
8.3
8.1
7.0
5.3
4.7
3.6
12.4
12.4
12.3
12.2
12.0
12.5
12.4
12.3
12.2
12.1
12.1
11.9
10.8
9.4
8.1
Median years of school completed
March 1970...........................................
March 1969.................. .
.................
March 1964_____________________
March 1959.........................................
October 1952.........................................
12.4
12.4
12.2
12.0
10.9
1 Excludes persons completing 1 to 3 years of high school.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12.4
12.4
12.2
12.1
11.4
11.7
11.3
10.1
8.7
7.6
12.4
12.3
12.2
11.5
10.4
12.4
12.4
12.2
11.9
10.8
11.1
10.8
9.7
8.3
7.2
2 Includes persons reporting no school years completed.
11
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Table 2. Educational attainment of the civilian labor force 18 years old and over, by age and race, March 1970
Years ot school completed
Total
Color and age
Number
(in thousands)
Percent
Less than 4 years
of high school
4 years of high
school or more
Elemen
tary, 8
years or
less
High school
1 to 3
years
College
4 years
1 to 3
years
4 years
or more
WHITE
Total, 18 years old 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............................................
70,189
3,291
8,837
14,817
14,610
15,300
10,315
3,019
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
32.6
33.8
15.4
22.2
32.1
36.4
48.5
59.6
67.5
66.2
84.6
77.8
67.9
63.5
51.4
40.5
16.2
3.4
4.7
7.8
15.0
18.8
31.5
44.9
16.4
30.4
10.7
14.4
17.1
17.6
17.0
14.7
40.0
54.6
46.7
43.8
40.4
40.0
30.0
18.8
13.9
11.6
27.0
15.1
11.9
11.2
10.0
8.3
8,767
459
1,308
2,135
1,919
1,644
1,026
276
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
52.7
52.2
31.6
41.2
52.9
63.3
77.8
84.1
47.3
47.7
68.4
58.8
47.1
36.7
22.2
15.9
28.0
8.9
8.3
13.5
27.8
40.7
60.5
71.3
24.7
43.3
23.3
27.7
25.1
22.6
17.3
12.8
31.0
42.4
45.6
37.5
29.8
23.8
13.0
10.6
9.0
5.3
17.1
10.6
8.9
6.7
2.7
2.1
13.6
10.9
18.9
15.6
12.3
11.4
13.4
NEGRO AND OTHER RACES
Total, 18 years old and over_________________
20 to 24 y e a rs ........................................... .
25 to 34 years............... ...................... ..........
35 to 44 years_________________________
45 to 54 years..................................................
55 to 64 years..................................................
65 years and over............................................
years since, it has advanced only .4, to 12.4 years,
while the median for the female population 18
and over has gone from 11.0 to 12.2 years.
This does not, however, reflect a change in labor
demand favoring the less educated. Rather, there
has been a growing concentration of women at or
near the median educational attainment. Finan
cial and sociological barriers discourage women
from continuing beyond high school, and thus
place an upper limit to female educational at
tainment. At the same time, more and more women
are achieving a high school education, as evi
denced by the changing age distribution of the less
educated. Between October 1952 and March 1970,
the median age of the female population 18 years
old and over rose from 41.3 to 43.4 years. Over the
same period, the median age of women with less
than 12 years of school rose more rapidly from
47.2 to 52.6 years of age, while that of women with
less than 8 years of school rose from 53.1 to
61.2 years.
M inority races in the labor force
Educational achievement of Negroes and those
of other minority races2 has advanced steadily
during the postwar era. The median education of
Negro workers in October 1952 was 7.6 years,
compared with 11.4 years for white workers (table
1). By March 1970, the median for Negroes had
risen to 11.7 years. Even with this rapid rate of
improvement, however, Negroes were still .7 years
behind whites in 1970.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
7.4
5.7
10.7
8.4
6.2
6.5
3.2
In 1970, 47 percent of the Negroes in the labor
force had 12 years or more of school, compared
with 68 percent of the whites. This disparity was
also present in the proportions of workers who had
completed 4 years of college or more, although
here too Negroes are advancing at a faster rate
than are whites. Since 1952, for example, the
proportion of Negro working men with 4 years of
college or more has increased by almost 260 per
cent, while the proportion of white men with
college degrees increased by 74 percent. Despite
this, the proportion of white working men with
college degrees is still more than twice that of
Negro working men.
The decline in the proportions of the educa
tionally handicapped, those with no more than
8 years of education, has been noteworthy. Since
1959, the proportion of white working men in this
group fell from 30 percent to 18; the proportion
of Negro working men declined from 58 to 32
percent. Similar improvements were evident
among working women.
Moreover, the age distribution of workers in
each level of educational attainment indicates that
more progress can be expected in the seventies.
The education gap between whites and the
minority races, though considerable at all age
levels, is greatest among older workers, particularly
those 45 years old and over (table 2). The propor
tions of young persons continuing beyond high
school are unlikely to increase at the same pace
in the future as in the past two decades. This
slowing rate of growth, together with the attrition
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
12
of older, less educated workers, will result in
further concentration of white workers around
their overall median educational attainment, while
the median for Negroes will continue to rise.
Education and unemployment
Educational attainment and unemployment are
closely related—the more educated workers having
lower rates of unemployment than those with less
education—although seniority and experience
tend to mask this. Chart 1 shows the relationship
between educational attainment and unemploy
ment in March 1970.
One anomaly appears. Comparison of the rates
for persons with 1 to 3 years of high school and
those with 8 years of education or less seems to
contradict the inverse relationship between educa
tion and unemployment. In part, this results from
the high unemployment rates of 18- and 19-yearolds, both in and out of school, who are heavily
Chart 1.
represented in the labor force.3 But another factor
in the seeming contradiction lies in the effect of
training and experience on the kinds of jobs
workers hold and their relative job security.
Educational attainment in terms of years of
regular schooling completed does not give a
complete picture of a worker’s knowledge or skills.
Aside from differences in the quality of education,
there are many kinds of training and experience
which are not reflected in the statistics on years of
school completed, and whose value cannot be
disregarded. The skills imparted by trade schools,
apprenticeship programs, Armed Forces schools
and the various public and private manpower
training projects are valuable to workers. Although
such training may not lead to a regular school
certificate, it has an important bearing on occupa
tion and vulnerability to job loss.4 Formal educa
tion aside, the relationship of work experience and
unemployment can be seen in examining the data
by age through the decade of the sixties. In 1969,
Unemployment rates by age and educational attainment
Unemployment rate
18 years and over
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
18 and 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 years and over
13
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Chart 2.
Negroes as a percent of population, employed, and unemployed, March 19701
for example, of workers 18 and over, 3.8 percent of
those with 8 years of education or less were
unemployed, compared with 4.9 percent unemploy
ment of those with 1 to 3 years of high school.
Among 18- and 19-year-olds, however, the rates
for the same educational groups were 17.5 percent
and 15.7 percent, showing the inverse relationship
to educational attainment. A similar pattern held
for those 20 to 24 years and 25 years and over. The
more mature workers, whose lack of formal
education is at least partially compensated by
their experience and training, had considerably
lower unemployment rates. Also, the greater
number of those with 8 years of education or less
are found among older workers, while persons with
1 to 3 years of high school are more evenly
distributed in all age groups.
In 1970, unemployment rates of Negroes reached
the lowest point in 10 years. In spite of this,
the situation of the minority races relative to
whites has not changed significantly, as the rate
of improvement has been approximately the same
for both groups. Chart 2 shows that Negroes are
almost equally represented in the population and
in the employed labor force 18 years old and over.
Their percentage of the unemployed, however, is
far greater at each educational level.
Unemployment was highest among Negroes
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
with 1 to 3 years of high school, especially women.
The unemployment rate for members of minority
races in this educational group was 9.5 percent
overall, 8.8 percent for the men and 10.3 percent
for the women. Although these rates represent a
decrease over past years, they are still nearly
twice as great as the corresponding rates for whites
and demonstrate the handicaps of youth and
inexperience in addition to educational inequality
and bias in hiring. Unemployment rates for
Negroes with 1 to 3 years of high school varied
from 21 percent among 18- to 24-year-olds to 2.4
percent among those 55 years old and over.
Occupational differences
During the 1960’s, employment in white-collar
occupations grew to encompass nearly half the
employed labor force. In 1970, white-collar workers
accounted for 49 percent of all employment, with
services adding another 12.2 percent to the total
proportion of workers not directly involved in
what are generally regarded as manual occupations.
Education was the key to entrance to the whitecollar occupations. Of professional, technical, and
kindred workers, 78 percent had 1 year of college
or more, and the median education for this group
was 16.3 years. In the other white-collar fields, 82
14
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
percent of the employed had 12 years of schooling
or more, and their median educational attainment
was 12.6 years. In contrast, only 47 percent of
blue-collar workers were high school graduates,
and their median educational attainment ranged
from 12.3 years among male foremen to 10.5 years
among female operatives in nondurable goods
manufacturing. (See table 3.)
Although, in 1970, 63 percent of all working men
had a high school education or better, the pro
portion varied considerably from one industry to
another. In manufacturing, where 61 percent of
the men had at least 4 years of high school, the
highest educational attainment prevailed in those
industries where skilled or technical labor was
required, while the more labor-intensive industries
employed men of lower educational qualifications.
The lowest median educational attainment was
in the lumber industry, which employs mostly
laborers and operatives. Only 37 percent of the
men employed in this industry had 12 years of
schooling or more. Other industries employing
those with below average education were textiles
(whose work force averaged 10.1 years of ed
ucation) and furniture (10.7 years). In the in
strument, electrical equipment, and chemical
industries, among others, the labor force was com
posed of the more skilled craftsmen and profes
sionals. Seventy-seven percent of the employees
in the instrument industry, for example, had 12
years of education or more, and the median was
12.7 years.
The highest educational attainment (with a
median of 16.4 years) occurred in professional
services, 57 percent of whose work force were
college graduates.
The median educational attainment of women,
by industry, was generally lower than that of men,
reflecting, in many cases, the effects of tradi
tionalism in the allocation of jobs. The medians
do not always reflect the disparate situation of
men and women. In medical and in welfare work,
for example, the educational attainment medians
of men were 17.0 and 16.2 years, respectively,
while women working in the same fields had about
12.5 years of education. In hospital work, on the
other hand, 23 percent of the men and 8 percent
of the women had college degrees, and both men
Table 3. Major occupation group of employed persons 18 years old and over, by sex, race, and years of school completed,
March 1959 and March 1970
Less than 4 years of high school
Total
4 years of high school or more
Year, race, and occupation group
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
1970
WHITE
Total: Number (thousands)...............................................
Percent......................................................... .........
White collar....... ..............................................................................
Blue collar.......................................................................................
Service occupations >......................................................................
Farm occupations.............................................................................
42,434
100.0
44.3
45.0
5.6
5.0
25,040
100.0
64.7
16.3
17.5
1.5
14,701
100.0
18.5
64.8
7.5
9.1
6,926
100.0
30.3
35.6
31.0
3.2
27,733
100.0
58.0
34.6
4,6
2.9
18,114
100.0
77.9
9.0
12.3
.8
4,629
100.0
23.2
61.1
11.1
4.6
3,551
100.0
35.1
18.4
45.8
.7
2,626
100.0
8.8
71.6
12.6
7.0
1,656
100.0
10.3
21.5
67.0
1.2
2,003
100.0
42.1
47.3
9.2
1.4
1,895
100.0
56.8
15.8
27.3
.2
37,766
100.0
39.7
45.5
5.6
9.2
17,776
100.0
61.1
17.2
18.5
3.2
18,740
100.0
20.3
58.9
7.2
13.7
6,994
100.0
31.5
31.4
31.6
5.5
19,026
100.0
58.8
32.3
4.0
4.9
10,782
100.0
80.3
8.0
10.0
1.6
3,745
100.0
12.6
59.3
14.3
13.9
2,484
100.0
17.6
14.7
64.3
3.4
2,928
100.0
5.3
65.4
12.6
16.7
1,725
100.0
5.8
15.7
73.8
4.7
816
100.0
38.8
37.3
20.2
3.7
759
100.0
44.5
12.4
42.6
.5
NEGRO AND OTHER RACES
Total:
Number (thousands)..................................... .........
Percent.....................................................................
White collar....................................... .............................................
Blue collar.......................................................................................
Service occupations » . . . ........... ...................................................
Farm occupations.............................................................................
1959
WHITE
Total:
Number (thousands)................................................
Percent.....................................................................
White collar......................................................................................
Blue collar.......................................................................................
Service occupations i .......................................................................
Farm occupations............... ............................................................
NEGRO AND OTHER RACES
Total:
Number (thousands)................................................
Percent.................. .................................................
White collar.....................................................................................
Blue collar................... ...................................................................
Service occupations >.......................................... ...........................
Farm occupations.............................................................................
1 Including private household workers.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
15
E D U C A T IO N A L A T T A IN M E N T
Chart 3. Occupational distribution of employed workers 18 years old and over with selected amounts of formal
education, March 1970
Less than 5 years
of schooling
Other
College
graduates
High school
graduates
Other
Other
and sales
‘ Includes private household workers.
and women had about 12.5 years of education.
In medical and hospital work, the comparatively
higher percentages of men with college degrees
and the large ratio of women to men employed
indicate that the higher professional level and ad
ministrative jobs are traditional male strongholds.
Whatever one’s ultimate educational achieve
ment might be, there is little doubt that it will
strongly affect one’s range of employment op
portunities. In many fields of endeavor the
standards of admission are closely regulated by
law, tradition, or professional organizations, if
not by the requirements of the job itself.
Almost 84 percent of employed college graduates
are in the professions or are managers and
proprietors of businesses (chart 3). There is only
a slight occupational overlap between college
graduates and those workers whose formal educa
tion ceased with high school graduation. Between
high school graduates and less educated workers,
however, there is a greater degree of interchange.
Of the high school graduates, 34 percent are in
clerical-sales jobs and 17 percent are operatives;
of the less educated, 28 percent are operatives,
and only 3 percent hold clerical-sales jobs. The
occupational overlap between these two groups
indicates that there are a great many more high
school graduates in the labor force than there are
jobs calling for their educational qualifications.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Im plications for the future
According to a recent b l s projection, by 1985
76 percent of the adult labor force (25 years old
and over) will have completed 4 years of high
school or more.5 As persons of minority races
attain a greater degree of equality under law and
in educational and employment opportunities, the
educational gap between whites and Negroes will
narrow. The changing attitudes toward women in
the labor force may lead to both increased labor
force participation rates and higher educational
attainment among women. Thus, in the years to
come, the economy will be based on a more
uniformly educated labor force.
Some institutional changes will have to take
place if this increasingly homogeneous labor force
is to be used effectively. Both the data shown in
chart 3 and the rising median educational attain
ment of the unemployed indicate that the job mix
and the education mix are already out of balance.
New kinds of jobs will be needed in order to pro
vide employment for the growing numbers of
high school graduates that will fully use their
skills and education.
In addition to their effect on the labor market,
the high school graduates of the 70’s and 80’s will
also tax the resources of the Nation’s colleges and
universities. The public school system that has
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
16
made high school graduation an attainable goal
may have to provide a large part of higher
education as well.
To some extent, these problems are being
approached at the present time. In many fields,
jobs that used to be part of a professional’s work
are now done by technicians and subprofessionals,
men and women with less than a college education
who had received sufficient training, aside from
formal education, to enable them to perform these
tasks. Vocational training made available under
the Manpower Development and Training Act,
for example, has qualified many less educated job
seekers for technical employment in fields such as
oceanography or medicine as well as the more
conventional occupations such as welding or
mechanics.
This sort of training, also available through com
munity colleges and 2-year institutions of higher
education,6 would be the logical extension of a
public education system in a post-industrial
economy.
□
F O O T N O T ES-
1 Data relate to the civilian noninstitutional population
18 years old and over (unless otherwise specified) in the
weeks ending March 15, 1969, and March 14, 1970.
This report is the eighth in a series on this subject. The
most recent was published in the M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w ,
February 1969, pp. 14-22, and reprinted with additional
tabular data and explanatory notes as Special Labor Force
Report. 103. Data on the educational attainment of the
population are published by the Bureau of the Census
in C u r r e n t P o p u l a t i o n R e p o r ts , Series P-20.
2 In this report, data for the grouping, “Negro and other
races,” are used to represent data for Negroes, since
Negroes constitute about 92 percent of all persons in the
grouping. In addition to Negroes, the grouping includes
American Indians, Filipinos, Chinese, and Japanese,
among others.
3 See Vera C. Perrella, “Employment of High School
Graduates and Dropouts, October 1968,” M o n th ly L a b o r
June 1969, pp. 36-43. Reprinted as Special Labor
Force Report No. 108.
R e v ie w ,
4 The importance of skill, experience, and seniority
among workers covered by collective bargaining agree
ments is discussed at length in W. S. Tillery and W. V.
Deutermann, S e n i o r i t y i n P r o m o tio n a n d T r a n s f e r P r o v i s io n s
(BLS Bulletin 1425-11, 1970).
5 Denis F. Johnston, “Education of Adult Workers:
Projections to 1985,” M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w , August 1970,
pp. 43-56.
6 See D ig e s t o f E d u c a tio n a l S t a t i s t i c s , 1 9 6 9 (U.S. Depart
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Center
for Educational Statistics). The growth of 2-year institu
tions since 1947 is shown in table 95, p. 71. Also, H a n d
b o o k o n W o m e n W o r k e r s (Woman’s Bureau Bulletin 294),
pp. 188-189.
The growth of secondary education
Perhaps the most startling achievement of
the American educational system is the consist
ent enlargement in the proportion of each
generation attaining the level of grade 12.
There has been a steady growth of attainment
at this level from about 8 per 100 in 1910 to
about 80 per 100 in 1969. From 1910 to 1968,
the number of 18-year-olds completing grade 12
has increased at an annual rate of about 1.2
percent. At that rate, by the 200th anniversary
of the Republic, 90 percent of those reaching
age 18 will have completed grade 12.
It appears to have been an implicit policy of
the American people for some 60 years to make
education at grade 12 a universal achievement.
We are very near the point of attaining that
goal. Expressed in this fashion, the growth of
secondary education is reaching its limit. . . .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
There remain two major sectors where change
might be made to occur. On the one hand, we
could probably make sizable gains in the
quality of education at the secondary and
undergraduate levels. . . . Educational attain
ment is not a concept that describes what
people learn. The focus of policy must be on
narrowing the inequities of quality between
schools. It must be recognized, however, that
some discrepancies in quality is the price that we
have paid, and will continue to pay, for growth in
the levels of educational attainment. What must be
examined is the trade-off between these two sets of
objectives.
— T h o m a s F. G r e e n ,
“Education and Schooling in Post-Industrial America:
Some Directions for Policy,” in T h e M a n a g e m e n t o f
I n f o r m a tio n a n d K n o w le d g e (U.S. House of Representa
tives, Committee on Science and Astronautics, 1970,
Committee Print).
BLS studies trace growth
of wage supplements
which now total
more than 20 cents
of each compensation dollar
ALVIN BAUMAN
S c a r c e l y f o u r d e c a d e s a g o , compensation for
American workers consisted almost entirely of a
wage for time worked or units produced. At that
time, a worker’s average straight-time hourly
earnings were indicative of his total compensation.
For some few workers, there was a paid vacation
or paid holidays, or a company pension plan.
Even for these privileged few, however, such
programs were genuine “fringe” benefits, serving
as an ornament to the wage but having little
economic significance either to the individual
worker or his employer, and having little effect
on the magnitude of the return to labor.
During the 1930’s, employer payments to or
on behalf of their employees, in addition to wages
for time worked or units produced, began to
balloon in importance and they continue to ex
pand today. No longer are average hourly earnings
a satisfactory measure of a worker’s compensation
for his labor; no more are payments beyond
wages for time worked mere “fringe” benefits.
Today’s worker receives a compensation package
which includes not only his pay envelope, but also
smaller bundles which have great importance to
him and which constitute items of significant
cost to his employer.
Today, American employers pay about fourfifths of total compensation as straight-time wages
and salaries for actual time worked or units
produced. The remaining one-fifth is spent pri
marily for (1) vacations, holidays, and other
types of paid leave; (2) protection against econom
ic hardship resulting from unemployment, retire
ment, disability, illness, or death of workers or
their dependents; and (3) premium pay for
overtime, weekend, holiday, or late shift work.
Details of the level and structure of these expendi-
Alvin Bauman is Director of Employee Compensation
Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Measuring
employee
compensation
in U.S. industry
tures in 1968, the latest year for which data
are available, are shown in table l.1
Since 1959, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has
maintained a continuing program of studies to
measure the components of the compensation
package that American employers provide their
workers. The importance of the various elements
of compensation relative to the total package is
shown in chart 1. The magnitude of this expend
iture attains even greater significance when viewed
in historic perspective.
Evolution
The American compensation structure as it
exists today is almost entirely a development of the
middle third of this century. Prior to 1935, the
burden of providing an economic shield against the
hazards of life and of work—sickness, accident,
unemployment, old age—lay almost fully on the
shoulders of the worker. Society and the individual
accepted this as a fact of life. What the worker was
able to skim from his wages to lay away for hard
times was frequently insufficient to carry himself
and his dependents through any lengthy period of
loss of earning capacity. For some workers, there
were labor union insurance plans that provided aid.
Others had to turn to family, public welfare, or
benevolent associations for survival.
A number of programs, publicly or privately
sponsored and financed, provided workers with a
modicum of protection or assistance in time of
need. Workmen’s compensation laws were wide
spread by the end of the 1920’s, but they offered
little in the way of protection. Private pension
plans have been in existence since the last fourth
of the 19th century; their coverage and benefits,
however, were narrowly limited. Furthermore,
many private benefits were not part of formal
plans, but were doled out to loyal and faithful
employees as an act of charity at the employer’s
17
4 0 2 -6 1 0
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
18
approach to economic security. Federal agencies
and programs were created to solve the economic
and social problems of the Nation and to insure
against future catastrophes. Americans were now
consciously aware, perhaps suddenly and pain
fully, that in modern industrial society the indi
vidual was not able to carry the full burden of pro
viding himself and his dependents with security.
Passage of the Social Security Act in 1935 provided
many workers with a measure of security against
two hazards—loss of income stemming from in
ability to work because of old age, and loss of
income because of temporary unemployment.
From their inception, both the old age security
and unemployment programs have been treated
as insurance programs in which participation was
a right acquired by working. In effect, the spirit,
whim. They were not viewed as an earned
entitlement.
For many workers during the first third of the
century, paid leisure was something only to be
dreamed about. However, this benefit was not
unknown, especially for white-collar salaried
workers. Some progressive corporations looked
upon paid vacations for wage earners as econom
ically sound and socially desirable. In most of
the business and industrial community, however,
paid leisure was not an established part of labor
policy during the first third of this century. And
during the depression, paid leave programs were
abolished in many companies that had provided
them.
The economic upheaval of the early 1930’s
brought with it a quiet revolution in society’s
Chart 1. The structure of compensation, selected worker groups and industries, 1968, and manufacturing production
workers, 1959-68
Percent of total
compensation
100
6.0
5.9
6.3
6.3
5.9
Retirement
programs
4.7
Pay for
leave time
4.2
6.2
Retirement
programs
5.9
Pay for
leave time
4.5
Health and
insurance
programs
4.5
Premium
pay
1.5
Other
5.2
4.8
5.3
6.2
6.1
90 —
3.4
4.1
3.7
3.3
4.2
0.9
2.4
3.0
Health and
insurance
programs
1.7
Premium pay
3.4
2.1
Other
1.6
82.2
Straighttime pay
for working
time
3.9
2.2
2.8
2.2
80 —
80.6
80.4
80.2
2.2
81.5
77.7
77.4
70
n
r'"'—
All
workers
Whitecollar
workers
Bluecollar
workers
P r iv a t e N o n fa rm E c o n o m y
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Manufacturing
industries
Nonmanufacturing
indus
tries
A l l W o rk e rs
1959
1968
M a n u fa c tu r in g P r o d u c tio n
W o rk e rs
Straighttime pay
for working
time
19
MEASURING EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION
if not the fact, of worker self-sufficiency was
maintained.
Workers’ ability to provide for their economic
security was enhanced by the passage of the
National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (Wagner
Act), which guaranteed their right to join labor
unions and to bargain collectively with their
employers. Some union leaders had feared that
employer-financed welfare programs would tend
to “buy” worker loyalty and impede organization
of workers. The mass organization of workers
dissipated most of these fears. Unions began to
deviate significantly from the traditional scope
of collective bargaining—wages, hours, and work
ing conditions—and began to negotiate plans that
would give workers more and better protection
than that provided by legally required programs.
However, not until 1948 did the courts interpret
the Wagner Act to require employers to bargain
over pension and retirement plans (Inland Steel
v. NLRB), and not until 1949 did they make the
same decision regarding health and insurance
plans (W. W. Cross & Co. v. NLRB).
The Second World War brought with it labor
shortages and competition among employers for
workers. The War Labor Board limited the
amount of increase in cash wages, and employers
were encouraged to turn to other forms of labor
Other estimates of total compensation
Total compensation is estimated by several
sources besides b l s . The National Income
Accounts, maintained by the Office of Busi
ness Economics, U.S. Department of Com
merce, have aggregate national data on
compensation of employees, wages and
salaries, and employer payments for social
insurance (social security, unemployment
insurance, and so on) and private pension,
health, and welfare plans for each year since
1929. The Chamber of Commerce of the
United States has, since 1947, conducted
surveys of employer expenditures for em
ployee compensation beyond pay for time
worked. The American Iron and Steel
Institute has data, beginning with 1940, on
hourly employment cost, both total and by
component, for production workers in the
iron and steel industry.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chart 2. ' Suppléments to wages and! salaries1 as a per
cent of total compensation of employées, 1929-69
Percent of total
compensation
0
5
10
1 Includes employer payments for legally required social insurance (e.g., social
security, unemployment insurance), and for privately financed health and welfare
programs (pensions, life and health insurance, etc.), as well as a few minor items.
Excludes pay for working time, paid leave, bonuses, and similar payroll items.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce.
compensation that were “noninflationary.” Em
ployees were offered insurance and pension
coverage, paid vacations and holidays, and
similar forms of compensation that were not
part of their cash wages for time worked or units
produced. After the war, such items of compensa
tion became part of “package” settlements
negotiated by labor and management. These items
soon became part of the compensation picture for
employers and workers outside the collective
bargaining framework as well. By early 1951,
the existence of a new compensation system was
generally recognized. This is evident in the
enunciation by the Wage Stabilization Board of
its short-lived policy of applying increases in
wages and “fringe benefits” against a predeter
mined maximum increase in total compensation.
Thus, in a decade and a half (1935-50) today’s
form of labor compensation had evolved.
The growth since 1929 in the importance of
compensation over and above straight-time pay
for time worked or units produced is partially
reflected in data from the National Income Ac
counts, summarized in chart 2. The chart shows
the proportion of employee compensation account
ed for by employer expenditures for legally
20
required and privately financed insurance and
welfare programs. In 1968, employer expenditures
for these programs represented about one-half
of the expenditure for compensation beyond
straight-time pay for work; the remainder con
sisted of pay for leave, premium pay, bonuses, and
similar payroll items.
The economic problems of the depression gave
impetus to the growth of legislated social insurance
programs. Similarly, the policies of the War Labor
Board acted as a catalyst to the growth of pri
vately sponsored programs for worker security
and leisure. Had these unusual circumstances not
existed, over the long term the social atmosphere
of the Nation coupled with increasing affluence
probably would have brought about a similar,
although more gradual, growth in such public and
private programs. Workers in the growing urban
centers, faced with insecurity engendered by rapid
technological change, have pressed for programs
providing security. Increasing affluence has given
workers the ability to substitute future protection
for current income and has increased the demand
for leisure time in which to enjoy this affluence.
These attitudes and desires are reflected in actions
and proposals that have been prominent in the
last decade: in the public sector, liberalization of
benefits under the Social Security Act, the insti
tution of Medicare, efforts to further improve
unemployment insurance programs, and proposals
for a national health care scheme; in the private
sector, the continuing emphasis on supplementary
compensation under collective bargaining. Be
tween 1961 and 1969, about half the workers
covered by major collective bargaining agreement
settlements (that is, those covering at least 1,000
workers) received new or improved pension plan
coverage; about half received a new or improved
vacation program; and nearly 2 out of 3 got
new or improved health and insurance programs.2
There is little reason to doubt that public and
private decisions will provide continued improve
ment of existing programs and the establishment
of new ones in the future.
The compensation structure is still undergoing
change and is not found uniformly among all em
ployees or in all industries. As it exists today in
American industry in general, it consists of three
major elements: (1) Pay for time worked or units
produced; (2) insurance paid for, at least in part,
by the employer to mitigate worker loss of income
or financial hardship resulting from sickness, ac
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
cident, loss of employment, or old age (these
benefits may be legally required, such as social
security and workmen’s compensation, or optional,
such as health insurance and private pension
plans); and (3) pay for vacations, holidays, and
other types of time off.
Early BLS studies
The significance of the changes taking place
during the 1940’s in the structure of employee
compensation was reflected in various b l s studies
of worker pay, which also covered employer
practices regarding insurance, paid leave, and
other elements of compensation not included in
hourly earnings. Recognizing that the existence
and growth of these practices tended to reduce the
meaningfulness of hourly earnings as a measure of
worker compensation, the Bureau began to collect
and analyze data on the costs of these practices.
The first b l s attempt to measure the costs of
“supplementary wage benefits” was made in
conjunction with a wage survey in the basic iron
and steel industry in 1951.3Data were collected on
employer expenditures for two types of benefits:
(1) Direct benefits, consisting of pay for overtime
and for work on holidays and late shifts, pay for
holidays not worked and vacations, sick leave,
severance pay, and nonproduction bonuses; and
(2) indirect benefits, consisting of legally required
and voluntary insurance and retirement pension
plans (although it was deemed impractical to
collect expenditures for the pension plans adopted
by a large segment of the industry in late 1949 and
early 1950). Expenditures were expressed in terms
of cents-per-man-hour and related to production
workers only.
The Bureau’s inexperience at that time in the
area of compensation expenditures is evident in its
struggle with terminology in its first report on the
subject. In a few printed pages we find reference to
employer expenditures on “selected supplementary
benefits,” “selected supplementary or ‘fringe’
benefits,” “supplementary wage benefits,” and
“fringe benefits.” Nonetheless, this first sally into
the field was reasonably successful, due in large
measure to cooperation from the industry, which
had actively solicited the study and which main
tained excellent records on expenditures for labor
compensation.
In 1953, b l s undertook “to explore the availa
bility of records, the willingness and ability of
MEASURING EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION
industry to provide data, the quality of expendi
ture data, and other matters of methodology and
definition” 4 necessary to measure employer “ex
penditures on selected items of supplementary
employee remuneration.” The study was conducted
among establishments engaged in manufacturing,
but was not intended to produce data relating to
all manufacturing. Neither was it intended to
delve into all types of supplementary employee
remuneration. Rather, it was limited in its inquiry
to expenditures for the following items: (1) Paid
vacations; (2) paid holidays; (3) paid sick leave;
(4) premium pay for overtime, weekend, holiday,
and late shift work; (5) pension plans; (6) insur
ance, health, and welfare plans; and (7) legally
required payments. These items were selected
because they were among the most common,
represented a large part of all expenditures for
supplementary remuneration, were either required
by law or subject to collective bargaining, and
were reasonably susceptible to measurement. The
Bureau disavowed any implications that these
items were being defined as “fringe benefits” or
even as benefits, or that they represented all items
of labor cost. Since 1953, additions and changes
have been made in the selected items, but the
basic concept underlying their selection still
applies. Another basic concept adopted in the
1953 study and carried through to the present was
that of “expenditures,” defined as money outlays
made by an employer either directly to employees
or on behalf of employees to an insurance company,
trustee, or government agency to provide selected
types of supplementary remuneration. “Expendi
tures” do not measure total actual costs; most
practices incur administrative costs, and many
provide offsetting benefits to the company (such
as increased worker productivity resulting from
vacations). Furthermore, expenditures for insur
ance and pension plans reflect anticipated costs,
which may be higher or lower than actual cost.
For these reasons, and others, actual cost measure
ment is virtually impossible.
Three basic measures of expenditures were
utilized: (1) Percent of payroll; (2) cents per
payroll hour (that is, per hour paid for); and (3)
cents per adjusted payroll hour (that is, per hour
worked). These measures were used in the program
for 13 years before undergoing modification. The
1953 study points up several problems involved in
collecting expenditure data: lack of employer
response to the mail questionnaire used to collect
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
21
data, lack of employer records, incompatibility
between employer records and Bureau data
requirements, and others which, for the most part,
are still with us. The significance of the 1953 study
lay in its demonstration of the practicality and the
feasibility of collecting expenditure data for most
major “supplementary remuneration practices”
among a group of employers having diverse
characteristics.
Four years elapsed before the next b l s venture
into the measurement of supplementary remuner
ation. As part of a pay survey in the electric and
gas utility industry,5 expenditures for the same
items of supplementary remuneration covered by
the 1953 study were collected for 1956. This was
the first study of supplementary remuneration in a
nonmanufacturing industry.
A related study was conducted in 1958.6 It
focused on the composition of payroll hours for
production workers in manufacturing—that is, the
proportion of all hours for which employees were
paid that was accounted for by hours spent at
work and the proportion accounted for by hours
spent away from work on various types of paid
leave.
The Bureau’s current full-scale program of
studies of compensation began with a survey
bearing the cumbersome (but precise) title,
Employer Expenditures jor Selected Supplementary
Remuneration Practices for Production Workers in
Manufacturing Industries, 1959.7 This survey was
a natural outgrowth of the 1953 feasibility study
and had generally the same conceptual framework.
Many of the caveats voiced in the 1953 study were
repeated—the survey did not purport to measure
labor costs; the list of practices for which expendi
tures were being measured was not all-inclusive;
and the selected practices did not constitute a
definition of “fringe benefits.” The list of practices
was expanded to include some items which were
new to the economy or had grown in importance
since 1953, such as supplemental unemployment
benefits and civic and personal leave. Expenditures
were measured in cents-per-hour paid for and per
plant man-hour; and as a percent of gross payroll
and of straight-time payroll. The last was a new
measure.
The 1959 survey stands as the Bureau’s first
measurement of expenditures for selected elements
of compensation in a major segment of American
industry, and the beginning of a continuous pro-"
gram of studies focusing on compensation expendi-
22
tures. The results serve as a base from which
trends in these expenditures are measured today.
The program moved along. A 1960 survey in
mining covered production workers.8 One in 1961
related to the finance, insurance, and real estate
industries.9 The nature of their work force made
this the first study in which white-collar workers
were included. Also, the survey covered virtually
all of the industries’ work force except outside
salespeople. Supervisory employees, who had been
omitted from previous surveys, were included.
Expansion of the survey program
In 1962, another survey of manufacturing pro
duction workers was made, with little change in
coverage or conceptual framework from the 1959
survey.10 The following year, however, saw another
expansion in the scope of the program. A special
survey was conducted, designed primarily to meet
the needs of the Federal Government for data on
expenditures for “supplementary remuneration”
in a segment of private industry.11Just as the 1961
study in finance, insurance, and real estate marked
a broadening of employee coverage, the 1963
survey marked a broadening of industry coverage
to a wide segment of the economy—manufactur
ing; transportation and utilities; trade; finance,
insurance, and real estate; and a limited group of
service industries. In terms of employee coverage,
the survey was limited, by the data required, to
clerical, professional, administrative, and tech
nical personnel—the same group for which salary
data were gathered to meet other Federal needs.
Surveys conducted during 1964 and 1965
covered a number of manufacturing and nonmanu
facturing industries.12 The items of expenditure
measured by the survey remained unchanged.
However, the program’s analytic framework was
shifted to the one now being used, which is
described below. In 1966, the Bureau surveyed
the entire private nonfarm economy,13 as the first
survey in the current program designed to study
the entire private sector biennially and selected
manufacturing and nonmanufacturing industries in
intervening years.
The shift in the analytic framework, alluded to
above, was significant. From measuring expendi
tures for pay supplements and relating them to
gross payroll, the Bureau moved, in 1964, to
measuring total employer expenditures for the
compensation of employees and relating expendi
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
tures for each compensation practice to total
expenditures for compensation. The new approach
was based, in essence, on the idea that the ele
ments of compensation are interchangeable, to
some extent, in theory and practice. In relating
supplementary compensation to gross payroll
rather than relating each element of compensation
(straight-time pay, pensions, health insurance,
and so on) to outlays for total compensation,
trends in the various elements of compensation
could be obscured or distorted.
This is illustrated by an examination of two
hypothetical establishments, each having the same
compensation items and each making the same
expenditure for them. The level of compensation
expenditures per hour of work is the same in each
establishment and each allocates the same percent
of gross payroll to provide supplementary compen
sation. Each establishment decides to increase
worker compensation, but each allocates the in
crease to a different element of compensation.
The first allocates the increase to straight-time
pay. Thus, gross payroll is increased; with no
absolute change in expenditures for supplementary
compensation, they become a smaller proportion
of gross payroll. The second allocates the increase
to improve its pension plan. This does not change
gross payroll expenditures, but expenditures for
supplementary compensation increase absolutely
and become a larger proportion of gross payroll.
The differences in expenditures for supplements
as a percent of payroll thus created between the
establishments are misleading; both establish
ments have increased compensation, although the
increase has been allocated differently. Clearly,
such situations, which are common in American
industry, are best accommodated by using total
compensation expenditures as the base for
comparison.
Total compensation was defined within the
existing conceptual framework of the program of
studies measuring expenditures for selected com
pensation practices. Expenditures for the selected
practices, plus straight-time pay for the job, con
stitute total expenditures for employee compensa
tion. Couched in other terms, total compensation
expenditures consist of all payments made by an
employer to his workers subject to Federal income
tax withholding, and all payments made by the
employer to a government agency, insurance com
pany, or trusteeship for legally required or pri
vately provided insurance and welfare programs.
23
MEASURING EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION
This definition does not include all forms of em
ployee compensation found in the United States
today. Expenditures that provide direct income
to the worker or provide him with security against
economic hardship are included; however, those
that are a form of indirect compensation, such as
employee discounts, company car for business and
personal use, and tuition grants, are excluded.
Employee compensation is only part of total labor
cost; the latter also includes such labor-associated
expenses as those of the personnel department;
cost of providing meals or dining facilities, rest
areas, in-plant medical care; and the cost of
administering insurance and pension plans.
Table 1 presents both the level and structure
of employer expenditures for employee compensa
tion in the private nonfarm economy in 1968.
In addition to these data, the survey program in
the private economy develops data for two broad
industry aggregates—manufacturing and non
manufacturing. Data are produced separately for
office and nonoffice workers in both the economy
wide and selected industry studies. Three measures
of expenditures are calculated for each compensa
tion item: percent of compensation, dollars per
hour paid for, and dollars per hour worked.
Table 1. Level and structure of employer expenditures for
employee compensation, private nonfarm economy, 1968
Averages are provided, along with tabulations
showing the distribution of employees among
establishments by establishment level of expendi
ture for each item. Data are presented by certain
establishment characteristics, such as employ
ment size or unionization, when possible. Informa
tion is also developed on the proportions of em
ployees in establishments with and without each
of the various compensation practices.
Information is also published on the proportion
of all hours paid for that are work hours and the
proportions that are paid vacation, holidays, or
other types of paid leave hours. In addition to
average percentages, distributions of workers by
establishment, according to the percentage of paid
hours allocated by the establishment between
work and leave time, are tabulated. Data are also
published on the proportions of workers who
actually received paid vacations of various dura
tions, as well as the proportion who received no
paid vacations.
These studies are conducted primarily by means
of a questionnaire mailed to a representative
sample of the Nation’s business establishments.
The method of survey for each such study is
described in the summary report or comprehensive
bulletin in which the Bureau publishes and
analyzes the results of the survey.
All employees
---------------The future
Compensation practice
Percent
of
compen
sation
Dollars
per hour
of work
Total compensation.................... - .........-
100.0
$3.89
Pay for working time.........................................
Straight-time pay........................................
Premium pay..............................................
Overtime, weekend, and holiday work.
Shift differentials.................................
82.8
80.4
2.4
3.22
3.13
.09
.08
2.1
.01
.3
Pay for leave time (except sick leave)......................................
Vacations....................................................................
Holidays......................................................................
Civic and personal leave.............................................
Employer payments to vacation and holiday funds...
5.3
3.1
Employer expenditures for retirement programs.
Social security.......................................
Private pension plans...........................
.21
.12
2. 0
.08
.1
.1
.01
6.0
3.3
2.7
.24
.13
.11
Employer expenditures for health and insurance programs ___
Life, accident, and health insurance...........................
Sick leave...................................................................
Workmen’s compensation...........................................
3.7
2.2
.6
.9
.15
.09
.03
.03
Employer expenditures for unemployment benefit programs__
Unemployment insurance...........................................
Severance pay.............................................................
Severance pay funds and supplemental unemploy
ment benefit funds.................................................
.9
.04
.03
1
Nonproduction bonuses.
Savings and thrift plans.
.8
.1
0)
(0
0)
1.0
.04
.2
.01
i Less than 0.05 percent or $0,005.
s Includes other health benefit programs, principally State temporary disability
insurance not presented separately.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The b l s program of studies of compensation
expenditures goes into the 1970’s with a broader
focus than that which characterized it in the
early 1960’s. For all its improvements, much
remains to be done.
Data on the compensation of public employees,
other than those working for the Federal Govern
ment, are scarce. Information for this increasingly
important sector of the economy will be in growing
demand.
Many intriguing questions remain to be an
swered—What factors influence the choice be
tween current income and future security? What
influence do public security programs have on
private decisions in the same area? What is the
relationship between employer expenditures and
benefits accruing to employees? What are employer
expenditures for other items of labor cost? We
hope to begin to answer some of these questions
in this decade.
D
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
24
FOOTNOTES
1 Information on employee compensation in 1968 is
from a b l s survey, the results of which were summarized
in a U.S. Department of Labor press release ( u s d l 11-197).
A comprehensive b l s bulletin on the survey findings is
now being prepared.
2 C u r r e n t W a g e D e v e lo p m e n ts , April 1, 1970, table 10.
3 W a g e S tr u c tu r e , B a s i c I r o n a n d S te e l, J a n u a r y 1 9 5 1
( b l s Series 2, No. 81).
4 P r o b le m s i n M e a s u r e m e n t o f E x p e n d itu r e s o n S e le c te d
I te m s
o f S u p p le m e n ta r y
E m p lo y e e
f a c t u r i n g E s ta b lis h m e n ts , 1 9 5 3 ( b l s
8
R e m u n e r a tio n ,
W a g e S tr u c tu r e , E le c tr ic a n d
1957 (b ls
M anu
Bulletin 1186, 1956).
G as
U t i l i t ie s , S e p te m b e r
Report 135, 1958).
8 C o m p o s itio n o f P a y r o l l
Bulletin 1283, 1960).
H o u r s i n M a n u f a c tu r in g , 1 9 5 8
(b l s
7 bls
Bulletin 1308, 1962.
8 E m p lo y e r
E x p e n d itu r e s
S e le c te d
S u p p le m e n ta r y
Bulletin 1332, 1963).
E x p e n d itu r e s
P r a c tic e s :
10 E m p lo y e r
fo r
S e le c te d
F in a n c e ,
E s ta te I n d u s t r i e s , 1 9 6 1 ( b l s
S u p p le m e n ta r y
In su ra n ce,
and
R eal
Bulletin 1419, 1964).
E x p e n d itu r e s
fo r
S e le c te d
S u p p le m e n ta r y
C o m p e n s a tio n P r a c tic e s f o r P r o d u c tio n a n d R e la te d W o r k e r s :
C o m p o s itio n o f P a y r o l l H o u r s ,
1965).
11 S u p p le m e n ta r y
1962
C o m p e n s a tio n
(b ls
fo r
Bulletin 1428,
N o n p r o d u c tio n
Bulletin 1470, 1966).
12 The 1964 surveys were in the following transportation
industries, and their results were published in: C o m p e n s a
W o rk ers, 1 9 6 3 (b l s
tio n
E x p e n d itu r e s
and
P a y r o ll
H o u rs,
P ip e lin e s
(bls
Bulletin 1528, 1967); M o to r P a s s e n g e r T r a n s p o r ta tio n
I n d u s t r i e s (1561, 1967); A i r T r a n s p o r ta tio n (1571, 1967);
and W a te r T r a n s p o r ta tio n (1577, 1967). The 1965 surveys
covered 11 industries and the results were summarized in
E m p lo y e e
fo r
R e m u n e r a tio n P r a c tic e s f o r P r o d u c tio n W o r k e r s i n M i n i n g
In d u s tr ie s , 1 9 6 0 (b l s
9 E m p lo y e r
R e m u n e r a tio n
C o m p e n s a tio n
and
P a y r o ll
H o u rs,
Reports 335-1 to 335-11).
13 E m p lo y e e C o m p e n s a tio n i n th e P r i v a t e
E c o n o m y , 1 9 6 6 ( b l s Bulletin 1627, 1969).
1968
(b ls
N o n fa rm
Occupational profile of tom orrow ’s jobs
Through the 1970’s, we can expect a con
tinuation of the rapid growth of white-collar
occupations, a slower than average growth of
blue-collar occupations, a faster than average
growth among service workers, and a further
decline of farm workers. Total employment
is expected to increase about 25 percent between
1968 and 1980. In comparison, an increase of
about 36 percent is expected for white-collar
jobs, and only about 13 percent for blue-collar
occupations. By 1980, white-collar jobs will
account for more than one-half of all employed
workers compared with about 47 percent in
1968. The rapid growth expected for whitecollar workers and service workers reflects
continuous expansion of the service-producing
industries which employ a relatively large
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
proportion of these workers. The growing
demand for workers to perform research and
development, to provide education and health
services, and to process the increasing amount
of paperwork throughout all types of enter
prises, also will be significant in the growth of
white-collar jobs. The slower than average
growth of blue-collar and farm workers reflects
the expanding use of labor-saving equipment
in our Nation’s industries and the relatively
slow growth of the goods-producing industries
that employ large proportions of blue-collar
workers.
— O c c u p a tio n a l O u tlo o k H a n d b o o k , 1 9 7 0 - 7 1 e d itio n
(BLS Bulletin 1650, 1970).
A study of
the relationship between
number of hours worked
and employment in periods
of recession and expansion
HAZEL M. WILLACY
The w o r k w e e k of factory production workers 1
is a sensitive and useful index of employers’
use of manpower resources. Changes in average
weekly hours, and more particularly in overtime
hours, occur as employers attempt to coordinate
their labor inputs and production schedules in
response to variations in the demand for their
product and the general economic climate. As a
result, the National Bureau of Economic Research
( n b e r ) has classified this series as a leading in
dicator,2 and its behavior is followed by analysts
and economists interested in predicting the
course of economic events.
Hours of work also are often an indicator of
the demand for manufacturing workers and,
together with other economic indicators, are
useful in evaluating whether labor shortages or
surpluses exist.3
Hours in a business cycle
As has been noted by many economists, em
ployers generally shorten the workweek before
resorting to job cuts in periods of slackening in the
economy, while in periods of expansion employers
generally lengthen the workweek before hiring
additional workers. Thus, changes in the factory
workweek normally precede employment adjust
ments in both phases of the cycle.4 According to
the n b e r , changes in hours during business cycles
have shown a median lead of 6 months at the peak
and 4 months at the trough, since 1921.®
The bulk of the change in the average workweek,
however, has typically been due to variation of
overtime hours rather than straight-time hours,
which are less sensitive to cyclical changes.
Despite the requirement of premium pay for
overtime work,6 employers apparently find it more
economical to vary labor input on short notice
through overtime than to hire additional workers.
This is especially true when the changes in product
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Changes in
factory workweek
as an economic
indicator
demand are expected to be of limited duration.7
It should be noted, however, that some overtime
hours are worked in economic slowdowns, as well
as during periods of economic advance. Some
industries, such as stone, clay, and glass products
and transportation equipment, schedule relatively
large amounts of overtime as a general practice.
Others use overtime because of scheduling prob
lems or as a response to normal seasonal fluctua
tions. In addition, overtime hours fluctuate as
special problems occur; for instance, they may rise
after a steel strike that has left inventories
depleted. Nevertheless, overtime hours do move
in a cyclical pattern that is clearly identifiable.
Hours at turning points
In each of the three business contractions under
study, average weekly hours of factory produc
tion workers declined several months before the
onset of the recognized recession, as designated by
the n b e r ,8 mirroring changes in production de
mand and in employer attitudes toward business
prospects. As new orders fell and business inven
tories began to rise above desired levels, factory
operations were curtailed to bring sales and pro
duction into line with each other.9 (See chart 1.)
In the 1960-61 downturn, hours began to edge
down in February 1960, about 3 months before
the official business cycle peak. By way of con
trast, in the 1957-58 contraction, the workweek
turned down in January 1957, 6 months before
the official turning point. In similar fashion,
overtime hours also began to move downward
before the actual turning points of the business
downturns during the 1957-61 period. (Data on
overtime hours were not collected prior to 1956.)
This occurred in February 1960 (the same month
Hazel M. Willacy was formerly an economist in the
Division of Employment and Unemployment Analysis,
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
25
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
26
as average hours in the 1960-61 contraction) but
in February 1957 (1 month later) in the 1957-58
downturn.10
Manufacturing hours have also generally turned
up before the actual business cycle bottomed. In
the 1960-61 and 1957-58 downturns, average
weekly hours hit bottom 2 months before the
trough, following a fairly steady and gradual
decline for 11 and 13 months, respectively. In
1953-54, however, hours fluctuated much more
Chart 1. Average weekly hours of factory production work
ers in three recession periods, seasonally adjusted 1
Average hours
42 0 1957-1958
1
P e aks and tro u gh s refer to b u sin e ss c y c le pe aks and tro ughs
as determ ined by the N ational Bureau of Eco n o m ic R ese a rch .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
along their downward course, probably reflecting
the instability at the end of the Korean War,
as the economy was adjusting to peacetime pro
duction. During that recession, the workweek hit
bottom 5 months prior to the trough.11
Behavior of hours in downturns
The total drop in the workweek was 2.2 hours
in the 1960-61 downturn and 2.0 hours in 1957—
58, or about 5 percent in each of these recessions.
(See table 1.) In 1953-54, however, the decline
amounted to 1.7 hours, or 4 percent.12 In the two
most recent recession periods, loss of overtime
hours accounted for about half of the workweek
decline, falling about one-third from their pre
recession levels.
In all three downturns, average hours declined
well before factory employment began to be cut
significantly.13 In these recessions, the substantial
factory employment reductions coincided roughly
with the actual business cycle turning points,
although factory employment had edged down
previously as hours were cut. Thus, it appears that
in the interim between the turning down in hours
and the actual business cycle peak, employers
merely stopped hiring new workers while they
awaited further economic developments. The
workweek decline preceded sizable decreases in
employment by 3 months in the 1960-61 recession,
8 months in 1957-58, and 4 months in 1953-54.
During the interval between the workweek’s
turning point and the official business cycle peak,
factory employment edged down about 1.5 per
cent in the 1960-61 and 1957-58 contractions. In
1953-54, however, production worker employ
ment was unchanged before the actual business
cycle peak. When the business downturns gained
momentum, layoffs increased.
In the 1960-61 downturn, factory employment
dipped 900,000, or 7.1 percent, between peak and
trough, while hours dropped by 5 percent. In the
two earlier downturns, however, the drop in
employment was greater, amounting to 10.7
percent of total employment in 1957-58 and 12.1
percent in 1953-54. The cut in hours (2.0 and
1.7 hours, respectively), however, was smaller in
these earlier recessions.
Although both hours and employment were
reduced during these three periods of economic
slack, most of the decrease in aggregate man
hours was accounted for by job cutbacks. For
27
CHANGES IN FACTORY WORKWEEK
Table 1. Changes in the seasonally adjusted workweek and employment of factory production workers in 3 recession
periods
Category
Manufactur
ing
Durable
goods
1960-61
1957-58
1953-54
Nondurable
goods
Manufactur
ing
Durable
goods
Durable
goods
Nondurable
goods
Nondurable
goods
Manufactur
ing
39.4
38.4
2.5
40.5
38.3
- 2 .2
5. 4
41.1
38.8
- 2 .3
5.6
39.6
37.9
— 1.7
4. 3
5,641
5, 357
-284
5.0
12, 758
11,846
-912
7.1
7,153
6,426
-727
10.2
5,605
5, 420
— 185
3.3
HOURS OF WORK
Level at peak 1_________________ . . _____
Level at trough 1___________________ _______
Change., _______________________ _______
Percent change___________________________
41.1
39.4
- 1 .7
4.1
41.9
39.9
- 2 .0
4.8
40.1
38.9
- 1 .2
3.0
40.6
38.6
- 2 .0
4.9
41.3
38.8
- 2 .5
6.1
14, 289
12, 553
-1,736
12.1
8,322
6, 972
-1,3 5 0
16.2
5, 967
5, 581
-386
6.5
13,217
11,806
-1,411
10.7
7, 576
6, 449
-1,127
14.9
-
1.0
PRODUCTION WORKER EMPLOYMENT
(IN THOUSANDS)
i evel at peak 2____ _____ ________________
Level at trough 2__________________________
Change__________________________________
Percent change. _________________________
i Hours of work at peaks and troughs refer to actual highs and lows recorded during
the recession period.
2 Employment peaks and troughs are those officially designated by the National
Bureau of Economic Research.
example, of the 12.1-percent decline in man-hours
in the 1960-61 period, about half was due to
employment cuts.14 In the two earlier downturns,
however, hours played a smaller role, and the
proportion of the drop in aggregate man-hours
attributable to job reductions was larger. One
reason for the relatively smaller 1960-61 employ
ment effect may have been the steadily increased
costs of hiring, firing, and training new workers,
which made it more economical to hold turnover
to a minimum.15
bulk of the drop in total factory man-hours
occurred in this sector.
Among the various manufacturing industries,
the largest drop in hours in each of the three
recent recessions was recorded in the metals
(primary and fabricated metals) and the metal
using industries (machinery, electrical equipment,
and transportation equipment). As in overall
manufacturing, the reduction in hours in these
industries started prior to large employment cuts.
These five industries—which account for almost
three-fourths of production worker employment
in durable goods—dominated the pattern of hours
not only in the durable goods sector but also to a
large extent in overall manufacturing.
Of the five major metals industries, average
hours declined most sharply in primary metals—
almost 4 hours, or an average of 9.4 percent in each
downturn—reflecting the reduction in construc
tion activity and production of other hard goods.
In both fabricated metals and transportation
equipment, the workweek fell substantially during
the 1960-61 contraction—by 7.8 percent, or by
roughly 3 hours. In the two earlier recessions, how
ever, average hours in fabricated metals declined
about 5 percent; by contrast, the transportation
equipment workweek dropped 8.8 percent in 195758, traceable largely to motor vehicles and equip
ment and aircraft and parts.
The workweek in electrical equipment fell more
moderately in the 1960-61 recession and in the
earlier downturns, probably reflecting the favor
able impact of defense and space exploration pro
grams and the production of new and advanced
equipment for industry and private consumers.
I n d u s t r y d e t a i l . Several industries dominated
the timing and degree of decline in the overall
factory workweek, while others showed more
moderate cyclical variations. Hours in the durable
goods industries, for example, are traditionally the
most volatile, reflecting the sensitivity of con
sumer demand for hard goods and the outlook for
capital investment.16 However, the workweek in
both the durable and nondurable goods sectors
began to fall in the same month as overall manu
facturing in all three recent downturns.
Average weekly hours declined substantially in
the durable goods industries, exceeding the reduc
tion in the overall manufacturing workweek in all
three recessions. The nondurable goods sector, on
the other hand, registered smaller workweek re
ductions, with the largest (1.7 hours or 4.3 per
cent) occurring in 1960-61. By contrast, in that
recession, hours in the durable goods industries
were cut back 2.3 hours, or 5.6 percent. Because
the durable goods industries also accounted for
about four-fifths of the drop in factory employ
ment during each of the three contractions, the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
28
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
among the nondurable goods industries, with the
smallest occurring in the 1960-61 contraction.
In the machinery industry, average hours were
down about 3.9 percent in the 1960-61 recession,
in contrast to larger declines in the two previous
contractions. One possible explanation for the
smaller 1960-61 dip was the milder slump in new
orders for machinery and equipment at that time.
The declines in the metals industries were the
major factors in the drop in aggregate factory
man-hours, accounting for about three-fifths of
the total in the three recessions. (See chart 2.) In
addition, because of the wide cyclical swings in
their workweeks, much of the decline in aggregate
manufacturing hours traceable to the reduction in
hours occurred in these industries. About 44.3
percent of the overall effect attributable to changes
in the workweek occurred in the metals industries
in 1960-61, compared to 50.9 percent in 1953-54.
In the other hard-goods industries, a rather
mixed pattern of workweek cuts occurred during
the three contractions. Although hours in these
industries declined cyclically, the timing was often
different from that of the total manufacturing
workweek, and the magnitude smaller.
Among the nondurable goods industries, the
most volatile, in terms of workweek changes, were
rubber and textile mill products. Small but wide
spread employment reductions were also evident
Hours in the 1961-68 expansion
Three fairly distinct periods can be distinguished
in the path of growth during the 1961-68 expan
sion—1961 to mid-1965, mid-1965 through 1966,
and 1967-68. During the 1961 to mid-1965 period,
average weekly hours, along with many of the
other economic indicators, turned up, as a
balanced but moderate rate of growth was
resumed, following the 1960-61 slowdown.17 (See
charts 3 and 4.)
The manufacturing workweek, which was at
39.2 hours in the first quarter of 1961, rose sharply
as the economy picked up steam, with an average
quarterly gain of 0.4 hour through the fourth
quarter of 1961, when it stood at 40.4 hours. (See
chart 3.) After this, the workweek ranged between
40.2 and 40.6 hours for the next nine quarters, as
investment and consumption failed to gain sub
stantial momentum. Production worker employ
ment increased steadily, though not sharply, in
these 13 quarters, with a total gain of 750,000.
After the tax cut of 1964 and the institution of
other programs to stimulate the economy, both
Chart 2. Decline in factory man-hours in three recessions
Man-hours in millions
0
10
| 1953-54
20
30
40
50
60
70
1960-61
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Employment effect
Hoiks effect
□
Combined effect
80
CHANGES IN FACTORY WORKWEEK
29
Chart 3. Average weekly hours, overtime hours, and employment of factory production workers, seasonally adjusted,
quarterly averages, 1961-70
factory employment and hours rose more sharply.
Between the second quarters of 1964 and 1965,
hours moved up 0.4 hour and factory employment
rose 600,000.
For the period as a whole (the first quarter of
1961 to the second quarter of 1965), average hours
increased 5 percent (1.9 hours), about half as
much as factory employment, which rose 12 per
cent. There was a 76.7 million gain in aggregate
factory man-hours during the period, nearly onethird of which stemmed from the longer work
week. (See chart 4.)
During the second period, mid-1965 through
1966, accelerated defense expenditures swelled an
already rising tide of civilian demand, and the
manufacturing workweek reached a post-World
War II high. It rose from 41.0 hours in the third
quarter of 1965 to 41.5 hours in the first two
quarters of 1966, exclusively due to increased
overtime, which rose from 3.5 to 4.0 hours a week
between these quarters. The upturn in overtime
hours was a normal adjustment to the stepped-up
production schedules required to meet rising de
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
mand and defense needs.18 However, to some ex
tent at least, the increased overtime reflected
pressures on available manpower resources, par
ticularly skilled workers, as evidenced by specific
skill shortages in certain geographic areas.
Production worker employment actually rose
more sharply than hours. For example, between
the third quarter of 1965 and the second quarter of
1966, hours rose 1 percent compared to a 5.5percent gain (740,000) in factory employment.
Of the 37.6-million advance in aggregate factory
man-hours in the mid-1965 to 1966 period, less
than one-fifth was due to lengthening the
workweek.
Following the strong expansion in employment
and hours, the workweek rose 0.2 hour in the
eight quarters comprising the 1967-68 period,
with an advance in overtime accounting for the
entire gain. Factory employment was almost un
changed in this period (an increase of 100,000),
reflecting primarily the slowdown in early 1967,
when manufacturers adjusted their production
schedules to declining sales by shortening work
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
30
hours.19 Accordingly, hours fell 0.7 hour between
the fourth quarter of 1966 and the second quarter
of 1967, with most of the drop concentrated in
overtime hours. Factory employment declined
moderately, in the early 1967 slowdown, which
suggests that employers viewed the slowdown as
temporary, not requiring substantial layoffs.
After the resolution of the inventory adjustment
problem in early 1967, manufacturing hours rose
to 40.7 hours in the last two quarters of 1967,
and then inched down in the first two quarters of
1968. As a result of increased consumer spending
and sales during the third and fourth quarters of
1968, manufacturers met stepped-up production
needs in the third quarter by lengthening the
workweek, although hours dipped slightly at the
year’s end. Production worker employment growth
also picked up after the 1967 slowdown, advancing
by about 200,000 in the four quarters of 1968.
Underscoring the moderate growth in employ
ment and the diverse movements in hours during
the 1967-68 period, aggregate man-hours increased
by only 8.4 million hours between the first quarter
of 1967 and the fourth quarter of 1968. In ad
dition, over half of the gain was attributable to
changes in hours, in contrast to the lower propor
tion in the two earlier periods. As during the three
recessions, the five metal industries as a group
dominated the trend of manufacturing hours
and employment in each of the three periods of
the 1961-68 expansion.
Chart 4. Increases in factory man-hours in the 1961-68 period
M a n u fa c tu r in g
Man-hours in millions
N O T E : C om bined effe ct, 1 9 6 7 -6 8 , too sm a ll to show.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Recent developments
A review of recent developments in the factory
workweek and employment situation reveals
that both increased slightly to meet production
schedules throughout much of 1969, but trailed
off in the last quarter of the year and have con
tinued to soften in early 1970. In the second
quarter of 1969, both factory hours and employ
ment rose modestly, as employers increased labor
inputs to meet production needs (see chart 3).
By the second quarter of 1969, the workweek
averaged 40.7 hours, where it remained in the
third quarter, while another small employment
gain was registered. All of the increase in hours
occurred in straight-time hours, as overtime
hours remained virtually unchanged. Over these
three quarters, moreover, the factory jobless
rate moved up, reflecting the much slower em
ployment growth. The durable goods industries,
primarily the metals and metal-using industries,
again dominated the trends in hours and employ
ment.
In the fourth quarter of 1969, when economic
growth began to show signs of faltering, the
average workweek began to edge down. Moreover,
production worker employment also showed a
decline from its first quarter level. In early 1970,
hours and employment declined even further.
In both phases of the business cycle, changes in
the factory workweek reflect movements in pro-
31
CHANGES IN FACTORY WORKWEEK
duction patterns and presage changes in employ
ment. Although a modification in hours is used
as a short-term adjustment mechanism to recon
cile manpower needs with production schedules,
employment adjustments tend to be the longer
run method of coordination. Accordingly, there
appears to be an inverse relationship between the
duration of the cyclical swing and the effect of
hours.
Thus, the change in factory man-hours attrib
utable to variation in the workweek has been a
larger proportion of the total change in aggregate
factory man-hours when the business cycle swing
was shorter, and vice versa. This relationship
apparently holds in both phases of the cycle.
Moreover, with the increasing growth in the
less volatile service sector, the influence of job
cutbacks in the manufacturing industries probably
has diminished. During the early 1967 slowdown,
for example, the decline in factory employment
was more than canceled out by the job expansion
in the service industries—trade, services, trans
portation and public utilities, finance, insurance,
and real estate, and government—which resulted
in greater stability in both hours and employment.
Since the service sector is expected to continue
to show persistent—and even accelerated—growth
in the future, it is likely that these industries
will loom even more important in future periods
of economic instability.
□
-F O O T N O T E S -
1 The average weekly hours series is based on payroll
data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from a
a sample of establishments. For an explanation of the con
cepts and methods used, consult any recent issue of E m
p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s . The factory hours series is used
because of the longer historical period for which data are
available. Average hours in this series refer to hours for
which pay was received, not hours worked. Seasonally
adjusted data are used in the article unless otherwise
specified.
2 This classification was made after careful evaluation of
the performance of the series in relation to business cycles
on the basis of the following six criteria: economic signifi
cance, statistical adequacy, conformity, timing, smooth
ness, and currency. For detailed discussion of the scoring
process used,, see Geoffrey H. Moore and Julius Shiskin,
I n d ic a to r s o f B u s in e s s E x p a n s i o n s a n d C o n tr a c tio n s (New
York, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1967).
For the current series, see a recent copy of B u s in e s s C y c le
T e c h n iq u e s f o r
I d e n tify in g
Labor
S h o r ta g e s a n d I l l u s t r a t i o n s o f T e c h n iq u e s f o r M e e tin g S h o r ta n d S e a s o n a l L a b o r S h o r ta g e s ( o e c d Social Affairs
Division, 1967), Part IV—Public Labor Market Program.
ru n
4 See Rose N. Zeisel, “The Workweek for Production
Workers in the Private Economy,” S u r v e y o f C u r r e n t
B u s in e s s , September 1969, and Seymour Wolfbein, E m
p lo y m e n t a n d U n e m p lo y m e n t i n th e U n ite d S ta te s (Chicago,
Science Research Associates, Inc., 1964).
5 Moore and Shiskin, op. cit.
6 The Fair Labor Standards Act, passed in 1938, estab
lished 40 hours as the standard workweek and stipulated
the payment of premium pay at one and one-half times
the regular hourly rate for hours in excess of the standard.
The imposition of premium pay was intended to encourage
spreading of the limited number of jobs available over the
maximum number of workers. Its effectiveness was the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
7 See J. R. Wetzel, “Current Developments in Factory
Overtime,” M o n th ly R e p o r t o n th e L a b o r F o r c e , April 1965.
Another possible explanation for the greater use of over
time in periods of high demand is that overtime premiums
may have fallen relative to hiring costs, as offered by
Robert A. and Margaret S. Gordon, P r o s p e r i t y U n e m
p lo y m e n t (New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966).
8 Moore and Shiskin, op. cit. As determined by the N a
tional Bureau of Economic Research, the official cycle from
peak to trough was July 1953 to August 1954 (1953-54
recession), July 1957 to April 1968 (1957-58 recession),
and May 1960 to February 1961 (1960-61 recession).
9 Wolfbein, op. cit., p. 294. See also Frank R. Garfield,
(Fed
eral Reserve Board, November 1965). For a graphic rep
resentation of this phenomenon, see sections III and iV
of Basic Data (chart 1A) in any issue of B u s i n e s s C o n d i
C y c le s a n d C y c lic a l I m b a la n c e s i n a C h a n g in g W o r ld
D e v e lo p m e n ts .
3 Arthur M. Ross,
topic of much discussion, along with its relationship to
fringe benefits, during the early 1960’s when attention was
again focused on the possibility of spreading employment,
this time through increasing the penalty rate for overtime
hours.
tio n s D ig e s t.
10 An explanation of divergence between the turning
points in average workweek and the overtime series is
offered in Abraham Bluestone, “Overtime Hours as an
Economic Indicator,” M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w , September
1956, pp. 1024-1028.
11 For a detailed discussion of the economic events
surrounding the recessions, see Harold Vatter, T h e U .S .
E c o n o m y i n th e 1 9 5 0 ’s (New York, W. W. Norton & Co.,
Inc., 1963). See also any copy of the annual E c o n o m ic
R e p o r t o f th e P r e s id e n t.
12 The decline in hours refers to the drop from the peak
in hours to the trough in hours.
13 Since employment in nonagricultural establishments
is classified by the National Bureau of Economic Research
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
32
as a roughly coincident indicator, it was expected that
the reductions in hours would precede those in employ
ment. For this reason, changes in production worker
employment will refer to changes between the official
business cycle peak and trough.
14 Employment and hours effects over the peak-totrough periods are calculated by holding one component
constant (at the trough) and multiplying it by the change
in the other component. The resulting figure is taken as
a percent of the total change in man-hours, thus providing
the component’s “effect” upon the total change.
15 Arthur M. Ross, “Identification and Correction of
Manpower Shortages,” E m p lo y m e n t S t a b i l iz a t i o n i n a
G r o w th E c o n o m y ( o e c d , Social Affairs Division, 1968).
16 The correlation coefficients of average weekly hours
in all durable goods industries against layoffs, constantdollar g n p , and manufacturing overtime were .92, .77, and
.94 respectively, compared with .65, .58, and .70, respec
tively, for nondurable goods industries. Furthermore,
with the exception of lumber and stone, which, because
of their critical roles in construction activities, would
be expected to correlate rather highly with changes in
economic indicators, hours in the metals and metal-using
industries registered higher correlations when run against
layoffs, g n p , and overtime than hours in the overall durable
goods sector.
17 E c o n o m ic
39-40.
R e p o r t o f th e P r e s id e n t,
January 1965, pp.
18 Wetzel, op. cit., p. 22.
19 For a discussion of the slowdown, see Paul M. Ryscavage and Hazel M. Willacy, “Recent Developments
in Manufacturing,” E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n i n g s , March
1968, pp. 11-17.
A Micro Model of Labor Supply
The latest in the series of bls Staff Papers
presents a cross section micro model of labor
supply and discusses the policy implications
that can be derived from the model.
Major innovations of the study, reported
by Malcolm S. Cohen, Samuel A. Rea, Jr.,
and Robert I. Lerman, are the simultaneous
estimation of individual, family, and area effects
on labor supply, the use of a continuous
measure of labor supply, and the examination
of labor force behavior by detailed subgroups.
The 245-page booklet, A Micro Model of
Labor Supply (bls Staff Paper No. 4) may be
ordered from any of the bls regional offices
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
or from the Superintendent of Documents,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C. 20402, for $1.
A limited supply of the first two booklets
in this series is available from the bls regional
offices, at no cost:
bls Staff Paper No. 1 , Issues in Financing
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, by Dorothy S.
Projector. 17 pp.
bls Staff Paper No. 2, Nineteenth Century
Wage Trends, by H.M. Douty. 30 pp.
The third in the series is Productivity Analysis
in Manufacturing Plants (bls Staff Paper No.3),
by Benjamin P. Klotz. 97 pp., 50 cents.
As p a r t of the Bureau’s expanded program in
public sector labor-management relations, this
issue of the Review reports highlights of recent
conventions of four unions of government em
ployees, all a f l - c i o affiliates.
Accounts for two of these unions appear for the
first time: the United Federation of Postal Clerks,
which represents 310,000 workers, and the Na
tional Association of Letter Carriers, which bar
gains for 203,000. These two unions account for
more than 4 of 5 workers covered by agreements in
the U.S. Postal Service.
Reports on the 1968 conventions of the Ameri
can Federation of Government Employees and
the American Federation of Teachers appeared
in the November 1968 Review. For a summary of
this year’s meeting of the National Education
Association—a rival of the Teachers—see the
September 1970 issue, pp. 30-31.
AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
MICHAEL H. Cl Ml Nl
e e t in g i n
Denver, Colo., August 10-14, nearly
1,700 delegates to the 22d Biennial Convention of
the American Federation of Government Em
ployees ( a f g e ) assembled to elect national officers
and to formulate union policy for the coming 2
years.
Now the largest union of Federal Government
employees, the a f g e has matured from a fledgling
organization of 70,714 dues-paying members in
1960 to a strong, vigorous union representing
325,000 members of 1,300 locals in the United
States and overseas. While it represents workers
M
Michael H. Cimini is an economist in the Division of
Industrial Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
402-610 0 — 70------ 3
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
in many agencies and occupations (approximately
55 percent of them are blue-collar workers), its
strength has traditionally been in the Department
of Labor, Department of Defense, Social Security
Administration, and the Veterans Administration.
Reports on wages and other economic and legis
lative gains won by the postal unions through
an effective but illegal strike, as well as the out
spoken opposition of President John F. Griner
to concerted strike action, foreshadowed a lengthy
and heated debate on a well-publicized move to
delete the no-strike clause from the union’s con
stitution. However, by the time the issue reached
the convention floor, the disposition of the ma
jority of the delegates was apparent; and the reso
lution was adopted after less than 5 minutes of
discussion. Removal of this clause was one of
the main issues in Vice President Dan Kearney’s
bid for the organization’s presidency: “We should
be able to strike selectively. . . . We’ve got to
look to the future . . . to the dajr when we won’t
have to lobby in Congress.”
Confronted by a growing militancy of the rank
and file of the union, the incumbent president of
the a f g e , who traditionally opposed the deletion
and who in 1968 had threatened to resign if this
clause were removed from the constitution,
adopted a more pragmatic approach. Although
Mr. Griner now did not actively oppose the
deletion, he espoused the position that the re
moval was “meaningless” because of the legisla
tion prohibiting Federal workers from striking,
and warned: “If we take it out, it will lead a lot
of people to believe they have the right to strike
and it would cause problems. . . . I don’t think
we could have a successful strike except in small
situations. Once you lose a strike, you’re through.
Federal employees aren’t sufficiently organized
to make [the strikes] work.”
One of the most important subjects on the
convention’s agenda was the drafting of a new
constitution. As mandated by the convention of
33
34
1968, a new a f g e constitution was drafted by a
special constitution committee, which proposed
the acceptance of its draft in its entirety subject
to subsequent amendments. Following a heated
discussion, the delegates rejected the committee’s
proposal and the old constitution remained in
effect, except for the amending resolutions adopted
by the convention.
Some of the other important proposals—such as
longer terms of office and higher salaries for
national officers, which had received preconven
tion interest—were also quickly defeated. One of
the rejected resolutions sought to extend the
terms of office from 2 to 4 years for the president
and executive vice president, effective at the end
of the 1970 convention, and for the secretarytreasurer and the 15 vice presidents at the close
of the 1972 convention. Another resolution pro
posed higher salaries for national officers—$45,000
(reportedly raised from $41,000) for the president,
a gs-18 level (raised from gs-17) for the executive
vice president, gs-16 level (raised from gs-15)
for the secretary-treasurer, and gs-15 level
(raised from gs-14) for vine presidents, with all
salaries subject to pay increments as enacted by
Congress for Federal workers.
The issue that generated most heat in a
prolonged debate involved the proposal of the
constitution committee to raise the per capita dues
(now $1.60 a month) by 40 cents a month effective
April 1, 1971, and an additional 30 cents effective
April 1, 1972. The delegates overwhelmingly
rejected the a f g e leadership’s contention that
inflation, increases in the quantity and quality of
union services, and the growth in membership
necessitated a fee increase of this magnitude. This
outburst of defiance finally required the personal
interposition of President Griner, who alternately
lambasted, cajoled, and pleaded with his members
to adequately fund the national office so that it
could perform its designated functions: “[The
delegates] challenge the integrity of the national
committee and of the convention as a whole . . .
do you think we can see 2 years in advance? . . .”
Upon reconsideration of the issue, the delegates
adopted a 20-cent increase (5 cents of which was
allocated to the building fund) effective April 1,
1971, and an identical additional adjustment
effective April 1, 1972.
In the last 2 days of the convention the d e b ate s
met to elect national officers. Opposing the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
incumbent President Griner and Executive Vice
President Clyde M. Webber, a Committee for
Progress introduced a full slate of candidates for
national offices: Daniel Kearney for president,
Everett Brouilette for executive vice president,
and Esther Johnson, the incumbent secretarytreasurer, for the same office. Notable in the
program of this slate were the revision or abolish
ment of the no-strike clause and restructuring of
the union to dilute the power of the national office.
The restructuring was to be achieved by augment
ing local autonomy, transferring the responsibility
for organization to the districts, and upgrading the
districts by increasing their personnel and funds.
With the votes tallied, the results of the vote
appeared to demonstrate the overwhelming accept
ance of the incumbent leadership. Mr. Griner
receiving 72 percent of the votes for president, and
Mr. Webber, 62 percent for executive vice
president on the first ballot. After the fourth ballot,
Douglas Kershaw, a local union secretary-treasurer
from Hill Air Force Base, one of the candidates
acceptable to Griner, polled 65 percent of the votes
cast by the delegates for secretary-treasurer,
defeating Mrs. Esther Johnson and four other
candidates.
□
AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF TEACHERS
RONALD W. GLASS
delegates to the American Federa
tion of Teachers’ 54th annual convention meeting
in Pittsburgh, Pa., August 17-21, devoted much
time to the consideration of current social issues.
David Selden, incumbent a f t national president,
was reelected by a narrow margin, but his Progres
sive Caucus elected 19 of the 20 vice presidents.
A 25-cent per capita increase, to be set aside for a
Teacher Militancy Fund, won overwhelming
approval.
The 1970 convention greatly diminished the
prospects for a merger with the National Educa
tion Association and, thus, echoed the reservaT h e 1,000
Ronald W. Glass is an economist in the Division of
Industrial Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
UNION CONVENTIONS
tions1 voiced at the n e a convention last June.
The a f t opponents of the merger consider the
n e a to be administratively dominated and un
democratic. They also fear that the a f t ’s close
union ties would be diluted or destroyed when
mergers are consummated. According to Presi
dent Selden, recent steps taken by the n e a to
strengthen its negotiating services to local affiliates
are, in essence, an attempt to ‘Tun us into the
ground.”
The delegates adopted a resolution requiring
all mergers to be approved by a majority of the
a f t Executive Council and a referendum vote of
the a f t membership. Previously, the a f t had no
formal policy, and a decision to merge could be
made independently at the local level. Despite the
restrictions imposed by the new resolution, it
represents a more flexible stance than that pro
posed in a minority report, which would have
flatly prohibited “all officers of the a f t . . . from
conducting any meetings or issuing any statements
favorable to such a merger.”
Performance contracting—a plan whereby a
school system contracts with private firms,
through competitive bidding, to remove educa
tional deficiencies on a guaranteed performance
basis—drew particularly heavy criticism. Citing
the Office of Economic Opportunity’s intent to
spend $6.5 million in the current school year to
establish performance contract plans in 21 school
districts, the delegates unanimously endorsed a
resolution opposing performance contracting as
“educationally negative.” In the view of the a f t ,
performance contracting would take the deter
mination of educational policy out of the hands
of the public and place it in the hands of private
entrepreneurs, and threaten to establish a monop
oly of education by big business. Furthermore,
the resolution stated, contracting was likely to
dehumanize the learning process, sow distrust
among teachers through a structured incentive
program, promote “teaching to the test, subvert
the collective bargaining process, and reduce
teacher input. . . .”
The convention pledged to support proposals
in Congress calling for collective bargaining for
public employees at all levels in Federal, State,
and municipal governments. In a companion reso
lution, delegates urged their locals to support
local and national candidates who defend the
right of public employees to strike.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
35
Opponents of David Selden sought to invalidate
his reelection, basing their action on a constitu
tional provision requiring that “a majority of the
ballots cast shall be required to elect the Presi
dent,” and that a runoff election be held if no
candidate receives a majority of votes. In total,
3,179 ballots were cast; however, only 3,029 votes
were cast for the office of president. Selden’s vote
of 1,567 represented less than a majority of the
total ballots cast, and on this ground his opponents
called for a new election. The chair ruled, however,
and was upheld by convention rollcall vote, that
the candidate need only receive a majority of votes
cast for the office of president. Selden’s rival,
Ken Miesen, from Cleveland, Ohio, who had
received 1,462 votes, appeared to be the accidental
beneficiary of a loose coalition of dissident antiSelden forces. The New Caucus, prominent in
recent conventions, played a small role this year.
The convention took no position regarding the
war in Viet Nam. In 1968, the a f t membership
had voted to take no position on the war, and the
opponents of the war unsuccessfully sought to
introduce the question at the 1969 convention.
Although the convention passed (and applied ret
roactively) a constitutional amendment binding
only the next succeeding convention to the policy,
opponents of the policy were again unsuccessful in
bringing the war issue to a convention vote. In
stead, the convention adopted a minority report
requiring another referendum on the war.
The teachers passed two resolutions on women’s
rights, calling on their locals and the a f l —cio
to work for equal opportunity for women, through
both collective bargaining and legislation. Elim
inated was a provision which would have made it
official a f t policy to promote paid maternity
leave. Also defeated were two resolutions endorsing
“free contraceptive information and materials
for all those in schools (adult and student) and
free abortions to all women requesting them (adult
and student).”
On the subject of academic freedom, the con
vention condemned interference with the right of
teachers to teach, “whether such interference
comes from the political left or political right,”
but defeated another resolution, which would
have condemned the University of California
Board of Regents for its “flagrant violation of
academic freedom” in not renewing Angela Davis’
contract.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
36
In a resolution concerning the rights of students
under the First Amendment to the Constitution,
the convention called upon its locals to adopt a
policy recognizing the right of students “to
engage in conduct protected by the Constitution
of the United States.” These rights, as interpreted
in several recent court decisions, include “freedom
of speech and expression, including choice of one’s
own dress and grooming, the wearing of buttons
or emblems, or the carrying of picket signs.”
The a f t delegates broke with their long
standing constitutional ban on membership for
applicants “whose political actions are subject to
totalitarian control . . .,” and endorsed a revised
standard which bars any discrimination in member
ship based on “political activities or belief.” □
--------- F 0 0
T N O T E ---------
1 See Harry P. Cohany, “The n e a prepares for the
1970’s,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , September 1970, pp. 30-31.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF LETTER CARRIERS
WINSTON L. TILLERY
scenic and recreational attrac
tions of Hawaii, the 47th Biennial Convention of
the National Association of Letter Carriers, meet
ing in Honolulu August 16-22, was probably the
hardest working convention in n a l c history.
Driven both by desire and necessity, the 3,287
delegates carried through the numerous changes
in the structure, policies, and goals of the Associa
tion required to transform the n a l c from primarily
a lobbying organization to a true collective bar
gaining trade union.
Perhaps the most important achievement of
the convention was the adoption of about 40
amendments to the n a l c constitution. Many of
these changes were made to meet requirements
under Executive Order 11491 and the new Postal
Reform Act of 1970, which gave the postal unions
bargaining rights but at the same time made
D e s p it e t h e m a n y
Winston L. Tillery is an economist in the Division of
Industrial Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
them subject to the Taft-Hartley and LandrumGriffin Acts. In addition, some constitutional
amendments were designed to strengthen the
Association’s hand in dealing with management
and to protect it against harassment through
litigation.
The postal work stoppage in March 1970 and
subsequent negotiations were still uppermost
in the minds of many delegates. Although the
illegal walkouts had placed.n a l c President James
H. Rademacher in a difficult position, he acknowl
edged the debt owed the strikers in bringing
the plight of frustrated postal workers forcefully
to the attention of Congress and the public. He
indicated that the stoppages and threatened
stoppages had placed an intolerable pressure on
postal management without which the negotia
tions could not have succeeded.
A f l - c io President George Meany was the
target of harsh criticism by the delegates for his
handling of the March negotiations. A resolution
commending Meany’s role in the negotiations was
overwhelmingly defeated; instead, the convention
voted to censure the Federation’s leader to show
“unhappiness and dissatisfaction” with his leader
ship. A sizable minority of delegates also wanted
to disaffiliate from a f l - c i o , alleging the Federa
tion had done nothing for letter carriers, but
the resolution failed as most delegates voted to
preserve union solidarity.
Also in the interest of union solidarity, the
delegates repealed a prohibition placed upon
officers at the 1968 Boston convention, and re
solved to explore with other postal unions the
possibility of establishing a Council of Postal
Unions. The resolution also reiterated a long
standing n a l c desire for eventual merger of all
postal unions.
Feeling that the right to strike is a necessary
bargaining weapon, the delegates strongly sup
ported a resolution authorizing the national
officers to “use every legal means available to
secure the right-to-strike by postal workers.”
The delegates also favored negotiating, if possible,
the withholding of financial disclosures required
by the Landrum-Griffin Act until the right to
strike was granted. The conventioneers resolved,
in addition, to obtain complete amnesty for those
who participated in the March walkouts.
Although he had been criticized in some n a l c
quarters during the March walkout, the popu-
UNION CONVENTIONS
larity of President Rademacher with the delegates
was never in doubt. He was reelected to his second
term in an easy victory over opponent Joseph
Cvetko, receiving 96 percent of the total vote cast
by the delegates. Other incumbents running for
reelection also either won easy victories or were
unopposed.
Early in the Convention, President Rademacher
had struck a tone of militancy by stating,
I intend to fight for my members. I intend to use every
weapon in the arsenal of industrial warfare, if neces
sary. If we run into stupid management stubbornness,
I shall not fail to use every weapon in that arsenal.
We want peace, but, by God, it must include a decent
livelihood for all those whom I represent.
The message was well received by the delegates.
Despite President Rademacher’s statement,
the overall tone of the convention was less one of
militancy than of hope that the n a l c could apply
its new bargaining rights successfully and achieve
its goals peacefully. The delegates took consider
able pride in the transformation of n a l c into a
“real” union. Numerous resolutions were passed
outlining the goals the members hoped could be
achieved through negotiations. These included a
35-hour 5-day week, use of area cost-of-living
allowances (in addition to those now in effect in
Alaska and Hawaii), across-the-board rather than
percentage-pay increases, optional overtime, the
right to institute class action grievances, raising all
letter carriers from level 6 to level 6, and numerous
improvements in working conditions. The dele
gates also resolved that negotiated contracts be
ratified by members.
A number of resolutions reflected the dissatis
faction of letter carriers with cutbacks in postal
service, and the fear of further deterioration of
service and loss of jobs resulting from the de
cisions of a cost-conscious U.S. Postal Service
management. The delegates voted to apply union
efforts to maintaining or reestablishing two and
three delivery daily service, 6-day service, and
better collection, among other changes.
The convention approved a number of goals
still attainable only through legislation, resolving
to work toward optional retirement on full annuity
after 20 years, full Federal payment of medical
insurance premiums, increased annual leave, and
automatic increases and liberalized cost-of-living
allowances for retirees.
□
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
37
UNITED FEDERATION
OF POSTAL CLERKS
RICHARD R. NELSON
T h e u n i t e d f e d e r a t i o n of Postal Clerks, the
collective bargaining representative of 310,000 of
the 750,000 employees of the Nation’s postal
system, convened in Los Angeles, Calif., August
10-15. This 36th biennial convention was domi
nated by the influence of two historic events: the
first nationwide strike of postal employees (in
which 48 percent of the strikers were postal clerks)
and the President’s signing of postal reform
legislation providing for collective bargaining in
the postal service and providing substantial pay
increases to postal employees. The consequences of
these events were impressed upon the 1,500 dele
gates by President Francis S. Filbey, who described
the activities that will now be required of the
Federation as “a whole new ball game.” The period
required to adjust to the newly granted collective
bargaining rights, he said, “will test the talents
and abilities” of the membership and union
leaders.
Merger
Delegates expressed a desire for more effective
action by passing unanimously a resolution in
structing the national officers to continue working
for merger of all postal unions in order to eliminate
division between employees and to increase bar
gaining strength. The resolution called for a single
union headed by a national president, with vice
presidents and other officials elected by the
respective crafts to preserve their representation.
President Filbey announced that the unaffiliated
National Postal Union, representing 80,000 em
ployees, had agreed to meet and discuss merger
and that most postal employee organizations
would explore the matter at their conventions.
Looking well into the future, the delegates also
endorsed a union of all communication workers, as
a long-range goal after all postal unions have
merged.
Richard R. Nelson is an economist in the Division of
Industrial Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
38
Strike issues
The recent postal strike, which focused the
Nation’s attention on the problems and demands
of postal employees, was a major topic of discus
sion. Although a number of resolutions were
passed in support of the members who went on
strike, the convention moved with caution on the
issue of possible future strikes. Removal of the
no-strike clause from the new postal pay and re
form bill was made the major legislative goal.
In response to a feeling that management
treats postal employees as "second-class” citizens,
a resolution was passed "demanding from the
Postal Service a guarantee that all employees will
receive the same rights as are guaranteed to all
A m erican citizen s u n d e r the C o n s titu tio n an d the
Bill of Rights—this guarantee extending specifi
cally to the first and fifth amendments.” The
delegates gave the national officers a mandate to
call a nationwide strike in the event that these
rights are not granted. No clarifying details were
included in the wording of the “mandate” or to
the application of the two amendments.
A stronger resolution calling for a nationwide
strike in the event that amnesty is not granted to
participants of the March postal strike was de
feated. Issues involving the use of the strike gave
evidence of the strength of smaller locals and
State federations. These groups opposed and
voted down proposals of the more militant large
city locals.
Delegates from small State federations and locals
seemed to control the convention, partially as
the result of a constitutional provision limiting
the number of delegates representing a local
union. This control was evident in voting down a
number of resolutions, particularly one presented
by the California State Federation calling for
wage differentials with higher salaries going to
clerks in high cost-of-living areas.
Dues increase
Union officers requested an increase in monthly
per capita taxes to help finance expanded union
activities. An increase of 35 cents, raising the
total to $1.70 a month and considerably less than
the 65-cent increase proposed by the leadership,
was granted after much debate and a rollcall.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
Major opposition to the officers’ request was
based on the effect a large increase might have
on competition for membership with postal unions
having lower per capita taxes. Salary increases
for union officers were voted down.
Constitutional changes
The convention spent much of its time changing
provisions of the union’s constitution to conform
with the provisions of Executive Order 11491
and the Taft-Hartley and Landrum-Griffin Acts.
These changes primarily concerned voting pro
cedures and the rights and obligations of the union
members. A nondiscrimination provision was
added to the constitution to insure compliance
with the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but the presence
of many blacks and women among the delegates
seemed to indicate that this was just a formality
and not a reversal of previous practice.
Many proposed constitutional changes, in
cluding changes in election procedures and union
disciplinary action, remained unresolved at the
close of the 6-day session; therefore, a special
constitutional convention was approved by the
delegates to meet sometime before the next
national convention. The Executive Board of
the union was given authority to amend the con
stitution and by-laws as necessary to remove any
conflict between its provisions and those of any
applicable Federal or State law.
Election of officers
Delegates approved a constitutional change
providing for future elections by national member
ship referendum. In this last election by conven
tion delegates, most of the incumbent officers
were returned to office. President Filbey received
73 percent of the vote for national president,
defeating John R. Napurano, the president of the
New Jersey Federation. Ben Zemsky, president of
the Brooklyn local and a leader in the postal strike,
was defeated in his bid to become executive vice
president. A 65-year age limit for national office
candidates was overwhelmingly rejected.
Among other actions, the delegates urged the
enactment by Congress of optional retirement
after 25 years of service, a 32-hour workweek,
repeal of the ban on the union shop and making
this a negotiable item, and amendment of the
39
UNION CONVENTIONS
Hatch Act (which bans political activity).
Negotiation goals, besides granting amnesty to
all postal employees participating in the March
1970 work stoppages, were the following: greater
seniority protection, elimination of the Work
Measurement System (stop-watch system of job
measurement), elimination of “best qualified”
provisions for promotion and replacing them with
“most senior qualified,” restoration of “appeal
rights” on bidding of clerical positions, and a
system of punitive action against management for
any contract violations.
The convention was highlighted by the appear
ances of a number of speakers, from labor and
government. Notable for their absence were
representatives of the Post Office Department.
This was the first time in the recollection of many
delegates that none was invited to appear.
□
Lobbying and political activity
The postal-employee unions have historically
provided an illustration of organizations relying
primarily on lobbying and political activities
to influence wages and conditions of employ
ment. The emergence of organizations of postal
employees to lobby before Congress (which sets
wages and other rules, such as those affecting
promotion) led the Postmaster General and
later President Theodore Roosevelt to issue a
“gag order.” The order forbade Federal em
ployees, on pain of dismissal, to seek legislation
on their behalf “directly or indirectly; in
dividually or through associations” except
through the departments in which they were
employed. This policy was reversed by the
Lloyd-LaFollette Act of 1912, which guaranteed
employees of the classified civil service the right
to petition Congress, either individually or
collectively, and to affiliate with the labor
movement. The statute provided that em
ployees could not be disciplined for such
activity, provided that their organization
imposed no obligation on employees to strike
against the United States. The precedent of
conditioning legitimacy and recognition on the
renunciation of economic force was often
followed thereafter by the Federal Government.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Postal unions over the years have made active
efforts to elect members of Congress favorable
to their interest, particularly members who
serve on the Post Office committees. They press
proposals before Congress for increases in wages,
improvements in benefits and working condi
tions, and regulations applicable to the Post
Office Department. They have shown great
strength in securing pay increases through Con
gress, even over the opposition of the executive.
Following President Kennedy’s Executive Order
10988, six postal organizations entered into an
agreement with the Post Office Department
which specified union recognition and proce
dures to handle appeals in cases of discipline and
discharge. Despite these developments, the
postal-employee organizations still rely primar
ily on lobbying and political activities that may
be viewed as a form of political negotiations.
The proposal to make the Post Office a non
profit corporation with a greater role for nego
tiations has not enjoyed the support of postal
unions, in part because they prefer the present
methods of fixing wages.
—D erek
C. B o k
and
J ohn
T. D u n l o p ,
L a b o r a n d th e A m e r ic a n C o m m u n ity
(New York, Simon and Schuster, 1970).
EARNINGS OF
HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES
JOSEPH C. BUSH
S t r a i g h t - t im e e a r n i n g s of nonsupervisory em
ployees in non-Federal hospitals averaged $2.44 an
hour in March 1969, according to a Bureau of
Labor Statistics survey. More than nine-tenths of
the 2.1 million workers covered by the study earned
between $1.30 and $4 an hour. Earnings of the
middle half of the workers in the array ranged from
$1.80 to $2.98.
The level of earnings for nonsupervisory em
ployees in March 1969 ($2.44) was 31 percent
above the average recorded in a similar Bureau
survey in July 1966 ($1.86).1 The annual rate of
increase during the period was 10.7 percent. It
amounted to 9.6 percent in State and local
government hospitals and 11.6 percent in private
hospitals and ranged from 7.4 percent in the West
to 13 percent in the South. The annual rate of
increase in average earnings also varied among the
occupations selected for separate study. For
example, the rate of increase was 14 percent a year
for general duty nurses, 12 percent for licensed
practical nurses, and 11 percent for nursing aids.
Employees in the South, about one-fourth of the
nonsupervisory work force, averaged $2.09 an
hour compared with $2.41 in the North Central
region, $2.66 in the Northeast, and $2.71 in the
West. Earnings levels of employees in State and
local government hospitals were higher than those
in nongovernment hospitals in each of the regions
except the South.
Employees in private (nongovernment) hospi
tals, accounting for seven-tenths of the nonsuperJoseph C. Bush is an economist in the Division of
Occupational Wage Structures, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
40
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
visory employment, averaged $2.44 an hour—2
cents less than employees in State and local
government hospitals. The average wage advan
tage for employees in government hospitals
amounted to 15 cents an hour in the West ($2.82
and $2.67), 22 cents in the Northeast ($2.83 and
$2.61), and 4 cents in the North Central region
($2.44 and $2.40). In the South, workers in private
hospitals averaged $2.13 compared with $2.03 for
those in government hospitals.
Full-time general duty nurses averaged $141 for
a 40-hour week in March 1969, compared with $99
for licensed practical nurses and $76 for nursing
aids. Average earnings for these occupations, three
of the numerically most important jobs studied,
varied by region and among the 22 metropolitan
areas surveyed separately (table 1). The survey
developed separate earnings information for a
number of occupations selected from four major
employment categories: Registered nurses, other
professional and technical employees, office cler
ical workers, and other nonprofessional employees.
Table 1. Average straight-time weekly earnings of women
in 3 occupations in private and State and local govern
ment hospitals, March 1969
Area
Atlanta.......... ......... . .
Baltimore........... ......... .......... . . .
Boston___ _____________
Buffalo______________ _ .
Chattanooga_________________
Chicago................................
Cincinnati______ ___________
Cleveland........... ...................
Dallas..................................... .
Denver____ ____________
Detroit_______ _____________
Los Angeles-Long Beach and AnaheimSanta Ana-Garden Grove.......
Memphis................. ............ .
Miami________ _____ _________
Minneapolis.................. .................. .........
New York City_______ _______________
Philadelphia..........................
Portland, Oreg....................................
St. Louis_____________
San Francisco-Oakland................
Scranton......... ....................
Washington, D.C_________ _____
General
duty
nurses
Licensed
practical
nurses
Nursing
aids
$134.50
143.50
152.00
137.00
140. 50
148. 50
144.50
148. 00
135. 00
142. 50
158.00
$96.50
Í09.00
126. 50
99.00
94.00
112.50
108.50
104. 50
92.00
96.50
121.00
$71.00
77.00
97.50
76.50
69.50
85.00
78. 00
82.00
65. 50
78. 00
88.50
160. 00
142. 00
143. 00
146. 00
163.50
135. 50
144.50
144. 50
169. 00
116.50
154.50
117. 50
98. 50
98.50
100. 50
122. 00
96.00
103.00
102.00
122. 50
90. 50
69. 50
70. 50
82.00
100.50
74.00
77.50
75.50
109. 00
71.50
79. 50
88.50
111.00
41
RESEARCH SUMMARIES
Information was also obtained on collective
bargaining agreement coverage and on the inci
dence of supplementary wage benefits for full-time
workers in the four categories.
Hospitals having collective bargaining agree
ments covering a majority of the full-time regis
tered professional nurses, other professional and
technical employees, office clerical, and other
nonprofessional employees accounted for oneeighth or less of the employees in each category.
The proportions were less than one-tenth for each
category in private hospitals. In State and local
government hospitals, the proportions of workers
covered by such agreements amounted to oneeighth for professional and technical employees
(except nurses) and to approximately one-fifth in
the other three categories.
Paid holidays, ranging from less than 5 to 14
days a year, and paid vacations were provided to
nearly all employees in the four categories.
Typical provisions for paid vacation were at least
2 weeks of vacation pay after 1 year of service,
3 weeks or more after 5 years, and at least 4 weeks
after 20 years. Provisions for paid sick leave
(usually full pay with no waiting period) and
hospitalization, surgical, and medical benefits
were also widespread in the industry. Over ninetenths of the employees in the four categories
were in hospitals providing retirement benefits,
usually under plans which combined social secu
rity and private pension benefits.
The survey covered both short- and long-term
proprietary, nonprofit, and State and local
(municipal and county) government hospitals
throughout the Nation (excluding Alaska and
Hawaii). Excluded from the survey were hospitals
operated by the Federal Government. Earnings
data developed by the survey excludes premium
pay for overtime and for work on weekends, holi
days, and late shifts, as well as the value of room,
board, or other perquisites provided in addition to
cash wages.
A comprehensive bulletin on the survey is ex
pected to be issued late this year. Advance tabula-
--------- F O O
WAGES IN MISCELLANEOUS
PLASTICS PRODUCTS PLANTS
SANDRA L. MASON
of production
workers in the miscellaneous plastics products
manufacturing industry averaged $2.40 in August
1969, according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics
study. Nearly all of the 178,870 production
workers had earnings between $1.60 and $4 an
hour, the middle half earning between $1.95 and
$2.76.
Men, slightly more than one-half of the pro
duction work force, averaged $2.70 an hour,
compared with $2.08 for women. Approximately
one-half of the 85,259 women in the industry were
employed as either finishers of molded plastics
products or operators of injection-molding ma
chines (operate only).
The August 1969 average reflects a 23-percent
increase over the earnings level recorded in June
1964 ($1.95), the date of a similar survey of this
industry.1 During the 1964-69 period, earnings
rose 25 percent in the Great Lakes region and 19
percent in the Middle Atlantic region—the two
largest regions in terms of industry employment.
Workers in the Middle Atlantic and Great Lakes
regions, together nearly three-fifths of the in
dustry’s work force, averaged $2.39 and $2.53 an
hour, respectively, in August 1969. Averages in
the other regions were: $2.07 in the Southeast,
$2.23 in the New England, $2.24 in the Southwest,
$2.32 in the Border States, $2.35 in the Middle
West, and $2.54 in the Pacific. Among the eight
areas of industry concentration studied separately,
average hourly earnings ranged from $2.11 in
New York to $2.81 in Cleveland. (See table 1.)
S t r a i g h t - t im e h o u r l y e a r n i n g s
T N O T E ---------
1 For results of the earlier survey, see I n d u s t r y W a g e
(BLS Bulletin 1553, 1967).
S u r v e y : H o s p ita ls , J u l y 1 9 6 6
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tions on the survey, providing national and
regional information, and individual releases for 22
areas listed in the accompanying table are avail
able from the Bureau of Labor Statistics or any of
its regional offices.
□
Sandra L. Mason is an economist in the Division of
Occupational Wage Structures, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
42
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
Table 1. Average straight-time hourly earnings of produc
tion workers in miscellaneous plastics products manufac
turing, selected areas, August 1969
Area
Number of
workers
Average hourly
earnings
Chicago___ _____________________
C le v e la n d .____________________
Detroit_________________________
Leominster, Mass_________________
Los Angeles-Long Beach and
Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove...
Minneapolis-St. Paul______________
Newark and Jersey City____________
New York, N .Y ........................ ...........
15, 878
3, 483
7, 204
3, 671
$2.49
2.81
2.47
2.13
12, 939
2, 257
5, 562
9, 439
2.45
2.79
2.35
2.11
Nationwide, average hourly earnings were
higher in metropolitan than nonmetropolitan
communities ($2.41 compared with $2.36) and
higher in union than in nonunion plants ($2.49
compared with $2.30). Workers in plants employ
ing 250 workers or more averaged $2.56, 22 cents
more than workers in plants with 100-249 em
ployees and 26 cents more than those in plants
with 20-99 employees.
Earnings information was obtained separately
for a number of occupations selected to represent
the various activities performed by production
workers in the industry. Injection-molding-machine
operators (operate only) and finishers of molded
plastics products—two jobs largely staffed by
women and accounting for nearly one-third of the
industry’s work force—were lowest paid among the
selected jobs. They averaged $2.09 and $2.10 an
hour, respectively. Tool and die makers, all men,
were highest paid, averaging $4.18. Men also made
up nearly all of the workers in other jobs for which
averages of more than $3 an hour were recorded,
including maintenance electricians ($3.58), ma
chinists ($3.46), pipefitters ($3.40), mechanics
($3.39), and maintenance men, general utility
($3.15).
Nearly all production workers were in establish
ments providing paid holidays, usually from 6 to 9
days a year, and paid vacations. Typical provisions
for paid vacations were 1 week of vacation pay
after 1 year of service, 2 weeks after 3 years, and
at least 3 weeks after 10 years of service. Life,
hospitalization, surgical, and medical insurance
benefits were also widespread in the industry.
One-half of the production workers were in plants
providing retirement pension benefits, in addition
to Federal social security. Funeral leave and jury
duty pay benefits applied to nearly three-fifths of
the production workers.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The survey included establishments employing
20 workers or more, engaged in molding primary
plastics for the trade or fabricating finished
plastics products. Separate auxiliary units, such as
central offices, were excluded. Earnings data
developed by the survey exclude premium pay for
overtime and for work on weekends, holidays, and
late shifts. A comprehensive report on the survey
will be issued later this year. Separate releases for
the eight areas listed in table 1 and an advance
tabulation, providing national and regional infor
mation, are available upon request to the Bureau
of Labor Statistics or any of its regional offices. □
--------- F O O T N O T E --------1 See George L. Stelluto, “Earnings in Miscellaneous
1964,” Monthly Labor Review,
May 1965, pp. 558-561.
P la stic s P ro d u c ts, J u n e
PRODUCTIVITY
IN THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY
SHELBY W. HERMAN
A n e w s t u d y of the railroad industry examines
its production structure, using econometric tech
niques. Data for individual companies were cast
into a production function framework in order to
analyze and quantify key factors underyling pro
ductivity differences among railroad companies.
The study was cross-sectional, using data for in
dividual Class I railroad companies, based on
information from the Interstate Commerce Com
mission. In order to test the stability of the pro
duction function over time, separate analyses
were made for 1956 and 1963, years of similar
economic conditions.
The analysis focused on two concepts in the
theory of production which affect the level and
rate of growth of labor productivity for a given
production function: the returns to scale and the
elasticity of substitution. The former relates to the
proportional change in output, given a 1-percent
Shelby W. Herman is an economist in the Division of
Productivity Research, Office of Productivity and Tech
nology, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
RESEARCH SUMMARIES
change in factor inputs. If the increment in out
put is greater than 1 percent then increasing re
turns to scale is applicable to the industry, and this
has an important effect on productivity growth.
The elasticity parameter reflects the ease to which
capital can be substituted for labor given a change
in their relative prices. A resultant increase in the
capital-worker ratio will have a direct effect on
productivity and employment.
Although several types of production functions
were tested, the formulation which fit the data
best for both 1956 and 1963 was the Cobb-Douglas
form with constant returns to scale and unit elas
ticity of substitution. While the returns to scale
measure appears consistent throughout the analy
sis, the coefficients of capital and labor are not
stable and may be subject to structural and insti
tutional biases. The capital data were derived from
accounting sources, and, although adjusted for dif
ferences in utilization, are not accurate proxies for
the flow of capital services needed in an economic
study. These capital errors bias both the capital
coefficient and the returns to scale estimate down
ward in the Cobb-Douglas function.
Productivity increased in every company in
cluded in the analysis. Output growth, however,
occurred in only 1 out of 3 companies in the
1956-63 period, and the firms experiencing rising
output were not necessarily the ones with the
largest gains in output per man.
The size of firm was unrelated to productivity.
Large firms were no more efficient than small firms;
thus, growth in firm size will not necessarily in
crease productivity. The study found that the
main causes of productivity advances in the rail
road industry were technological change and
capital-labor substitution.
A limited number of Productivity in the Railroad
Industry (BLS Report 377) are available on request
from the Bureau’s Office of Productivity and
Technology, Division of Productivity Research. □
WORLDWIDE DEVELOPMENTS
IN SOCIAL SECURITY, 1967-69
S ocial security programs, which have increased
dramatically since 1940, were offered by 93 percent
or 123 of the 132 independent nations of the world
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
43
in 1969, reports the U.S. Social Security Admin
istration in an article based on the latest of its
series of studies, Social Security Programs Through
out the World, 1969.
Swaziland, Laos, and Western Samoa had added
programs since 1967, when the agency’s Office of
Research and Statistics made its previous study.
Still without programs were Equatorial Guinea,
Kuwait, Lesotho, Maidive Islands, Mauritius,
Nauru, North Korea, Nepal, and Southern Yemen.
To most Americans, social security probably
means Old Age and Survivors and Disability
Insurance, as well as Medicare. Jobless benefits
are also included. Some foreign programs, in ad
dition, offer maternity and work-injury payments
and family allowances, for care of children.
The major development since 1967, the 274-page
study indicates, has been adjustments of benefit
formulas and amounts in numerous countries,
reflecting rising income and price levels. Family
allowance programs, which rose sharply between
1940 and 1967, showed no increase from the 1967
total of 62. (See table 1.)
Work-injury programs remained the most com
mon form of social security. In 1969, 120 countries
offered such programs. Brazil, Chile, Guyana,
Malaysia, and Spain were among countries making
major structural changes since 1967. Benefits are
financed solely by the employer in most cases. In
highly industrialized nations nearly all those em
ployed are covered. But in agricultural countries
farm workers are commonly excluded. Old-age,
invalidity, and survivor benefits were offered by
97 nations as of 1969, with Niger, Uganda, the
Malagasy Republic, Togo, Guatemala, Guyana,
and El Salvador joining the ranks since 1967.
Belgium introduced a guaranteed minimum pen
sion, and Denmark abolished the means test for a
universal pension.
The minimum age for pensions ranges from 50
to 70 years, with 60 and 65 the most frequent
levels. “In general,” the study finds, “the more
northern the latitude, the higher the minimum
age.” About half the programs set the same mini
mum age for women as for men.
Sickness and maternity programs were found
in 68 nations in 1969, including all European
countries. Most programs are financed wholly or
mainly from contributions paid by the employer,
employee, or both, at a fixed percentage of earn-
44
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
Table 1.
Number of countries with programs
Type of program
Any type...... .................................... . .
Old-age, invalidity, and survivor___________
Sickness and maternity.....................................
Work injury.................
........ ........ ......
Unemployment____ ____ __________ . . . _
Family allowance
___ _______ ____ . .
1940
1949
1958
1969
57
58
80
123
33
24
57
21
7
44
36
57
22
27
58
59
77
26
38
97
68
120
34
62
For a more extended account of the study, see
“Worldwide Developments in Social Security,
1967-69,” Social Security Bulletin, August 1970,
pp. 21-26.
□
EFFECT OF FEDERAL SPENDING
ings. In many countries, some type of government
subsidy is provided. Cash sickness benefits in most
countries equal 50 percent to 75 percent of average
earnings during the preceding few months, and
working mothers receive payments for a period
before and after childbirth.
Family allowance programs expanded rapidly
after World War II but by 1960 the rate had begun
to slow. “The programs of 15 nations pay allow
ances in principle to all families,” according to the
study. In the other 47, the allowance is related to
employment. The Soviet Union pays the allowance
up to age 5. In most other countries, the provision
continues to age 15 or 18. Some countries extend
the limit by several years if the child remains in
school or is undergoing an apprenticeship.
Reflecting the industrialization which encour
ages this type of program, 22 of the 34 nations
offering unemployment benefits are in Europe.
“About 25 of the 34 programs are compulsory
insurance systems of fairly broad scope, with
France the most recent to adopt this approach,”
the study notes. Denmark, Finland, and Sweden,
it adds, have systems organized by trade unions
on an insurance basis but with voluntary participa
tion. Other countries maintain general unemploy
ment assistance programs where allowances are
paid to those who meet an income or means test.
In about half the programs all employed persons
are covered.
Revenues for financing benefits in most cases
come from contributions paid by insured persons
and employers, with the government granting a
subsidy in a number of countries. The report
calls the U.S. program “an exception to the usual
practice in its reliance only on employer contribu
tions and in determining contribution rates in
accordance with the employers’ experience with
unemployment.” Most benefits equal 50 percent
to 75 percent of average earnings, “with a maxi
mum limit often 26 weeks—on the period benefits
can be drawn.”
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ON SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS
C u t b a c k s i n d e f e n s e spending are adding
urgency to efforts to measure the influence of
Federal Government spending on the develop
ment of scientific and technical manpower. An
effective system of data collection and measure
ment could contribute significantly in planning
for changes or new initiatives in Federal programs.
It could provide a basis for evaluating the ade
quacy of scientific and technical manpower
resources for the development of projected Federal
programs. And it could extend knowledge and
understanding of the effects of Federal spending
on the labor market for scientists and engineers.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics, with the
support and cooperation of the National Science
Foundation, has completed a study designed to
evaluate data sources and methods of measure
ment. The study, prepared under the direction of
Robert L. Aronson, now professor of industrial
and labor relations at the New York State School
of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell Uni
versity, is being published as b l s Bulletin 1663,
Federal Spending and Scientist and Engineer Em
ployment: A Study in Measurement.
A fundamental problem, Professor Aronson
points out, is the lack of a conceptual scheme for
measuring the output of Federal programs at a
level fine-grained enough to be useful for planning
purposes. Though relatively abundant, occupa
tional and employment data on scientists and
engineers at present can be linked to measures of
program activity in a patchwork sufficient only
to describe broad tendencies. The measurement
capability of the data for estimating the employ
ment effects of Federal spending was tested by
two approaches. One of these, designated the
budget approach, used expenditure aggregates as
a measure of program output and cost per scientist
or engineer as the employment estimator. Input-
RESEARCH SUMMARIES
output analysis was the basis for an alternative
approach. Occupational patterns applied to esti
mates of total employment representing expendi
ture in particular Federal programs were used to
estimate occupational employment. However, the
results obtained by this approach were limited to
private industry and portions of federally sup
ported employment in the State and local govern
ment sector. Estimates of civilian scientists and
engineers employed by the Federal Government
were obtained from surveys conducted by the
Civil Service Commission.
Despite the crudity of these initial estimates of
the Federal effect, the data permit some analysis
of various manpower policy or planning issues.
For example, application of the employment
estimators derived from the budget approach
show that, on certain assumptions, the transfer
of Federal funds from spending on Viet Nam to
peacetime uses could result in a substantial net
increase in Federal program requirements for
scientists and engineers. Possibly, the additional
number of scientists and engineers needed to staff
such programs would exceed the number engaged
as a result of spending on the Viet Nam war by as
much as 50 percent. Other illustrative applications
described in the full study include analysis of
changes over time in the pattern of Federal
utilization of scientists and engineers, analysis of
the occupational impact of changes in the levels
of total defense spending, and an estimate of the
extent to which Federal programs have absorbed
graduates of science and engineering academic
programs.
If manpower planning for Federal programs is
to become a reality, intensive effort will be re
quired, Professor Aronson suggests, to develop
a satisfactory conceptual framework for measuring
program activities and output. Once such a
framework is established, it is recommended that
periodic benchmark surveys be made of employ
ment of scientific and technical manpower in
Federal programs. Given a cycle of 3 or 5 years,
such benchmark surveys should prove sufficient to
measure or plan for the utilization of scientists
and engineers in Federal programs.
The bulletin will be available in early fall
from b l s regional offices or from the Superinten
dent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
□
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
45
OECD— ITS ECONOMIC
OUTLOOK FOR THE 1970’ S
M e m b e r c o u n t r ie s of the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development ( o e c d )
experienced a rather substantial economic growth
during the 1960’s. In terms of their combined
national output, the 50-percent growth target
set for the decade by the organization’s Ministerial
Council in 1961 for the original 20 members of
the group 1 has been “not merely achieved,
but surpassed,” says a report published recently
by the o e c d Secretariat. Even greater increases
are envisaged for the 1970’s.
But some of the objectives outlined in 1961
“have proved less easy to achieve” : price stability
remains elusive, disequilibria in international
trade and payments have not disappeared, poverty
and unemployment persist, and developmental
assistance from the rich to the poor countries
has slowed down. Most important, the difficulties
of economic stabilization have not been overcome,
and the timeliness and adequacy of restrictive
and corrective measures remain to be achieved.
This is the situation depicted in The Outlook
for Economic Growth, a “summary report on experi
ences, prospects, and problems of policy” that
was submitted by the o e c d Economic Policy
Committee to the organization’s Ministerial
Council at its meeting in May 1970. (A larger
report is forthcoming.) The report is intended not
only to show the degree of fulfillment of the 1961
program, but also to provide a basis for future
policymaking by estimating the progress for the
1970’s and indicating the problems to be considered
by the countries in their planning.
The decade’s growth in output of the original
20 o e c d member countries as a whole (in revised,
final figures) “is likely to be” about 55 percent,
or 4.5 percent per annum. For the entire group
of 22 countries now making up the organization,
the figures will be, respectively, 60 and 4.8 percent.
Increases in most of the continental European
countries, ranging from 4.5 to 6 percent per year,
compared favorably with the 4.3-percent rate for
North America (the United States and Canada),
but the latter had a “substantially slower” increase
in productivity, even though its rate of employed
labor force advanced much faster. The United
46
Kingdom’s annual growth of output was only
about 2.9 percent, and its increase in productivity
was about equal to North America’s. Japan, not a
member at the time the target was set in 1961, far
exceeded all other countries in the rise of both
output and productivity: its rates were 11 and
10 percent, respectively, over the decade.
The projected output increase of the combined
area during the 1970’s is between 65 and 70
percent—about 5.3 percent annually. The dif
ferences between these estimates and the achieve
ments of the 22 present members during the 1960’s
is too small, the report says, “to indicate any
significant change in the overall trends for the
o e c d area as a whole.” The projections assume
“absence of major and unforeseen changes in
world political and economic conditions, and
. . . that recessions are no deeper or more pro
longed than those experienced in the 1960’s.”
Furthermore, “Except for the United States,
Belgium, Finland, and Ireland, the projections
assume that the pressure of demand in 1970, 1975,
and 1980 represents a normal degree of capacity
utilization, without either inflationary strains or
undesirably high unemployment.”
In the current decade, the o e c d countries will
continue to face the above-mentioned problems
of the 1960’s—rising prices, international trade
difficulties, persistent poverty, and decline in aid
to underdeveloped countries. But the “central
objective of economic policy” will remain “main
tenance of sustained economic growth,” for
reasons that will “inevitably govern policy action
in the 1970’s.” These reasons, and the inherent
objectives, are:
1. Given the strong in-built character of the forces
making for rising productivity in modern economies,
rising levels of demand and output are necessary for
the maintenance of the high levels of employment to
which governments in all industrial countries are
committed; [and]
2. the extra wealth created by continuing economic
growth can provide the means of meeting continuing
social wants and needs, in terms of the alleviation
of poverty, both domestic and international, the
improvement of health, education, and other social
services, and the raising of standards of life.
While stressing the continued need to maintain
high levels of employment—“one of the most
important causes of the rapid economic growth
since 1950”—the report also discusses a series of
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
other problems, including structural problems of
the economy, that will continue to face the o e c d
countries and will require effective policies and
actions to cope with them. Perhaps the most
important of them is demand control. Thus the
65- to 70-percent growth during the 1970’s “will
not be achieved unless high employment levels
are maintained; and, given present productivity
trends, full employment will not be maintained
unless aggregate demand and output are kept
rising at [the 65- to 70-percent] rate.” Hence
“demand management” must be effective in that
it must perform the difficult task of balancing the
economic forces.
This balancing of economy will also require
“more effective monetary and fiscal policies [to
reconcile] stable growth and high employment with
acceptable domestic price stability and tolerable
balance in international payments, [and] other
types of policy—regional policies, manpower
policies, and income policies, and possibly rate
exchange policies. . . .”
During the 1960’s, the report says, the countries’
preoccupation with the balancing of demand and
output was so absorbing that it diverted the atten
tion of policymakers from the long term objectives
of economic and social policy: “Indeed, the effect
of stabilization programs has frequently been to
make the orderly development and implementation
of longer-term plans much more difficult.”
The most remarkable feature of the report, and
probably the most valuable part of it, is the
Committee’s advice to policymakers concerning
“the use which [should be] made of the extra
wealth created, and . . . the social and environ
mental effects of economic and technical change.”
It is expressed in humanitarian, rather than strictly
technical, economic terms:
. . . Policies should not simply be formulated in
terms of rates of growth of output. Indeed, such rates
are in themselves of no interest, except insofar as they
allow the realization of policy goals. Policies should
be formulated in terms of such objectives as the
alleviation of poverty, the provision of acceptable
housing standards, the elimination of hazards to
health, the improvement of environment, improve
ments in the provision for and quality of education,
[or] assistance to poor countries. Limited resources
will require choice between social goals. Thus objec
tives will need to be translated into programs con
sistent with the growth of productive resources
expected over a period of years. . . . [G]iving a
RESEARCH SUMMARIES
47
better direction to the forces of economic growth is
becoming increasingly recognized, as is the need to
anticipate the social impact of technological ad
vance. . . .
In this context, the relations between the o e c d
and the developing countries . . . will need to be
reexamined. The rates of growth of income per head
in the o e c d area projected for the 1970’s, and the
standards of affluence which these imply, are in
dramatic contrast to the continuing problems of
poverty, malnutrition, and disease in most of the rest
of the world. A faster rate of development will require
policy action by the developing countries themselves.
But an increase in the effort and resources devoted
to development assistance, in all its forms, and the
improvement of the effectiveness of such assistance,
has become an urgent world commitment for the
advanced industrial countries.
The report may be obtained from the o e c d
Publications Center, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, D.C. 20006. Price $2.
□
■FOOTNOTE■
1
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development was set up under a convention signed in
Paris December 14, 1960, by the member countries of the
Organization for European Economic Cooperation and
by Canada and the United States. This convention pro
vides that the o e c d shall promote policies designed to
achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and
employment and a rising standard of living in member
countries, while maintaining financial stability; to con
tribute to sound economic expansion in member as well
as nonmember countries in the process of economic devel
opment; and to contribute to the expansion of world trade
on a multilateral, nondiscriminatory basis in accordance
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
with international obligations. The legal personality of
the Organization for European Economic Cooperation
continues in the o e c d , which came into being September 30,
1961. The members of the o e c d are: Austria, Belgium,
Canada, Denmark, Finland (joined in January 1969),
France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Ice
land, Ireland, Italy, Japan (joined in 1964), Luxembourg,
the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the
United States.
The first meeting of the “ o e c d Council at Ministerial
level,” which adopted the 50-percent growth target, took
place in November 1961.
Significant
Decisions
in
Labor Cases
Employer in work dispute
A F e d e r a l c o u r t of appeals has ruled (in
Plasterers Local 791) that the National Labor
Relations Board has no statutory power to settle
jurisdictional disputes over work assignment in
the construction industry if the rival unions have
agreed to a voluntary solution through the pro
cedure established in the industry for this purpose.
The underlying issue in the situation was whether
the employer whose work was disputed by unions
was a party to the dispute.
For 20 years, the n l r b had assumed that the
employers were such parties and undertook to
adjudicate jurisdictional disputes, without being
challenged by courts, even if the contesting unions
had an agreement for voluntary settlement. This
policy was based on the Board’s interpretation
of the law—section 10(k) of the Labor Manage
ment Relations Act—which empowers it to enter
into work-dispute situations:
(k) Whenever it is charged that any person has
engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning
of paragraph (4) (D) of section 8(b), the Board is
empowered and directed to hear and determine the
dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall
have arisen, unless, within 10 days after notice that
such charge has been filed, the parties to such disputes
submit to the Board satisfactory evidence that they
have adjusted, or agreed upon methods for the volun
tary adjustment, of the dispute. . . .
And section 8(b)(4)(D), broadly, makes it an
unlawful labor practice to engage, or to induce
others to engage, in any activity or refusal to
perform work where the object is “forcing or
requiring any employer to assign particular work
to employees in a particular labor organization or
in a particular trade, craft, or class rather than to
employees in another labor organization or in
Prepared by Eugene Skotzko of the Office of Publica
tions, Bureau of Labor Statistics, in consultation with the
Office of the Solicitor of Labor.
48
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
another trade, craft, or class. . . . ”
Whenever unfair labor practice under section
8(b)(4)(D) was charged, the Board would step
into the dispute as directed by section 10(k), unless
the “parties to such dispute” timely submitted
evidence that the dispute had been settled or that
they had agreed on methods to settle it. But since
the Board considered employers parties to such
disputes, it adjudicated cases where employers
were not covered by the voluntary settlement
procedure, regardless of whether the unions were
so covered.
In the present case, the plasterer’s and tile
setters’ unions disputed over the work of tiling
walls at two unrelated sites. They voluntarily
submitted the dispute at one site to the industry’s
National Joint Board for the Settlement of
Jurisdictional Disputes, which awarded the work to
the plasterers. The other dispute was not sub
mitted to the joint board, yet the plasterers
claimed the work, and when the tile setters were
engaged instead, the plasterers picketed the site.
Pursuant to section 10(k), the n l r b held hear
ings and awarded the work to tile setters. Sub
sequently it found the plasterers’ picketing illegal.
When the case reached the appellate court, the
Board justified its policy by arguing that the
settlement of a dispute is more likely to occur if
the employer is a participant in the “settlement
phase” ; and he will be such a participant if he is
covered by the voluntary settlement procedure, or
if the Board adjudicates the controversy. In the
Board counsel’s language,
Employer acceptance of the “voluntary adjustment”
is a prerequisite of final resolution of the dispute,
because the employer does not commit an unfair labor
practice by ignoring the award made under section
10(k). . . . Securing the employer’s participation in
the dispute-settlement phase enhances the likelihood
. . . that he will accept the result. . . .
The court of appeals held differently. Referring
to the provision of section 10(k) for the Board’s
49
SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS IN LABOR CASES
abstention when parties have agreed to a voluntary
solution, the court reasoned as follows:
The . . . abstention provision does not require
voluntary adjustment, or agreement on a method for
voluntary adjustment, on the part of all parties to the
[dispute]. Abstention is commanded when “the parties
to such dispute’’ have adjusted the dispute, or agreed
on a method for the adjustment. . . . The text of
section 10(k) shows that the term “such dispute”
refers to the underlying jurisdictional “dispute out of
which such unfair labor practice shall have arisen.”
It is not the employer but the rival unions . . . who
are the parties to the jurisdictional dispute contesting
which employees are entitled to seek the work in
question.
In support of its position, the majority of the
court cited the Supreme Court’s statement in
the CBS decision2 that the clause “ ‘the dispute
out of which such unfair labor practice shall have
arisen’ can have no other meaning except a
jurisdictional dispute under 8(b)(4)(D) which is
a dispute between two or more groups of employees
over which is entitled to do certain work for an
employer.”
As for the employer’s interests, the appellate
court held, again in reliance on the above decision
of the Supremo Court, that the statute’s “purpose
of protecting the neutral employer is fully served
by any binding settlement between the disputing
employee groups. The neutral employer is one
who cares not how the dispute is decided but
wants merely that it be decided.” And a neutral
employer is one who is not a party to a voluntary
settlement agreement.
The appellate court also drew at length on the
legislative history of section 10(k), saying that
the history supports its interpretation of the 1947
amendment and reveals congressional emphasis
on voluntary—hence, most likely, permanent—
settlement of jurisdictional disputes rather than
on the n l r b ’s intervention by means of sanctions
against unfair labor practices.
In dissenting, Circuit Judge MacKinnon argued
that the majority’s decision rested on a rather
infirm foundation—an “alleged legislative history
and . . . a single sentence in a 1961 Supreme
Court decision,” both of them involving “isolated
comments” pertaining to a “garden variety of
jurisdictional disputes,” neither of them concerned
with the types of problem involved in this case.
“They are merely comments taken out of context
4 0 2 -6 1 0 O— i70i—
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
and misapplied,” the dissenting judge said, as
when “members of Congress in four out of five
instances cited did not even consider the issues
we have here.”
Furthermore, Judge MacKinnon pointed out,
the majority overlooked the fact that the dispute
here had “ripened” into a jurisdictional strike,
and thus “[t]he unions by their action have made
[the employer] a party to their dispute and the
statute recognizes this fact. . . .” He found
support for this contention in a statement of
Supreme Court Justice Douglas (in Carey v.
Westinghouse 3) that in jurisdictional disputes as
to whether the work should be performed by the
employees in one unit or in another, “the act and
its remedies . . . come into play only by a strike
or a threat of a strike. Such conduct gives the
Board authority under section 10(k) to resolve
the dispute.”
Judge MacKinnon, further, pointed to section
10(a), which says that the Board has power to
prevent unfair practices and that “[t]his power
shall not be affected by any other means of adjust
ment or prevention that has been or may
be established by agreement, law, or other
wise. . . . ” The judge said provision (k) of
section 10 should be read in conjunction with
provision (a).
It was also significant, the judge said, that the
industry’s joint board for the resolution of
jurisdictional conflicts “has employer groups in
its structure,” a fact that indicates employers’
interest in the decisions of that board. Finally,
the n l r b ’s interpretation of the controversial
section 10(k) had been reported to Congress ever
since it was added to the National Labor Relations
Act in 1947, yet Congress has not altered the
provision, and it must be presumed that the
Board’s construction of it should be upheld.
Work preservation
Boycotts of prefabricated building parts are
commonly provided for in collective bargaining
agreements in the construction industry as a means
of work preservation, and they are not unlawful.
But are they statutorily protected also in situa
tions where the preassembled parts are specifically
required by the job contract? A Federal court of
appeals has said they are. (Local 636, Plumbers})
50
A contractor, whose agreement with a plumbers’
union provided that installation of “[a]ll pipe two
inches (2") and under” would be done by employ
ees on the job site, won a bid for a construction
job specifying that certain heating and cooling
equipment be preassembled in the factory. Such
equipment involved the use of pipes described in
the union agreement. If desired, it could also be
assembled on the site of the construction work
by the employees.
The union ordered the workers not to handle
the equipment, and the work did not progress.
The contractor assumed the position of a neutral
employer, claiming that the provisions of his job
contract placed the situation beyond his control
and that the union was actually in dispute with
the party—a hospital—for which the job was
being done, since that party alone could change
the specifications.
In adjudicating the case, the n l r b upheld the
contractor by applying its ‘Tight to control”
(more precisely—power to control) test for
determining of secondary boycott activities. The
only way the employer could satisfy the union’s
demand, the Board said, was to break his job
contract, but this would have amounted to ceasing
to do business under unlawful pressure of the
union. The union’s conduct was declared to be in
violation of section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Labor
Management Relations Act.
This was not how the court of appeals viewed
the situation. The contractor had “created [his]
own predicament, and the Board’s approach
would encourage and reward such behavior,” the
court said. In short and simple language, the
court in effect said that the contractor had no
business signing a job contract which called for
prefabricated parts when he knew that his union
contract barred the use of such parts.
The court’s position was that the contractor
employer was not at all neutral, and that the
union’s conduct was not unlawful. The decision
of the n l r b had ensued from a wrong analysis
of facts, and from the application of the Board’s
“right to control” test to a situation where it
could not be applied. What should have been
applied here, the court said, is the Supreme
Court’s ruling in National Woodwork Man
ufacturers Association5 that, in determining the
legality of a job-protection agreement and its
enforcement, “[tjhe touchstone is whether the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
agreement or its maintenance is addressed to the
labor relations of the contracting employer
vis-à-vis his own employees......... ”
In the present situation, there could be no
doubt that the union tried to protect the con
tractor’s employees—after all, it did have a
work-protection agreement and had the right to
enforce it. This being so, the contractor was not
neutral; he was the one with whom the union was
in conflict, not the hospital for which he was to
do the construction work.
True, the union’s work-protection agreement
ultimately worked to discourage the use of
preassembled parts in the industry generally, and
in this sense it would appear that its conduct
vis-à-vis the contractor was actually aimed at the
hospital, hence, that it was and unlawful secondary
boycott. But there was no evidence that the union
was interested in the hospital’s labor relations.
In the situation thus analyzed, the “right to
control”—that is, the ultimate power to do some
thing in order to satisfy the union’s demand—
technically resides in the secondary employer, the
hospital, and the contractor’s breach of job
contract would have appeared to result from an
unlawful pressure of the union engaged in a
secondary boycott. But these are unavoidable,
“permissible ancillary issues and effects,” consist
ent with the above-cited ruling of the Supreme
Court.
The court expressed dissatisfaction with the
n l r b ’ s “right to control” test and said, “we
believe that [the] test must be abandoned,” citing
similar conclusions of commentators and all the
other Federal appellate courts.
Laying aside the Board’s findings, the court
remanded the case for consideration of whether the
work in question was really “claimable” by the
employees involved, under their work-preservation
agreement.
‘Most favored nation’ clause
In international trade, the “most favored
nation” provision means, in its ultimate effect,
equal terms of trade to all nations under agree
ments. Grafted upon the system of labormanagement relations, this misnomer of a clause
apparently presupposes equal terms granted by
labor to employers—and for this reason should
really be called a “most favored employer” clause.
SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS IN LABOR CASES
Whether it also means an advantageous treat
ment of the workingman’s interests is not entirely
clear. For “advantageous” in this context means
advantageous to the employer. For example, the
clause litigated in Dolly Madison Industries,6
involving a dairy enterprise, provided as follows:
Should the union at any time hereafter enter into
an agreement with any milk company operating within
the [specified] area served by the employer with terms
and conditions more advantageous to such milk com
pany, or should the union in the case of any milk
company which had signed this form of agreement
countenance a course of conduct by such company
enabling it to operate under more advantageous terms
and conditions that is provided for in this agreement,
the employer, party to this agreement, shall be priv
ileged to adopt such advantageous terms and condi
tions, provided the employer has sent [a] written
notice to the union calling the matter to its attention.
The n l r b ’s decision approving the cited con
tractual clause indicates that, to be lawful, such
agreement must work in the reverse gear, so to
say, not in the forward movement. It may benefit
a firm already under contract by entitling it to
more advantageous terms of the union’s subse
quent agreements with the firm’s competitors,
but it may not lay down the terms of those
agreements.
During contract negotiations, the union insisted
that a previous “most favored nation” clause
should be dropped from the new contract,
arguing that the provision might be in violation
of the Federal antitrust laws. The employer,
persisting in his demand for such a provision,
proposed—and the union agreed—that the parties
execute a contract containing the above-cited
clause, with the understanding that the union
would immediately file an unfair-labor-practice
charge with the Board for the purpose of testing
the legality of the provision and the employer’s
right to insist on it till a point of impasse.
The union based its position on the U.S.
Supreme Court’s ruling, in United Mine Workers v.
Pennington,7 that the most favored nation clause
disputed in that case, which was designed to
foster fair competition but through a prospective
application, was unlawful because, as restated by
the Board, it “imposed such a restraining influence
on collective bargaining that it would of necessity
thwart and offend the act’s purpose.”
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
51
Comparing the situations in this case and in
Pennington, the Board pointed out “obvious
differences” :
In P e n n in g to n , the contractual clause provided that
the union would impose upon all other coal operators
in the area the terms of the agreement without regard
to their ability to pay, but the contractual provision
herein imposes no such mandate. In P e n n in g to n , as
pointed out by the Supreme Court, the union by rea
son of the clause there involved abandoned the right to
which it and those of its members who were employed
by other employers were entitled under the act to bar
gain collectively with such other employers concerning
substantial terms and conditions of employment . . .
thereby frustrating the purposes of the act. In contrast
to P e n n in g to n , the [most favored nation] provision
upon which the [employer] here insisted was manifestly
not an effort to impose wages and working conditions
on other employers or employees in other bargaining
units but was designed only to assure that this
employer could be relieved of any disadvantage that it
might otherwise suffer if the union subsequently nego
tiated more favorable wage and benefit levels with
other employers. As this adjustment provision did not
go beyond setting forth an agreed-upon procedure by
which the [employer here] could conform the benefit
levels [under his contract] to those negotiated by the
union for employees of its competitors, and did not
straitjacket the union in its negotiations with other
employers, we find that it was limited to matters
directly related to “wages, hours, and working con
ditions,” and was therefore a mandatory subject of
b a rg a in in g .
The Board held that the employer’s insistence
on the most favored nation clause in question
to a point of impasse was not unlawful.
□
--------- F O O T N O T E S --------1 P la s te r e r s L o c a l U n io n N o . 7 9 v. N L R B (C.A.-D.C.,
No. 22073, June 30, 1970.
2 N L R B v. R a d i o a n d T e le v is io n B r o a d c a s t E n g in e e r s
U n io n (CBS), 364 U.S. 573.
3 375 U.S. 261 (1964); see M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w , Febru
ary 1964, pp. 187-188.
4 L o c a l U n io n N o . 6 3 6 , P lu m b e r s a n d P ip e f i t t e r s v.
N L R B (C.A.-D.C., No. 23342, July 29, 1970).
5 N a t i o n a l W o o d w o r k M a n u f a c tu r e r s A s s o c i a t i o n v.
N L R B , 386 U.S. 612 (1967); see M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w ,
June 1967, pp. 65-66.
6 D o l l y M a d i s o n I n d u s t r i e s , I n c ., and L o c a l 5 9 2 , I n t e r
n a tio n a l B r o th e r h o o d o f T e a m s te r s , 182 NLRB No. 147,
June 2, 1970.
7 381 U.S. 657 (1966); see M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w ,
November 1966, p. 1269.
This list of collective bargaining agreements expiring in November is based
on contracts on file in the Bureau’s Office of Wages and Industrial Rela
tions. The list includes agreements covering 1,000 workers or more in all
industries except government.
Number
of
workers
U n io n 1
Industry
Company and location
Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. (Pittsburgh, Pa.)_
Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. (West Allis, Wis.)
Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. (Springfield, III.).
Arvin Industries, Inc. (Princeton, Ky.)........ ...........
Electrical products.
Machinery.............
Machinery.............
Electrical products
Auto Workers (Ind.).
Auto Workers (Ind.)
Auto Workers (Ind.)
1,550
5.200
1,750
Machinists...... .........
1.200
Campbell Soup Co., Central Division (Chicago, III.)
Food products.
Champion Spark Plug Co. (Interstate)----Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Jeffersonville, Ind.)
Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Jersey City, N.J.)..
Electrical products.
Chemicals.............
Chemicals............ .
Retail, Wholesale and Department Store
Union.
Auto Workers ( In d .) .. ..............................
Chemical Workers ( In d .) .......................... .
Employees Association, Inc., of ColgatePalmolive Co. (Ind.).
1.900
3.900
1,050
1,550
Auto Workers (Ind.)
8,000
Eastern Labor Advisory Association, Tank Haul Agreement (Interstate)
Eaton Yale & Towne, Inc. (Michigan, Ohio, Illinois)...............................
Eaton Yale & Towne, Inc., Eaton Saginaw Division (Saginaw, M ich.)...
Trucking_____________
Transportation equipment.
Transportation equipment
Teamsters (Ind.)...........
Auto Workers (Ind.)........
Allied Industrial Workers.
2,000
3,300
1,150
Florshelm Shoe Co. (Chicago, III.)...................................................... ............
Food Employers Council, Inc., Independent Retail Meat Operators (Los
Angeles, Calif.).
Leather___
Retail trade.
United Shoe Workers.
Meat Cutters.......... .
1.350
6.350
General Instrument Corp., F. W. Sickles Division (Chicopee, Mass.)...........
General Telephone & Electronics Corp., Sylvania Electric Products, Inc.,
Subsidiary (Emporium, Pa.).
General Telephone & Electronics Corp., Sylvania Electric Products, Inc.,
Subsidiary (Salem, Mass.).
General Telephone Co. of Illinois, Plant Department (Illinois).......................
Electrical products.
Electrical products.
Electrical Workers (IBEW)
Electrical Workers (IBEW)
1,000
1,100
Electrical products.
Electrical Workers (IUE)
1,050
Communications..
Electrical Workers (IBEW)
1,300
Gulf States Utilities Co. (Louisiana and Texas).
Utilities.
Independent Electrical
(Ind.).
Hotel & Motel Association of Greater St. Louis (St. Louis, Mo. area).
Hotels.
Hotel and Restaurant Employees
3, 000
Independent Packing Houses 2 (Philadelphia, Pa.)......................
Imperial Reading Corp., La Follette Division (LaFollette, Tenn.).
Irving Air Chute Co., Inc. (Lexington, Ky.)— ...................... .
Food products.
Apparel_____
Apparel_____
Meat Cutters........................................
District 50, Allied and Technical (Ind.)
United Textile Workers........................
3, 500
Labor Relations Advisory Association, Central States Area Tank Truck Agree
ment (Interstate).
Litton Industries, Ine., Jefferson Electric Division (Bellwood and Hillside,
III.).
Louisville Gas and Electric Co. (Louisville, Ky.)— ............. ...........................
Trucking...............
Teamsters (Ind.).........................................
4, 500
Electrical products.
Electrical Workers (IBEW)........... .............
1,000
Utilities................
Independent Protective
Utility Workers.
of
1,900
Maytag Co. (Hampton and Newton, Iowa).....................
Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade (New York, N.Y.).
Electrical products.
Transit_________
2, 400
29, 000
Dana Corp., Master Agreement (Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania). Transportation equipment.
Workers
Union
Association
2,200
1,000
1,300
Montgomery Ward & Co., Ine., Department Stare Divislon (Detroit, Mlch.)—
Retail trade.
Auto Workers (Ind.)....................................
Directly affiliated local unions of the
AFL-CIO.
Retail Clerks............................ ................. .
Presbyterlan-St. Luke’s Hospital (Chicago, 111.)............
Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co. (Port Ivory, N.Y.).
Hospitals.
Chemicals.
Teamsters (Ind.) and Service Employees___
Independent Oil & Chemical (In d .).............
1, 000
1,150
RCA Communications, Inc., National Agreement (Interstate)_____________
Restaurant Industry 2 (Chicago, I I I , ) . . . ............................... .............. ..........
Retail Meat Dealers Associations, Chain Store Operators and Independent
Retail Meat Markets2 (California).
Retail Meat Stores,1 Distribution Agreement (California)-................................
Communications.
Restaurants___
Retail trade___
Teamsters (Ind.)...................... .
Hotel and Restaurant Employees
Meat Cutters_______________
1,800
3,500
1,850
Retail trade___
Meat Cutters.
1,200
St. Louis Dry Cleaners’ Exchange (St. Louis, Mo.).
Services.
Laundry, Dry Cleaning, and Dyehouse
Workers (Ind.).
1,000
United States Potters Association (Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia).
Stone, clay and glass products.
Potters.
4, 500
1 Unions affiliated with AFL-CIO except where noted as Independent (Ind.).
52
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2 Industry area (group of companies signing same contract).
1,500
Developments
in
Industrial
Relations
Postal reorganization
President Nixon signed a bill providing for
establishment of the United States Postal Service,
an independent agency which will replace the
181-year-old Post Office Department. Under the
reorganization, the Postal Service will be directed
by an 11-man board of governors, 9 of whom will
be appointed by the President. The nine will
appoint a postmaster general and a deputy post
master general. The board will also have authority
to raise capital, establish salaries and mail rates,
and engage in collective bargaining with the postal
unions. There is a provision for compulsory
arbitration and a prohibition of strikes.
Postal employees received an 8-percent pay
raise retroactive to April 16, 1970; the number of
years required to reach the top pay scales was re
duced from 21 to 8. These changes were agreed to
in the April 2 accord between unions and Govern
ment which followed the recent postal strike.1
Unemployment compensation
The President also signed into law unemploy
ment compensation amendments providing for the
largest single increase in coverage since the in
ception of the unemployment insurance program.
The new legislation would add some 4.8 million
jobs to coverage under the Federal Unemployment
Tax Act, effective January 1, 1972. Jobs brought
under coverage included 2.1 million in nonprofit
organizations employing four or more workers;
1.1 million by extending coverage to smaller sized
firms; 940,000 in State hospitals and institutions
of higher education; 210,000 in jobs such as
agent-driver and outside salesmen; 190,000 in
Prepared by Leon Bornstein and other members of the
staff of the Division of Trends in Employee Compensation,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, and based on information from
secondary sources available in August.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
agricultural processing; and 160,000 jobs held by
U.S. citizens employed by American employers
outside of the United States (excluding Canada
and the Virgin Islands). Coverage for another
436,000 public employees will be optional at the
State level.
Secretary of Labor James D. Hodgson said that
coverage will now protect about three-fourths of
the more than 82 million people who make up the
Nation’s civilian work force. He added that “The
nearly 5 million workers whose jobs will now be
covered by unemployment insurance is the
largest single addition to the system since the
first benefit check was issued on August 17, 1936.
This added coverage, coupled with other im
portant changes, will certainly help stabilize the
economy against the effects of joblessness.”
Of the more than 11 million jobs still not
covered, nearly 8 million are in State and local
governments. Domestic and farm workers are
still excluded. The Labor Department is currently
measuring the impact of extending unemployment
insurance to farm workers and will present
recommendations on farm workers coverage to
the next session of Congress.
Although State laws currently vary on amount
and duration, the new amendments specify that,
beginning in 1972, all States will provide permanent
extended benefit programs which would auto
matically go into effect when the national rate of
insured unemployment reaches 4.5 percent for 3
consecutive months, and remain in effect until
the rate drops below 4.5 percent for 3 straight
months. At that stage, workers who have ex
hausted their State benefits and are still jobless
would be eligible for an additional 13 weeks of cov
erage. There is a 13-week maximum on extended
benefits and an overall limit on regular plus ex
tended benefits of 39 weeks. (Most States currently
have 26-week maximums.) The amendments also
increased the Federal payroll tax for unemployment
53
54
insurance from 3.1 percent to 3.2 percent in 1970
and the taxable wage base from $3,000 to $4,200
in 1972.
AFL-CIO Executive Council
The domestic policies of the Nixon Administra
tion came under criticism at the summer meeting
of the afl- cio Executive Council in Chicago. The
Council declared that American workers are bear
ing “a major and growing share of the burden of
the Administration’s economic policies” in the
form of joblessness and shrinking purchasing
power and asserted that the Administration had
chosen a policy of “severe economic restraint” and
spurned the use of selective measures advocated
by the Federation.2
Among other stated positions, the Council at
tacked the Administration’s education policies
and charged that Attorney General John N. Mit
chell “is seeking to silence the American trade
union movement for purely political purposes”
by singling out the Seafarers International Union
for indictment.
The Seafarers were indicted in June by a
Federal grand jury in Brooklyn for an alleged
conspiracy to make political contributions in
violation of Federal law. In essence, the indictment
charged that the Seafarers Political Activity
Donation Account, the union’s political arm, is not
an independent union-sponsored entity, but part
of the union itself. Therefore its contributions
constitute union funds, and the Corrupt Practices
Act prohibits unions and corporations from
donating to candidates for Federal office. The
indictment charged the union with making
$20,000 contributions to both the Republican and
Democratic campaign committees in the 1968
national election.
The Council declared that American workers
have the right “to associate together to make their
voice heard in Federal elections,” and the right to
make voluntary contributions to political activity
funds. Further, it said, the Seafarers’ indictment
“can only be read as a device to coerce working
men and women and their unions to forgo their
basic constitutional rights.”
In other actions, the Council hailed the signing
of union agreements with over 75 percent of
California table grape growers by the United Farm
Workers Organizing Committee as “the most
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
significant victory in the collective bargaining
history of agricultural workers in the United
States.” The Council also elected Alexander J.
Rohan, president of the Printing Pressmen, as an
afl- cio vice president, filling the vacancy created
by the death of Herman Kenin, the late president
of the Musicians’ union.3
Farm workers
Peace came to the crop fields of California, if
but only briefly, when the United Farm Workers
Organizing Committee (ufwoc) signed a no
raiding agreement with the Teamsters.4 Under
the “agreement” which was signed in mid-August,
the farm workers union was given jurisdiction to
organize all field workers, while the Teamsters
union retained its jurisdiction over organizing
processing and cannery workers. Controversy
arose because the farm workers union interpreted
the pact to mean that the Teamsters must relin
quish bargaining rights at 35 produce farms it
had organized and signed labor contracts with
earlier in the month. The Teamsters, however,
contended that these farms were not covered by
the jurisdictional pact and that it could continue
to represent the 3,000 field workers. The farm
owners protested that they were caught in the
jurisdictional dispute but backed the Teamsters’
position that the 5-year labor contracts were legal
and must be adhered to.
On August 25, the farm workers union posted
pickets at the 35 farms and at others, resuming a
strike that began when the Teamsters signed the
labor contracts and that lapsed when the no
raiding agreement was signed. The struck farms,
which are centered in the Salinas area, produce
most of the Nation’s lettuce, more than half of
its celery, carrots, and strawberries, and a sizable
portion of other fruits and vegetables.
Other agricultural workers in the news included
those employed at Coca-Cola’s Florida citrus
groves. J. Lucian Smith, head of the company’s
food division, announced that nearly 300 full-time
farm workers were granted pay raises averaging
23 percent, providing an additional $17 a week for
most of the workers. The workers will also be
eligible for life and health insurance, retirement
and thrift benefits, as well as vacations, holidays,
and severance pay.
The company also announced the start of a
55
DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
pilot training program to enable more migrant
workers to become full-time employees. They
would be paid at a combination of hourly and in
centive rates rather than the currently prevailing
piece rates. Mr. Smith added that the company
had acquired a 40-acre site to build homes that
workers could buy at “modest” prices and is
planning a social service center with medical facili
ties and childcare centers. Coca-Cola’s actions fol
lowed public criticism of the company on its
treatment of migrant workers.
Equal pay for men
The Department of Labor filed the first Federal
lawsuit brought to require that men be paid as
much as women for the same work. The suits were
filed against two McDonald’s Drive-In restaurant
franchises in the Chicago area. Named as de
fendants were the Stevens Restaurant Corp.,
which operates McDonald’s restaurants in Chicago
proper, and 159 Restaurant, Inc., which holds a
McDonald’s franchise in Markham, 111., south of
Chicago. The suits, filed in U.S. District Court,
charged both firms with violation of the minimum
wage and child labor laws. According to the suit,
the male employees, who were between the ages
of 14 and 16, were paid up to 55 cents an hour less
than the $1.60-$ 1.75 received by female employ
ees, all of whom were over 18. The Government
asserted that this violated the Equal Pay Act of
1963, which does not permit exceptions based on
age to the requirement of equal pay for equal work.
The minimum wage for the food serving industry
has been $1.45 since February 1, 1970.
Guaranteed wage
Universal Textured Yarns, Inc., of Mebane,
N.C., has announced the adoption of a guaranteed
annual wage for those of its 700 hourly employees
who have at least 3 years of service. Company
President G. Allen Mebane said that Universal
Textured Yarns “believes that an hourly worker
can’t meet his year-round responsibilities as a
wage earner if he must be laid off in accordance
with the seasonal requirements of the textile
industry.”
In addition, the company announced a 6-percent
pay increase for hourly and salaried employees,
effective the beginning of September. Spokesmen
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
for other southern textile companies predicted that
the wage guarantee would not spread because
Universal is specialized and does not directly
compete with the larger firms. Universal makes
textured acetate, nylon, and polyester for sale to
hosiery and knitted-fabric producers.
Football settlem ent
In a settlement that brought anticipatory joy
to countless armchair quarterbacks and concom
itant anguish to wives now doomed once more
to become football widows, the National Football
League Players Association and club owners
agreed to a $19.1-million contract providing
pension and supplementary benefits for the players.
The 4-year agreement, reached August 3, covered
some 1,300 veteran players and ended a strike
that threatened the 1970 season, with cancellation
of the first weekend of preseason (exhibition)
football games on the immediate horizon.
After 4 months of fruitless bargaining, the
dispute reached the crisis stage on July 13, when
National Football League club owners announced
that their training camps would be closed to
Earnings index
The Bureau’s index of manufacturing production
workers average hourly earnings (excluding over
time premium pay and the effects of interindustry
employment shifts) rose 0.9 in May, to 156.0. Data
for prior periods are shown below.
Index
(1957-09= 100)
1969
May
June
July _
August.
September
October
November
December .
146.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
6
9
8
4
5
2
0
0
1970
(
In d e x
1957 -5 9 = 1 0 0 )
152. 9
January
February _ ____ 153. 4
__ 154. 4
March
___ 155. 1
April
___ 156. 0
May
Annual averages:
1968_________________________________ 139- 5
1969_________________________________ 147- 7
Monthly data from 1947—68 and data for selected
periods from 1939 to 1947 are contained in S u m m a r y
of
M a n u fa c tu r in g
S e r ie s ,
P r o d u c tio n
W orkers
1939-68 (BLS Bulletin 1616, 1969).
E a r n in g s
56
veteran players but open to rookies (first-year
players). The owners explained their decision to
exclude the players “in the light of communica
tions by the Players’ Association to veteran players
instructing them not to report as scheduled.” The
“lockout” became a strike on July 30, when
Players’ Association President John Mackey
announced that the players were now “officially”
on strike. That statement came a day after the
owners had lifted their lockout, saying that
veteran players would be welcomed back to
training camp. The players, however, held firm—
only 21 of the 1,300 veterans reported to training
camps in the 4 days between the end of the lock
out and the settlement that ended the strike on
August 3.
The agreement provides $4,535,000 annually to
the players’ pension fund ($18.1 million over 4
years) plus $250,000 annually to improve related
benefits and to establish disability payments,
widow’s benefits, and maternity and dental
benefits. The $19.1-million package represented
an $ 11-million increase, based on 1969 levels. A
week prior to the agreement, when the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service stepped in to
assist in the bargaining, the players were asking
$26 million over 4 years ($6.5 million a year);
the owners were offering $18 million ($4.5 million
a year).
The parties had reached prior agreement on
increases in pay for preseason games and for per
diem training-camp expenses, costing the owners
an average of $2.6 million a year. Five-year
veterans will now receive $280 per exhibition
game, and $12 a day while in training camp,
compared with a prior $10 per diem in the National
Football League, no per diem in the American
Football League. Meal allowances for road trips
were hiked to $16 a day, compared with the
previous $12 in the nfl and $11 in the afl .
Other gains included increases in pay scales for
participants in football’s Pro Bowl post-season
all star game.5
Arbitration award
Arbitrator Daniel House upheld American
Telephone & Telegraph Company’s decision to
grant a wage increase only to employees in its
Long Lines Department who earn below the
maximum of their progression schedule. In May,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
the company and the Communications Workers
(cwa) had agreed to the increase under a clause
of the 1968 contract permitting a reopening
during the 3-year term to adjust “other than
maximum wage rates,” with the results subject
to approval by cwa members. The settlement
was rejected by the membership because it did
not provide increases for all workers. Later, on
August 16, the company announced that it was
unilaterally putting the increase into effect, which
led to a 1-day strike, a restraining order, and an
order that the parties submit the issue to binding
arbitration.
In his decision, Mr. House said that the union
negotiating committee had “pulled the rug from
under the settlement” by failing to tell its members
that it had agreed to the settlement and by re
fusing to recommend the increases for lower paid
workers because the company had not agreed to
increases for those at maximum rates. He said
that by permitting the company to raise wages
unilaterally, he would allow the contract clause
to serve the purpose for which it was intended—to
facilitate recruiting.
The increase, which affected about 53 percent
of the 25,000 long lines employees and was retro
active to May 20, ranged up to $16.50 a week for
operators, up to $19.50 for clerks, and up to $21.50
for plant craftsmen. The cwa represents about
17,000 of the employees. Under the 1968 settle
ment, all of the workers represented by the cwa
had received a $3.50 to $6-a-week deferred wage
increase in July.
Other settlem ents
P acking and canning. After 6 months of negotia
tions, the Teamsters and California Processors,
Inc. (an association of 27 firms), reached agree
ment on a 40-month contract for 65,000 packing
and canning workers throughout the State. Wages
were increased by 10 percent effective July 1 and
by 5 percent plus a 7-cent cost-of-living adjust
ment effective July 1 of both 1971 and 1972. For
regular employees, a ninth paid holiday was
adopted; the years of service required for 4 weeks
of vacation were reduced from 20 to 18; the em
ployers pension contribution was increased 5 cents
an hour, and dental and prescription drug plans
were established. Workers who have been em
ployed on a seasonal basis for at least 3 years
57
DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
will now be eligible for essentially the same yearround medical care for themselves and their
dependents as regular employees. In addition,
seasonal workers will now achieve “regular”
status after 1,400 hours work a year, instead of
1,600, and the firms’ contribution for their pen
sions was increased by 23^ cents per hour worked.
N ew Y ork schools. A first contract giving
professional status to 4,000 teaching assistants in
the New York City public school system was
signed in mid-August by the American Federation
of Teachers and the New York City Board of
Education. The 3-year agreement, which climaxed
8 months of negotiations between the City and the
union, covers teaching aides, education assistants,
associates and auxiliary trainers in the school
system’s pre-kindergarten, early childhood, and
More Effective Schools programs.
Retroactive to January 1, 1970, the contract
provided an average minimum salary of $100 a
week for the beginning categories, and $151.50
a week for those with 60 to 90 college credits.
Effective February 1, 1970, bargaining unit mem
bers with a work schedule of 27.5 hours a week will
be granted 2.5 hours off with pay to attend an
approved college or high school equivalency pro
gram, provided that they complete at least 5
semester hours of study or training a week.
Similar training incentives are provided for those
who work 20 hours a week and for those working
30 hours or more.
The contract guaranteed 42 weeks of employ
ment per school year, including 4 weeks of vaca
tion, 6 weeks of summer work, and a 4-week
summer college program. Employees and their de
pendents received full hospitalization and dental
expense coverage, and will receive all other
benefits provided by the United Federation of
Teachers’ Welfare Fund by the final contract year.
R ca corp. Members of the International Union
of Electrical Workers (iue ) ratified a 4-year pact
with rca in mid-August, ending an 11-week walk
out. Terms for the 12,000 workers included an
immediate 23-cent-an-hour general wage increase
plus 3 to 26 cents to skilled workers, 15-cent de
ferred increases in August 1971 and October 1972
and cost-of-living increases of up to 5 cents in
June 1971 and up to 8 cents in June 1972 and
1973. The contract provided for adoption of a sick
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
leave plan effective in January 1974, hospital in
surance with 365 days of coverage at full semi
private rates (previously, coverage ranged from
$22 to $39 a day—varying by plant location—for
365 days), and a pension improvement bringing
the benefit rate to $6.50-$7.50 a month for each
year of credited service, from $4.50.
The International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers (ibew), which had settled on a 42-month
contract with rca in July, sat in on the negotia
tions and rca agreed to extend the hospital
insurance to the 23,000 workers represented by
the ibew . The settlement provided for an im
mediate 20- to 49-cent-an-hour wage increase and
15-cent increases in 1971 and 1972, adoption of a
cost-of-living escalator clause permitting up to
21 cents in increases during the contract term,
improvements in pension, vacation, and insurance
benefits, and adoption of a disability plan.
F ood store employees. Members of the Retail
Clerks union ratified a 2-year contract August 27,
averting a strike by 10,000 food store employees
in the Washington, D.C., area. Three days earlier,
the workers had turned down the same offer in a
voice vote that was ruled “invalid” by union
officials.
Department heads received a $20-a-week im
mediate wage increase and $20 more on the
anniversary date, and clerks received $18 increases
on the same dates. Previous top pay was $157 a
week for department heads and $144 for clerks.
Negotiations were conducted with the Washing
ton, D.C., Food Employers Labor Relations Assn.,
representing Acme, A&P, Food Fair, Giant, Grand
Union, and Safeway food stores.
Conventions
P rinting . At the 112th convention of the Typo
graphical Union (itu) held in Buffalo, delegates
voted to support their officers’ efforts to negotiate
a merger agreement with the Printing Pressmen.
Also approved were two constitutional amend
ments to be voted on in October by the Union’s
members. The amendments would increase the
length of officers’ terms from 2 to 4 years, and
increase the per capita tax from $1 to $1.50 a
month. The merger resolution called for full
support of President John J. Pilch and the itu
executive council “to accomplish, at the earliest
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
58
possible date, unity and merger” of the two
organizations. Mr. Pilch said that merger talks
have been delayed by the death of former Printing
Pressmen’s President Anthony J. De Andrade,
but would be resumed after the election of a
successor to former Secretary-Treasurer Alexander
J. Rohan, who replaced Mr. De Andrade.6
F irefighting . In Miami Beach, nearly 1,000 dele
gates to the Fire Fighters’ 30th convention reelected
President William H. McClennan, as well as Secre
tary-Treasurer Albert E. Albertoni, and 15 of the
union’s 16 vice presidents. Frank Palumbo of
New York City succeeded Ross Ritto of Roches
ter, N.Y., who chose not to run for reelection.
The delegates also approved a raise in monthly per
capita dues from $1 to $1.25 effective January 1,
1971, with 10 cents of the increase earmarked for a
new "emergency” fund. The convention rejected a
proposal to increase dues an additional 10 cents in
1972.
The delegates adopted a "one-man one-vote”
proposal made by a committee of three afl- cio
Executive Board members.7 The committee’s
proposal to change convention voting procedures
resulted from complaints of big city locals that
the union’s larger units were under represented at
conventions. The resulting resolution adopted by
the Fire Fighters increases the delegate strength
of large locals, permits locals with fewer than 100
members to vote at conventions by proxy, and
specifies that roll call votes for union officers will
be based on the total size of each local’s member
ship. In another development, President McClen
nan announced that he was "tremendously
heartened” by the news that the White House
would soon appoint a 24-member National Com
mission on Fire Prevention and Control. The
union has called for the establishment of such a
commission since it was authorized by the Fire
Research and Safety Act of 1968.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Also in Miami Beach, delegates to the
Glass & Ceramic Workers 19th biennial convention
approved changes in the organization of the union.
Under the revisions, the second international vice
president’s post would be eliminated, while three
regional vice presidencies would be created to
provide better coordination of organizing and
servicing. The convention’s changes were subject
to approval in a September 29 referendum vote of
the union’s locals. The delegates approved
proposals, to be submitted to the full membership,
that would provide for conventions to be held less
frequently (every 4 years) and that would make
convention actions final except those relating to
dues, election of international officers, and actions
regarding merger proposals. The convention also
hiked strike benefits by $5, to $12 a week (de
pending on the number of dependents), and
payments beginning with the 14th day of a strike,
7 days earlier than the existing provision.
□
G la ss.
---------- FOO TNO T E S -----------
1 See M o n th ly L a b o r
1970, pp. 77-78.
R e v ie w ,
June 1970, p. 77 and May
2 See M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , July 1970, p. 83, for the 4point economic program advocated by the Council at its
spring session.
3 See
M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w ,
September 1970, p. 61.
4 See M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , September 1970, p. 58 for an
account of the UFWOC’s recent organizing successes in
the table grape fields.
5 See M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , September 1968, p. 68, for
terms of the previous pension agreement.
6 See
M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w ,
August 1970, p. 82.
7 President Joseph A. Beirne of the Communications
Workers, President Emeritus Paul L. Phillips of the
Papermakers and Paperworkers, and Hermin Kenin, late
president of the Musicians.
Book
Reviews
and
Notes
Problems of measurement
The Behavior of Industrial Prices. By George J.
Stigler and James K. Kindahl. New York,
National Bureau of Economic Research,
1970. 202 pp. $7.50.
The behavior of prices in concentrated indus
tries, sometimes called “administered” prices,
has been debated by economists for more than
30 years, most recently concerning their role in
inflation. One handicap to the progress of knowl
edge in this field has been the uncertain reliability
of available data. The most important statistical
source is the bls Wholesale Price Index, in which
such industries are typically represented by prices
quoted by sellers. It has long been known that the
quoted prices in many instances differ significantly
from those actually paid by purchasers. Indeed,
one of the present reviewer’s earliest articles,
“Indirect Price Increases,” which appeared in
the Monthly Labor Review of November 1942,
called attention to these matters as well as the
significance of quality changes and other limita
tions of the data. The bls followed up in 1943
with a special field study of prices in concentrated
industries and frequent references to the statis
tical problems involved, and their significance,
have appeared since then.
The Behavior of Industrial Prices reports on a
study in the same vein conducted for the National
Bureau of Economic Research by George J.
Stigler of the University of Chicago and James K.
Kindahl of the University of Massachusetts. The
distinguished authorship virtually guarantees the
highest technical quality possible, and the study
reflects this. It is easily the most ambitious and
successful collection and analysis of “transac
tions” price data to date. At the same time, it
must be noted that the contribution provided is
much narrower than the title, or the authors’
introductory statement, would suggest. In the
first place, they promise to “test” the bls
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
liH
1pPMH
1Ir— ...§
I idZ3f
wholesale price index, a project that one would
ordinarily expect to yield quantitative information
on the index’s errors in timing and amplitude of
movement. Secondly, the authors promise to
assess the hypothesis that administered prices
are relatively inflexible, at least on the downside.
Neither of these objectives is fulfilled, though
much material relevant to them is presented.
Actually, The Behavior of Industrial Prices is a
straightforward account of the results of a field
study conducted in selected industries during the
years 1965 through 1967. The technical difficulties
are amply described by the authors. As they
point out, even hot rolled carbon steel sheets,
which superficially might be considered reasonably
“standardized,” are sold in seven gauges of
thickness, ten classes of width, four classes of
length, two classes of flatness, two classes of
squaring of ends, six lot sizes, three classes of oil
treatment, ten classes of carbon maximum, seven
classes of manganese maximum, five classes of
sulfur maximum, three classes of silicon maximum,
and seven classes of packaging.
Taking account of all possible combinations,
this “single” product could be sold in 135 million
varieties! Furthermore, most of the possible
variations in specifications are accompanied by
a complex pattern of extra charges and discounts
that materially affect the net price.
The bls confronts such virtually unlimited
diversity by stating specifications strictly for a
popular “representative” good in each classifica
tion, and obtaining its prices periodically from
sellers. Although the sellers are asked to provide
net prices—that is, list plus extras, less discounts
and rebates—questions have been raised per
sistently about how accurate, and how representa
tive of actual transactions, the data obtained
were. Stigler and Kindahl collect prices from
purchasers—the actual price paid—and attempt
to make appropriate adjustments for differences
in the specifications of goods bought from time to
59
60
time. To insure adequate samples for each com
modity, they obtained an average of 17 reports
per price series, as opposed to the three or more
generally required by the bls. Obviously, a very
heavy cost was incurred for whatever gains in
accuracy were obtained. Prices were collected for
the 10-year period from 1957 through 1966,
monthly.
The industries covered in the study were con
fined almost exclusively to the producers of basic
industrial staples in the more concentrated
industries—specifically, basic steel and nonferrous
metals, fuels, rubber and tires, paper and pulp,
chemicals, flat glass, paints, and a few pharma
ceuticals. In all, the goods represented only 19
percent of the industrial commodities (by value)
included in the bls wholesale price index, and of
course no nonindustrial goods. How accurate the
bls index may be as a measure of broad price
movements, therefore, could not possibly be
tested. However, for the selected ‘‘administered”
prices that could be compared, the authors found:
1. The bls prices are less sensitive downward
than the nber prices. On the upside their move
ments are about the same. Hence, over the long
run bls prices tend to rise relative to those of the
nber . For the period covered the average diff
erence was 0.4 percent per year.
2. Changes in the nber prices are more frequent
and gradual than in those of the bls, especially
during periods of contraction.
3. The cyclical pattern of the two groups of
prices are generally similar, with changes in
direction, or in the pace of movements, occurring
at about the same time.
Thus, the conclusions reinforce those suggested
by earlier studies, and of course help to quantify
them further. In addition, it is possible that some
of the technical innovations incorporated in this
study may be adopted by the bls to improve its
own data. Contributions to our understanding
of the behavior of administered prices, on which
the authors place much stress, are more question
able. It is true that they destroy the myth—
assuming that anyone ever believed it—that
prices in concentrated industries are perfectly
rigid. Even bls prices show that. But more
important questions, especially in the current
economic setting, are untouched by the present
study. For example, to what extent do adminis
tered prices remain relatively inflexible (as com
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
pared with competitive prices) when demand
declines? To what extent do they anticipate, and
hence exacerbate, inflationary trends? Perhaps
future students, using the new data Stigler and
Kindahl have provided, will be able to throw some
additional light on these questions.
—M elville J. U lmer
Professor of Economics
University of Maryland
Teacher conduct
The Unionization of Teachers; A Case Study of the
UFT. By Stephen Cole. New York, Praeger
Publishers, 1969. 245 pp. $8.
This book attempts to perform two main
functions: (1) to provide a sociological analysis
of the United Federation of Teachers during the
early 1960’s when it first became bargaining agent
for New York City public school teachers and
when it began using the strike as an effective
weapon in collective bargaining, and (2) to draw
inferences about the prospects for unionization
and collective bargaining for teachers and other
professional workers.
After a brief history of the teacher union
movement in New York City, Cole identifies
reasons for the changing attitude of teachers
toward militancy and strikes. The analysis em
phasizes the nonteaching characteristics of New
York City teachers such as age, sex, religion, and
political affiliation; and the conditions within the
school system such as the level of school
(elementary, junior high school) and the socio
economic status of the students. Cole also analyzes
behavior of the New York City Board of Educa
tion that might have hindered the growth of
teacher union movement such as concerned
paternalism, token concessions, co-optation (pro
motion or special favors) of teacher union leaders
and sanctions. He then examines conditions that
made it difficult for the Board of Education to
behave accordingly (political environment, legit
imacy of the union’s goals, poor communication,
attitudes of lower-level administrators, and the
gap between laws and existing norms).
This section concludes with one of the book’s
best chapters entitled “The Conversion of Pre
disposition into Action.” Here the author examines
61
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
the reasons for the difference between the way
individual teachers were disposed to act based on
the characteristics described earlier and the actual
behavior of the individual. Using survey data,
Professor Cole emphasizes the importance of social
support for teacher strikes, cross-pressures on
teachers, fear of sanctions, and the teachers’
colleagues as a reference group.
In general, the first part of the book is an
interesting historical case study which provides
some insights into the changing attitude of New
York City teachers toward unionism and strikes.
This part will be of primary interest to sociologists,
but industrial relations specialists who are inter
ested in the unionization of professional em
ployees will find considerable food for thought.
The reader may find it a bit tedious because of
some repetition and the overuse of quotations,
which sometimes are surprisingly candid.
The section of the book in which the author
compares public school teachers with other groups
of professional employees is less satisfactory. In
chapter 9, Cole identifies some tentative hypoth
eses which are intended to explain conditions
leading to unionization. He then concludes that
some groups of professional employees such as
nurses are ripe for unionization, and others such
as college teachers, engineers, scientists, social
workers, and librarians are unlikely to be union
ized. He tends to over-generalize about other
groups of professionals. For example, he treats
college teachers as a homogenous group and does
not anticipate the growth of collective bargaining
among college teachers in 2-year and community
colleges. Nor does he consider the ‘‘spillover”
effect that the successful bargaining and militancy
by public school teachers may have on other
groups of professionals.
In chapter 10, entitled “Unionization and
Professionalization,” Cole tries to distinguish
between organizational and professional goals
and concludes by saying that: “A militant pro
fessional association committed to fighting for
economic and professional goals would probably
do more to improve the quality of American
education than a union that gives organizational
goals priority over professional ones.” He ignores
the fact that for all practical purposes the policies
and practices of the National Educational Associa
tion and American Federation of Teachers are
almost identical and that the key question today
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
is whether any organization—union or professional
association—that represents its members in col
lective bargaining can “improve the quality of
American education” when such actions conflict
with the well-being of its members.
—M ichael H. M oskow
Associate Professor of Economics
Temple University
(On leave with the Council of Economic Advisers)
Organization in India
By S. R. Mohan Das.
Bombay, India, S. R. Mohan Das, 1969.
157 pp.
This compilation of articles was written by
Mohan Das during the past 8 years, many having
appeared in the respected English language
E conom ic T im es of Bombay. Consequently, Das
writes as a journalist, not as a scholar. This in no
way detracts from many interesting insights and
facts he presents, but rather adds much to the book’s
style. Das writes vividly and with perception.
The author looks at labor-management relations
and trade unionism in India as a pessimist, leading
one to think that the roof is about to fall down.
However, I view the scene more optimistically and
feel that Indian trade unionism—despite its mani
fold weaknesses as described in the book—simply
reflects the churning, crisis-laden condition of the
country as a whole.
As a matter of fact, the unions are better or
ganized than most other elements or interest
groups in the society. The author’s figures place
union membership at 5 million in an industrial
work force of 15 million—a not insignificant
proportion.
The description and historical sketches of the
various competing federations and their political
partners are excellent background material for
anyone wishing a quick overview of Indian
unionism and the problems faced. The analysis of
why unity cannot be achieved (despite pious state
ments to the contrary) is excellent, as is the
material relating to the arrogant elitism of some of
the leadership in all camps.
A section on the need to secure a stronger finan
cial base and the rewards offered to those unions
which succeed is very good. Unfortunately, the
author chooses the i n t u c ’ s Rashtriya Mill
The I n d ia n L a b o u r Scene.
62
Mazdur Sangh, which has long been the “dom
inant” textile union in Bombay, as 1 of his 3
examples of a union that does have a decent dues
collection system, good administration, and a
number of paid staff. Unless things have changed
radically since my last chance to observe closely in
1965, this Gandhian group is supported by the
millowners and the Bombay Congress Party,
with the membership often responding to calls to
action from Socialists and Communists on speci
fied key occasions. One of the top textile manage
ment leaders admitted to me at the time that they
would not dare risk an open election for exclusive
bargaining rights.
My biggest quarrel is with the material presented
in the first few pages (and echoed again in many
places) in which Das rebuts many of what he
terms “Fact and Fallacies.” In turn, he creates
some more of the same. For example, the author
denies that the vast labor surpluses in the cities of
India, where possibly 60 percent of the labor
demand is for unskilled or at best semiskilled
labor, act as a depressant on wages and an obstacle
to union organization in the sense we know it.
Further, the generally hostile attitude of many
employers and the obvious paternalistic attitude of
others prohibit organization. Insights into this last
point can be gained by the author’s advice to
management in the final section.
Improvements should occur as the new indus
tries demanding higher skill levels grow. Some of
the legitimate fears Das holds for developing new
union leadership should also be relieved, as the
handy band of leaders of the past 30 years dis
appear; educational levels required in the new
industries will produce a more confident work
force, less reliant on persons drawn to the move
ment through political-nationalistic drives or
other “outside” motives.
What Das fails to come to grips with is that
Indian unions, like those of many other countries,
have evolved from a movement theory which
includes relationships with political parties as
contrasted to the British and American models
of tight organizational units. The basic weakness
of the Indian unions stems from the weakness and
chaos of the general political system of the country
combined with an inability to structure a partyunion relationship with a progressive, democratic
thrust to provide mutual and reciprocal strength.
The Communists and their union partners have
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
done better than the others in this sense, but they
too have fallen prey to the fissiparous tendencies
seemingly endemic to Indian politics.
—B ruce M illen
Office of Policy Development
U.S. Department of Labor
Government and labor
The Development of the Colombian Labor Movement.
By Miguel Urrutia. New Haven, Conn., Yale
University Press, 1969. 297 pp., bibliography.
$
10 .
The author’s aim is interpretation rather than
mere description of the growth of the labor move
ment in Colombia. He unravels the interplay of
political and economic factors which has given rise
to a strong, nonrevolutionary labor movement in
an underdeveloped country. The central hypothe
sis on which the author’s analysis hinges is the role
of government in the labor history of Colombia. It
is his contention that, except for the small contin
gent of skilled workers, the labor movement could
not have developed without the active support of
the government. Without such support, the author
holds, the existence of surplus labor would have
frustrated attempts at unionization.
Colombia’s labor movement history goes back
to the mid-nineteenth century, when the first
organizations of artisan groups sprang up in an
environment rife with tension between the laissezfaire aspirations of the liberators from colonial rule
and the remnants of colonial restrictions that had
remained in force. As laissez-faire won this strug
gle, the first artisan group, formed in 1847, re
sponded to the threat of free trade, then aggra
vated by reduced costs of transportation, by
pleading for a return to protectionism. Groups
such as this would set the pattern for later develop
ments by engaging in political action and by
transforming themselves into political clubs.
Not until the 20th century did the govern
ment take the labor movement under its wings and
helped make it a viable and effective part of the
economic scene. This action was partly because of
the transformation of the ideology of the Liberal
Party, which eventually relinquished its attach
ment to laissez-faire individualism. In the author’s
interpretation, it was the interaction between
organized labor and political parties that accounts
63
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
both for the change in party ideology and for the
success of the labor movement in this century.
In the concluding sections of the work the
author takes up the subject of political bargaining
as a union tactic, relates the development of
collective bargaining to changes in economic and
political conditions, and attempts a statistical
measure of the wage differential between union
and nonunion firms.
Students of labor history, economic develop
ment, and Latin American economics will welcome
the appearance of this thought-provoking book,
which attests to the author’s familiarity with
elusive original sources and to his gifts of inter
pretation. Still, he recognizes the controversial
character of some of his findings, and suggests the
testing of alternative hypotheses which may shed
more light on the growth of the Colombian labor
movement.
—H enry W. Spiegel
Professor of Economics
Catholic University of America
Social strategies
Economic Opportunity in the Ghetto. By Sar
A. Levitan, Garth L. Mangum, Robert
Taggart, III. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press,
1969. 84 pp.
Social policy is a broad field where normative
prescriptions, exhortations, and romantic notions
abound. Sometimes, systematic efforts are made
to assess the viability of existing policies. And,
on rare occasion, as in this book, these efforts
provide an empirical basis for estimating the
relative pay-offs of alternative strategies. The
monograph presents a concise study of three
strategies to expand economic opportunity for
ghetto residents through joint government-bus
iness efforts: (a) increasing access to jobs; (b) de
veloping new jobs in or near the ghetto; and (c)
promoting business ownership by minority groups.
The Jobs Opportunities in the Business Sector,
a “hire first, train later” program promoted by
the National Alliance of Businessmen in conjunc
tion with the Department of Labor, is examined
as one of the major public-private enterprises for
opening jobs to disadvantaged ghetto residents.
Employers participate in this program by pro
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
viding job slots on a voluntary or a contractual
basis; in the latter case, the added costs of hiring
and training low productivity workers are reim
bursed by the Department of Labor.
In studying this program’s performance, the
authors analyze some of the administrative diffi
culties; for example, the measurement of employer
costs and the calculation of equitable Federal
reimbursements. Positive results are also docu
mented in cases of successful hiring and training of
the disadvantaged, changes in personnel policies,
and the reduction of artificial credential barriers
to employment. Due to the lack of comparative
data from businesses that were nonparticipants
in the program, it is difficult to ascertain to what
extent these results were a function of Federal
incentives and the participants’ social commit
ments, and how much was a response to the tight
labor market conditions that prevailed at the
time. As the authors emphasize, a strategy for
the redistribution of employment to benefit the
unskilled is inherently constrained by the require
ment of a tight labor market—-Federal incentives
and business commitments notwithstanding.
The strategy of developing new jobs in or near
the ghetto is studied from four perspectives:
location, special problems of business in the ghetto,
the match between industries and area needs, and
the level of incentives necessary to attract
industry. There are formidable obstacles to the
widescale implementation of this strategy. In the
ghetto, as compared to suburban locations, the
costs of labor are high, land is scarce, insurance is
often difficult to obtain, and amenities are meager.
Prospective businesses must also contend with the
risks and uncertainty that surround ghetto condi
tions. Attracting new businesses to the ghetto is
an expensive proposition, the results of which are
indeterminate. The authors suggest that moving
people to jobs may be a more promising and less
costly strategy.
While recognizing that distinct socialpsychological benefits are present in the promotion
and establishment of minority group business
ownership, some thoughtful questions are raised
about this strategy’s potential for improving
ghetto conditions. The high mortality rate of small
businesses and the dearth of experienced minority
group entrepreneurs must be taken into account.
Moreover, ownership transfers of existing businesses
would not increase substantially the flow of income
64
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
into these areas.
After weighing the available evidence, the
authors conclude that the three strategies may be
justified at their current level, but for the present
none should be drastically expanded. Increasing
access to existing jobs is seen as the most viable
strategy, one that might benefit from some
expansion, dependent upon labor market condi
tions. The role of business in these efforts emerges
as somewhat circumscribed by the proposition
that although its sails sometimes may billow with
social goals, on the vessel of private enterprise
profit determinedly mans the tiller.
In all, the study provides a lucid and well
balanced appraisal of important social strategies.
It has policy implications that deserve careful
consideration even though they may prove some
what uncomfortable in light of the pressing needs
and demands of disadvantaged minorities.
—N eil G ilbert
Assistant Professor of Social Welfare
University of California
Labor and broadcasting
Broadcasting and Bargaining: Labor Relations in
Radio and Television. Edited by Allen E.
Koenig. Madison, University of Wisconsin
Press, 1970. 344 pp. $8.
Freedom of information may be a watchword of
the broadcasting industry, but both labor and
management have proven reluctant to reveal
anything more about their operations as well as
their negotiations with each other than the mini
mum amount of detail deemed necessary to satisfy
government regulations and public curiosity. One
result of this reticence has been that although much
has been written about various aspects of radio
and television, little has been published on the
media’s labor relations or with the structure of
the unions representing broadcasting workers.
Allen Koenig, who designed this collection of
17 essays “to open” these areas “to examina
tion,” has used four subject headings, which
delineate the volume’s scope: “Radio and Televi
sion Unionism in Focus,” “Federal Action and
Arbitration in Broadcasting,” “Problems in Labor
and Broadcasting,” and “The Future of Broad
casting Labor Relations.” Thus, the book covers a
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
wide variety of topics, among which are the effects
of the unions and the National Labor Relations
Board on the industry, the role in broadcasting in
groups such as blacks and television teachers, the
future of educators in noncommercial television,
blacklisting, and the possibilities of cooperation
among broadcasting unions. The roster of authors
ranges from a former vice-president of the Ameri
can Broadcasting Company to the president of
the National Association of Broadcast Employees
and Technicians, afl- cio, and includes lawyers,
professors, and persons active both in commercial
and educational broadcasting.
As with all such volumes, the quality and value
of the essays vary greatly. In general, those
essays touching on the past are weak in terms of
historical perspective, especially when concerned
with matters outside broadcasting. Moreover,
some authors have dealt superficially with their
subjects and glossed over problems. It seems to
me that the most useful of the essays were those
that dealt with the eight major broadcasting
unions, with the nlrb decisions affecting the
industry, and with blacklisting. These essays
deal cogently with complex topics and summarize
much information which had not been pulled
together in such fashion. The essay on blacks and
broadcasting, although not directly concerned
with labor relations, is also first-rate; recent
events have underscored the author’s conclusion
that the “industry is one which can play a very
substantial role in the eradication of racism” but
that broadcasting stands in danger of doing too
little, too late. There is also a useful essay detailing
the areas in broadcasting labor relations where
research would prove invaluable.
It is a tribute to the editor that only one of the
essays has been published previously. This book
is not just another tired compilation of familiar
articles, but represents the first time a publication
has been devoted to broadcasting labor relations.
Despite its lack of depth in spots, it serves as a
valuable introduction and it is hoped that it
will spur others on to extend the trail that has
been blazed.
—D aniel J. L eab
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
Columbia College
Columbia University
65
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
Time analysis
The Harried Leisure Class. By Staffen B. Linder.
New York, Columbia University Press, 1970.
182 pp. $7.
Linder's work is of interest because it emphasizes
a time rather than an income analysis of workconsumption behavioral patterns. Productivity
increases in work yield larger incomes and greater
consumption of goods and services, which in turn
increase the demand for time; hence, given a
fixed supply of time, its relative scarcity, and
value, grows. The value of time imposes allocative
decisions on its use and results in behavioral
patterns distinct from those of societies of lesser
wealth. Consumption time increases, but so does
personal worktime since much of it is devoted
to servicing the increasing volume of consumption
goods. Consequently, the decline in total work
time is less than statistics of the labor market
indicate. The relationship between consumption,
work, and saving is described as an interdependent
one, and via a factor proportions theory of goods
and time a new savings hypothesis is derived,
which Linder attempts to integrate with those
of Keynes, Duesenberry, and Friedman.
The increasing value of time leads individuals
to conserve its use in shopping, sex, religion,
family life, and cultural pursuits. The increased
volume of goods from which to choose requires
individuals to conserve on the time spent in
making purchasing-decisions; “rules of thumb”
become guides to action—the rationale of ir
rationality. The “quicky” seduction, the hasty
sermon, packaged foods, and a reduced number of
children are outgrowths of the will to economize
on time. Much to Linder’s dismay, the arts par
ticularly are victims of the new rationing scheme;
their appreciation requires a mood in which time
is abundant. The care of people and of things
each requires increased maintenance with age, but
the growing scarcity of time assures that the qual
ity of personal services will deteriorate, particu
larly those provided by governments. To conserve
on the maintenance of things, society discards
its worn out objects; hence, the “throw-away”
society develops. Problems of waste disposal
and pollution mount. The minimum requirements
of servicing a goods-intensive society eventually
place a limit upon consumption and compel a
402-6101 O—,70
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-5
reformulation of behavior patterns and human
values. Thus, an economic determinism is implied.
The book, designed for the lay reader, is written
with broad strokes of the pen, contains numerous
catch phrases, analyzes sexual behavior, and
criticizes contemporary American values, ideas
which enjoy a large market. Many observations
are intuitively plausible, yet a number of general
izations are difficult to accept. Variety as the spice
of life does not imply being “harried.” Indeed,
increasing wealth may geometrically increase the
choice of activities, and rational, maximizing be
havior suggests that, with different rates of di
minishing marginal utility, numerous activities
will be chosen and the intensity of participation
in each will be varied. Also, little recognition has
been given to the significant secular increase in
life expectancies and in uncommitted, nonwork
time—important dimensions of the time-param
eter that can significantly affect welfare. Sub
ject to these reservations, the book can be recom
mended as an entertaining exploration of the
implications of the time theory of allocation.
—B evars D. M abry
Professor of Economics
Bowling Green State University-
Other recent publications
Economic development
Carter, Anne P., S tr u c tu r a l C h a n g e i n th e A m e r ic a n
E c o n o m y . Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University
Press, 1970, 292 pp., bibliography. $10.
Davis, Chester A., A m e r ic a n S o c ie ty i n T r a n s itio n . New
York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970, 285 pp. $5.50.
Derber, Milton,
ra cy,
T h e A m e r ic a n I d e a o f I n d u s t r i a l D e m o c
1 8 6 5 -1 9 6 5 .
Urbana, 111., University of Illinois
Press, 1970.
Hansen, Niles M.,
R u r a l P o v e r ty a n d th e U r b a n C r is is : A
S tr a te g y f o r R e g io n a l D e v e lo p m e n t. Bloomington, Ind.,
Indiana University Press, 1970, 352 pp., bibliography.
$12.50.
Honey, John C.,
P la n n i n g a n d th e P r i v a t e S e c to r : T h e
E x p e r ie n c e i n D e v e lo p in g C o u n tr ie s . New York, The
Dunellen Co., Inc., 1970, 108 pp. $8.50.
Krause, Walter and F. John Mathis,
L a t i n A m e r ic a a n d
E c o n o m ic I n te g r a tio n : R e g io n a l P la n n i n g f o r D e v e lo p
Iowa City, University of Iowa Press, 1970,
105 pp., bibliography. $4.
m e n t.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
66
Pearson, Lester B., T h e C r i s i s o f D e v e lo p m e n t. New York,
Praeger Publishers, 1970, 117 pp. $4.95.
Yanek, Jaroslav,
T he G en eral
T h eo ry o f L a b o r-M a n a g ed
Ithaca, N.Y ., Cornell University
Press, 1970, 409 pp. $14.50.
sylvania, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce,
Industrial Research Unit, 1970, 72 pp. (Racial
Policies of American Industry, Report 14.) $4.50,
University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
M a r k e t E c o n o m ie s .
Education and training
Fiester, Kenneth, “Upgrading Hospital Workers,” M a n
p o w e r , U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Admin
istration, August 1970, pp. 24-27.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
M a n p o w e r P o l i c y i n th e U n ite d K in g d o m . Paris, 1970.
(Review of Manpower and Social Policies.) $3.75.
Distributed by o e c d Publications Center, Washing
ton.
Mesics, Emil A.,
M anpow er
E d u c a tio n
and
U tiliz a tio n : A n
T r a in in g
A n n o ta te d
fo r
E ffe c tiv e
B ib lio g r a p h y .
Ithaca, N .Y ., Cornell University, New York State
School of Industrial and Labor Relations, 1969,
157 pp. (Bibliography Series, 9.) $2.50.
Industrial relations
Bass, Bernard M. and Samuel D Deep, C u r r e n t P e r s p e c
tiv e s f o r M a n a g i n g O r g a n iz a tio n s . Englewood Cliffs,
N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970, 594 pp. $10.95.
Franke, Walter H. and Irvin Sobel, T h e S h o r ta g e o f S k ille d
and
T e c h n ic a l W o r k e r s . Lexington, Mass., D.C.
Heath and Co., 1970, 418 pp. $17.50.
Northrup, Herbert R. and others,
i n S i x I n d u s t r i e s . Philadelphia, University of Penn
sylvania, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce,
Industrial Research Unit, 1970, 769 pp. (Studies of
Negro Employment, Volume 1.) $10, University of
Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Owen, John D., T h e P r i c e o f L e is u r e . Montreal, Quebec,
McGill University Press, 1970, 169 pp. $9.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, O u tlo o k f o r C o m p u te r
P r o c e s s C o n tr o l. Washington, 1970, 70 pp. (Bulletin
1658.) 70 cents, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, S c ie n tif ic a n d T e c h n ic a l
P e r s o n n e l i n I n d u s t r y , 1 9 6 7 . Washington, 1970, 58 pp.
(Bulletin 1674.) 60 cents, Superintendent of Docu
ments, Washington.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
S u m m a ry
of B L S
U.S. Women’s Bureau,
Ross, Philip, “Waterfront Labor Response to Techno
logical Change: A Tale of Two Unions,” L a b o r L a w
J o u r n a l, July 1970, pp. 387-396.
Saso, Carmen D., C o p in g W ith P u b l i c E m p lo y e e S tr ik e s .
Chicago, Public Personnel Association, 1970, 162 pp.
$6.95, paperbound.
Sofer, Cyril,
M en
in
M id - C a r e e r : A
S tu d y
of
B r itis h
and
T e c h n ic a l S p e c i a l i s t s .
New York,
Cambridge University Press, 1970, 376 pp. $11.50.
M an agers
Torgerson, Randall E.,
T a b le : A
P r o d u c e r P o w e r a t th e B a r g a i n i n g
C a s e S t u d y o f th e L e g is la tiv e L if e o f S . 1 0 9 .
Columbia, Mo., University of Missouri Press, 1970,
329 pp. $9, clothbound; $6, paperback.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
N e g o tia tio n ,
Im p a sse,
G r ie v a n c e , a n d A r b i t r a t i o n i n F e d e r a l A g r e e m e n ts , 1 9 7 0 .
Washington, 1970, 78 pp. (Bulletin 1661). 75 cents,
Superintendent of Documents, Washington.
Labor force
Barnum, Darold T.,
M in in g I n d u s tr y .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The
U .S . E c o n o m y i n
Washington,
1970, 59 pp. (Bulletin 1673.) 65 cents, Superintendent
of Documents, Washington.
1980: A
Christian, James W., “Bargaining Functions and the
Effectiveness of the Wage-Price Guideposts,” T h e
S o u th e r n E c o n o m ic J o u r n a l , July 1970, pp. 51-65.
N e g r o E m p lo y m e n t i n
B a s i c I n d u s t r y : A S t u d y o f R a c ia l E m p lo y m e n t P o li c i e s
P r o je c tio n s .
B ackgrou n d
F a c ts
on
W om en
Washington, U.S. De
partment of Labor, 1969. 19 pp.
W o r k e r s i n th e U n ite d S ta te s .
Labor organizations
Canada Women’s Bureau,
C h ild - C a r e A r r a n g e m e n ts .
W o r k in g
M o th e r s
and
T h e ir
Ottawa, Canada, Department
of Labor, 1970, 58 pp.
Laslett, John H. M.,
L a b o r a n d th e L e f t: A S t u d y o f S o c ia lis t
a n d R a d i c a l I n f lu e n c e s i n th e A m e r ic a n L a b o r M o v e
1 8 8 1 - 1 9 2 4 . New York, Basic Books, Inc.,
Publishers, 1970, 326 pp. $10.
m e n t,
O’Neal, Frederick, “The Role of the Black Trade
Unionists,” T h e A m e r ic a n F e d e r a tio n is t, July 1970, pp.
9-11.
Shair, David I., “Labor Organizations as Employers:
‘Unions-within-Unions,’ ” T h e J o u r n a l o f B u s in e s s ,
July 1970, pp. 296-316.
Productivity and technological change
T he N egro in
th e B itu m in o u s
C oal
Philadelphia, University of Penn
Beck, Hubert F., T h e A g e o f T e c h n o lo g y . St. Louis, Mo.,
Concordia Publishing House, 1970, 133 pp. $1.50.
67
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
Klotz, Benjamin P., P r o d u c t i v i t y A n a l y s i s i n M a n u f a c tu r in g
P la n t s . Washington, 1970, 95 pp. ( b l s Staff Paper 3.)
50 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington.
P rocess.
Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press, 1970, 296
pp. $10.
Connery, Robert H.,
Social security
Lauriat, Patience, “Benefit Levels and Socio-economic
Characteristics: Findings from the 1968 Survey of the
Aged,” S o c ia l S e c u r i t y B u lle tin , August 1970, pp. 3-20.
U.S. News and World Report,
S o c ia l S e c u r i t y a n d M e d ic a r e
New York,
Macmillan Co., 1970, 240 pp. $5.95, clothbound;
$2.95, paperback.
S im p lif ie d : W h a t Y o u G et F o r Y o u r M o n e y .
Wages and hours
Hammermesh, Daniel S., “Wage Bargains, Threshold
Effects, and the Phillips Curve,” Q u a r te r ly J o u r n a l o f
E c o n o m ic s , Harvard University, August 1970, pp.
501-517.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
M e tr o p o lita n
A rea s,
U n ite d
A rea
W age
S u rveys:
S ta te s ,
and
R e g io n a l
Washington, 1970, 87 pp.
(Bulletin 1625-91.) $1, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington.
S u m m a r ie s ,
1 9 6 8 -6 9 .
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Los
T h e C o r p o r a tio n
a n d th e
C am pu s:
C o r p o r a te S u p p o r t o f H ig h e r E d u c a tio n i n th e
A n g e le s - L o n g
B each
A r e a W age S u rvey : The
and
A n a h e im -S a n ta
A na-
1 9 7 0 ’s .
New York, Columbia University, The Academy of
Political Science, 1970. (Proceedings of The Academy
of Political Science.) 187 pp.
Cormier, Frank and William J. Eaton, R e u th e r . Engle
wood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970, 475 pp.
$ 10.
James, Edward, A m e r ic a A g a i n s t P o v e r ty . New York,
Humanities Press, Inc., 1970, 128 pp., bibliography.
$4.
Marx, Joseph Laurence, C r i s i s i n th e S k i e s . New York,
David McKay Co., Inc., 1970, 274 pp. $6.95.
McCormack, Arthur, T h e P o p u l a t i o n P r o b le m . New York,
Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1970, 264 pp., bibliography.
$7.95.
McLellan, David, M a r x B e fo r e M a r x i s m . New York,
Harper & Row, Publishers, 1970, 233 pp., bibliography.
$6.50.
Myers, Margaret G., A F i n a n c i a l H i s t o r y o f th e U n ite d
S ta te s . New York, Columbia University Press, 1970,
451 pp., bibliography. $11.95.
G a r d e n G ro v e , C a lif ., M e tr o p o lita n A r e a , M a r c h 1 9 7 0 .
Washington, 1970, 36 pp. (Bulletin 1660-64.) 45 cents,
Superintendent of Documents, Washington. Other
recent bulletins in this series include the metropolitan
areas of St. Louis, Mo.-Ill.; Houston, Tex.; Charles
ton, W. Va.; Wichita, Kans. (Bulletins 1660-66
through 1660-69.) San Antonio, Tex.; ProvidencePawtucket-Warwick, R.I.-M ass. (Bulletins 1660-71
and 1660-72.) Various pagings and prices.
Ofari, Earl, T h e M y t h o f B la c k C a p i t a l i s m . New York,
Monthly Review Press, 1970, 126 pp., bibliography.
$4.95.
Reeves, Thomas C., editor, F o u n d a tio n U n d e r F ir e . Ithaca,
N.Y., Cornell University Press, 1970, 235 pp.,
bibliography. $6.50.
Scherer, Frederic M.,
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, C o m p e n s a tio n i n the
C o n s tr u c tio n I n d u s t r y , 1 9 7 0 . Washington, 1970, 92 pp.
(Bulletin 1656.) $1, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington.
I n d u s tr ia l
E c o n o m ic P e r f o r m a n c e .
M arket
S tr u c tu r e
and
Chicago, Rand McNally & Co.,
1970, 576 pp. $13.
U n io n W a g e s a n d H o u r s :
Sloan, Irving J., O u r V io le n t P a s t : A n A m e r ic a n C h r o n ic le .
New York, Random House, Inc., 1970, 234 pp.,
bibliography. $6.95.
Washington, 1970, 49
pp. (Bulletin 1668.) 55 cents, Superintendent of
Documents, Washington.
Stekler, Herman O., E c o n o m ic F o r e c a s tin g . New York,
Praeger Publishers, 1970, 182 pp. $11.50.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
B u i l d i n g T r a d e s , J u l y 1, 1 9 6 9 .
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
U n io n W a g e s a n d H o u r s :
Washington, 1970,
65 pp. (Bulletin 1670.) 65 cents, Superintendent of
Documents, Washington.
P r in tin g I n d u s tr y , J u ly
1, 1 9 6 9 .
Van Dyke, Vernon,
W o r ld
H u m a n R ig h ts , th e U n ite d S ta te s , a n d
C o m m u n ity . New York, Oxford University
Press, 1970, 292 pp. $3.75, paperbound.
York, Herbert,
A rm s R ace.
Cetron, Marvin and others,
T e c h n ic a l R e s o u r c e M a n a g e
Cambridge, Mass., M.I.T.
Press, 1970, 236 pp., bibliography. $10.
m e n t: Q u a n tita tiv e M e th o d s .
Claude, Richard,
R a c e to O b liv io n : A P a r t i c i p a n t ' s V ie w o f th e
New York, Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1970,
256 pp. $6.95.
Miscellaneous
The
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
S u p rem e
C ou rt a n d
th e E le c to r a l
Zürcher, Louis A. Jr.,
P o v e r ty
W a r r io r s :
The
H um an
Austin,
University of Texas Press, 1970, 442 pp., bibliography.
E x p e r ie n c e
$ 10 .
of
P la n n e d
S o c ia l
I n te r v e n tio n .
Current
Labor
Statistics
Employment and unemployment— household data
1.
Employment status of noninstitutional population, 1947 to date..................................................................................
69
2.
Employment status, by color, sex, and age, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages................
69
3.
Full-and part-time status of civilian labor force...............................................................................................................
70
4.
5.
Employment and unemployment, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted, quarterly data............................................
Employment totals, by occupation, with unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages.................
71
6.
Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment........................................................................................................
71
7. Unemployment rates, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted............................................................................................
8. Unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted...............................................................................................................
9. Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted..............................................................................................................
72
73
73
Unemployment insurance
10.
Unemployment insurance and employment service operations.................
70
74
Nonagricultural employment— payroll data
11.
Employment by industry, 1947 to date..............................................................................................................................
75
12.
Employment by State.............................................................................................................................................................
75
13.
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group...............................................................................
76
14.
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted...........................................
77
Labor turnover rates
15. Labor turnover in manufacturing, 1959 to date................................................................................................................
16. Labor turnover in manufacturing, by major industry group............................................................................................
78
79
Hours and earnings— private nonagricultural payrolls
17.
Hours and earnings, by industry division, 1947 to date..................................................................................................
80
18. Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group............................................................................
19. Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted........................................
81
82
20.
Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group.......................................................................
83
21.
Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group........................................................................
84
22.
Spendable weekly earnings in current and 1957-59 d o lla rs ..........................................................................................
85
Prices
23. Consumer and Wholesale Price Indexes, 1949 to date....................................................................................................
85
24. Consumer Price Index, general summary and selected item s........................................................................................
25. Consumer Price Index, selected areas...............................................................................................................................
86
92
26. Wholesale Price Index, by group and subgroup of com m odities....................................................................................
27. Wholesale Price Index, for special commodity groupings..............................................................................................
28. Wholesale Price Index, by stage of processing.................................................................................................................
93
95
96
29.
30.
97
97
Wholesale Price Index, by durability of product...............................................................................................................
Industry-sector price index for output of selected industries.........................................................................................
Labor-management disputes
Work stoppages and tim e lo st.......................................................................
99
Indexes of output per man-hour, hourly compensation, and unit labor costs............................
100
Schedule of release dates for m ajor BLS statistical series...........................................................
100
P roductivity
32.
68
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
31.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
69
1. Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, 1947 to date
[In thousands]
Civilian labor force
Total labor force
Year
Employed
Total non
institutional
population
Number
Unemployed
Total
Percent of
population
Total
Agriculture
Nonagricultural
industries
Number
Not in
labor force
Percent of
labor
force
1947
1948
103,418
104,527
60,941
62,080
58.9
59.4
59,350
60,621
57,039
58,344
7,891
7,629
49,148
50,713
2,311
2,276
3.9
3.8
42,477
42,447
1949.
1950
1951
1952.
1953.
105,611
106,645
107;721
108,823
110,601
62,903
63,858
65,117
65,730
66,560
59.6
59.9
60.4
60.4
60.2
61,286
62,208
62,017
62,138
63,015
57,649
58,920
59,962
60,254
61,181
7,656
7,160
6,726
6,501
6,261
49,990
51,760
53,239
53,753
54,922
3,637
3,288
2,055
1,883
1,834
5.9
5.3
3.3
3.0
2.9
42,708
42,787
42,604
43,093
44,041
1954.
1955
1956.
1957.
1958.
111,671
112,732
m is il
115, 065
116,363
66,993
68, 072
69,409
69,729
70,275
60.0
60.4
61.0
60.6
60.4
63,643
65,023
66,552
66,929
67,639
60,110
62,171
63,802
64,071
63,036
6,206
6,449
6,283
5,947
5,586
53,903
55,724
57,517
58,123
57,450
3,532
2,852
2,750
2,859
4,602
5.5
4.4
4.1
4.3
6.8
44,678
44,660
44,402
45,336
46, 088
1959.
1960.
1961.
1962.
1963.
117,881
119i 759
121,343
122,981
125,154
70,921
72,142
73,031
73,442
74,571
60.2
60.2
60.2
59.7
59.6
68,369
69,628
70,459
70,614
71,833
64,630
65,778
65,746
66,702
67,762
5,565
5,458
5,200
4,944
4,687
59, 065
60,318
60, 546
61,759
63, 076
3. 740
3,852
4,714
3,911
4,070
5.5
5.5
6.7
5.5
5.7
46,960
47,617
48,312
49,539
50,583
1964.
1965.
1966.
1967.
1968
1969.
127,224
129,236
131,180
133Í 319
135,562
137,841
75,830
77,178
78,893
80, 793
82,272
84,239
59.6
59.7
60.1
60.6
60.7
61.1
73,091
74,455
75,770
77,347
78,737
80, 733
69,305
71,088
72,895
74,372
75,920
77,902
4,523
4,361
3,979
3,844
3,817
3,606
64,782
66,726
68,915
70,527
72,103
74,296
3,786
3,366
2,875
2,975
2,817
2,831
5.2
4.5
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.5
51,394
52,058
52,288
52,527
53,291
53,602
2. Employment status, by color, sex and age, seasonally adjusted,i quarterly averages
[In thousands]
Annual average
1967
1968
1969
1970
Characteristic
2d
1st
4th
3d
2d
1st
4th
3d
2d
1st
4th
3d
2d
1969
1968
W H IT E
................................................................................... 73,263 73,316 72,475 71,942 71,466 71,285 70,392 70,045 69,851 69,587 69,440 68, 944 68,210
Men, 20 years and over_____________ _ 42, 463 42, 245 41,956 41,842 41,639 41,656 41,423 41,373 41,235 41,230 41,175 40,972 40, 673
Women, 20 years and o ve r....................... 24..37B 24,513 24,156 23,949 23,684 23,566 23,122 22,843 22,741 22,565 22,632 22,276 21,775
Both sexes, 16-19 years..................... . . . 6,422- 6, 558 6,363 6,151 6,143 6,036 5, 847 5, 829 5,875 5,792 5,633 5,696 5,762
71,778
41,772
23,838
6,168
69,975
41,317
22, 820
5, 838
.......................................................................................................... 70, 059 70, 527 70, 096 69,575 69,260 69,135 68,267 67,804 67,617 67,311 67,032 66,576 65,888
Men, 20 years and over___ ____ _______ 41,131 41,180 41,091 40, 995 40,871 40,926 40,677 40, 553 40, 405 40,376 40, 300 40,101 39,772
Women, 20 years and over............... ........ 23, 347 23, 587 23,327 23,120 22,891 22,794 22, 372 22, 066 21,987 21,777 21,766 21,416 20,963
Both sexes, 16-19 years............. ............... 5, 581 5,760 5,678 5,460 5,498 5,415 5,218 5,185 5,225 5,158 4,966 5,059 5,153
69,518
40,978
23,032
5, 508
67,750
40, 503
22,052
5,195
2,368 2,322
871
901
860,
812
637
609
2,260
794
806
660
2,225
814
768
643
Civilian labor force
Employed
Men, 20 years and o v e r............................
Women, 20 years and over_____ _______
Both sexes, 16-19 years...................... .......
3,204
1,332
1,032
841
2,789
1,065
926
798
2,379
865
829
685
2, 367
847
829
691
2,206
768
793
645
2,150
730
772
648
2,125
746
750
629
2,241
820
777
644
2,234
830
754
650
2,276
854
788
634
2,408
875
866
667
................................ ..........................
Men, 20 years and over............ ..................
Women, 20 years and over........................
Both sexes, 16-19 years............... ..............
4.4
3,1
4.2
13.1
3.8
2.5
3.8
12.2
3.3
2.1
3.4
10.8
3.3
2.0
3.5
11.2
3.1
1.8
3.3
10.5
3.0
1.8
3.3
10.7
3.0
1.8
3.2
10.8
3.2
2.0
3.4
11.0
3.2
2.0
3.3
11.1
3.3
2.1
3.5
10.9
3.5
2.1
3.8
11.8
3.4
2.1
3.9
11.2
3.4
2.2
3. 7
10.6
3.1
1.9
3.4
10.7
3.2
2.0
3.4
n. 0
............ .............................................................. 9,226
Men, 20 years and over.............................. 4Í 706
Women, 20 years and over______ ______ 3i 688
Both sexes, 16-19 years_____ _________ '832
9,224
4,700
3,682
842
9,056
4,622
3,616
818
8,979
4,593
3,595
791
8,867
4,549
3,535
783
8,914
4,554
3,550
810
8,737
4, 513
3,468
756
8,700
4,517
3,414
769
8,828
4,562
3,467
799
8,762
4,543
3,433
786
8,733
4,496
3,444
793
8,632
4, 507
3,348
777
8,632
4, 505
3,347
780
8,954
4, 579
3, 574
801
8 ,75 9
4 ,5 35
8,447
4,434
3,416
597
8, 598
4,498
3,468
632
8,500
4,445
3,429
626
8,394
4,416
3,372
606
8,271
4,382
3,307
582
8,371
4,397
3,352
622
8,164
4,335
3,264
565
8,132
4,349
3,205
578
8,233
4,388
3,246
599
8,147
4,351
3,200
596
8,073
4,305
3,191
577
8,006
4,328
3,112
566
7,986
4,303
3,115
568
8,384
4, 410
3, 36b
609
8,169
4, 3Ò6
3, 229
584
779
272
272
235
626
201
215
210
556
177
187
192
585
177
223
185
596
167
228
201
543
157
198
188
573
178
204
191
568
168
209
191
595
174
221
200
615
192
233
190
660
191
253
216
626
179
236
211
646
202
232
212
570
160
209
192
590
179
217
194
8.4
5.8
7.4
28.2
6.8
4.3
5.8
24.9
6.1
3.8
5.2
23.5
6.5
3.9
6.2
23.4
6.7
3.7
6.4
25.7
6.1
3.4
5.6
23.2
6.6
3.9
5.9
25.3
6.5
3.7
6.1
24.8
6.7
3.8
6.4
25.0
7.0
4.2
6.8
24.2
7.6
4.2
7.3
27.2
7.3
4.0
7. 0
27.2
7.5
4. 5
6.4
3. 7
5. 8
24. 0
6.7
3.9
6. 3
24.9
Unemployed...................................................... .................................. ................
Unemployment rate
NEGR O AND O THER
Civilian labor force
Employed
...........................................................................................................
Men, 20 years and over.____ _________
Women, 20 years and over____________
Both sexes, 16-19 years.. . ....................
Unemployed......................................... ................................. ..............
Men, 20 years and over.. _______ _____
Women, 20 years and over______ ____ _
Both sexes, 16-19 years.............. .............
Unemployment rate .....................................................................................
Men, 20 years and o v e r............................
Women, 20 years and over.........................
Both sexes, 16-19 years______________
1 These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 1969.
For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
6 .9
27.2
adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings.
3,446
778
70
3.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Full- and part-time status of the civilian labor force
[In thousands— not seasonally adjusted]
1969
1970
Annual average
Employment status
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
1969
74,610
74,884
73,555
69,383
69,255
69,116
69, 018
68,869
69,204
69,296
69,491
70,350
73,713
69,700
68,332
68,185
68,044
66,779
64,413
64,166
64,108
63,997
64,155
65, 302
65,517
65, 594
66,206
68,854
65,503
64,225
2,984
3,088
2,831
2,128
2,301
2,139
2,117
2,135
1,998
1,916
1,955
2,069
2,607
2,055
1,970
3,441
5.0
3,753
5.0
3,945
5.4
2,842
4.1
2,787
4.0
2,869
4.2
2,904
4.2
2,579
3.7
1,904
2.8
1,864
2.7
1,942
2,075
2.9
2,251
3.1
2,142
3.1
2,138
3.1
Civilian labor force..........................
9,504
9,917
10,496
12,358
12,706
12, 574
12,266
11,850
12,212
12,131
12,019
10,634
8,803
11,032
10,405
Employed (voluntary parttime).......................................
8,725
9,159
9,772
11,816
11,940
11,711
11,375
11,023
11,488
11,284
11,122
9,751
8,185
10,343
9,726
779
7.6
757
7.6
724
6.9
542
4.4
765
863
6.9
890
7.3
827
7.0
724
5.9
847
7.0
898
7. 5
883
8.3
618
7.0
689
1968
FULL TIME
Civilian labor force..........................
Employed:
Full-time schedules*--------Part-time for economic
reasons...........................
Unemployed, looking for fullUnemployment rate.......... .........
2.8
PART TIME
Unemployed, looking for partUnemployment rate...................
6.0
6.2
679
6.5
l Employed persons with a job but not at work are distributed proportionately among the full- and part-time employed categories.
4.
Employment and unemployment, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted 1
[In thousands]
Annual average
1969
1970
Employment status
1968
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
1969
85,810
85,967
85, 304
85,783
86,143
86,087
85,590
85,599
85,023
84,872
85,051
84,868
84,517
84,239
82,272
81,583
78,737
3,435
75,302
2,846
81,379
78, 528
3,434
75, 094
2,851
81,523
78,445
3,446
74,999
3,078
81,325
78,194
3,498
74,696
3,131
80,987
78,142
3,614
74, 528
2,845
80,733
77,902
3,606
74,296
2,831
78,737
75,920
3.817
72,103
2.817
TOTAL
Total labor force............................
Civilian labor force........................
Employed..........................
Agriculture.....................
Nonagriculture...............
Unemployed......................
82,676
78, 445
3,420
75, 025
4, 231
82,813
78,638
3, 519
75,119
4,175
82,125
78,225
3,554
74,671
3,900
82, 555
78,449
3,613
74, 836
4,106
MEN, 20 YEARS AND OVER
Total labor force............................
49,905
50, 024
49,906
50, 020
47, 226
45, 593
2,625
42, 968
1,633
Civilian labor force........................
Employed.......... ...............
Agriculture....................
Nonagriculture..............
Unemployed......................
47,178
45,424
2,523
42,901
1,754
47, 294
45, 524
2, 593
42, 931
1,770
47,154
45, 521
2,603
42,918
1,633
82,213
79, 041
3,426
75,615
3,172
82,769
79,112
3,550
75, 562
3,657
82,249
78,822
3, 499
75, 323
3, 427
50, 032
49,920
49,707
49,736
49, 534
49, 544
49,642
49,642
49,488
49,406
48,834
47,199
45,667
2,602
43, 065
1,532
47, 060
45,709
2, 537
43,172
1,351
46,836
45, 534
2,479
43, 055
1,302
46,826
45,674
2,473
43,201
1,152
46,578
45, 553
2, 499
43, 054
1,025
46, 531
45, 533
2,482
43, 051
998
46, 599
45,511
2,575
42,936
1,088
46,586
45,465
2,593
42,872
46,443
45,485
2,670
42,815
958
46, 351
45,388
2,636
42, 752
963
45,852
44, 859
2,816
42, 043
993
82,872
78, 924
3, 586
75, 338
3,948
1,121
WOMEN, 20 YEARS AND OVER
Civilian labor force........................
28,447
28, 500
28, 026
27, 885
28,274
28, 295
28, 066
28, 073
27,875
27,671
27,767
27,634
27,664
27,413
26,266
Employed..........................
Agriculture.....................
Nonagriculture...............
Unemployed.....................
27, 092
514
26,578
1,355
27, 073
545
26, 528
1,427
26, 772
573
26,199
1,254
26,476
567
25, 909
1,409
27, 022
571
26,451
1,252
27,016
583
26,433
1,279
26,925
630
26,295
1,114
27, 060
586
26,474
1,013
26,897
585
26,312
978
26,663
555
26,108
1,008
26,699
554
26,145
1,068
26,543
535
26, 008
1,091
26 626
582
26, 044
1,038
26,397
593
25,804
1,015
25,281
606
24,675
985
BOTH SEXES, 10-19 YEARS
Civilian labor force........................
7, 051
7,019
6,945
7,444
7,399
7,414
7,347
7,314
7,130
7,177
7,157
7,105
6,880
6,970
6,618
6,041
381
5, 660
978
5,932
378
5, 554
1,013
6,380
421
5, 959
1,064
6,235
413
5,822
1,164
6, 387
6,363
390
5,973
984
6,307
367
5,940
1,007
6,287
351
5,936
843
6,332
397
5,935
845
6,235
317
5,918
922
6,186
370
5,816
919
6,031
362
5,669
849
6,117
377
5,739
853
5,780
394
5,385
839
Employed..........................
Agriculture....................
Nonagriculture..............
Unemployed......................
1
5,929
383
5,546
1,122
430
5,957
1,027
These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 1959.
For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
5.
71
Employment totals, by occupation, with unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted,1quarterly averages
1968
1969
1970
1967
A n n u a l averag e
Characteristic
1st
2d
4th
3d
2d
1st
4th
3d
2d
1st
4th
3d
2d
1969
1968
78,533 78,992 78,570 78,090 77,550 77,418 76,409 76,017 75,898 75,392 75,121 74,630 73,911
77,902
75,92
37,981 37,938 37,509 36,923 36,677 36,264 35,906 35,732 35,419 35,140 34,888 34,456 33,943
Professional and technical_____________ 11,129 11,026 10,936 10,764 10,740 10,638 10,473 10,392 10,295 10,142 10,067 9,952 9,761
Managers, officials, and
proprietors_______________ ________ 8,290 8,215 8,141 7,970 7,993 7, 841 7,897 7,827 7,661 7,716 7,633 7,630 7,453
Clerical workers..-------------- ------------------ 13,748 13,906 13,655 13,478 13,281 13,171 12, 876 12,823 12,816 12, 694 12, 624 12,343 12,250
Sales workers.......................................... 4,815 4,791 4,777 4,711 4,663 4,614 4,660 4,690 4,647 4,588 4, 564 4, 531 4,479
36,845
10,769
35,55
10,32
7,987
13,397
4,692
7,77
12, 8C
4,64
27,663 28,236 28, 389 28,425 27,931 28, 202 27,774 27,491 27,513 27,297 27,279 27, 343 27,175
Craftsmen and foremen........ .................... 10,109 10, 264 10,265 10,174 10,044 10,298 10,147 9,972 10,003 9,936 9,827 9,790 9,853
Operatives................................................. 13,891 14,168 14,412 14, 589 14,208 14,264 14,051 13,911 13,956 13,896 13,918 13,999 13,787
Nonfarm laborers....... ................................ 3,663 3,804 3,712 3,662 3,679 3,640 3,576 3,608 3,554 3,465 3,534 3,554 3,535
28, 237
10,193
14,372
3,672
27,52
10,01
13,95
3,55
E M P L O Y M E N T (in thousands)__________________
White-collar w o r k e r s ...................................................................... ...
Blue-collar workers................................................................. ............
Service workers......................................................................................—
9,589
9,673
9,589
9,493
9,467
9,558
9,411
9,385
9,395
9,337
9,330
9,277
9,276
9,528
9,38
Farmworkers........................................................................................................
3,234
3,153
3,089
3,231
3,417
3,438
3,346
3,400
3, 507
3,649
3,654
3,556
3,448
3,292
3,46
U N E M P L O Y M E N T R A T E _______________________
4.8
4.1
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.5
3.
White-collar workers..................................................................................
2.8
1.9
2.4
1.9
2.2
1.5
2.2
1.4
2.0
1.3
2.0
1.1
1.9
1.2
2.0
1.3
2.0
1.2
2.0
1.2
2.2
1.3
2.2
1.3
2.0
1.4
2.1
1.3
2.
1.
1.3
4.0
4.0
1.0
3.3
3.2
.9
3.2
2.8
1.0
3.2
3.0
.9
2.8
2.9
.9
2.9
2.9
1.0
2.8
2.8
1.1
2.9
2.6
.9
3.0
2.7
.9
3.1
3.0
1.0
3.4
3.2
.9
3.3
3.6
.9
2.8
2.9
.9
3.0
2.9
1.
3.
2.
Craftsmen and foremen..............................
Operatives.................................... ..............
Nonfarm laborers................................... .
6.0
3.9
6.6
9.4
4.9
2.6
5.7
7.9
4.3
2.2
5.0
6.9
4.0
2.2
4.4
7.2
3.8
2.1
4.3
6.5
3.7
2.1
4.1
6.4
3.8
2.2
4.3
6.7
4.2
2.4
4.5
7.4
4.0
2.4
4.3
7.0
4.4
2.5
4.8
7.7
4.5
2.5
5.1
7.8
4.5
2.3
5.1
7.6
4.6
2.8
5.0
8.0
3.9
2.2
4.4
6.7
4.
2.
4.
7.
Service workers...................................................................................................
5.0
4.7
3.9
4.5
4.4
4.0
4.3
4.5
4.6
4.3
4.9
4.5
4.2
4.2
4.
Farmworkers.............................................................................. ..............
2.5
2.1
1.8
2.2
1.9
1.6
1.6
2.4
2.3
1.9
2.3
2.4
2.4
1.9
2.
Professional and technical...................... .
Managers, officials, and
proprietors------- ------------------------------Clerical workers.................... ................... .
Sales workers....... ....................... ..............
Blue-collar workers.................................................................................. .
i These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 1969.
For a discussion of a seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally
6.
adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings.
Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment
[In thousands— not seasonally adjusted]
Annual average
1969
1970
Reason for unemployment,
age, and sex
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
1969
1968
16 years and over........ ..........................
4,220
4,510
4,669
3,384
3,552
3,733
3,794
3,406
2,628
2,710
2,839
2,958
2,869
2, 831
2,817
Lost last job........................
Left last jo b .......................
Reentered labor force.........
Never worked before_____
1,773
639
1,242
567
1,778
635
1,342
756
1,598
565
1,567
939
1,658
447
944
333
1,669
507
1,001
375
1,797
441
1,143
351
1,787
473
1,158
377
1,595
485
999
328
1,133
378
825
292
939
421
1,011
339
882
451
1,093
414
823
586
1,105
445
894
507
997
471
1,017
436
965
413
1,070
431
909
407
Total,
20 years and over...................................
1,622
1,667
1,584
1,403
1,498
1,606
1,678
1,456
1,052
909
906
914
888
963
993
Lost last job____ _______
Left last job............... .........
Reentered labor force.........
Never worked before_____
1,016
217
342
48
1,013
230
368
56
911
206
413
55
942
170
251
40
988
214
261
34
1,059
200
312
35
1,144
185
310
39
997
197
230
32
693
150
188
20
524
141
226
18
458
141
267
40
440
209
235
30
469
192
200
24
556
164
216
27
599
167
205
22
M ale,
20 years and over.............................
1,461
1,391
1,302
1,205
1,171
1,264
1,238
1,086
840
994
1,097
1,202
1,119
1,015
985
Lost last jo b .._____ _____
Left last job.......................
Reentered labor force.........
Never worked before..........
515
274
611
61
574
256
500
62
540
192
473
97
562
174
435
34
497
188
439
47
542
156
530
36
451
200
529
58
418
177
437
54
303
138
354
46
309
183
457
45
314
209
501
72
288
237
596
81
310
196
549
64
335
171
455
55
341
167
422
55
16 to 19 years..............................
1,137
1,451
1,783
776
883
863
878
864
736
807
836
842
865
853
839
Lost last job________ ___
Left last job........ ...............
Reentered labor force____
Never worked before..........
242
148
288
458
191
149
474
638
147
167
682
786
155
103
259
259
184
104
301
293
196
85
302
280
192
88
319
280
180
111
331
241
137
90
283
226
106
97
328
276
110
101
324
301
95
140
274
334
115
119
248
383
126
101
294
331
130
97
281
330
Female,
Both sexes,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
72
7.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Unemployment rates, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted 1
1969
1970
Annual average
Age and sex
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
1969
1968
TOTAL
16 years and over____ _______ ____
5.1
5.0
4.7
5.0
4.8
4.4
4.2
3.9
3.5
3.5
3.8
3.8
3.5
3.5
3.6
16 to 19 years__________
16 and 17 years_____
18 and 19 years...........
15.9
17.4
14.7
13.9
15.2
13.2
14.6
16.0
13.3
14.3
15.6
13.8
15.7
18.7
13.8
13.9
15.7
12.4
13.4
16.3
11.7
13.8
17.2
11.6
11.8
13.7
10.2
11.8
14.3
9.2
12.9
16.5
10.4
12.9
16.1
10.6
12.3
15.8
9.8
12.2
14.5
10.5
12.7
14.7
11.2
20 to 24 years.......... .........
25 years and over_______
25 to 54 years..............
55 years and over........
8.3
3.4
3.6
2.7
8.6
3.5
3.7
2.9
7.4
3.2
3.3
3.0
8.1
3.3
3.4
3.3
7.7
3.1
3.2
2.8
6.8
3.0
3.1
2.7
7.3
2.6
2.7
2.4
6.1
2.4
2.5
2.0
5.8
2.2
2.3
2.1
5.8
2.2
2.1
1.9
6.4
2.4
2.4
2.3
6.5
2.4
2.5
2.2
5.4
2.3
2.3
2.0
5.7
2.2
2.3
2.0
5.8
2.3
2.3
2.2
M ALE
16 years and over_______ ____ ____
4.6
4.5
4.3
4.4
4.2
3.6
3.6
3.3
2.9
2.9
3.1
3.2
2.8
2.8
2.9
16 to 19 years..................
16 and 17 years_____
18 and 19 years.........
15.8
17.2
14.6
14.1
15.2
13.6
14.8
16.6
13.2
15.0
16.4
14.6
15.2
17.2
13.9
12.5
14.6
10.8
13.0
15.4
11.0
12.6
14.9
10.8
11.0
13.1
9.3
11.7
13.7
8.9
11.8
14.4
9.6
12.0
15.0
9.4
11.3
15.5
7.8
11.4
13.7
9.3
11.6
13.9
9.6
20 to 24 years..................
25 years and over_______
25 to 54 years_______
55 years and over____
8.5
3.0
3.0
2.9
9.1
3.0
3.0
2.8
7.2
2.9
2.9
2.8
7.7
2.9
2.8
3.1
7.9
2.6
2.6
2.8
6.4
2.4
2.3
2.8
6.9
2.2
2.1
2.4
6.1
2.0
2.0
2.1
5.5
1.8
1.7
2.2
5.3
1.7
1.4
1.9
6.3
1.9
1.8
2.2
6.4
1.8
1.8
2.0
4.5
1.7
1.6
2.0
5.1
1.7
1.6
1.9
5.1
1.8
1.7
2.1
5.9
5.9
5.5
5.9
5.7
5.7
5.1
4.8
4.5
4.5
4.9
5.0
4.8
4.7
4.8
16.4
20.6
13.7
15.6
17.0
14.3
13.9
17.3
12.7
15.2
20.3
12.4
12.8
14. 7
11.2
11.9
15. 0
9.6
14.2
19.2
11.3
14.2
17.7
12.0
13.6
16.2
12.0
13.3
15. 5
11.8
14.0
15. 9
12. 8
7.5
3.8
4.2
2.7
7.2
4.0
4.4
2.5
7.6
3.3
3.6
2.3
6.2
3.0
3.3
1.7
6.1
3.0
3.3
1.9
6.5
3.1
3.4
2.0
6.5
3.4
3.6
2.5
6.6
3.4
3.7
2.5
6.3
3.3
3.6
2.1
6.3
3.2
3. b
2.2
6.7
3. 2
3. 4
2.3
FEM A LE
16 years and over________ _____ _
16 to 19 years...... ............ .
16 and 17 years____
18 and 19 years..........
16.0
17.6
14.9
13.7
15.1
12.7
14.3
15.3
13.4
13.4
14.6
12.9
20 to 24 years.................
25 years and over_______
25 to 54 years_______
55 years and over____
8.0
4.1
4.6
2.5
8.1
4.5
4.8
3.1
7.7
3.8
4.1
3.2
8.7
4.2
4.3
3.6
i These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 1969.
For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
8.
73
Unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted 1
[In percent]
1969
1970
A n n u a l average
Selected categories
Aug.
July
June
Apr.
May
Mar.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
1969
1968
3.9
2.5
3.6
13.8
3.6
6.3
1.8
3.4
.5
3.5
2.2
3.5
11.8
3.2
5.7
1.7
3.2
.5
3.5
2.1
3.6
11.8
3.2
6.2
1. 5
3.1
.5
3.8
2.3
3.8
12.9
3.5
6.6
1.6
3.1
.4
3.8
2.4
3.9
12.9
3.5
6.7
1.7
3.3
.5
3.5
2.1
3.8
12.3
3.2
6.4
1. 5
3.1
.5
3.5
2.1
3.7
12.2
3.1
6.4
1.5
3.1
.5
3.6
2.2
3.8
12.7
3.2
6.7
1.6
3.1
.5
2.7
4.8
.6
2.7
4.5
2.5
4.2
2.4
3.9
2.4
4.0
2.2
4.3
2.2
4.3
2.1
4.0
2.1
3.9
2.2
4.0
2.9
2.7
2.3
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.7
4.0
4.1
1.8
3.6
3.5
1.4
3.2
3.4
1.3
3.1
2.8
1.5
2.8
2.6
1.1
3.5
2.2
1.3
3.4
3.5
1.3
3.2
2.8
1.2
3.2
2.9
1.2
3.0
2.9
1.1
3.0
2.8
6.2
4.2
6.7
9.1
5.7
3.5
6.3
8.8
5.2
3.1
6.2
7.4
5.0
2.5
6.0
7.7
4.6
2.3
5.1
8.5
4.3
2.3
5.0
7.4
4.2
2.1
4.9
6.9
4.2
2.4
4.9
6.5
4.4
2.6
4.7
7.6
3.8
2.1
4.2
6.8
3.9
2.2
4.5
6.7
4.1
2.4
4.4
7.2
5.0
4.9
5.0
4.9
4.8
4.5
3.6
4.0
4.2
4.8
4.5
4.2
4.5
5.6
11.0
6.0
5.9
6.2
5.2
10.9
5.3
5.1
5.6
5.2
11.9
5.2
4.9
5.7
4.8
8.1
4.7
4.9
4.5
4.6
8.1
4.7
4.8
4.6
4.3
7.9
4.6
4.7
4.4
3.9
7.1
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.6
6.0
3.8
3.7
3.9
3.6
5.4
3.7
3.6
3.9
3.8
7.3
3.6
3.2
4.2
3.9
7.4
3.7
3.2
4.3
3.5
7.0
2.9
2.3
3.7
3. 5
6.0
3.3
3.0
3.7
3.6
6.9
3.3
3.0
3.7
3.3
5.4
3.3
5. 1
3.9
3.1
4.7
2.4
4.7
2.9
4.3
2.4
3.9
2.4
3.9
2.9
4.2
2.0
4.5
2.0
4.3
2.2
4.1
2. 0
4.0
4.0
3.2
3.1
2.7
3.2
3.1
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.4
5.0
3.5
5.1
14.3
4.6
8.0
2.6
4.7
.7
4.8
3.2
4.4
15.7
4.3
8.7
2.4
4.4
.7
4.4
2.9
4.5
13.9
4.1
7.1
2.2
4.0
.7
.9
3.5
5.4
3.7
4.9
3.6
5.4
3.1
5.1
2.7
3.1
2.6
2.8
1.9
3.9
4.0
2.2
4.4
4.0
1.5
4.0
3.4
1.7
3.9
4.4
Crattsmen and foremen___
Operatives...........................
Nonfarm laborers________
7.0
4.4
7.9
10.2
6.6
4.4
7.2
9.9
6.3
4.0
6.8
10.4
Service workers.............................. ........................
5.5
5.3
5.5
12.2
5.7
5.5
5.9
(all civilian workers)_____
Men, 20 years and over___
Women, 20 years and over.
Both sexes, 16-19 years...
White_________________
Negro and other_______ .
Married men___________
Full-time w orkers.............
Unemployed 15 weeks and
over2_______________
State insured 2__________
Labor force time lost4____
Jan.
4.2
2.8
4.1
13.4
3.8
7.0
2.0
3.7
4.7
3.5
4.5
14.6
4.2
8.7
2.5
4.3
.8
Total
Feb.
5.1
3.7
4.8
15.9
4.8
8.4
2.8
4.7
5.0
3.7
5.0
13.9
4.7
8.3
2.7
4.6
.9
3.7
5.5
O C C U P A T IO N
White-collar workers_____________
Professional and managerial_______________
Clerical workers_________
Sales workers....... ..............
Blue-collar workers______________ _
IN D U S T R Y
Nonagricultural private wage
and salary workers5_______
Construction... ________
Manufacturing...... ..........
Durable goods________
Nondurable goods.........
Transportation and public
utilities _____________
Wholesale and retail trade..
Finance and service industries.................... ...........
3.1
5.4
3.3
5.3
4.4
4.8
4.1
4.2
5.5
3.9
Government wage and salary
workers......... ........................
2.1
2.0
1.9
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.2
2.0
2.1
2.4
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
Agricultural wage and salary
workers..................................
8.2
8.6
5.5
9.3
5.9
6.4
5.8
6.2
6. 5
5.2
6.3
6. 5
6. 5
6.1
6.3
s Insured unemployment under State programs as a percent of average covered
employment.
4 Man-hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons
as a percent of potentially available labor force man-hours.
5 Includes mining, not shown separately.
■These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 1969.
For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally
adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings.
2 Unemployment rate calculated as a percent of civilian labor force.
9. Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted 1
[In thousands]
Annual average
1969
1970
Period
1968
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
1969
Less than 5 weeks.....................
5 to 14 weeks.............................
15 weeks and o v e r...................
15 to 26 weeks.......................
27 weeks and o ver.. ..........
2,206
1,320
736
479
257
2, 061
1,334
711
470
241
1,961
1,303
685
450
235
2,219
1,214
612
352
260
2,295
1,075
569
372
197
1,995
1,154
545
363
182
1,973
1,016
465
306
159
1,756
914
409
276
133
1,515
893
392
272
120
1,558
912
389
249
140
1,882
882
363
233
130
1,756
995
392
240
152
1,646
854
385
250
135
1,629
827
375
242
133
15 weeks and over as a percent
of civilian labor fo rce ...........
Average (mean) duration, in
weeks___ ______________
.9
.9
.8
.7
.7
.7
.6
.5
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.5
.5
8.8
9.3
9.5
9.0
8.2
8.4
8.1
7.8
8.1
8.0
7.3
7.9
7.8
8.0
8. 5
■These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 1969.
For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings.
1,594
810
412
256
156
74
10.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
Unemployment insurance and employment service operations 1
[All items except average benefits amounts are in thousands]
1970
1969
Item
June
July
Employment service:2
New applications for work-------------- --------Nonfarm placements-----------------------------------
p883
*>333
Apr.
May
1,148
374
Mar.
857
352
854
339
Feb.
828
328
Jan.
765
295
Dec.
950
326
Nov.
658
311
Oct.
711
372
Sept
762
463
Aug.
801
503
July
750
471
874
469
State unemployment insurance programs:
1,333
1,169
1,010
1,078
1,529
1,363
866
1,484
1,118
Initial claims31_.----------------------- ------------745
655
731
1,105
Insured unemployment6 (average weekly
1,770
1,874
1,375
1,583
1,667
1,798
1,847
1,030
864
1,761
840
948
1,021
volume)6______ --- --- ---------------------3.4
3.6
3.0
3.2
3.5
3.6
2.7
2.0
3.3
1.6
1.8
1.6
2.0
Rate of insured unemployment7 ___________
6,080
6,142
6,743
6,956
6, 517
6,418
4,692
6,504
3,054
3,156
3,104
Weeks of unemployment compensated----------3,496
3,626
Average weekly benefit amount for total
unemployment________ - ----------------- - $49. 57 $49. 51 $49. 30 $49. 00 $48. 93 $49.11 $48. 49 $47.42 $46.47 $46. 25 $45.70 $46.16 $45.30
Total benefits paid______________________ $314,201 $291,707 $292, 854 $320,224 $331, 067 $310,800 $299,352 $214,260 $136, 585 $139,536 $136,182 $156,707 $159,161
Unemployment compensation for ex-servicemen:8»
Initial claims8 6. _______________________
Insured unemployment6 (average weekly
volume). _______________________ --Weeks of unemployment compensated ---------Total benefits paid__ ________________ —
Unemployment compensation for Federal civilian em
ployees: 91°
Initial claims8---- ------- -------------------------------Insured unemployment5 (average weekly
volume)_____________________________
Weeks of unemployment compensated----------Total benefits paid___ _ . ----------------------Railroad unemployment insurance:
Applications«________ ______ _______ ____
Insured unemployment (average weeWy
volume).....................................---------------Number of payments«__________ . —
...
Average amount of benefit p a y m e n t« .-........Total benefits paid « ________ _____ _______
All
programs: «
Insured unemployment « .. ---------------- ..
51
47
84
73
303
356
$18,036 $15, 299
47
38
44
39
30
29
26
27
32
48
193
$9, 517
38
126
$6, 240
32
127
$6, 256
32
133
$6,514
37
148
$7,156
36
143
$6,946
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
38
16
15
10
13
11
11
15
12
13
11
10
8
11
31
129
$6,469
27
107
$5, 378
26
107
$5,323
27
118
$5, 824
29
128
$6,192
30
109
$5, 239
28
110
$5,194
24
101
$4,748
22
75
$3, 465
18
76
$3,494
17
74
$3,163
18
77
$3,497
19
78
$3,597
21
12
4
8
9
4
9
5
5
10
6
7
17
15
11
15
16
19
18
21
17
14
15
13
13
13
27
$90.41
$2, 035
26
$91. 89
$2, 253
30
$84.87
$2, 439
43
$81. 50
$3,565
42
$92. 00
$3, 668
38
$96.76
$3,374
47
$94.78
$4, 091
35
$96. 02
$3, 241
28
$96. 28
$2, 513
36
$89.31
$2,918
28
$93.64
$2,478
28
$94.12
$2,375
26
$91.74
$2,113
1,897
1,696
1,778
1,885
1,916
1,987
1,957
1,464
1,105
929
902
1,015
1,088
1Includes data for Puerto Rico.
Includes Guam and the Virgin Islands.
3 Initial claims are notices filed by workers to indicate they are starting periods of
unemployment. Excludes transition claims understate programs.
* Includes interstate claims for the Virgin Islands.
! Number of workers reporting the completion of at least 1 week of unemployment.
«Initial claims and State insured unemployment include data under the program
for Puerto Rican sugarcane workers.
7 The rate is the number of insured unemployed expressed as a percent of the average
covered employment in a 12-month period.
s Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with other programs.
»Includesthe Virgin Islands.
10 Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with State programs.
11An application for benefits is filed by a railroad worker at the beginning of his firs
2
42
70
70
69
66
61
294
280
289
244
242
13,972 $14,564 $14, 200 $12, 028 $11,957
period of unemployment in a benefit year; no application is required for subsequent
periods in the same year.
I2 Payments are for unemployment in 14-day registration periods,
is The average amount is an average for all compensable periods, not adjusted for
recovery of overpayments or settlement of underpayments,
ii Adjusted for recovery of overpayments and settlement of underpayments.
«Represents an unduplicated count of insured unemployment under the State,
Ex-servicemen and UCFE programs and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act.
Includes claims filed under Extended Duration (ED) provisions of regular State laws,
^p re lim in ary.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Manpower Management Data Systems
for all items except railroad unemployment insurance which is prepared by the U.S.
Railroad Retirement Board. Data for latest month are subject to revision.
PAYROLL DATA
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
11.
75
Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division, 1947 to date1
[In thousands]
TOTAL
Year
Mining
Contract
construc
tion
Manufac
turing
Transpor
tation and
public
utilities
Wholesale and retail trade
Total
Wholesale
trade
Retail
trade
Finance,
insurance,
and real
estate
Government
Services
Total
Federal
State
and local
1947________ _____
1948______________
1949______________
1950______________
43,881
44, 891
43,778
45,222
955
994
930
901
1,982
2,169
2,165
2,333
15,545
15, 582
14,441
15,241
4,166
4,189
4,001
4,034
8,955
9,272
9,264
9,386
2,361
2,489
2,487
2, 518
6,595
6,783
6,778
6,868
1,754
1,829
1,857
1,919
5,050
5,206
5,264
5,382
5,474
5,650
5, 856
6,026
1,892
1,863
1,908
l i 928
3, 582
3; 787
3’ 948
4; 098
1951..........................
1952__________
1953.......................... .
1954______________
1955...........................
47, 849
48. 825
50,232
49, 022
50,675
929
898
866
791
792
2,603
2,634
2,623
2,612
2,802
16,393
16,632
17, 549
16,314
16, 882
4,226
4,248
4,290
4,084
4,141
9,742
10, 004
10,247
10,235
10, 535
2,606
2,687
2,727
2,739
2,796
7,136
7,317
7,520
7,496
7,740
1,991
2,069
2,146
2,234
2,335
5,576
5,730
5, 867
6,002
6,274
6,389
6,609
6,645
6,751
6,914
2,302
2,420
2; 305
2,188
2; 187
4 ; 340
4^563
4; 727
1956______________
1957...... .............. .......
1958.. _______
1959 2_____________
1960______________
52.408
52. 894
51,363
53,313
54,234
822
828
751
732
712
2,999
2,923
2,778
2,960
2, 885
17,243
17,174
15,945
16,675
16,796
4,244
4,241
3,976
4,011
4,004
10, 858
10, 886
10,750
11,127
11,391
2, 884
2,893
2,848
2,946
3,004
7,974
7,992
7,902
8,182
8,388
2,429
2,477
2, 519
2,594
2,669
6, 536
6,749
6,806
7,130
7,423
7,277
7,616
7,839
8, 083
8,353
2,209
2.217
2,191
2,233
2¡ 270
5,069
5| 399
5 ; 648
5, 850
6,083
1961______________
1962______________
1963______________
1964______________
1965...... ................... .
54, 042
55, 596
56, 702
58, 331
60,815
672
650
635
634
632
2,816
2,902
2,963
3,050
3,186
16,326
16,853
16,995
17,274
18,062
3,903
3,906
3,903
3,951
4, 036
11,337
11,566
11,778
12,160
12,716
2,993
3,056
3,104
3,189
3,312
8, 344
8,511
8,675
8,971
9,404
2,731
2,800
2,877
2,957
3,023
7,664
8, 028
8,325
8,709
9,087
8,594
8,890
9,225
9, 596
10,074
2,279
2 ,340
2; 358
2; 348
2; 378
6,315
6, 550
6,' 868
7,248
7; 696
1966______________
1967...... .................
1968____________
1969______________
63,955
65,857
67,915
70,274
627
613
606
619
3,275
3,208
3,285
3,437
19,214
19,447
19,781
20,169
4,151
4,261
4,310
4,431
13,245
13,606
14, 084
14,645
3,437
3,525
3,611
3,738
9.808
10, 081
10, 473
10,907
3,100
3,225
3,382
3,557
9, 551
10, 099
10,623
11,211
10,792
11,398
11,845
12,204
2, 564
719
2,737
2; 758
8,227
8| 679
9i 109
9; 446
1The industry series have been adjusted to March 1969 benchmarks (comprehensive
counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues
prior to July 1970. For comparable back data, see Employment and Earnings, United
States, 1903—70 (BLS Bulletin 1312—7) to be released this fall.
These series are based upon establishment reports which cover all full- and part-time
employees in nonagricultural establishments who worked during, or received pay for
any part of the pay period which includes the 12th of the month. Therefore, persons who
12.
2,
4,087
4; 188
worked in more than one establishment during the reporting period are counted more
than once. Proprietors, self-employed persons, unpaid family workers, and domestic
servants are excluded.
2 Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning 1959. This inclusion has resulted in an
increase of 212,000 (0.4 percent) in the nonagricultural total for the March 1959 bench
mark month.
Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by State
[In thousands]
State
July 1970 p
June 1970
July 1969
State
July 1970 p
June 1970
July 1969
Alabama................
Alaska....................
Arizona..................
Arkansas................
California...............
1.008.9
99.2
536.4
535.6
7.014.6
1,008.6
96.0
539.7
537.5
7,052.6
1.008.3
96.1
511.9
540.4
6.955.9
Montana_______________
.
Nebraska______________________
Nevada.._____ __________ . . __
New Hampshire_________________
New Jersey____________________
207.4
483.0
200.4
272.7
2,632.2
206.1
488.6
200.5
267.0
2,645. 5
205.2
472.9
196.5
272.1
2,626.8
Colorado............
Connecticut.......... .
Delaware........... .
District of Columbia
Florida.............. .
733.0
1.192.4
211.3
698.5
2,091.1
1.206.5
214.4
694.7
2,144.7
714.9
1,196.7
206.9
697.4
2.024.1
New Mexico_______ ______
New York______________________
North Carolina_________________
North Dakota................ ........ ............
Ohio_______ __________ _______
294.6
7,248.1
1,732.9
164.6
3,928.8
294.9
7,316.1
1,746.1
163.4
3,952. 8
288.7
7,241.4
1,728.8
159.5
3,893.9
Georgia...................
Hawaii_____ ____
Idaho......... ......... .
Illinois.................... .
Indiana....................
1.528.9
296.0
208.1
4, 396.1
1,853.3
1.536.6
292.6
208.4
4, 396.1
1.869.7
1.528.4
286.9
4, 399. 3
1.877.2
Oklahoma__________ _______
Oregon____ ______ _____________
Pennsylvania_______________
Rhode Island. ______
South Carolina__________________
762.9
707.6
4, 366.6
334.0
812.1
769.9
717.3
4,407.4
338.8
813.9
756.5
714.0
4, 405. 8
343.9
814.1
Iowa_____ ______
Kansas.____ _____
Kentucky.................
Louisiana................
Maine............ ..........
887.7
672.2
903.5
1.043.7
334.1
894.4
679.4
911.8
1.045.0
338.9
883.6
684.1
902.4
1.054.3
337.3
South Dakota___________________
Tennessee_____________________
Texas_______________ _______
Utah_________________________
Vermont__________________ ____
177.3
1,312.8
3, 727. 6
361.3
152.6
179.3
1,322.0
3,742.0
359.6
149.6
175.2
1,320.8
3,650.8
351.9
151.0
Maryland........... .
Massachusetts____
Michigan................ .
Minnesota________
Mississippi_______
Missouri.......... ........
1.309.0
2.253.5
2.919.1
1.311.1
575.2
1.639.8
1,317.2
2,282.9
3.022.7
1,315.5
574.8
1.655.0
1,288.2
2,265.0
3.001.9
1.318.4
569.1
1.665.4
Virginia. _________ ____________
Washington____________________
West Virginia_____ ________ ____
Wisconsin........... ........ .......................
Wyoming______________________
1,454.5
1,085.9
515.8
1,549.0
114.9
1,466.2
1,106.9
517.4
1,543.0
114.0
1,444.5
1,131.1
518.8
1,531.1
115.2
= preliminary.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
201.0
SOURCE: State agencies in cooperation with U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics. More detailed industry data are available from the State agencies.
For addresses, see inside back cover of Employment and Earnings.
76
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
PAYROLL DATA
13.
Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group 1
[In thousands]
1969
1970
Annual average
Industry division and group
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
1969
1968
70,029
69,933
71,760
71,354
71,333
70,964
70,758
70,274
67,915
July »
June
May
Apr.
________________
70,724
70, 689
71,385
70,780
70,758
______ __________ ____
638
635
635
620
616
610
608
611
623
622
623
630
638
619
606
3,344
3, 286
3,161
3,071
3, 048
3,398
3, 553
3,648
3,687
3,731
3,437
3,285
TOTAL
M IN IN G
Mar.
Aug. »
70,460
C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T I O N ____
3, 573
3, 573
3, 504
M A N U F A C T U R I N G _____________
19, 533
14,211
19,333
13,973
19,627
14,261
19,432
14,061
19,627
14, 240
19,794
14,385
19,770
14, 346
19,824
14,402
20,110
14, 680
20,194
14,763
20,395
14,953
20,482
15, 041
20,497
15, 014
20,169
14,768
19,781
14, 514
11,181
8,034
11,156
7,999
11,392
8,228
11,352
8,164
11,488
8,282
11,607
8,379
11,573
8, 327
11,623
8,377
11,802
8, 556
11,832
8, 580
12, 008
8, 744
12, 030
8,767
11,992
8,701
11,893
8, 648
11,626
8,457
238.3
590.0
459.1
243.7
587.4
444.9
249.9
596.4
454.1
254.1
579.2
451.4
260.1
574.5
462.9
271.0
578.6
468.6
277.6
579.2
470.3
282.8
583.8
475.6
291.3
597.0
482.2
297.1
600.1
485.2
298.3
604.4
488.1
305.8
616.7
486.8
313.9
629.3
488.4
318.8
609.2
483.5
338.0
600.1
471.6
643. 8
644.4
650.0
638.0
639.8
635.1
632.9
632.0
650.9
661.9
664.7
669.0
674.0
656.3
635.5
Production workers2. . .
Ordnance and accessories..
Lumber and wood products.
Furniture and fixtures____
Stone, clay, and glass
Primary metal industries... 1,320.2 1,316.9 1,331.6 1,319.4 1,329.5 1.338.1
Fabricated metal products.. 1, 382. 6 1,368.4 1,400.9 1,385.6 1, 402. 5 1.416.1
Machinery, except
1,955.5 1,968.4 1 998 1 2,006.4 2, 040. 4 2, 058. 3
Electrical equipment_____ 1,924.9 1,914.1 1,932.1 1,932.5 1,959.1 1,983.2
Transportation equipment.. 1,780.1 1,796.8 1,889.6 1,897.2 1,928.9 1,963.4
Instruments and related
471.3
465.5
469.1
462.6
457.9
452.6
Miscellaneous
433.8
Production workers2—
8,372
6,177
413.1
8,177
5, 974
426.7
8,235
6, 033
422.4
8,080
5,897
421.3
8,139
5,958
1,346.6 1,351.4 1.367.6 1.364.7 1,364.0 1,373.9 1,375.5 1.358.0 1,315.5
1,421.1 1,433.1 1.456.6 1.456.7 1,454.6 1,459.6 1,449.2 1.442.1 1,390.4
2,055.9 2, 044. 6 2, 043. 2 2, 028. 6 2, 036. 0 2, 032. 9 2, 022. 2 2, 027.7 1,965.9
1,995.2 1,928.2 1,948.9 1,955.4 2, 069.7 2, 057.4 2, 049. 0 2,013.0 1,974.5
1,901.1 1,999.4 2, 042. 9 2, 049. 2 2, 088. 2 2, 096. 5 2, 056. 0 2, 067.1 2, 038. 6
471.3
472.6
477.7
476.9
476.2
476.8
482.1
476.5
461.9
423.0
421.4
419.0
443.7
456.4
463.4
454.9
452.0
440.2
433.4
8,178
6, 006
8,197
6, 019
8,201
6,025
8,308
6,124
8,362
6,183
8,387
6,209
8,452
6,274
8,505
6,313
8,277
6,120
8,155
6, 056
Food and kindred products. 1,939.3 1,829.2 1,796.7 1,736.7 1,722.2 1,735.6 1,739.9 1,744.3 1,790.7 1,831.7 1,862.0 1,928.8 1,941.9 1,795.9 1,781.5
82.0
94.5
97.6
93.0
84.6
84.0
87.1
77.4
79.9
73.8
71.4
70.8
71.4
71.6
85.8
Tobacco manufactures____
997.6
994.8
997.2 1,000.1
998.7
993.9
987.6
995.3
979.9
977.3
967.2
974.6
971.5
951.9
961.5
Textile mill products_____
Apparel and other textile
1,402.3 1, 348. 8 1,400.0 1,372.4 1,382.4 1,402.8 1,404.0 1, 388.8 1,407.6 1,417.6 1,423.0 1,421.4 1,427.1 1,412.3 1,405.8
716.4
718.0
722.6
712.1
691.2
720.4
716.0
722.7
714.2
714.9
714.2
707.8
720.0
71? 3
711.2
Paper and allied products..
Printing and publishing----- 1,106.0 1,103.6 1,105.7 1,102.3 1,109.9 1,112.3 1,110.0 1,107.7 1,116.2 1,113.4 1,107.7 1, 098. 5 1, 098. 0 1, 093. 3 1, U65. 1
Chemicals and allied
1,063.7 1,066.8 1,063.7 1,058.3 1,063.8 1, 064.1 1, 060. 8 1, 058. 5 1, 062.1 1,059.9 1, 058.1 1,063.9 1, 076. 5 1, 060. 7 1,029.9
Petroleum and coal
191.8
195.0
182.9
186.8
191.0
191.9
188.0
188.9
188.4
189.7
190.4
191.9
196.7
197.3
197.8
Rubber and plastics
600.5
599.0
599.4
593.9
561.3
599.6
601.6
588.2
593.4
585.0
543.2
580.8
572.5
569.3
575.0
Leather and leather
338.2
351.0
355.2
341.2
336.1
345.1
341.3
336.7
334.6
331.6
329.1
329.2
336.5
326.9
327. 5
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A N D P U B LIC
U T I L I T I E S _____ ________ _____
4, 578
4,593
4,561
4,469
4, 432
4,443
4,420
4,435
4,478
4,486
4,481
4, 508
4, 510
4,431
4,310
W H O L E S A L E A N D R E T A IL T R A D E .
14, 888
14,930
14,994
14,878
14,818
14,700
14,606
14,707
15,638
15, 092
14, 850
14,714
14,670
14,645
14, 084
Wholesale trade.____ _____
Retail trade____ ____________
3,883
11,005
3,902
11,028
3,872
11,122
3,813
11,065
3,803
11,015
3,797
10,903
3,788
10, 818
3,797
10,910
3,841
11,797
3,816
11,276
3,801
11, 049
3,781
10,933
3,796
10, 874
3,738
10,907
3,611
10,473
F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E, AN D
R EA L ESTATE
. ___________
S E R V IC E S
_____________
3,729
3,738
3,708
3,670
3,658
3,639
3,615
3,604
3,608
3,597
3, 589
3,595
3,641
3,557
3,382
11,690
11,722
11,717
11,641
11,564
11,433
11,357
11,254
11,351
11,349
11,372
11,300
11,372
11,211
10,623
Hotels and other lodging
787.9
840.9
995.3 1,016.0
Medical and other health
G O VERNM ENT
..............................
722.2
764.8
852.3
750.3
738.4
714.5
709.6
713.3
717.5
759.6
745.3
727.3
1,009.8 1,006.2 1,006.2 1, 003.0 1,005.1 1,022.0 1,025.4 1, 028. 0 1,022.1 1, 023. 8 1,025.8 1,031.4
3,117.7 3,091.2 3,043.2 3,033.9 3, 019.4 3, 000. 7 2,979.8 2,961.4 2,950.0 2,927.8 2,907.8 2,905.1 2, 868. 8 2,638.6
958.4 1,116.9 1, 067.3
1,018.8 1,100.5 1,190.7 1,197.8 1,197.8 1,196.1 1,163.6 1,179.9 1,184.5 1,164.3 1, 061.6
12, 075
12,165
12, 639
12,726
12,757
12, 680
12, 582
12,450
12, 554
12,461
12,375
12, 048
11,699
12,204
11,845
2,667
9,408
2,700
9,465
2,710
9,929
2,765
9,961
2,838
9,919
2,758
9,922
2,694
9,888
2,690
9,760
2,760
9,794
2,705
9,756
2,717
9,658
2,733
9,315
2,804
8, 895
2,758
9,446
2,737
9,109
1 For comparability of data with those published in Issues prior to July 1970, and
coverage of these series, see footnote 1, table 11.
2 Production workers include working foremen and all nonsupervisory workers
(including leadmen and trainees) engaged in fabricating, processing, assembling,
inspection, receiving, storage, handling, packing, warehousing, shipping, maintenance,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
repair, janitorial, and watchman services, product development, auxiliary production
for plant's own use (e.g., powerplant), and recordkeeping and other services closely
associated with the above production operations.
j> =
preliminary.
PAYROLL DATA
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
14.
77
Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted 1
[In thousands]
1970
1969
Industry division and group
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
70,635
70,603
70,852
71,163
71,256
71,135
70,992
70,842
.70,808
70,836
70, 567
70,497
618
620
620
622
626
626
625
627
624
622
623
621
3,275
3,314
3,324
3,351
3,426
3,481
3,466
3,394
3,496
3,473
3,445
3,436
3,420
_____ _______ _ 19,338
........... - ..................... 14,048
19,411
14,099
19,477
14,140
19,572
14,180
19, 795
14, 389
19,944
14, 512
19,937
14,489
20, 018
14, 573
20, 082
14, 638
20, 082
14,638
20,233
14,794
20,252
14, 826
20,246
14, 826
Stone, clay, and glass products...-----------------
11,172
8,054
239
569
455
626
11,217
8, 083
244
569
453
629
11,286
8,134
250
575
453
636
11,386
8,186
256
582
456
638
11,529
8,318
261
585
468
644
11,648
8,409
271
593
471
651
11,625
8,367
277
598
472
657
11,679
8, 425
281
605
477
653
11,773
8,516
290
606
478
659
11,782
8, 522
296
603
479
659
11,965
8,703
298
601
483
658
11,968
8,713
306
606
483
657
11,950
8, 698
316
607
484
655
Transportation equipment________________
Instruments and related products---------- -------
1,312
1,384
1,961
1,919
1,836
449
1,301
1,385
1,968
1,935
1,855
458
1,305
1,388
1,982
1,936
1,876
461
1,309
1,394
2,004
1,956
1,897
468
1,323
1,411
2,032
1,979
1,925
471
1,337
1,425
2,046
1,995
1,950
472
1,349
1,428
2, 048
1,993
1,890
472
1,360
1,436
2, 043
1,922
1,988
474
1,380
1,447
2, 051
1,930
2, 009
476
1,384
1,444
2, 043
1,934
2, 028
476
1,386
1,445
2, 050
2, 051
2, 078
476
1,381
1,452
2,041
2, 049
2, 078
477
1,367
1,451
2,028
2, 043
2, 081
479
Aug. j>
July
T O T A L ....................................................................................................................................
70, 543
M I N I N G ................................................................................................................................
621
C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T I O N --------------------------- ---------------manufacturing
Production workers2—
Production workers2......................... ........
v
Miscellaneous manufacturing— .......................
422
420
424
426
430
437
441
440
447
436
439
438
439
Production workers2. . . ...........................
Food and kindred products------------- -------- .
Tobacco manufactures...... ............................
Textile mill products.................................
Apparel and othertextile products....... ......... .
Paper and allied products.............................. .
8,166
5,994
1,799
79
954
1,387
704
8,194
6,016
1,792
81
959
1,395
708
8,191
6,006
1,800
81
959
1,385
711
8,186
5,994
1,805
81
971
1,375
714
8,266
6, 071
1,805
81
979
1,394
721
8,296
6,103
1,823
81
980
1,396
721
8,312
6,122
1,830
80
987
1,398
720
8,339
6,148
1,817
80
999
1,416
721
8,309
6,122
1,805
//
995
1,410
720
8,300
6,116
1,806
80
993
1,405
718
8,268
6, 091
1,780
81
991
1,406
716
8,284
6,113
1,799
83
992
1,409
715
8,296
6,128
1,801
86
992
1,410
714
Printing and publishing.......... ....................... .
Chemicals and allied products----------------------Petroleum and coal products------------------------Rubber and plastics products, nee ... ----------Leather and leather products------------------------
1,105
1,051
192
573
322
1,104
1,055
191
577
332
1,103
1,055
193
570
334
1,108
1,060
192
548
332
1,111
1,063
193
585
334
1,113
1,066
194
589
333
1,113
1,067
193
591
333
1,113
1,068
193
595
337
1,110
1,067
192
594
339
1,109
1,064
191
596
338
1,106
1,062
191
59b
339
1,100
1,064
189
596
337
1,097
1,064
190
597
345
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A N D P U B LIC U T I L I T I E S ...................—
W H O L E S A L E A N D R E T A I L T R A D E ----------------------------------
Wholesale trade___________ ___ _________
Retail trade___ _________________________
4, 524
4, 539
4,511
4,478
4, 468
4,502
4,496
4,507
4,469
4,464
4,463
4,459
4,457
14,931
14,939
14,927
14,968
14, 991
14, 984
14,987
14,938
14,750
14, 848
14, 824
14,739
14,713
3,837
11,094
3,856
11,083
3,849
11,078
3,859
11,109
3,853
11,138
3,847
11,137
3,834
11,153
3,828
11,110
3, 807
10,943
3,782
11,066
3,775
11,049
3,762
10,977
3,751
10, 962
F I N A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D R E A L E S T A T E ..............................
3,667
3,676
3,679
3,677
3,673
3,665
3,652
3, 648
3, 626
3,611
3, 596
3, 584
3,580
S E R V IC E S _____ _________ _____ _________ ________ -
11,563
11,537
721
988
3,087
1,163
11,532
749
1,000
3,070
1,145
11,572
764
1,005
3,058
1,146
11,564
768
1,003
3,034
1,151
11,537
772
1,015
3,025
1,143
11,530
770
1,018
3, 007
1,145
11,472
775
1,016
2,992
1,125
11,431
770
1,016
2,973
1,129
11,383
760
1,021
2,950
1,125
11,361
761
1,025
2,931
1,122
11,289
748
1,026
2,914
1,105
11,248
730
1,026
2, 891
1,117
G O V E R N M E N T ............................................................................................... ..
12,624
12, 601
12, 533
12,614
12,624
12,517
12,441
12, 390
12,361
12, 323
12,292
12,185
12,212
2,615
10,009
2,627
9, 974
2,663
9, 870
2,781
9,833
2,852
9,772
2,780
9,737
2,718
9,723
2,717
9,673
2,721
9,640
2,730
9, 593
2,739
9, 553
2,747
9,438
2,749
9,463
Federal3_______________________________
State and local------ --------- ------------------------------
J For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, and
coverage of these series, see footnote 1, table 11.
s For definition of production workers, see footnote 2, table 13.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: These data have been seasonally adjusted to reflect experience through
February 1970. For additional detail, see June 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings.
p = preliminary.
78
15.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
LABOR TURNOVER
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1959 to date 1
[Per 100 employees]
Year
Jan.
Mar.
Feb.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Annual
average
Total accessions
1QSQ
IQfih
]QR1
lQfi?
1963--....................- ............
3.8
4.0
3.7
4.1
3.6
3.7
3.5
3.2
3.6
3.3
4.1
3.3
4.0
3.8
3.5
4.1
3.4
4.0
4.0
3.9
4.2
3.9
4.3
4.3
3.9
5.4
4.7
5.0
5.0
4.8
4.4
3.9
4.4
4.6
4.3
5.2
4.9
5.3
5.1
4.8
5.1
4.8
4.7
4.9
4.8
3.9
3.5
4.3
3.9
3.9
3.4
2.9
3.4
3.0
2.9
3.6
2.3
2.6
2.4
2.5
4.2
3.8
4.1
4.1
3.9
19Rd
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
3.6
3.8
4.6
4.3
4.2
4.6
4.0
3.4
3.5
4.2
3.6
3.8
3.9
3.6
3.7
4.0
4.9
3.9
4.0
4.4
3.7
3.8
3.8
4.6
3.9
4.3
4.5
3.7
3.9
4.1
5.1
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.2
5.1
5.6
6.7
5.9
5.9
6.6
4.4
4.5
5.1
4.7
5.0
5.1
p 4.2
5.1
5.4
6.4
5.5
5.8
5.6
4.8
5.5
6.1
5.3
5.7
5.9
4.0
4. 5
5.1
4.7
5.1
5. 0
3.2
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.9
3.6
2.6
3.1
2.9
2.8
3.1
2.9
4.0
4.3
5. 0
4.4
4. 6
4.7
4.0
4.4
4.1
4.4
4.1
4.6
4.8
4.2
5.1
4.8
5.3
5.3
5.1
5. 0
4.9
5.5
4.7
4.2
4. 4
4.1
4.7
4. 5
4.0
4. 0
3.9
3.9
4. 8
4. 0
3.8
3.7
4.1
4.3
4. 0
4.1
3.9
_____ ________
New hires
Total separations
1859
I960
1%1
1962
1963-,.................... ..............
3.7
3.6
4.7
3.9
4.0
3.1
3.5
3.9
3.4
3.2
3.3
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.5
3.6
4.2
3.4
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.9
3.5
3.8
3.6
3.6
4.0
3.6
3.8
3.4
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969.................. - ..................
4.0
3.7
4.0
4.5
4.4
4.5
3.3
3.1
3.6
4.0
3.9
4.0
3.5
3.4
4.1
4.6
4.1
4.4
4J3
3.5
3.7
4.3
4.3
4.1
4.5
4.8
3.6
3.6
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.6
4.6
3.5
3.6
4.4
4.3
4.1
4.6
4.4
4.4
4.3
5.3
4.8
5.0
5.3
4.3
5.1
5.8
5.3
6.0
6.2
5.1
5. 6
6.6
6.2
6.3
6.6
4.2
4. 5
4.8
4.7
5.0
5.3
3.6
3.9
4.3
4. 0
4.1
4.3
3.7
4.1
4.2
3.9
3.8
4.2
3.9
4.1
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.9
1.4
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.4
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.8
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.0
1.8
2.4
1.8
2.2
1.9
2.0
2.4
2.1
1.9
1.8
3.2
2.8
2.0
2.2
1.9
2.9
3.1
2.2
2.3
2.1
2.4
3.6
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.0
1.4
1.1
.9
1.1
1.0
.9
L5
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.1
.9
1.0
1 5
2.1
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.6
» 2.1
1.4
1.6
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.5
1.3
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.8
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.7
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.2
1. 3
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.8
1.7
1.4
'
Quits
Layoffs
1959................ ....................
I960_______ ___________
1961.................. ...................
1962
.................................
1963.......................................
1964.....................................
1965 _______ __________
1966......................................
1967............. .................... .
1968................................. .
1969 _____ ____________
2.1
1.8
3.2
2.1
2.2
2.0
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.5
1.7
2.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.2
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.0
] fi
1.6
2.2
2.3
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.2
1.0
1.5
1.1
1.0
1 fi
1.6
2.2
1.9
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.0
.9
1 7
i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, see
footnote 1, table 11.
Month-to-month changes in total employment in manufacturing and nonmanufac
turing industries as indicated by labor turnover rates are not comparable with the
changes shown by the Bureau's employment series for the following reasons: (1) The
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2.4
2. 2
2.0
1.8
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.2
labor turnover series measures changes during the calendar mo nui 7 ,w u " turnover
ment series measures changes from midmonth to midmonth and (2) the turnover
series excludes personnel changes caused by strikes, but the employment series
reflects the influence of such stoppages.
^prelim inary.
LABOR TURNOVER
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
16.
79
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, by major industry group 1
[Per 100 employees]
Accession rates
Total
Major industry group
July
1970p
June
1970
Separation rates
New hires
July
1969
July
1970p
June
1970
Total
July
1969
July
1970p
June
1970
Quits
July
1969
July
1970p
June
1970
Layoffs
July
1969
MANUFACTURING.......................
Seasonally adjusted2...............
4.2
3.9
5.4
4.0
5.1
4.7
2.8
3.9
2.7
3.9
3.8
5.1
4.7
4.4
4.8
5.3
4.9
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.2
2.7
Durable goods...........................
3.4
4.8
4.4
2.3
3.3
3.4
4.8
4.3
5.0
1.7
1.7
2.4
1.6
1.9
1.2
1.8
6.3
4.3
5.6
6.4
7.2
3.0
3.2
3.3
2.7
4.5
4.8
Ordnance and
Lumber and wood
products........ .......... .
Furniture and fixtures___
Stone, clay, and glass
products-------- ----------
2.9
3.0
2.7
7.6
5.4
6.3
7.3
4.1
4.3
3.6
3.3
5.3
5.2
6.6
2.6
July
1970p
2.1
June
1970
July
1969
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.9
l. i
2.2
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.2
4.7
6.3
5.3
3.3
4.8
4.4
4.6
4.5
4.9
2.3
2.4
3.1
1.3
2.6
4.8
3.6
1.7
3.3
2.8
3.9
3.4
3.8
1.4
1.3
1.8
1.2
5.7
5.5
4.2
4.3
4.8
5.8
2.1
2.9
1.2
1.1
1.6
1.0
1.2
.8
.8
1.6
2.1
3.1
3.7
4.1
3.5
3.8
1.5
1.9
2.6
2.8
2.7
2.9
3.9
4.0
3.7
4.1
3.8
3.8
1.3
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.4
1.5
1.4
9
.9
4.4
4.2
2.3
2.5
5.0
7.3
Instruments and related
products......................
2.7
3.9
3.1
2.1
2.9
2.6
3.2
3.4
3.2
Miscellaneous manufacturing.....................
6.5
6.4
7.9
4.1
4.7
5.9
6.6
5.4
6.9
2.8
2.6
3.6
5.3
6.2
6.1
3.7
4.7
4.6
5.2
4.6
5.6
2.5
2.5
3.0
8.4
9.1
5.3
9.9
5.2
5.4
8.9
13.4
6.1
5.8
4.1
3.9
7.2
3.3
4.3
7.0
7.1
4.8
2.9
5.9
2.8
5.1
6.6
5.1
6.1
3.1
1.3
3.5
3.3
4.1
6.5
6.2
7.2
3.8
4.2
4.4
7.8
5.6
7.8
3.1
2.8
3.2
2.9
5.1
4.3
4.5
3.8
2.4
2.6
4.1
3.5
3.8
3.2
3.4
3.0
3.3
3.4
4.1
3.3
3.0
2.3
2.5
2.4
2.5
1.8
1.8
1.1
4.1
2.5
2.0
2.3
2.2
.9
Primary metal industries.
Fabricated metal
Machinery, except
electrical.....................
Electrical equipment___
Transportation equip-
Nondurable goods.................. .
Food and kindred
products.......................
Tobacco manufactures...
Textile mill products.......
Apparel and other textile
products___________
Paper and allied
products___________
Printing and publishing..
Chemicals and allied
products........ .............
Petroleum and coal
products______ _____
Rubber and plastics
products, n.e.c______
Leather and leather
products___________
5.1
5.5
6.6
5.9
1.2
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.5
3.1
1.6
1.9
2.3
3.7
2.7
2.1
4.4
2.7
1.8
1.8
5.1
6.1
6.4
3.5
4.7
5.1
5.2
5.1
7.0
2.7
2.0
1.1
1.0
2.6
7.1
6.9
8.1
4.8
5.4
5.4
7.8
5.7
9.2
3.8
3.5
* For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, see
footnote 1, table 11. For relationship to employment series see footnote 1, table 15.
2These data have been seasonally adjusted to reflect experience through February
1970. For additional detail, see June 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
5.4
5.7
1.5
1.4
. 1.9
2.9
4.4
1.0
1.1
.5
2.8
1.8
1.7
2.3
1.2
1.7
2.1
2.6
1.0
1.9
.4
22
20
1.0
3.5
3.8
1.9
3.3
.6
7
1.8
3.6
1.3
.8
2.4
2.3
.8
.6
.7
1.4
.7
.6
1.2
.4
.5
3.5
1.3
1.3
22
4.2
2.4
1.1
3.8
NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table D-2.
.
p— preliminary.
80
17.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
HOURS AND EARNINGS
Gross hours and earnings of production and nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry
division, 1947 to date
_________________
Weekly
earnings
Weekly
hours
Hourly
earnings
Weekly
earnings
Weekly
hours
Hourly
earnings
Weekly
earnings
Weekly
hours
63.34
67.16
70. 47
70. 49
75.70
40.6
40.7
40.5
39.6
40.7
1.56
1.65
1.74
1.78
37.5
37.0
36.8
37.0
36.7
2. 57
2.71
. 82
2.93
3. 08
78.78
81.59
82.71
. 26
89.72
40.4
39.8
39.2
40.3
39.7
1.95
2.05
2.19
2.26
118. 08
122.47
127.19
132. 06
138. 38
36.9
37.0
37.3
37.2
37.4
3.20
3.31
3. 41
3. 55
3.70
92. 34
96. 56
99.63
102.97
107. 53
39.8
40.4
40.5
40.7
41.2
2.32
2. 39
2.46
2. 53
2.61
146.26
154.95
164.93
181.16
37.6
37.7
37.4
37.9
3.89
4.11
4. 41
4. 78
112. 34
114.90
122.51
129. 51
41.3
40.6
40.7
40.6
2.72
2.83
3.01
3.19
$1,469
1.664
1.717
1.772
$58.87
65.27
/. 5b
69.68
38.2
38.1
37.7
37.4
39.9
39.9
39.6
39.1
39.6
1.45
1.52
1.61
1.65
1.71
74.11
77. 59
83. 03
82.60
89. 54
38.4
38.6
38.8
38.6
40.7
2.01
1.93
1955...................................
57.86
60.65
63.76
64. 52
67.72
2.20
76.96
82. 86
86.41
88.91
90.90
38.1
38.9
37.9
37.2
37.1
I960......... ...................—
70.74
73.33
75. 08
78.78
80.67
39.3
38.8
38. 5
39.0
38.6
1.80
1.89
1.95
95. 06
98.65
96. 08
103. 68
105. 44
40.8
40.1
38.9
40.5
40.4
2. 33
2.46
2.47
2. 56
2.61
96.38
100. 27
103.78
108.41
113.04
38.6
38.7
38.8
38.7
38.8
2.22
1965_.................................
82.60
85.91
. 46
91.33
95. 06
106. 92
110. 43
114. 40
117.74
123. 52
40.5
40.9
41.6
41.9
42.3
2.64
2.70
2.75
2.81
2.92
98. 82
101. 84
107.73
114.61
38.6
38.0
37.8
37.7
2. 56
130.24
135. 89
142. 71
154.80
42.7
42.6
42.6
43.0
3. 05
3.19
3. 35
3. 60
88
1969_________ _____
2.09
2.14
2.28
2. 36
2.45
2.68
2.85
3. 04
Transportation and public utilities
Wholesale and retail trade
1.45
1. 51
1. 58
1. 65
1.70
1.47
1.54
1.60
1.71
65.68
67. 53
70.12
72.74
75.14
36.9
36.7
37.1
37.3
37.2
1.78
1. 84
1. 89
1.95
. 02
2
36.9
37.3
3/. 5
37.3
37.2
2.09
. 1/
2. 25
2. 30
2.39
2
$69. 84
73. 60
36.0
35.9
$1.94
2. 05
37.3
37.0
37.0
37.1
2.47
2. 58
2.75
2. 92
77. 04
80. 38
84. 32
91.26
35.5
35.1
34.7
34.7
2.17
2.29
2. 43
2. 63
40.5
40.0
39.5
39.5
39.4
1956
1957
1958
1959 2
I960
57. 48
59.60
61.76
64.41
39.1
38.7
38.6
38.8
38.6
41.2
40.5
40.6
40.7
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1.010
1.100
1.060
1.66
$2.88
3. 03
67.41
69.91
72.01
74. 28
76. 53
38.3
38.2
38.1
37.9
37.7
1.76
1.83
1.89
1.96
2.03
77.12
80.94
84. 38
85. 79
88.91
3.11
3.24
3. 42
3. 63
79.02
81.76
86.40
91.14
37.1
36.5
36.0
35.6
2.13
2.24
2.40
2. 56
92.13
95. 46
101.75
108. 33
i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, see
footnote 1, table 11.
.
.
, , ■
Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing: to construction
workers in contract construction: and to nonsupervisory workers in transportation and
public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and
Services
Finance, insurance, and real estate
37.7
37.8
37.7
37.6
37.6
47.79
49.20
51.35
53. 33
55.16
128.13
131.22
138.85
147. 74
2.11
54.67
57. 08
59. 57
62. 04
63.92
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1966
1967
1968
1969— ______________
88
1.18
1.23
1.30
1.35
1.40
$0. 940
41.1
41.3
2
1.86
$1.140
40.5
40.4
40.5
40.5
$118. 37
125.14
2.02
37.9
37.9
37. 8
37.7
$38. 07
40.80
42.93
44. 55
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965-...................... - ........
$1.541
1.713
1.792
1.863
$43.21
45. 48
47.63
50. 52
1947
1948
1949
1950
66.01
Manufacturing
2.13
2.28
2.39
2. 45
40.8
39.4
36.3
37.9
6
1950........... .......................
$59.94
65. 56
62.33
67.16
2.02
Hourly
earnings
$1.217
1.328
1.378
1.440
$1,131
1.225
1.275
1.335
2.14
2.14
Weekly
hours
40.4
40.0
39.1
40.5
40.3
40.0
39.4
39.8
1957
Weekly
earnings
$49.17
53.12
53.88
58. 32
$45. 58
'49. 00
50.24
53.13
1947
Hourly
earnings
Contract construction
Mining
Total private
Averages
Averages
Averages
Averages
1.200
1
. 260
1. 340
services. These groups account for approximately four-fifths of the total employment
on private nonagricultural payrolls.
2 Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning 1959.
NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table C-l.
HOURS AND EARNINGS
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
81
18. Gross average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers1on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry
division and major manufacturing group
1970
1969
Annual average
Industry division and roup
Aug.
1970»
July
1970»
T O T A L P R I V A T E .................................................
37.7
37.6
37.4
37.0
36.9
37.2
37.0
37.1
37.7
37.5
37.6
37.9
38.1
37.7
37.8
M I N I N G .......................................................................
43.2
43.0
42.9
42.7
43.1
42.4
42.6
42.3
43.3
43.3
43.3
43.4
43.6
43.0
42.6
C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T I O N ................
38.6
38.5
38.4
38.1
37.9
37.2
36.8
35.7
37.6
37.1
38.3
39.3
39.1
37.9
37.4
M A N U F A C T U R I N G ............................................
39.9
3.0
39.9
2.9
40.0
3.1
39.8
2.9
39.7
40.0
3.0
39.8
3.0
40.1
3.2
41.0
3.6
40.6
3.6
40.7
3.7
41.0
4 .0
40.6
3.7
40.6
3.6
40.7
3.6
40.5
3.0
40.3
2.9
40.6
3.2
40.3
2.9
40.2
2.8
40.6
3.1
40.3
3.0
40.7
3.3
41.7
3.8
41.2
3.7
41.4
3.9
41.7
4.2
41.1
3.8
41.3
3.8
41.4
3 .8
40.9
40.3
39.6
39.8
39.7
38.7
40.7
40.1
39.1
40.8
40.1
38.5
40.8
39.8
38.7
40.8
39.5
39.1
40.8
39.4
38.7
41.0
39.1
38.9
41.0
40.1
40.8
40.6
39.9
40.3
40.3
40.3
40.6
40.6
40.3
40.7
40.2
40.2
40.8
40.4
40.2
40.4
41.5
40.6
40.6
Overtime hours.....................
Durable Goods....................................................
Overtime hours.....................
Ordnance and accessories___
Lumber and wood products...
Furniture and fix tu re s ............
Stone, clay, and glass
products.................................
June
1970
May
1970
Apr.
1970
Mar.
2.8
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
1969
1968
41.7
41.3
41.5
41.5
41.5
41.3
40.9
40.9
42.9
41.9
42.1
42.4
42.4
42.0
41.8
40.7
40.7
40.4
40.7
40.9
40.6
40.7
41.1
41.2
40.4
40.7
41.1
40.4
40.6
41.4
40.8
40.9
42.1
40.8
40.6
41.9
41.3
41.0
42.2
41.7
41.8
43.1
41.4
41.6
42.2
41.7
41.7
42.4
42.1
42.1
42.7
41.8
41.7
42.0
41.8
41.6
42.5
41.6
41.7
42.1
39.7
41.4
39.8
40.7
39.6
41.6
39.6
40.4
39.6
39.2
40.1
40.0
39.7
39.6
40.3
40.1
40.9
42.2
40.5
41.5
40.4
41.9
40.7
42.3
40.3
40.5
40.4
41.5
40 3
42.2
40.1
39.8
40.3
40.0
40.3
40.7
40.2
40.5
41.3
41.1
40.9
41.2
40.7
40.7
40.5
39.0
38.5
38.7
38.6
38.8
39.0
38.8
38.8
39.5
39.3
39.3
39.2
39.1
39.0
39.4
39.2
2.9
39.2
2.9
39.2
3.0
39.0
2.9
39.0
2.8
39.2
3.0
39.1
3.0
39.2
3.1
40.0
3.4
39.8
3.4
39.7
3.5
40.0
3.7
39.9
3.5
39.7
3.4
39 8
3.3
Food and kindred pro d u cts...
Tobacco m anufactures...........
Textile m ill products................
Apparel and other textile
products.................................
40.8
37.8
39.9
40.7
37.4
39.9
40.5
38.0
40.3
40.5
36.8
39.7
39.9
37.1
39.9
40.0
36.4
40.1
40.0
36.9
40.0
40.5
37.2
40.0
41.0
36.8
41.3
41.0
37.3
41.1
40.7
38.6
40.9
41.8
39.0
41.0
41.4
37.5
41.0
40.8
37.4
40.8
40 8
37 9
41.2
35.4
35.4
35.4
35.1
35.4
35.8
35.5
35.2
35.9
35.8
35.8
35.8
36.3
35.9
36.1
Paper and allied products___
Printing and publishing..........
Chemicals and allied products.
Petroleum and coal products.
Rubber and plastics products, nec.................................
Leather and leather products.
41.6
37.8
41.4
43.6
41.7
37.8
41.4
43.5
41.7
37.7
41.5
42.8
41.8
37.6
41.6
42.8
41.7
37.7
41.6
42.2
42.0
38.0
41.8
41.8
41.9
37.8
41.6
41.8
42.4
37.7
41.7
41.9
43.2
39.0
42.9
41.7
42.9
38.4
42.0
42.7
43.1
38.4
41.7
42.9
43.3
38.6
41.8
42.6
43.1
38.6
41.7
42.9
43.0
38.4
41.8
42.6
42 9
38 3
41' 8
42!5
40.5
37.1
40.3
37.8
40.4
38.1
39.9
37.5
40.3
36.3
40.4
37.1
40.6
37.4
40.7
37.7
41.5
38.3
41.1
37.4
41.3
37.0
41.5
36.8
41.0
37.1
41.1
37.2
41 5
38.3
TRANSPORTATION AND
PU BL IC U T I L I T I E S ___________
40.9
41.1
40.7
40.4
39.8
40.2
40.5
40.5
40.8
40.9
41.0
41.0
40.8
40.7
40.6
W H O LES A LE AND RETAIL T R A D E.
36.4
36.3
35.6
35.0
34.9
35.0
35.0
35.1
35.7
35.2
35.3
35.7
36.6
35.6
36.0
Wholesale trade............................................
Retail trade__________________
40.4
35.1
40.4
34.9
40.0
34.1
39.9
33.5
39.9
33.3
40.0
33.4
40.0
33.3
40.2
33.4
40.7
34.1
40.2
33.6
40.3
33.7
40.3
34.2
40.5
35.3
40.2
34.2
40 1
3< 7
36.7
36.9
37.0
37.0
36.9
37.0
37.2
37.1
37.0
37.0
37.1
37.0
34.3
34.7
34.3
34.3
34.6
34.6
34.5
34.6
35.3
34.7
34.7
Primary metal industries.........
Fabricated metal products___
Machinery, except electrical..
Electrical equipment and
supplies.................................
Transportation equipment___
Instruments and related
products.................................
Miscellaneous manufacturing
industries...............................
Nondurable goods____ _________
Overtime hours.....................
FINANCE. INSURANCE. AND R EA L
E S T A T E ............................................ .....................
37.0
36.8
36.7
S E R V I C E S .............................................................
34.6
34.9
34.5
34.3
'F o r comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970,
see footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.
402 -6 1 0 0 — 70-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-6
NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table C-2.
^ p re lim in a ry .
82
HOURS AND EARNINGS
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
19. Gross average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers1on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry
division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted
1970
1969
Industry division and group
Aug.
July»
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
T O T A L P R I V A T E .........................................................
37.3
37.3
37.2
37.1
37.2
37.4
37.3
37.5
37.6
37.6
37.5
37.7
37.7
M I N I N G .........................................................- ............. - .................................................
42.7
42.6
42.4
42.6
43.1
43.2
43.4
42.7
43.2
43.5
43.0
43.1
43.1
C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T I O N ____________ __________
37.4
37.4
37.6
38.1
38.3
38.0
38.2
36.7
38.2
38.1
37.6
38.1
37.9
Overtime hours........................................
39.9
3.0
40.1
3.0
39.8
3.1
39.8
2.9
40.0
3.0
40.2
3.2
39.9
3.2
40.3
3.3
40.7
3.5
40.5
3.5
40.5
3.5
40.7
3.6
40.6
3.6
Durable Goods ......... ....................................................................................
Overtime hours......................................
40.6
3.0
40.7
3.1
40.4
3.2
40.3
3.0
40.4
3.0
40.7
3.2
40.5
3.2
41.0
3.4
41.3
3.6
41.1
3.5
41.2
3.6
41.4
3.8
41.2
3.8
Ordnance and accessories....................... ..........
Lumber and wood products-------------------------Furniture and fixtures____________________
Stone, clay, and glass products--------------------Primary metal industries-----------------------------Fabricated metal products...... ..........................
Machinery, except electrical....... ..................... .
Electrical equipment and supplies...................
Transportation equipment____________ ____
Instruments and related products— .............
41.1
40.0
39.1
41.2
40.8
40.6
40.9
39.8
42.1
40.3
40.3
39.8
39.2
41.2
40.8
41.3
41.1
40.4
41.2
40.2
40.6
39.6
38.9
41.1
40.4
40.9
41.1
39.5
41.6
40.2
40.8
39.7
38.8
41.3
40.2
40.6
41.1
39.7
40.3
40.1
41.1
39.8
39.3
41.6
40.1
40.9
41.4
40.0
39.7
40.5
41.1
39.5
39.4
41.8
40.7
41.2
41.8
40.2
40.4
40.7
41.3
40. 1
39.3
41.7
40.9
41.1
41.9
39.7
40.3
40.2
40.6
39.6
39.5
41.7
41.2
41.4
42.2
40.5
40.2
40.7
40.5
40.3
40.0
42.1
41.7
41.5
42.6
40.3
41.4
40.9
40.3
40.2
40.0
41.8
41.6
41.4
42.2
40.1
40.7
40.9
40.2
39.9
39.9
41.7
42.1
41.4
42.4
40.2
41.2
40.7
40.3
40.0
40.1
41.9
42.1
41.5
42.6
40.4
41.6
41.0
40.4
39.9
40.3
41.9
41.9
41.6
42.5
40.4
41.2
40.9
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries............
39.0
39.2
38.6
38.7
39.0
39.0
38.6
39.3
39.3
39.3
38.9
39.0
39.1
Nondurable G o o d s . . ...................................................................................
39.0
39.2
2.9
39.0
3.0
39.1
3.0
39.4
3.0
39.4
3.2
39.3
3.2
39.6
3.4
39.8
3.3
39.6
3.3
39.6
3.3
39.7
3.3
39.7
3.4
Food and kindred products........ ............... .......
Tobacco manufactures.------------- -----------------Textile mill products............... ....................... .
Apparel and other textile products............... .
40.3
37.5
39.8
35.0
40.2
37.8
40.3
35.5
40.3
37.4
40.0
35.2
40.7
37.1
39.8
35.1
40.6
38.3
40.6
35.5
40.5
37.5
40.2
35.6
40.7
37.3
40. 1
35.5
41.0
38.3
40.4
35.6
40.8
36.2
40.9
36.0
40.8
37.2
40.7
35.8
40.6
37.3
40.6
35.8
40.9
37.4
40.7
35.8
40.9
37.2
40.9
35.9
Paper and allied products............ ....................
Printing and publishing------- -----------------------Chemicals and allied products....... ............ ......
Petroleum and coal products______ _____ _
Rubber and plastics products, nec__________
Leather and leather products_______ _____
41.4
37.6
41.5
43.5
40.4
36.9
41.7
37.9
41.5
42.7
40.7
37.5
41.6
37.7
41.5
42.6
40.4
37.6
41.8
37.7
41.5
42.5
40.0
37.7
42.1
37.9
41.4
41.9
40.7
37.4
42.2
38.0
41.8
42.2
40.7
37.4
42.3
38.0
41.8
42.7
41.0
37.1
42.8
38.2
42.0
42.5
40.9
37.5
42.8
38.6
41.8
42.3
41.1
37.7
42.7
38.4
41.8
42.6
40.8
37.3
42.8
38.2
41.7
42.6
40.9
37.2
42.9
38.3
41.8
42.2
41.0
37.1
42.9
38.4
41.8
42.8
40.9
36.9
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A N D P U B L I C U T I L I T I E S ...............................
40.6
40.7
40.6
40.6
40.2
40.6
40.7
40.7
40.8
40.7
40.9
40.8
40.5
W H O L E S A L E A N D R E T A I L T R A D E . ..............................................
35.5
35.5
35.4
35.4
35.3
35.3
35.4
35.4
35.5
35.5
35.5
35.6
35.7
Wholesale Trade................... ................. .....................................................
Retail trade....................................................................................................... ...
40.2
34.0
40.1
33.9
39.9
33.8
40.1
33.9
40.1
33.7
40.1
33.8
40.2
33.7
40.3
33.8
40.5
33.8
40.3
34.0
40.3
34.0
40.3
34.1
40.3
34.2
F I N A N C E , I N S U R A N C E , A N D R E A L E S T A T E ..............................
37.0
36.8
36.7
36.8
36.9
37.0
37.0
36.9
36.9
37.2
37.0
37.1
37.0
S E R V I C E S ...........................................................................................................................
34.3
34.6
34.4
34.5
34.4
34.7
34.4
34.4
34.6
34.7
34.6
34.7
35.0
M A N U F A C T U R I N G _________ _______- .................................—
Overtime hours......... .............................
2.8
i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, see
footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.
D= preuminary.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: These data have been seasonally adjusted to reflect experience through
February 1970. For additional detail, see June 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings.
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
HOURS AND EARNINGS
83
20. Gross average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls by
industry division and major manufacturing group
’
1970
1969
Industry and division group
Annual average
Aug. »
July »
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
1969
T O T A L P R I V A T E ................................................
$3.24
$3.23
$3.21
$3.20
$3.18
$3.17
$3.15
$3.13
$3.12
$3.13
$3.12
$3.11
$3.06
$3. 04
$2.85
M I N I N G .......................................................................
3.86
3.81
3.82
3.80
3.79
3.78
3.77
3.76
3.71
3.72
3.69
3.65
3.60
3.60
3.35
C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T I O N ................
5.27
5.19
5.13
5.10
5.09
5. 06
5.06
5.07
5.03
4.97
4.96
4.92
4.80
4.78
4.41
M A N U F A C T U R I N G ...........................................
3.36
3.37
3.36
3.34
3.32
3.31
3.29
3.29
3.29
3.26
3.25
3.24
3.20
3.19
3.01
Durable Goods............................................
3. 58
3.57
3. 57
3.55
3.52
3.51
3.48
3.49
3.49
3.46
3.45
3.44
3.39
3.39
3.19
O rd n an c e and acces
sories..........................................................
L u m b e r and wood
pro duc ts .................................................
F ur ni tu re and fix tures.................
S to n e, clay, and glass
p r o d u c t s . ....................................... ...
P r im a r y metal in d us
trie s ............................................................
Fabricated metal
pro duc ts .................................................
Mac hi n er y, except
electrical................................................
Electrical e q ui pm en t and
s u p p l i e s . . ............................................
Trans por ta ti on eq ui p
m en t...........................................................
Instru men ts and related
pr oducts.................................................
3.63
3.60
3. 59
3.59
3.58
3.57
3.04
2.80
2.98
2.78
2.98
2.76
2.92
2.75
2.88
2.73
2.86
3.43
3.41
3.40
3.38
3.35
1968
3. 54
3.53
3.51
3.53
3.48
3.46
3.43
3.42
3.26
2.71
2.84
2.70
2.83
2.71
2.84
2.71
2.86
2.83
2.70
2.68
2.84
2.68
2.79
2.64
2 74
2.62
57
2.47
3.32
3.28
3.28
3.28
3.29
3.27
3.25
3.22
3.19
2.99
?
4.01
3.94
3.92
3.90
3.87
3.86
3.85
3.86
3.87
3.85
3.85
3.87
3.84
3.79
3. 55
3. 54
3.54
3.54
3.52
3.50
3.48
3.46
3.45
3.44
3.41
3.39
3.40
3.34
3.34
3.16
3.77
3.77
3.77
3.77
3.75
3.75
3.72
3.70
3.72
3.67
3.67
3.63
3.57
3. 58
3.36
3.32
3.32
3.30
3.27
3.24
3.24
3.20
3.18
3.17
3.13
3.13
3.13
3.10
3.09
2.93
4.09
4.08
4.10
4.06
4.00
4.01
3.97
4.02
4. 04
3.98
3.95
3.94
3.92
3.90
3.69
3.31
3.33
3.31
3.30
3. 29
3.28
3.27
3.26
3.25
3.23
3.21
3.19
3.15
3.15
2.98
Miscellaneous man ufa c
turing industries..........................
2.81
2.81
2.81
2.81
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.79
2.76
2.72
2.69
2.68
2.64
2.66
2. 50
Nondurable Goods. ...............................
3.08
3.09
3.06
3.05
3.04
3. 03
3. 01
3.01
2.99
2.97
2.96
2.95
2.92
2.91
2.74
Food and kindred
pro duc ts ................................................
Tobacco m an ufa ctu res ...............
Te xt il e mill produc ts ....................
A p p ar el and other te x
tile pr oducts .....................................
3.10
2.85
2.44
3.16
3.04
2.43
3.15
3.03
2.43
3.16
2.99
2.43
3.12
2.98
2. 42
3.10
2.90
2. 42
3. 08
2.89
2. 42
3. 08
2.42
2.86
3.04
2.67
2. 42
3.01
2.62
2. 42
2.98
2.49
2.41
2.97
2. 51
2.41
2.94
2.49
2.38
2.96
2.62
2.34
2.40
2. 38
2.38
2.36
2.37
2.37
2.36
2.36
2.35
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.31
2.31
2 80
2. 48
2.21
2.21
3.49
3.95
3.47
3.92
3. 42
3.90
3.40
3.88
3.37
3.85
3.35
3.84
3.35
3.81
3.35
3.80
3.34
3.81
3.32
3.78
3.31
3.77
3.31
3.75
3.28
3.70
3.24
3.69
3 05
3.48
Pa per and allied
produc ts ................................................
Printing and publ is hi ng ___
Chemicals and allied
produc ts.................................................
Petr oleu m and coal
products.................................................
R ub b e r and plastics
products, nec ...................................
Le at he r and leather
pro duc ts .................................................
3.73
3.71
3. 68
3.64
3.61
3. 60
3.60
3.60
3.58
3.56
3.55
3.52
3. 50
3.47
3.26
4.26
4.27
4.23
4.25
4. 26
4. 23
4.23
4.21
4.10
4.10
4. 06
4. 04
3.99
4. 00
3.75
3.17
3.19
3.15
3.09
3.16
3.15
3.14
3.15
3.14
3.13
3.12
3.13
3. 08
3.07
2.92
2.47
2.48
2.49
2.49
2. 48
2.47
2. 47
2.46
2.44
2. 42
2.40
2. 38
2.35
2.36
2.23
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A N D PU B LI C
U T I L I T I E S ..........................................................
3.89
3. 87
3. 84
3.79
3.75
3.75
3.75
3. 73
3.72
3.72
3.70
3.71
3. 67
3.63
3.42
W H O LES A LE AND RETAIL T R A D E .
2.71
2.71
2.70
2.70
2.69
2. 68
2.68
2.65
2.61
2.63
2.61
2. 59
2.56
2. 56
2.40
Wholesale trade.........................................
Retail trade..................................................
3.44
2.44
3.41
2.44
3. 42
2.43
3.41
2.43
3.40
2.41
3.40
2.41
3.38
2.40
3.35
2. 38
3. 34
2.35
3.33
2.36
3.29
2.35
3.28
2. 33
3.24
2.30
3. 23
2.30
3. 05
2.16
F IN A N C E , INS URA NC E, AND
R E A L E S T A T E .................................................
3.06
3. 06
3.04
3.04
3.03
3. 05
3.04
3. 02
2. 98
2.99
2.95
2.93
2.92
2.92
2.75
S E R V I C E S ...................................................................
2.81
2.83
2.81
2.80
2.79
2.79
2.77
2.74
2. 72
2.72
2. 69
2. 67
2. 62
2. 63
2.43
i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, see
footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE:
For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table C-2.
.. .
^p re lim in ary.
84
21.
HOURS AND EARNINGS
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
Gross average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by
industry division and major manufacturing group
1970
1969
Annual average
Industry division and group
Aug. »
T O T A L P R I V A T E .................................................
July
v
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
1969
$122.15 $121.45 $120.05 $118.40 $117.34 $117.92 $116.55 $116.12 $117.62 $117.38 $117.31 $117.87 $116.59 $114.61
1968
$107.73
M I N I N G .......................................................................
166.75
163.83
163.88 , 162.26
163.35
160.27
160.60
159. 05
160.64
161.08
159.78
158.41
156.96
154.80
142.71
C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T I O N ................
203.42
199.82
196.99
194.31
192.91
188. 23
186.21
181.00
189.13
184.39
189.97
193. 36
187.68
181.16
164.93
M A N U F A C T U R I N G ......................................
134.06
134.46
134.40
132.93
131.80
132.40
130.94
131.93
134.89
132. 36
132.28
132.84
129.92
129.51
122.51
144.99
143.87
144.94
143.07
141.50
142.51
140.24
142. 04
145.53
142.55
142.83
143.45
139.33
140.01
132. 07
148.47
143.28
146.11
146.47
146.06
145.66
144.43
144.73
143.91
143.32
140.24
140.48
137.89
138.17
135.29
122.51
118.31
107. 59
119. 50
107.92
117.09
105.88
114.62
105.65
112.97
105.96
111.90
104.49
110.65
105. 42
113.88
110. 57
114,11
108.81
114. 05
108.81
114. 45
109. 08
112.16
107.71
110.15
105.85
104. 34
100.28
Durable goods...........................................
Ordnance and
accessories...... .......... .
Lumber and wood
products..........................
Furniture and fixtures____
Stone, clay, and glass
products..........................
110.88
143. 03
140.83
141.10
140.27
139.03
137.12
134.15
134.15
137.76
137.85
137.67
137.80
136.53
133.98
124.98
Primary metal industries...
Fabricated metal
products.........................
Machinery, except
electrical...................... ...
Electrical equipment
and supplies................. ..
Transportation
equipment.......................
Instruments and related
products_____________
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries______
163.21
160. 36
159. 54
157.56
156.35
157.49
157. 08
159.42
161.38
159. 39
160. 55
162.93
160.51
158.42
147.68
144. 08
144.79
145. 49
143.26
142.10
142.33
140. 48
141.45
143.79
141.86
141.36
143.14
139.28
138.94
131.77
152.31
153.06
155.32
154.95
155.25
157.88
155.87
156.14
160. 33
154.87
155.61
155. 00
149.94
152.15
141.46
131.80
132.14
130. 68
129. 49
128.30
129.92
127. 04
128.15
129.65
126. 77
126. 45
127. 39
124.93
124. 84
118. 08
169. 33
166.06
170. 56
164. 02
156.80
160. 40
157.21
161.20
170. 49
165.17
165.51
166. 66
158. 76
161.85
155. 72
132.73
132. 53
133.39
132. 00
132.59
133.50
131.45
132. 03
134. 23
132. 75
131.29
131.43
128.21
128.21
120. 69
109. 59
108.19
108.75
108.47
108.64
109. 20
108.64
108.25
109. 02
106.90
105. 72
105. 06
103.22
103. 74
98. 50
Nondurable goods.................. ................
120.74
121.13
119.95
118.95
118. 58
118. 78
117. 69
117.99
119.60
118.21
117.51
118. 00
116.51
115. 53
109. 05
126.48
107.73
97. 36
128. 61
113.70
96.96
127.58
115.14
97.93
127.98
110. 03
96.47
124.49
110. 56
96.56
124. 00
105.56
97. 04
123.20
106.64
96.80
124. 74
106. 39
96. 80
124.64
98. 26
99.95
123.41
97.73
99. 46
121.29
96.11
98. 57
124.15
97. 89
98.81
121.72
93. 38
97. 58
120.77
97.99
95.47
114.24
93.99
91.05
84.96
84.25
84.25
82.84
83.90
84. 85
83.78
83. 07
84. 37
83. 77
83.77
83.77
83.85
82.93
79. 78
145.18
149.31
144.70
148.18
142.61
147.03
142.12
145. 89
140.43
145.15
140.70
145.92
140. 37
144. 02
142. 04
143. 26
144. 29
148. 59
142.43
145.15
142.66
144. 77
143.32
144. 75
141.37
142. 82
139. 32
141.70
130.85
133.28
154.42
153. 59
152.72
151.42
150.18
150.48
149. 76
150.12
150. 36
149. 52
148. 04
147.14
145.95
145. 05
136. 27
185.74
185.75
181.04
181.90
179.77
176.81
176.81
176. 40
170.97
175. 07
173.77
172.10
171.17
170. 40
159. 38
128. 39
128. 56
127.26
123. 29
127.35
127.26
127. 48
128.21
130. 31
128. 64
128. 86
129. 90
126.28
126.18
121.18
Food and kindred
products....................... .
Tobacco manufactures____
Textile mill products....... .
Apparel and other
textile products...............
Paper and allied
products.......... ............ .
Printing and publishing___
Chemicals and allied
products..........................
Petroleum and coal
products..........................
Rubber and plastics
products, nee.............. .
Leather and leather
products..........................
91.64
93.74
94.87
93.38
90. 02
91.64
92. 38
92.74
93.45
90.51
88. 80
87. 58
87.19
87. 79
85.41
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A N D PU BL IC
U T I L I T I E S ____ ______________
159.10
159. 06
156.29
153.12
149.25
150. 75
151.88
151.07
151.78
152.15
151.70
152.11
149.74
147.74
138. 85
W H O LES A LE AND RETAIL TRADE.
98.64
98.37
96.12
94. 50
93.88
93.80
93.80
93. 02
93.18
92. 58
92.13
92. 46
93.70
91.14
86.40
Wholesale trade....... ...........
Retail trade________ _____
138.98
85. 64
137.76
85.16
136.80
82.86
136.06
81.41
135.66
80.25
136. 00
80.49
135.20
79.92
134.67
79.49
135.94
80.14
133. 87
79.30
132. 59
79.20
132.18
79.69
131.22
81.19
129. 85
78. 66
122. 31
74.95
FIN A N C E, INS URA NC E, A ND REA L
E S T A T E ....................................... .................. ..
113.22
112.61
111.57
111.57
111.81
112.85
112. 48
111.44
110. 26
111.23
109.45
108. 41
108. 04
108. 33
101.75
S E R V I C E S . ____ ________________
97.23
98.77
96.95
96.04
95.70
96.81
95. 01
93.98
94.11
94.11
92.81
92. 38
92. 49
91.26
84.32
i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970,
see footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table C-2.
,. .
»^preliminary.
HOURS AND EA RN IN G S/PRICES
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
22.
Gross and spendable average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural
payrolls, in current and 1957-59 dollars, 1960 to date
Total private
Manufacturing
Spendable average weekly earnings
Gross average
weekly earnings
Year and month
Worker with 3
dependents
1957-59
dollars
I9 6 0 ............................. ......... .
1961_______________________
1962_______________________
1963__________ ____________
1964_______________________
$80.67
82.60
85.91
. 46
91.33
$78.24
79.27
81.55
82.91
84. 49
$65.95
67. 08
69. 56
71.05
75. 04
$63.62
64.38
. 00
. 59
69. 42
$72.96
74. 48
76. 99
78. 56
82. 57
$70. 77
71.48
73. 05
73. 63
76.38
$89. 72
92.34
96. 56
99.63
102.97
$87. 02
88.62
91.61
93.37
95.25
1965..........................................
1966_______________ ____
1967........................ ...............
1968_____________________
1969.......................... ...............
95. 06
98. 82
101.84
107.73
114.61
86.50
87.37
87. 57
. 89
89.75
78.99
81.29
83.38
86.71
90.96
71.87
71.87
71.69
71.54
71.23
86.30
. 66
90. 86
95.28
99. 99
78. 53
78.39
78.13
78.61
78.30
107. 53
112.34
114.90
122.51
129. 51
1969:
July....................... ......... .
August................................
September______________
October_______________ .
November______________
December............... ..........
115.90
116. 59
117. 87
117.31
117.38
117.62
90.41
90. 59
91.16
90.38
89.95
89. 58
91.90
92.41
93.35
92. 94
92. 99
93.17
71.68
71.80
72.20
71.60
71.26
70.96
100.98
101.51
102.49
. 06
102.30
78.77
78. 87
79.27
78. 63
78.25
77.91
128. 88
129.92
132. 84
132.28
132.36
134. 89
1970:
January... ......................
February_____________ _
March__________________
A p r il.________________
May__________________
June___________________
July t>............. ............ ........ .
116.12
116. 55
117.92
117.34
118.40
120.05
121.45
87.96
88.53
87.57
87.96
88.79
89. 50
93. 43
93.76
94. 78
94.35
95.14
96.38
97.43
70. 89
70. 76
71.16
70.41
70.68
71.29
71.80
101.97
102. 32
103.39
102.95
103.77
105.08
106.18
77.37
77. 22
77.62
76.83
77.10
77. 72
78.25
131.93
130. 94
132.40
131.80
132.93
134.40
134. 46
88
88.10
Current
dollars
1957-59
dollars
Current
dollars
66
66
1957-59
dollars
Worker with no
dependents
Current
dollars
88
Spendable average weekly earnings
Gross average
weekly earnings
Worker with no
dependents
88
102
102.11
i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, see
footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.
Spendable average weekly earnings are based on gross average weekly earnings as
published in table 21 less the estimated amount of the worker's Federal social security
and income tax liability. Since the amount of tax liability depends on the number of
dependents supported by the worker as well as on the level of his gross income, spend
able earnings have been computed for 2 types of income receivers: (1) A worker with
no dependents and (2) a married worker with 3 dependents.
23.
85
Current
dollars
1957-59
dollars
Current
dollars
Worker with 3
dependents
1957-59
dollars
Current
dollars
$72.57
74. 60
77.86
79.82
84. 40
$70.39
71.59
73.87
74.81
78. 08
$80.11
82.18
85.53
87.58
92.18
$77.70
78.87
81.15
82. 08
85.27
97. 84
99. 33
98.80
101.08
101.42
89. 08
91.57
93.28
97.70
101.90
81.06
80.96
80.21
80.61
79. 80
96.78
99.45
101.26
106.75
111.44
. 06
87.93
87.07
. 08
87.27
100. 53
100.95
102. 74
101.91
101.43
102. 73
101.43
104. 34
103.93
103. 99
105.85
79.12
79.41
80.70
80. 07
79. 69
80. 62
110.95
111.75
114. 01
113. 57
113. 63
115.61
86. 54
86. 83
105.28
104. 53
105.63
105.18
105.02
107.13
107.17
79. 88
78. 89
79. 30
78. 49
78.77
79.24
78.98
114. 48
113.69
114. 85
114.37
115.27
116.43
116.48
102.20
100.10
98. 82
99.40
98. 36
98.76
99.41
99.09
1957-59
dollars
88
88
88.17
87. 50
87. 07
. 05
88
86. 86
85. 80
86.22
85. 35
85. 64
86. 12
85. 84
The earnings expressed in 1957-59 dollars have been adjusted for changes in pur
chasing power as measured by the Bureau’s Consumer Price Index.
These series are described in “ The Spendable Earnings Series: A Technical Note
on its Calculation," in Employment and Earnings and Monthly Report on the Labor Force,
February 1969, pp. 6-13.
NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table C-5.
» = preliminary.
Consumer and Wholesale Price Indexes, annual averages and changes, 1949 to date1
[Indexes: 1957-59=100]
Consumer prices
A ll item s
Wholesale prices
C om m odities
S ervices
Index
......... ....................
............ .. . .
P ercent
change
Ind e x
P ercent
change
Ind e x
Farm products, processed foods, and feeds
A ll co m m o dities
Year
Percent
change
Ind e x
P ercent
change
Index
P ercent
change
In d u s tria l com m odities
Ind e x
P ercen t
change
1949.
8 3 .0
-1 .0
8 7 .1
-2 .6
7 2.6
4 .6
8 3 .5
-5 .0
9 4 .3
-1 1 .7
8 0 .0
-2 .1
1950.
1951.
1952.
1953.
1954.
8 3 .8
9 0 .5
9 2.5
9 3 .2
9 3 .6
1 .0
8 .0
2 .2
0 .8
0 .4
8 7 .6
9 5 .5
96.7
9 6 .4
9 5 .5
0 .6
9 .0
1.3
-.3
-.9
7 5 .0
7 8 .9
8 2 .4
8 6 .0
8 8 .7
3 .3
5 .2
4 .4
4 .4
3 .1
8 6 .8
9 6.7
9 4 .0
9 2.7
9 2.9
4 .0
11.4
-2 .8
-1 .4
.2
9 8 .8
112.5
108.0
101.0
100.7
4 .8
13.9
-4 .0
-6 .5
-.3
8 2.9
9 1 .5
8 9 .4
90.1
9 0.4
3 .6
10.4
-2 .3
.8
.3
1955.
1956.
1957.
1958.
1959.
9 3 .3
94.7
9 8 .0
100.7
101.5
-.3
1 .5
3 .5
2 .8
.8
9 4.6
9 5 .5
9 8 .5
100.8
100.9
-.9
1 .0
3 .1
2 .3
.1
9 0 .5
9 2 .8
9 6.6
100.3
103.2
2 .0
2 .5
4 .1
3 .8
2 .9
9 3 .2
9 6 .2
9 9 .0
100.4
100.6
.3
3 .2
2 .9
1 .4
.2
9 5.9
9 5 .3
9 8 .6
103.2
9 8 .4
-4 .8
-.6
3 .5
4 .7
-4 .7
9 2 .4
9 6 .5
9 9 .2
9 9 .5
101.3
2 .2
4 .4
2 .8
.3
1 .8
103 1
104.2
105 4
106.7
108.1
1 6
1 1
1 2
1 .2
1.3
101 7
10?' 3
103 ?
104.1
105.2
8
101 3
in n ’ s
-0 .5
.9
1.1
113.0
115.2
1 .9
1 .9
100.3
100.5
-.3
.2
9 8.7
9 8 .0
-.9
-.7
lo o ! 7
101.2
-.1
.5
109.9
113.1
116.3
121.2
127.7
1.7
2 .9
2 .8
4 .2
5 .4
106.4
109.2
111.2
115.3
120.5
1.1
2 .6
1 .8
3 .7
4 .5
117.8
122.3
127.7
134.3
143.7
2 .3
3 .8
4 .4
5 .2
7 .0
102.5
105.9
106.1
108.7
113.0
2 .0
3 .3
102.1
108.9
105.2
107.6
113.5
4 .2
6 .7
-3 .4
2 .3
5 .5
102.5
104.7
106.3
109.0
112.7
1 .3
2 .1
1 .5
2 .5
3 .4
.................
.......................
..................
___
........
1960.
1961.
1962.
1963.
1964.
1965.
1966.
1967.
1968.
1Historical
0> <3
JJ. D
.2
2 .5
4 .0
price changes are shown in greater detail and for earlier years in the Bureau's Handbook of Labor Statistics, 1969 (BLS Bulletin 1630), in tables 108-120.
402-610 0 — 70-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-7
86
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
CONSUMER PRICES
24.
Consumer Price Index-general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items
r i h e official na me of th e in de x is " C o n s u m e r Price I nd ex for U rb a n Wage Earners and Clerical W o rk e r s .” It measures the average change in prices of goods and services purchased
by families and single w or k er s. T h e indexes sho w n below represent the average of price changes in 56 metropolitan areas, selected to represent all U . S . urban places having
populations of more than 2500.]
[ 1 9 5 7 - 5 9 = 1 0 0 unless ot herwise specified]
General summary
Annual
average
1969
1969
1970
Item and group
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
134.6
165.2
134.0
164.4
133.2
163.4
132.5
162.5
131.8
161.7
131.3
161.1
130.5
160.1
129.8
159.3
129.3
158.6
128.7
157.9
127.7
156.7
132.7
128.0
155.3
132.4
127.8
154.7
132.0
127.4
154.0
131.6
127.4
152.4
131.5
127.4
151.5
130.7
126.6
150.6
129.9
125.8
149.9
128.1
123.8
149.0
127.2
122.9
148.1
127.5
123.6
146.7
127.4
123.6
145.8
125.5
121.5
144.6
136.2
123.8
155.0
135.6
123.4
154.4
135.1
123.0
153.3
134.4
122.6
133.6
122.3
150.9
132.2
121.8
121.0
145.4
129.8
120.5
144.5
129.2
120.1
148.5
131.1
121.3
146.8
130.5
152.1
143.6
128.6
119.7
142.6
127.8
119.3
141.3
126.7
118.8
139.4
131. 5
130.6
145.1
166.8
131.4
131.4
144.3
165.8
132.2
130.6
143.7
164.7
131.9
129.9
142.9
163.6
131.1
128.9
142.3
162.8
130.6
127.1
141.4
161.6
130.0
127.3
140.7
160.1
129.3
127.3
140.1
159.0
130.8
126.4
139.6
158.1
130.7
125.6
139.1
157.4
129.8
125.7
138.6
156.9
128.7
123.6
138.4
157.6
126.6
124.2
137.7
156.8
127.1
124.2
136.6
155.0
Special groups:
All items less shelter_____
All items less food.. . . . . . .
Ail items less medical care.
133.2
136.9
134.2
133.0
136.6
133.9
132.6
136.1
133.4
132.1
135.5
132.9
131.5
134.8
132.2
130.7
133.8
131.5
130.3
133.0
130.8
129.8
132.3
130.1
129.5
131.9
129.7
128.6
131.4
128.9
128.1
130.8
128.2
127.6
130.0
127.6
127.1
129.3
127.0
126.3
128.6
126.1
Commodities----- ------- -----------Nondurables_____________
Durables________________
Services__________________
126.6
130.5
117.0
156.7
126.5
130.4
116.9
155.8
126.2
130.0
116.7
155.0
125.8
129.8
115.9
154.1
125.2
129.3
114.8
153.4
124.5
128.7
114.1
152.3
124.2
128.4
113.7
150.7
123.7
127.8
113.7
149.6
123.6
127.7
113.6
148.3
122.9
126.7
113.5
147.2
122.4
126.1
113.2
146.5
121.7
125.8
111.6
120.5
124.1
146.0
121.4
125.2
111.9
145.0
143.7
Commodities less food-----------Nondurables less food_____
ADDarel commodities____
Apparel commodities less foot-
123.0
127.8
130.6
122.9
127.8
130.5
127.7
131.4
122.3
127.5
131.2
127.0
130.4
121.6 120.8
126.1
129.9
120.4
125.8
129.3
125.2
128.6
120.2
125.5
130.4
119.8
125.1
129.3
118.7
124.4
128.1
118.2
123.3
125.9
118.0
123.0
126.5
127.2
126.2
108.4
112.4
127.2
126.2
108.3
112.5
128.3
125.5
108.2
112.4
128.0
125.3
108.0
127.1
125.0
107.8
126.7
123.9
107.4
111.7
126.2
123.7
106.9
127.7
126.6
125.3
122.8
123.7
163 8
162.7
158.9
183.1
154.5
162.8
161.6
158.6
181.8
153.8
161.9
160.6
157.1
180.6
153.4
161.0
160.0
156.1
179.3
152.3
160.1
159.1
155.5
178.4
151.4
158.9
157.7
154.5
177.0
150.3
Aug.
July
June
May
All items------------------------------All items (1947-49-100)-------------
136 0
166.8
135.7
166.5
135.2
165.9
Food...........................................
Food at home____________
Food away from home_____
133 5
128 6
156.8
133.4
128.7
156.2
Housing...........................- .........
Rent.-------------------------------Homeownership__________
137.0
124.2
156.2
Apparel and upkeep_________
Transportation_____________
Health and recreation........... .
Medical care...... .............. . .
Nondurables less food and apparel__
Household durables_______
Housefurnishings_________
Services less rent___________
Household services less rent.
Transportation services____
Medical care services______
Other services_____ ______
122.8
112.2 112.0
Other
index
bases
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
155.8
153.2
152.9
173.8
149.4
154.3
152.4
148.4
172.8
148.9
153.1
151.4
145.8
171.8
148.2
121.0
121.7
106.0
109.4
105.5
109.0
152.3
150. 4
145.1
171.2
147.6
151.7
149.5
144.0
172.2
147.2
150.7
148.2
143.1
171.1
146.5
149.2
146.4
142.9
168.9
145.5
132.7
132.4
132.0
131.6
131.5
130.7
129.9
128.1
127.2
127.5
127.4
125.5
Dec. 63
156.8
156.9
137.0
156.2
156.2
136.5
154.7
154.8
134.6
154.0
154.2
134.0
152.4
152.5
132.4
151.5
151.6
132.0
150.6
150.7
131.4
149.9
150.2
129.9
149.0
149.3
129.2
148.1
148.3
128.8
146.7
147.2
126.2
145.8
146.2
125.6
144.6
144.9
125.4
128.7
128.8
113.1
136.7
130.4
114.9
135.0
126.1
107.2
128.0
128.2
113.3
136.4
130.4
115.1
133.4
125.7
105.7
127.4
127.6
114.2
134.3
130.0
114.8
133.3
125.7
103.4
121.7
118.2
127.4
127.0
113.1
132.9
130.4
114.4
133.4
125.6
102.4
121.3
116.4
126.6
125.5
111.9
127.8
130.2
113.8
132.2
124.4
101.3
118.1
116.3
125.8
124.9
110.9
127.9
130.0
113.4
131.1
124.1
100.9
118.0
115.8
123.8
124.1
122.9
123.7
123.6
123.0
122.6
123.6
127.2
129.7
113.0
129.7
123.4
99.8
117.1
115.1
126.9
129.6
113.0
129.1
122.5
99.8
115.4
115.2
125.8
129.4
112.9
128.8
121.5
122.4
111.5
122.3
129.2
112.3
128.1
120.5
121.8
121.8 118.8
127.8
128.0
113.2
135.7
130.5
115.0
134.1
125.3
104.7
121.5
118.5
127.4
126.3
Dec. 63
128.6
130.1
113.6
139.6
131.8
115.0
136.9
127.8
107.6
121.9
120.5
131.0
135 8
137. 2
129.0
127 8
133.1
124.0
144.0
129.1
144.0
130.8
135.2
136.6
128.8
128.0
132.8
123.4
142.5
126.2
143.5
121.4
174.2
130.2
134.5
135.3
127.6
124.3
130.1
123.1
140.6
125.8
142.7
130.5
135.0
135.9
129.0
124.3
129.2
124.2
142.7
128.0
142.8
130.9
135.6
136.5
131.1
124.5
130.5
125.1
142.8
130.0
142.4
130.2
134.7
133.6
126.9
129.7
133.9
133.0
126.4
120.4
126.4
127.6
132.0
132.9
126.8
123.4
129.0
129.0
133.1
135.0
128.1
128.3
132.9
173.1
171.8
171.1
141.8
126.7
140.5
119.9
166.0
127.2
131.3
130.6
123.2
119.0
123.9
118.8
140.5
123.2
137.8
118.6
162.0
127.2
131.1
131.5
125.2
141.2
126.9
140.8
120.5
168.1
128.8
132.9
132.2
126.2
121.4
126.6
120.7
141.6
140.8
125.3
139.1
117.8
162.8
145.9
127.2
140.9
117.8
162.8
Bread, white_________
Bread, whole wheat___
Veal cutlets______
157.1
155.0
154.1
175.2
149.8
122.6 122.6 122.2
106.4
106.2
110.2 109.9
110.6
106.5
110.4
155.3
155.4
135.2
Cereals and bakery products ..
Meats, poultry, and fish_____
127.5
123.0
106.5
111.1
125.5
123.2
106.6
110.5
133.4
Food away from home________
Layer cake__________
Cinnamon rolls_______
120.3
125.7
130.3
U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items
133.5
FOOD____________________
Snacks______ ______ _
120.1
111.6
121.0
175.2
119.6
121.2 121.8 121.1
112.1
130.2
130.2
114.2
132.6
125.5
101.7
119.9
116.7
121.8
126.8
121.1 120.1
122.1
138.7
118.7
164.0
111.2 111.6 111.2
121.1
125.9
119.5
140.9
122.7
138.4
117.9
162.1
121.6
101.0
113.2
113.2
121.1 122.1
111.4
124.7
129.4
112.6
128.1
120.3
100.9
113.8
100.6
112.8
113.7
113.1
127.9
131.9
135. 4
129.9
127.4
132.7
123.4
146. 5
128.7
140. 5
117.8
162.1
123.2
126.8
129.5
124.4
121.7
126.4
118.4
139.7
122.3
134.0
113.2
156.4
CONSUMER PRICES
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
87
24. Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued
Index or group
Annual
average
1969
1969
1970
Other
index
bases
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
135.9
139.9
146.4
149.8
126.0
135.1
138.7
134.9
137.5
144.3
149.5
125.9
137.2
137.4
134.4
135.5
142.6
150.5
126.5
137.5
137.4
134.8
135.1
143.6
150.4
129.0
138.5
137.1
135.9
135.6
143.5
150.6
133.5
139.9
138.2
137.9
139.7
146.1
150.6
135.3
142.1
138.7
137.2
139.5
146.2
148.6
134.0
139.9
138.8
135.6
136.9
143.7
146.7
136.9
137.7
136.7
133.3
135.7
143.4
146.8
130.7
134.7
133.1
132.0
134.1
140.4
148.3
124.8
136.0
132.4
132.7
134.0
141.8
149.1
123.9
136.5
134.9
133.7
137.6
143.0
149.6
135.5
135.6
130.2
135.7
141.3
146.0
117.0
134.5
128.7
125.2
129.6
135.8
137.8
117.1
127.5
124.3
137.2
141.9
137.1
132.8
140.5
131.5
132.5
137.4
141.0
137.1
134.4
139.7
131.9
133.2
137.9
141.2
138.2
136.7
139.5
132.0
132.9
138.0
142.0
137.4
138.3
139.7
131.8
131.9
137.3
142.2
136.1
138.3
138.4
130.4
131.6
136.0
140.8
134.2
136.6
137.7
128.6
131.4
135.3
140.9
134.2
134.8
137.2
128.0
130.1
134.4
140.4
134.6
130.4
136.6
127.9
129.9
133.6
139.4
134.7
127.8
136.1
127.1
129.8
133.3
139.9
134.7
125.1
136.2
127.2
129.9
132.6
139.7
135.4
131.2
139.3
133.7
127.7
137.0
127.4
63
63
63
63
137.2
142.5
136.9
131.9
139.8
131.9
133.0
126.3
123.7
Poultry................................................
Frying chicken..............................
Chicken breasts.............................. Dec. 63
Turkey_____ ______ ____ ______ Dec. 63
95.6
93.8
108.5
116.8
97.5
96.6
108.0
117.3
97.4
95.9
108.2
119.2
97.1
95.3
109.2
119.5
97.1
95.4
109.4
119.0
97.9
96.7
110.4
116.9
99.1
98.5
110.4
115.9
99.5
99.4
97.9
97.9
110.4
110.3
99.1
99.5
98.2
98.6
101.4
103.3
113.0
104.7
96.9
98.1
108.4
FOOD— Continued
Meats, poultry, and fish— Continued
Méats— Continued
Chops................ ................... .......
Loin roast__________________ Apr. 60
Pork sausage........ .............. ......... Dec. 63
Ham, whole.................. .............
Picnics__________ __________ Dec. 63
Bacon______________ _______
Other m eats..__________ ______
Lamb chops......................... .......
Frankfurters....... .......... ..............
Ham, canned__________ _____
Bologna sausage............... ..........
Salami sausage.......... .................
Liverwurst______ ______ _____
Dec. 63
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
110.1
114.4
126.5
137.0
125.4
145.2
120.5
126.0
135.4
124.4
143.4
117.9
125.4
134.0
122.9
141.1
116.7
125.0
133.4
122.5
139.9
116.2
124.9
128.8
126.2
133.1
127.3
127.4
128.4
126.1
132.7
127.4
126.4
127.6
125.0
132.3
126.0
125.0
126.3
123.4
130.4
125.0
124.3
125.8
125.5
130.1
124.3
123.8
122.8 122.8
129.4
124.8
124.1
125.0
122.3
128.7
124.3
124.1
121.8
152.4
119.6
100.7
151.0
119.4
99.9
149.9
119.9
148.9
118.3
100.1
99.5
148.5
118.0
99.5
146.8
118.3
130.9
141.9
134.0
94.5
121.5
90.5
132.1
144. 1
129.3
93.3
125.0
91.5
127.0
135.4
125.7
93.9
132.4
91.8
124.0
130.1
131.7
100.7
131.9
92.0
126.8
134.9
174.6
99.6
132.1
92.1
130.2
141.0
190. 5
97.4
132.7
92.0
128.4
138.1
162.5
95.3
128.4
90.9
143.7
(>)
(>)
(>)
142.0
O)
0
0
144.1
154.3
O)
(O
184.0
144.0
O)
(*>
205.9
137.8
194.6
147.4
0
116.1
155.1
154.4
131.9
131.9
144.3
140.5
141.6
188.7
139.2
142.0
136.4
(■)
173.4
146.6
140.1
133.2
(>)
150.6
127.1
137.6
134.2
144.5
139.0
O)
135.6
128.3
159.0
152.2
O)
138.3
139.6
144.8
134.1
138.7
152.0
123.8
132.2
176.5
189.5
217.2
131.2
122.5
177.9
160.9
116.5
146.7
115.5
118.5
133.3
145.7
120.1
130.2
122.5
124.2
146. 4
117.2
116.3
125.6
148.1
144.4
172.4
114.8
138.1
141.1
126.8
152.5
124.5
129.3
139.8
127.4
150.9
123.1
126.9
138.3
126.2
148.1
130.8
126.6
134.9
129.5
133.3
130.6
126.6
134.5
129.4
133.1
130.2
126.3
134.2
129.4
131.5
129.9
126.6
134.0
129.2
129.7
129.5
126.5
133.9
128.3
127.9
129.4
126.8
133.5
128.4
127.7
105.0
158.3
121.6
104.5
157.9
121.4
121.1 121.0 120.2
103.8
157.4
103.4
157.2
102.7
157.3
102.7
156.4
119. 5
154.8
119.5
153.1
119.9
135.0
147.5
182.1
94.5
139.7
90.6
137.5
152.2
178.0
92.4
135.6
90.1
139.4
155.9
166.0
102.4
129.1
89.5
136.8
151.5
149.7
123.7
90.1
101.6
134.7
148.0
141.3
101.4
122.4
89.9
133.1
145.7
139.6
101.9
125.4
90.6
132.4
144.5
135.8
96.5
124.5
90.7
213.2
183.4
)
123.0
215.4
197.3
189.7
(0
133.2
180.7
160.1
(>)
128.1
152.4
162.7
134.9
150.6
Grapes....... ....................... ...........
Strawberries....... ...........................
Watermelon........ ....................... .
151.7
O)
Potatoes________ ____________
Onions_______________________
Asparagus____________________
Cabbage_____________________
Carrots..................... ...................
181.8
164.4
)
160.6
124.8
194.2
172.9
133.5
182.4
123.4
177.2
173.0
132.1
219.6
121.0
166.9
180.0
138.9
194.3
117.3
Celery..........................................
Cucumbers_____________ _____
Lettuce............... ............................
Peppers, green................................
Spinach___________ ____ ______
Tomatoes________ ____ _______
117.8
106.9
149.5
145.3
116.4
119.7
133.1
125.9
127.1
174.5
117.2
140.1
175.6
139.4
126.1
244.1
117.3
154.5
119.3
108.2
108.2
105.2
92.2
95.0
117.9
122.9
137.9
Cheese, American process.................
Fruits and vegetables................................ «J
Fresh fruits and vegetables..............
Apples................. ..........................
Bananas.......................... ................
Oranges......................... .................
Orange juice, fresh........................ . Dec. 63
Processed fruits and vegetables....................
Fruit cocktail, canned.........................
Pears, canned_____________ _____
Grapefruit-pineapple juice, canned...
Orange juice concentrate, frozen........
0
0
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
151.1
166.9
128.7
214.0
125.2
299.7
119.9
159.0
136.2
209.1
123.0
265.5
118.3
136.1
143.6
208.5
122.7
283.9
134.8
140.5
203.4
137.6
231.2
120.3
168.1
119.0
111.7
130.8
147.8
118.0
103.2
119.1
107.9
107.4
105.6
91.6
118.6
106.3
105.9
105.4
92.4
118.3
106.3
105.6
105.5
92.4
118.0
106.2
104.9
105.2
92.6
117.3
105.3
104.9
104.1
93.5
117.3
104.9
105.4
103.7
96.5
117.1
105.3
106.0
103.0
96.4
117.1
106.2
106.4
102.4
97.4
116.8
105.4
106.9
116.6
105.6
107.6
116.9
106.6
108.2
116.7
106.3
108.8
102.6 102.2 101.8 110001..00
98.2
99.4
97.2
116.3
106.4
108.7
100.5
98.9
94.6
117.7
123.0
136.7
97.0
115.9
96.5
116.2
123.1
130.7
121.5
95.9
115.0
94.8
114.1
94.7
113.6
122.4
126.6
123.3
94.1
113.3
123.1
125.5
123.6
122.9
124.8
124.3
93.3
113.1
122.9
124.1
125.0
92.5
122.7
124.6
125.0
92.5
113.2
121.7
124.7
124.7
113.5
112.9
113 .0
121.8 122.2
128.0 127.2
122.0 123.4
95.1
113.9
122.4
126.7
123.1
93.8
121.6 121.1
113.0
95.4
117.2
123.0
135.1
120.9
113.4
112 .7
111.8
110 .8
1 0 9 .6
108.0
116 .1
10 3.2
116.0
105.3
113.3
91.9
113 .7
9 7.7
113 .8
1 0 3 .6
116.0
122.6
1 18 .1
141.0
117.7
143.0
116.6
1 4 0 .6
112.9
122.3
Dec. 63
Dec . 63
112 .1
10 4 .7
1 3 8 .0
111.9
1 0 4 .3
137.5
112.0
1 0 3 .6
1 3 5 .4
111.4
1 0 3 .2
134.7
108.8
1 0 2 .3
131.2
10 6 .1
10 2.2
129.1
105.6
10 1.9
127.2
10 5. 6
1 0 2 .5
126.2
105.0
1 0 2 .6
124.8
D ec . 63
133.2
122.2
132.9
13 5 .2
1 10 .8
132.7
121.6
132.7
134.2
110 .6
132.2
1 2 0 .3
132.5
133.7
110 .5
13 1.8
119.6
132.3
133.2
110.6
1 3 0 .5
118 .9
13 1.3
130.1
110 .3
129.7
118 .2
131.5
127.9
110 .1
1 2 8 .6
117.2
1 30.6
12 6 .6
10 9 .3
12 8 .1
116 .7
129.7
127.1
108.1
127.5
116.2
12 8 .7
127.4
10 7.1
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
S ug ar and sw ee ts .............................................................
S y r u p , c hocolat e f l a v o r e d .....................................
(>)
128.4
123.0
123.5
160.5
154.6
138.9
344.4
117.5
145.2
122.0
133.3
121.3
Fats and oils:
S e e fo o tn o te s a t e n d o f ta b le .
159.9
180.8
119.3
0
0
0
124.5
202.1
Other food at home__ ____ ______________
Eggs ................. ................................................ ..................
Salad dressing, Ita lia n.............................................
Salad or cooking oil............................................. .
0
0
0
0
102.1 102.1 102.0
121.0 120.8
153.3
171.0
176.6
204.5
0
Lemonade concentrate, frozen______ Apr. 60
Beets, canned.......... .......................... Dec. 63
Peas, green, canned______________
Tomatoes, canned..................... ........
Broccoli, frozen.................... ............
141.0
0
102.8
130.6
119.3
134.6
114.4
124.2
131.5
142.3
127.8
153.0
126.0
130.8
Dec. 63
103.8
113.8
105.9
137.2
114.4
123.5
143.2
128.2
154.4
126.6
131.9
Dairy products............... ............................
ivfilk, fresh, grocery....... ............ .........
Milk', fresh' delivered........................
Milk, fresh, skim........... ....................
Milk’, evaporated.................................
102.0
132.2
143.4
127.4
156.2
126.8
131.7
121.6
122.6 120.6 120.0
134.5 129.3
126.0 122.1
136.2
127.0
128.0
138.6
114.9
124.2
144.5
126.8
157.5
129.0
133.0
Shrimp, frozen............................... Dec. 63
Fish, fresh or frozen......................
Tuna, fish, canned...........................
Dec. 63
Sardines, canned........... ........... .
110.8 112.0
110.0 107.2
121.8
115.3
122.1
0
211.3
145.3
122.0
121.8
177.5
0
145. 9
129.6
120.1
112.8
112.8
10 7.5
10 6 .7
10 4 .7
114.5
110 .5
113.8
110 .5
114. 4
1 0 9 .9
112 .1
10 3.7
1 0 2 .5
123.9
10 2.7
1 0 2 .8
123.0
1 0 2 .2
1 0 2 .3
123.6
10 2.4
1 0 2 .3
123.6
1 0 3 .0
10 2.6
123.4
12 6.6
116.2
12 6.5
12 6.6
10 6.9
12 6 .4
116.3
125.6
126.7
1 06.8
126.0
116.4
124.7
126.5
1 06. 5
125.4
12 5 .1
10 6.7
111.0
lib . 5
115.3
123.9
125 .1
10 6 .5
124.1
12 5 .1
106.1
88
CONSUMER PRICES
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
24. Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued
1970
Other
index
bases
Item or roup
FOOD— Continued
Other food at home— Continued
Nonalcoholic beverages...................... .
Coffee, can and bag______________
July 61
Coffee, instant...... ........ . . -------Cola drink___________________
Carbonated fruit drink........................
Prepared and partially prepared foods..
Bean soup, canned...... ... ...................
Chicken soup, canned____________
Spaghetti, canned_______________
Mashed potatoes, instant.............. .
Potatoes, french fried, frozen______
Baby foods, canned_____ . ____ .
Sweet pickle relish._____________
Pretzels_________ _____ _________
HOUSING............................... .............. ..........
Dec. 63
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
63
63
63
63
Dec. 63
Apr. 60
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
1969
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
118.4
108.7
116.3
106.6
165.0
131.4
117.7
107.3
115.7
106.4
164.8
131.4
116.5
105.4
115.7
105.9
164.2
130.5
115.2
103.6
114.7
104.8
163.0
130.0
114.0
112.4
99.7
113.1
103.1
161.9
127.4
102.2
114.1
103.6
162.0
128.5
Annual
average
1969
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
110.7
97.4
109.1
94.9
109.6
103.1
159.3
125.5
107.4
92.3
108.0
102.9
158.4
124.8
106.1
90.0
106.0
104.3
87.0
104.2
103.7
103.8
103.7
103.8
158.7
124.7
124.5
156.8
123.4
156.6
123.1
155.3
121.9
108.2
108.8
100.3
120.4
107.6
107.2
99.5
119.8
107.4
106.3
98.3
118.9
106.9
105.6
98.1
117.2
106.7
105.4
98.3
117.3
106.2
105.0
98.0
117.1
109.6
92.5
111.9
115.0
107.5
92.1
111.4
114.3
107.0
110.0
109.6
92.8
111.7
114.2
107.6
129.2
108.9
92.7
112.7
108.5
92.5
107.2
91.4
107.6
107.1
111.0
103.6
160.3
126.0
110.6 110.1 110.1 110.1 109.8 109.5 109.0 108.5
111.5 111.5
111.3 111.1 110. 5 110.4 110.9 109.7
102.1 102.1 102.3 102.3 102.0 101.8 101.1 100.8
123.4 123.2 122.7 121.8 121.1 120.8
124.2 124.0
10.8 110.7 110.6 110.5 110.3 109.7
111.1 111.0 193.4
93.5
93.2
93.2
92.7
93.9
93.3
92.8
112.6 112.5 112.9 112.0 112.0 112.1
114.0 112.7
117.0 117.6 118.0 117.2 116.0 115.6
117.6 116.4
111.1 110.4 110.3 110.1 110.0 109.1 108.3 107.1
86.6 86.7 87.5
103.9
103.2
102.2 102.1 102.0 102.2 101.8
158.0
137.0
136.2
135.6
135.1
134.4
133.6
132.2
131.1
130.5
129.8
147.2
124.2
156.2
146.2
123.8
155.0
145.6
123.4
154.4
144.7
123.0
153.3
143.7
122.6
140.9
148.5
121.8
139.6
121.3
146.8
138.5
152.1
142.8
122.3
150.9
121.0
145.4
137.7
120.5
144.5
112.1 111.6
112.6 112.0 112.8
107.6
128.6
127.8
126.7
120.1
135.1
119.3
141.3
133.6
118.8
139.4
137.0
143.6
136.1
119.7
142.6
Mortgage interest rates_____ _____ _
Property taxes___________ _____
Property insurance rates__________
Maintenance and repairs....................
Dec. 63
149.2
141.4
155.6
153.2
149.1
140. 5
154.6
152.4
149.1
139.8
153.5
151.4
149.2
139.4
153.2
149.9
149.1
138.2
158. 6
148.8
148.9
134.7
153.2
148.3
143.5
133.6
152.8
146.9
139.9
133.0
152. 5
146.4
139.6
132.0
153.3
145.8
139.3
131.5
152.3
144.9
138.8
130.5
150.7
144.5
138.2
130.4
149.5
143.8
137.1
129.9
150.3
142.4
134.4
129.0
148.7
140.7
Commodities__________________
Exterior house paint.... ................
Interior house paint.----------------
Dec. 63
122.1
120.7
120.3
122.3
115.7
119.6
120.7
115.6
118.4
119.9
115.0
117.8
119.9
114.6
117.2
114.7
121.0
116.5
119.8
114.8
116.1
119.3
114.1
115.9
119.1
114.3
116.0
118.7
113.6
116.2
118.0
113.8
116.7
117.6
113.1
117.2
116.5
113.1
116.1
116.5
112.4
200.1
151.2
170.9
140.0
153.1
155.5
150.4
198.0
169.8
1 9.2
152.7
155.2
149.3
196.3
168.0
138.3
151.6
154.3
147.9
191.7
167.1
137.4
150.4
153.7
146.7
187.9
165. 6
137.1
149.1
152.9
146.2
186.8
166.1
136.7
148.2
152.4
144.7
185.4
165.4
135.0
145.6
151.3
144.1
184.6
164.9
134.6
145. 2
150. 0
143.5
183.6
164.1
134.0
144.5
149.7
142.2
182.6
163.0
134.2
142.6
145.2
141.6
181.8
162.3
133.7
142.0
144.1
140.4
179.7
161.4
133.0
140.4
142.8
138.2
178.3
157.6
130.0
139.0
141.2
136.4
174.6
155.8
129.0
137.4
139.1
117.2
122.3
119.1
115.7
122.3
108.7
116.2
116.4
114.9
118.3
115.3
.0
108.3
117.8
114.8
121.9
107.5
117.5
114.6
121.5
107.4
114.6
119.7
116.6
114.1
120. 5
107.4
114.6
119.2
116.2
113.7
119.8
107.2
114.2
118.9
116.0
113.2
118.8
107.2
113.5
118.4
115. 5
113.3
118.1
115.4
122
118.0
115.8
123.2
108.2
116.3
120.9
117.8
115.7
123.1
108.0
115.6
112.2 112.0
Electricity............................................
Other utilities:
Residential telephone services---------Residential water and sewerage.........
117.7
122.9
119.2
116.4
123.6
109.0
116.9
106.9
116.7
106.8
113.0
117.7
115.2
111.5
116.1
106.4
112.9
117.8
115.1
111.5
116.8
105.8
105.3
158.7
105.2
158.7
104.9
151.0
104.9
151.0
104.8
151.0
103.9
151.0
147.5
103.0
147.5
103.8
147.5
103.7
147.5
103.6
145. 3
103.6
145.3
103.6
145. 3
103.5
144.4
Household furnishings and operation...................
123.2
123.0
112.5
112.4
112.2
122.0 121.6 120.8 111200..15 120.0
119.6
112.4
122.8
122.5
Housefur nis hing s ______ _________ _____
112.0
111.7
111.1
T e x t i l e s . . ........................................... ....................................
Sh ee ts , percale or mu sl in _________
Curt ai ns, tailored, polyester ma rqu isette ___________________ . . .
Bedspre ad s, chiefly cotton, t u f t e d . .
Dr ap er y fabric, cotton or rayon/
acetate_______ ________ ______ _
Slipcovers, ready ma de , chiefly
cotto n__________________________
116 .1
119.2
116 .7
1 2 0 .8
116 .7
122.0
116.2
121.8
116 .7
123.6
116.4
122.7
115 .7
120 .8
113 .7
117.2
113.9
117.9
113.1
117.5
113.2
116.8
113.3
117.8
113.7
117.1
112 .7
116.6
Shelter.................. .................... .............
Rent.............. ........................................
Homeownership_________ _________
Dec. 63
Repainting living and dining rooms.
Reshingling roofs.......................
Residing houses ........................ Dec. 63
Replacing sinks______ _______
Repairing furnaces___________ Dec. 63
Fuel and utilities..................... .....................
Fuel oil and co a l...................................
Fuel oil, n ........................................
Gas and electricity.................................
F ur ni tu re and b e d di n g ______________
Bed ro om fur ni tu re
chest
and
d r e s s e r s ______________ _______
L iv i ng room suites, good and inexpensive q ua li ty .............................................
L o un g e chairs, upho lster ed ________
Dini ng room c h a i r s ________ _____
Sof as, upho lster ed __________ _____
S of as , dual p ur p o se . ____________
Mattresses and box springs 6 ___ .
Cribs ___________________________
i
F lo o r c o v e r i n g s .............................................................
Rugs, soft s u r f a c e . ................................................
Rugs, hard s u r f a c e . . . ..................................
T il e , v in y l ...................................................... ...................
A p p lia nc es ............................................. ........... ................
Washing machines, electric, au tom a t i c . . .........................................................................
Va cu u m cleaners, canister t y p e ____
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Dec. 63
M a r . 70
Dec. 63
M ar . 70
Dec. 63
J u n e 70
Dec . 63
Dec. 63
115.5
121.2 121.0
120.8 120.6
102.8
119.3
119.0
110 .6
110 .4
110 .2
1 0 9 .9
118 .5
109. 4
117.9
1 0 9 .0
114.2
117.3
116.1
122.2
1 15 .7
12 1.7
115 .0
120 .1
115 .2
119.8
113.8
116.2
114.4
119.6
111.6
115 .0
112.3
117.6
112.1
117.7
11 2 . 0
117.1
112.0
116.9
112. 0
115 .7
110 .9
116.2
127.8
127.4
12 6 . 6
127.3
127.0
126.5
125 .8
1 2 5 .0
12 6 . 6
12 6 . 0
124.1
124.5
125. 0
123.1
115 .4
115 .2
114 .3
112.7
111.8
112 .1
112.3
111.0
110 .4
110 .0
111. 1
110 .0
110 .3
1 0 9 .6
126.5
126.7
126.7
12 6 . 6
126.0
1 2 5 .4
124.6
124.1
12 3 . 9
123.7
1 2 3 .6
122.9
122.4
121.5
100.4
100.9
10 0 . 9
10 0 .6
1 0 0 .5
12 9 . 0
122.8
10 0 . 2
119.3
123.7
99.6
121.5
1 2 8 .8
122.2
1 0 0. 6
121.1
122.2
99 .5
122.1
1 2 8 .3
122.1
10 0. 6
120 .0
12 3 . 9
100.0
121.4
1 2 8 .1
122.5
1 0 0 .2
119.1
123.3
127.9
121.9
100.2
1 1 8 .7
122.6
127.3
121.0
126.1
120 .0
12 6 . 0
1 2 0 .0
12 6 . 3
118 .8
1 2 5 .8
118 .6
1 2 5 .9
118 .9
124.9
119.0
124.8
117.9
123.7
115 .8
118 .0
1 2 0 .6
116.5
120 .0
116.3
1 2 0 .5
116.5
120 .0
115 .7
1 2 0 .2
115 .9
118 .9
114.8
118 .8
115 .1
118 .6
114 .2
117.2
121.4
1 2 0 .0
1 2 0 .6
119.9
119.6
119.8
119 . 5
119.2
117.1
118 .0
117. 0
1 0 6 .5
1 0 4 .5
111.2
108. 4
10 7.3
1 0 3 .9
114.0
113 .8
10 7.2
1 0 3 .7
114.6
113.5
10 7.2
1 0 3 .9
114.0
113 .1
10 7.4
1 0 4 .2
113.7
113.1
1 0 6 .9
1 0 3 .8
113 .7
111.8
1 0 6 .9
1 0 3 .9
113 .7
111.7
1 0 6 .9
10 4.0
113.6
111.3
10 6 .8
1 0 4 .0
113.2
110 .3
1 0 7.1
1 0 4 .7
112.5
110 .3
1 0 7.1
10 4 .8
112.5
110 .1
10 7.1
1 0 4 .9
112.1
10 9. 6
10 7.0
1 0 4 .9
111.8
1 0 9 .3
1 0 6 .3
10 4.1
111.6
108.5
8 7 .3
8 7 .3
8 7 .2
8 7.1
8 7 .1
8 6 .8
8 6 .6
8 6 .5
8 6 .4
8 6 .3
8 6 .2
8 6 .0
8 6 .0
85 .8
9 3.1
8 1 .4
93.1
8 1 .4
93.0
8 1 .2
9 2. 9
8 1 .5
92.9
8 1.6
92.4
81 .3
92.3
8 1 .5
91.8
81 .8
91.5
91.2
81 .4
9 0 .9
8 1 .5
91.0
8 1 .3
9 0 .8
8 2 .1
90. 6
81.5
81.4
CONSUMER PRICES
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
89
24. Consumer Price Index-general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items-Continued
Index or group
Aug.
HOUSING— Continued
Household furnishings and operation— Con.
Appliances— Continued
Refrigerators
or
refrigeratorfreezers, electric..........................
Ranges, free standing, gas or
July
June
May
Annual
average
1969
1969
1970
Other
index
bases
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
87.5
87.6
87.5
87.3
87.5
87.2
86.8
86.1
86.0
85.8
85.8
85.8
85.7
85.3
101.1
101.0
100.7
100.2
100.7
100.1
99.3
99.0
99.0
98.8
98.5
98.1
98.2
97.7
63
64
63
63
102.7
101.6
(O
108.7
102.7
101.6
0
108.5
102.6
101.5
0
108.2
101.9
101.3
0)
107.4
102.1
101.3
(0
107.2
101.8
0
100.5
106.6
101.3
0
100.6
105.9
100.8
0
100.6
105.5
100.6
0
100.4
105.0
100.5
0
99.8
105.0
99.8
0)
99.6
104.7
99.6
0
0
104.3
99.7
99.8
0
103.9
99.4
99. 5
98.8
103.9
Other house furnishings:
Dinnerware, earthenware__
Flatware, stainless ste e l.............. .
Table lamps, with shade_____ . . . Dec. 63
140.5
121.9
121.4
139.6
121.6
120.9
139.3
121.0
121.6
138.3
120.8
121.4
138.1
120.7
121.2
138.1
120.4
119.9
137.1
120.1
118.6
136.2
119.2
118.3
135.6
119.0
118.7
135.2
119.6
118.3
134.8
119.6
117.8
134.3
119.8
116.0
133.5
119.6
115.4
133.3
118.7
114.6
Housekeeping supplies:
Laundry soaps and detergents____
Paper napkins______ _________
Toilet tissue...................................
111.0
140.4
130.0
110.3
140.5
129.9
110.0
139.5
129.7
110.0
138.5
129.4
109.8
136.4
127.8
110.0
134.7
126.8
108.8
131.3
123.5
108.1
129.8
121.9
107.1
131.0
120.3
106.2
130.0
121.2
106.8
129.0
121.2
107.4
128.6
120.7
107.4
128.0
119.1
106.3
128.2
118.9
189.5
142.7
165.5
152.3
186.8
142.4
165.5
150.6
186.6
141.8
165.5
150.2
185.5
141.5
165.5
150.0
184.8
140.9
165.5
149.8
182.5
140.0
165.5
149.1
182.0
138.6
165.5
147.9
180.5
137.6
165.5
147.5
179.9
137.4
165.5
146.8
178.7
136.6
165.5
144.3
177.6
135.7
165.5
143.2
175.1
135.6
165.5
142.7
173.9
134.9
165.5
141.4
173.5
133.7
165.5
140.6
134.3
144.5
133.1
140.8
132.7
140.2
132.5
140.4
132.1
139.8
132.0
139.6
132.0
138.3
132.0
136.6
131.8
135.4
131.8
135.1
130.7
135.2
130.3
134.4
129.7
133.5
127.9
131.7
131.5
131.4
132.2
131.9
131.1
130.6
130.0
129.3
130.8
130.7
129.8
128.7
126.6
127.1
133.2
132.8
134.2
133.9
133.4
132.3
131.0
130.8
132.0
132.1
131.0
130.0
128.7
128.5
Men’s:
Topcoats, w o o l..................................
Suits, year round w eig ht...................
Suits! tropical weight!___ _ ____ _ June 64
Jackets, lightweight______________ Dec. 63
Slacks, wool or wool blend________
Slacks! cotton or manmade blend___
Trousers, work, cotton ___________
0)
159.6
(0
124.9
130.8
123.5
118.7
(0
158.6
131.8
124.8
130.8
123.4
118.4
0
160.5
140.5
125.2
132.8
123.7
117.8
0)
160.2
138.4
125.1
132.7
123.4
117.1
(>)
159.8
137.4
125.3
131.8
123.0
117.2
144.1
157.3
136.6
125.3
131.0
120.9
116.6
141.0
153.9
0
125.6
129.6
119.4
116.4
143.7
154.2
0
125.5
130.0
117.6
116.0
147.4
158.2
0
125.7
131.2
117.6
117.2
148.5
158.2
0
125.6
131.7
117.1
117.0
145.9
156.4
0
125.4
130.4
115.6
116.9
144.0
154.5
0
125.2
128.9
115.2
116.9
150.7
0
125.0
127.1
114.5
116.8
142.9
150.9
128.6
124.6
127.4
113.9
116.4
Shirts, work, cotton.............................
Shirts, business, cotton______
T-shirts, chiefly cotton......................
Socks, cotton______________ .
Handkerchiefs, cotton...................... Dec. 63
127.4
125.8
134.7
122.7
115.2
127.0
125.1
135.0
123.3
115.5
126.8
124.6
134.7
123.1
115.3
126.5
124.2
134.6
122.6
115.1
126.4
124.1
134.1
122.6
114.4
126.0
123.7
132.9
121.5
114.2
124.9
123.2
133.3
121.3
113.9
124.4
122.5
132.4
120.9
113.8
124.2
122.3
131.9
120.9
113.8
124.7
122.2
131.8
120.4
113.3
124.2
122.2
131. 5
121.1
112.9
123.2
121.8
130.6
121.6
112.7
123.3
121.6
130.6
121.6
112.4
122.9
121.3
130.0
119.8
112.1
0
(0
130.9
131.5
0
0
128.0
131.3
0
(i)
130.1
131.5
(0
0
130.1
131.6
0)
0)
129.5
130.9
114.6
0
129.5
130.5
114.3
0
129.4
129.9
114.2
127.8
128.9
130.1
116.1
130.3
127.1
130.3
115.9
131.0
127.9
130.3
115.2
126.4
126.9
129.0
113.5
122.5
127.4
128.9
0
127.4
128.4
112.4
125.6
126.3
127.1
125.6
125.8
126.8
126.6
125.2
125.3
125.4
124.2
127.2
127.4
126.2
124.6
120.8
122.8
0)
0)
125.8
130.2
(0
0
130.0
126.2
0
(>)
136.3
130.6
(0
0
136.3
129.7
(0
0
135.2
127.1
(0
0)
0
125.3
0
121.0
0
124.9
124.9
135.6
(0
126.9
136.2
144.6
139.9
133.9
0
125.4
136.0
129.4
0
122.7
0
121.8
0)
127.6
139.9
145.3
0
127.2
134.4
129.3
129.3
123.6
158.6
0)
0
0
156.1
(i)
0
0
155.8
0
0
(5)
156.5
(0
(s)
0)
158.9
0
0
0)
158.5
o
155.9
144.2
0
152.3
158.3
145.7
0
153.0
158.8
144.8
0
152.1
155.9
145.7
(0
150.7
152.5
140.8
(0
149.0
147.3
0
0
158.7
0
0
153.5
136.6
150.0
150.2
141.0
147.2
147.9
Slips, nylon.........................................
Panties, acetate............. ................... .
Girdles, manmade blend__________
Brassieres, cotton.... .......................... Dec. 63
114.7
114.4
121.9
129.0
115.2
114. 5
120.4
128.2
115.8
113.5
121.4
128.9
115.6
113.3
121.4
129.2
114.7
112.7
121.3
128.4
114.2
113.2
121.4
127.4
114.6
112.7
120.9
125.6
113.4
112.0
120.5
124.4
112.3
111.2
120.8
124.9
112.2
111.4
120.5
123.8
111.9
110.5
120.2
123.1
111.9
109.9
119.5
122.9
111.6
109.1
119.4
122.5
110.8
109.2
119.1
121.7
Hose, nylon, seamless.........................
Anklets, cotton...................................
Gloves, fabric, nylon or cotton ____ Dec. 63
Handbags, rayon faille or plastic____ Dec. 63
99.3
119.3
111.8
120.3
99.4
119.7
111.6
118.7
98.8
118.9
111.4
120.3
99.1
120.1
111.2
119.3
98.9
120.1
110.6
118.8
99. 0
120.5
110.9
118.2
98.3
122.5
111.0
118.5
98.5
121.0
110.7
116.4
99.8
121.5
110.5
117.3
99.8
118.5
109.8
117.2
99.4
118.5
109.2
115.5
99.2
118.4
109.0
114.8
98.8
118.2
109.3
114.1
99.1
117. 2
108.6
113.6
0
0)
(>)
(0
0
0
(0
0
114.8
o
118.9
0
118.1
117.4
125.6
123.2
124.4
123.4
121.7
124.0
120.8
0
(0
0
120.9
121.4
Clothes dryers, electric, automatic.
Air conditioners, demountable. . . .
Room heaters, electric, portable__
Dec.
June
Dec.
Dec.
Housekeeping services:
Domestic service, general housework.............................. ..............
Baby sitter service_____________ Dec. 63
Postal charges... . ....................
Laundry, fiatwork, finished service. Dec. 63
Licensed day care service, preschoolchild ............................
Dec. 63
APPAREL AND UPKEEP...._______________
Men's and boys'___ ______________ ____
Boys’ :
Coats, all purpose, cotton or cotton
blend_______ _____
Sport coats, wool or wool blend_____
Dungarees, cotton or cotton blend___
Undershorts, cotton....... ......... ........
Dec. 63
Women’s and girls'..........................
Women's:
Coats, heavyweight, wool or wool
blend______________ ________
Skirts, wool or wool blend...
Sept. 61
Skirts! cotton or cotton blend______ Mar. 62
Blouses, cotton__________ _______
Dresses! street, chiefly manmade
fiber________________________
Dresses, street, wool or wool blend...
Dresses, street, cotton____________
Housedresses, cotton_____________
Girls':
Raincoats, vinyl plastic or chiefly
cotton..............................................
Skirts, wool or wool blend..................
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Dec. 63
(0
0
0
0)
0)
0
122.2
90
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
CONSUMER PRICES
24. Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued
Index or group
APPAREL AND UPKEEP— Continued
Women’s and girls’— Continued
Girls'— Continued
Dresses, cotton....... .......... ................
Slacks, cotton__________ .
_____
Slips, cotton blend..... ..........................Handbags___ ______ ________ ____
1970
Other
index
bases
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
130.7
(1)
107.8
117.2
131.5
133.2
129.4
135.1
Shoes’ work, high_______ ____ —
A nnual
average
1969
Sept.
Aug.
136.9
135.4
108.0
118.3
107.3
117.4
O)
107.9
117.1
107.5
115.7
134.0
125.5
108.1
115.1
132.3
125.4
107.8
114.9
129.8
128.4
108.0
113.7
133.6
131.8
108.0
114.2
136.3
131.7
108.6
114.7
137.4
127.9
108.5
111.1
107.7
108.9
147.6
147.2
146.3
145.0
144.4
144.4
143.9
143.3
O)
(O
(■)
(2)
(')
108.0
108.3
134.4
125.8
107.5
109.3
147.5
147.7
142.3
141.5
140.3
144.7
144.7
145.2
143.4
145.6
143.4
145.3
142.9
144.7
142.6
143.8
142.1
142.3
141.4
141.3
140.9
142.6
139.8
142.1
139.5
141.5
139.0
140.1
138.4
138.7
138.1
138.4
136.7
147.9
Footwear................ ...................... ....................
Men’s:
Shoes, street, oxford........... ................
1969
Women’s:
Shoes, street, pump______________
Shoes, evening, pump....................... .
Shoes, casual, pump_____ ________
Houseslippers, scuff............................
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
156.2
127.7
137. 7
129.5
155.5
127.5
137.2
128.2
156.8
126.6
138.3
128.1
157.3
126.7
138.7
127.7
157.3
125.8
138.3
127.7
155.5
125.0
136.3
128.2
151.6
124.8
135.7
127.8
151.8
124.2
134.2
128.0
152.7
123.2
134.0
127.5
152.5
122.9
133.4
127.1
152.0
122.9
132.0
126.6
150.8
122.3
129.6
126.4
149.9
121.8
128.9
125.4
148.6
120.3
127.7
124.7
Children's:
Shoes, oxford_____ _____ ________
Sneakers, boys’, oxford type..............
Dress shoes, girls', strap__________
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
147.9
123.1
138.5
147.1
122.9
138.6
147.2
123.2
138.3
146.6
122.6
138.3
146.3
122.0
137.5
146.6
120.7
138.0
145.9
120.0
136.6
144.3
119.6
136.6
144.3
119.5
136.4
143.3
119.3
135.7
142.3
119.1
134.6
141.4
118.9
134.1
140.7
118.1
133.1
140.1
117.2
131.5
105.4
125.3
105.4
125.4
105.0
127.1
104.9
127.6
104.8
126.8
104.9
125.9
104.3
124.6
104.0
123.3
104.0
123.5
104.1
123.1
103.8
123.5
103.9
123.2
104.0
123.2
103.0
120.9
136.7
114.4
130.6
134.3
127.8
136.4
114.3
130.3
133.7
126.9
136.3
114.0
130.0
133.3
126.8
136.0
113.2
129.0
128.8
126.5
135.7
113.1
128.8
128.4
126.3
135.2
113.2
128.5
127.7
125.5
134.6
112.3
128.0
127.4
125.0
133.8
112.0
126.8
127.0
124.6
133.3
112.0
126.7
127.4
123.7
132.9
111.8
124.3
127.6
123.6
132.2
111.4
123.8
127.5
122.7
132.0
111.3
123.4
126.5
123.1
131.7
123.2
125.4
121.3
130.8
110.1
122.9
124.5
121.3
130.6
131.4
130.6
129.9
128.9
127.1
127.3
127.3
126.4
125.6
125.7
123.6
124.2
124.2
125.9
104.1
127.5
118.6
142.8
124.9
104.3
121.1
119.2
142.6
123.0
104.4
117.6
115.3
142.3
123.3
104.6
117.8
116.7
141.4
123.3
104.7
120.7
116.6
140.7
123.4
104.9
123.9
116.9
140.2
122.7
105.1
124.9
116.3
140.1
122.8
104.2
125.8
118.0
139.6
120.5
99.5
121.4
117.7
139.1
121.3
101.0
125.4
118.0
138.7
121.3
102.4
125.3
117.0
13/. 5
Miscellaneous apparel:
Diapers, cotton gauze____ ________
Yard goods, cotton_______ _________
Apparel services:
Drycleaning, men's suits and women’s
dresses___________ ______ ______
Automatic laundry service.....................
Laundry, men’s shirts__ ______ _____
Tailoring charges, hem adjustment______
Shoe repairs, women’s heel lift_______
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
TRANSPORTATION________ ___________________
111.0
Automobiles, new.............. . ........... .
Automobiles, used_________________
Gasoline, regular and premium_______
Motor oil, premium___ ____ _____________
126.4
103.5
129.2
116.9
144.3
127.2
103.7
131.8
118.7
143.7
126.7
103.8
132.0
117.6
143.0
Tires, new, tubeless................ ............
Auto repairs and maintenance.............
Auto insurance rates................ ............
Auto registration.. .................. .................
119.7
144.8
184.0
140.9
119.0
144.3
183.7
140.9
118.0
143.5
181.9
140.9
118.6
142.9
179.5
140.9
118.6
142.1
175.6
140.9
119.4
141.5
176.4
140.3
118.5
140.2
176.0
140.3
118.2
139.2
173.4
140.3
118.2
137.3
171.5
134.2
118.0
136.6
164.6
134.2
117.4
136.1
163.7
134.2
117.0
135.2
163.2
134.2
116.0
134.5
160.3
134.2
116.2
133.8
160.2
133.6
171.0
191.1
135.9
121.5
117.9
130.1
170.8
190.9
135.9
121.5
117.9
130.1
167.8
185.8
135.9
121.5
117.9
130.1
166.6
185.2
131.5
121.1
117.8
128.6
165.8
183.9
131.5
121.1
117.8
128.6
165.8
183.8
131.5
121.1
117.8
128.6
165.4
183.8
131.5
117.2
117.4
127.9
165.1
183.3
131.5
117.2
117.4
127.9
153.0
163.2
131.5
117.2
117.4
127.9
151.1
163.0
127.5
115.5
111.6
127.0
150.3
161.7
127.5
115.1
111.6
127.0
150.3
161.7
127.5
115.1
111.6
127.0
149.7
160.8
127.5
114.9
112.1
122.9
148.9
160.4
126.7
114.0
110.6
122.4
145.1
144.3
143.7
142.9
142.3
141.4
140.7
140.1
139.6
139.1
138.6
138.4
137.7
136.6
162.8
100.9
108.6
92.0
108.1
161.6
100.3
107.8
91.7
107.3
160.1
100.0
107.2
90.8
107.4
159.0
99.7
107.2
92.3
106.2
158.1
99.6
107.1
92.8
106.6
157.4
99.6
107.1
92.4
106.2
156.9
99.4
106.9
92.5
106.1
157.6
99.3
106.9
92.4
105.5
156.8
99.3
107.0
92.4
106.8
155.0
99.2
106.9
92.4
106.2
101.3
117.1
110.0
114.7
100.8
117.4
109.6
113.7
100.9
117.0
109.1
115.1
100.9
116.5
109.2
114.8
Private__________________ __________ ___
Public............................ .............. ............................
Local transit fares............... ................. .
Taxicab fares...................................... .
Railroad fares, coach_________ _____
Airplane fares, chiefly coach_________
Bus fares, intercity._____ _________
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
HEALTH AND RECREATION..................................
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
166.8
102.2
110.5
92.3
112.3
165.8
102.0
110.5
92.7
112.0
164.7
101.6
109.7
92.6
109.8
163.6
101.4
109.2
92.7
109.2
Liquid tonics....................................
Adhesive bandages, package_____
Cold tablets or capsules____ ____
Cough syrup_______ __________
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
63
63
63
63
101.8
124.4
113.1
117.7
101.7
125.0
112.7
117.5
101.8
122.7
112.7
117.2
101.9
121.4
112.7
116.4
101.9
119.8
112.6
116.0
101.5
119.7
112.2
113.5
101.2
118.2
111.5
113.0
101.3
117.8
113.4
101.3
117.7
110.5
112.9
Prescriptions.......................................
Anti-infectives.............................. .
Sedatives and hypnotics..................
Ataractics___ ______ __________
Anti-spasmodics..............................
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
60
60
60
60
91.0
63.5
115.1
90.6
103.2
90.7
63.3
114.5
90.7
102.8
90.6
63.2
114.0
90.8
102.6
90.5
63.1
114.2
90.7
102.4
90.3
63.0
113.7
90.7
102.2
89.7
62.8
112.1
90.0
101.7
89.7
63.0
112.0
90.0
101.6
89.3
62.8
110.6
90.0
101.5
89.1
62.8
110.4
89.8
101.3
89.0
62.8
109.6
89.8
101.3
89.0
63.0
108.9
89.8
101.3
88.8
62.9
107.8
89.8
101.2
88.7
62.9
107.6
89.7
101.0
88.6
62.8
107.2
89.8
101.1
119. 1
118.2
118.1
118.0
118.1
117.1
115.2
112.7
112.0
111.7
111.4
111.1
110.8
109.4
100.7
105.9
108.9
94.9
100.4
105.4
108.1
94.7
100.4
105.4
107.2
94.2
100.4
105.2
107.2
94.2
100.0
105.3
106.0
93.6
99.0
104.7
105.8
93.9
98.8
105.0
105.5
93.6
98.3
104.3
104.8
93.6
98.0
103.3
104.3
94.2
98.0
103.2
104.3
93.9
97.9
103.1
104.2
94.3
97.7
103.1
103.6
93.9
97.6
103.1
103.3
93.9
97.1
102.8
103.1
94.3
168.7
171.7
176.6
162.9
153.8
136.8
167.8
171.3
176.0
162.2
151.3
135.3
167.3
170.8
175.6
161.8
151.4
135.0
165.6
168.3
173.6
161.1
151.3
135.0
164.3
167.3
172.5
159.2
148.7
134.7
163.7
166.6
171.7
159.0
148.5
134.6
151.6
164.0
163. 0
157.6
147.7
133.7
160.7
163.1
167.9
155.9
146.5
133.0
160.0
162.4
167.6
155.0
145.9
132.6
159.0
161.0
166.2
154.9
145.5
132.6
158.3
160.6
165.9
153.9
144.2
131.7
158.0
160.3
165.6
153.2
144.1
131.7
156.8
158.7
163.9
152.8
142.8
130.9
155.4
157.2
163.3
150.2
141.4
129.1
Medical care___________ _______ ________ ______
Drugs and prescriptions____________
Over-the-counter items___________
Multiple vitamin concentrates____
Aspirin compounds.........................
Cough preparations. __________ Mar. 60
Cardiovasculars and antihypertensives. ___________ . .
Mar. 60
Analgesics, internal_______ _____ Mar. 67
Mar. 67
Anti-obesity___________ _____ _
Hormones..................................... . Mar. 67
Professional services:
Physicians’ fees___________ ____ _
Family doctor, office visits_______
Family doctor, house visits_______
Obstetrical cases........... ..................
Pediatric care, office visits.............. Dec. 63
Psychiatrist, office visits................. Dec. 63
S ee fo otn otes a t end o f ta b le .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
111.0
101.0
116.9
109.2
114.5
91
CONSUMER PRICES
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
24. Consumer Price Index-general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items-Continued
Other
index
bases
Index or group
Annual
average
1969
1970
Sept.
Aug.
124.6
149.1
124.3
149.0
1969
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
132.4
159.3
130.7
157.5
130.6
156.7
129.6
156.1
128.7
154.2
127.5
153.8
126.7
152.6
126.3
152.3
125.4
151.6
125.2
151.3
124.6
149.3
153.4
152.8
151.9
151.2
150.7
148.7
148.4
148.0
147.6
147.2
146.9
146.0
145.5
143.9
148.7
147.0
130.2
148.3
146.7
129.7
148.3
145.9
129.5
147.1
146.4
144.9
128.9
128.8
H E A L T H A N D R E C R E A T I O N —Continued
Medical care— Continued
Professional services— Continued
Physicians' fees— Continued
Tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy—
Villings,
adult,
amalgam,
one
Dec. 63
155.5
151.4
135.0
154.9
150.1
134.8
154.1
149.7
133.6
153.3
148.9
133.2
152.5
148.9
132.7
150.6
146. 1
131.7
150.3
145.9
131.3
149.8
146.0
130.6
139.2
121.7
138.2
121.9
137.8
121.7
136.9
121.3
136.7
136.3
Dec. 63
135.7
119.8
134.6
119.6
133.9
119.5
133.8
119.4
132.8
118.5
132.4
118.5
132.2
118.6
131.1
117.4
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
292.5
289.3
281.0
185.9
132.8
289.1
285.9
277.9
183.6
131.4
284.4
281.1
273.5
181.7
131.4
283.1
279.8
272.3
180.9
129.4
282.3
279.1
271.4
180.3
128.1
279.0
275.6
268.7
177.7
127.7
275.6
271.9
265.9
175.4
125.4
271.6
268. 0
261. 8
172.8
124.7
267.9
264.1
258.7
170.9
124.7
265.4
261.7
256.1
170.6
124.5
263.8
260.1
254. /
170.9
124.8
261.9
258.4
252.6
168.7
124.6
259.9
25 ».3
250.8
167.6
123.2
256.0
252.1
247.5
165.2
122.7
130.6
113.5
113.9
128.3
109.5
130.2
113.3
114.4
127.0
129.8
113.0
114.7
124.3
117.3
129.6
112.9
113.9
125.6
110. 5
128.5
128.1
127.8
127.3
114.1
123.0
109.2
123.4
109.1
114.7
124.8
109.7
114.4
125.1
110.7
126.3
126.8
111.4
113.4
123.3
126.2
111.2
130.3
113.3
114.4
126.2
111.5
129.0
112.4
114.3
124.3
Dec. 63
131.3
114.0
114.4
129.1
109.3
133.8
97.0
117.4
98.7
96.4
117.0
98.8
101.3
131.4
95.9
116.4
98.3
131.6
95.8
116.4
98.4
102.3
131.0
95.9
116.0
98.3
130.8
96.1
115.5
98.6
129.1
96.1
114.4
98.6
128.1
96. 0
113.8
98.6
101.9
127.6
94.5
112.5
98.7
127.5
95.0
111.8
98.6
127.2
95.1
109.2
98.5
95.3
108.4
99.2
95.5
109.3
99.1
94.9
108.8
98.0
152.7
163.6
141.8
126.7
151.9
162.5
141.2
125.8
151.2
161.0
141.0
125.4
151.3
161.0
141.2
126.4
150.5
159.7
140.9
126.3
150.1
159.1
140.6
126.1
149.5
158.7
140.0
125.4
148.9
158. 0
139.2
125.3
148.5
157.8
138.8
125.2
147.5
156.4
138.0
124.0
146.7
155.2
13/. /
123.4
146.5
154.8
137.5
123.2
145.8
154.5
136.6
121.9
145.2
153.7
136.1
160.0
109.8
159.2
109.8
159.0
159.0
109.6
158.6
109.4
158.3
109.0
157.5
108.9
156.8
107. 5
156.3
107.2
155.3
107.2
154.9
107.1
154.6
107.0
153.6
106.9
152.7
106.4
135.2
99.9
80.1
118.3
134.4
99.6
80.0
117.5
133.6
99.4
79.9
117.3
133.2
99.2
79.9
117.3
133.1
99.1
80. 0
116.6
132.7
99.1
80.2
116.3
132.3
99.2
80.3
116.3
132.0
99.1
80.2
115.9
131.6
99.0
80.0
115.7
131.2
98.8
79.7
115.4
130.5
98.6
80.1
115.5
Other professional services:
Examination, prescription, and disHospital service charges:
X-ray, diagnostic series, upper G.l —
Toothpaste, standard d e n tifric e ..
Deodorants, cream or roll-on___
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
102.0
102.2 131.9
Shampoo and wave sets,
Permanent waves, cold-------Dec. 63
TV sets, portable and console___
Dec. 63
Radios,
portable
Phonograph
and
records,
table
76.6
76.6
76.5
76.0
76.1
76.4
76.5
76.5
76.6
76.9
76.5
76.5
89.9
90.4
90.3
90.2
90.2
90.0
90.1
91.2
91.4
91.5
91.4
91.3
Dec. 63
97.6
98.1
98.2
98.3
97.8
98.1
97.9
98.0
98.0
98.0
98.1
97.6
97.7
97.2
83.1
99.4
109.7
111.9
83.5
99.6
109.9
83.4
99.2
109.5
111.6 111.2
84.0
99.0
109.0
109.6
132.1
207.0
201.9
224.5
131.7
206.5
201.6
131.1
204.2
198.8
200.6
223.2
222.1
164.5
164.1
110.9
135.9
163.5
110.3
135.8
159.9
63
63
63
63
82.0
spirit
blended
215.6
235.0
234.8
210.9
230.6
176.2
114.3
144.8
172.3
114.6
145.5
171.6
115.7
145.1
168.9
115.2
141.5
168.1
115.2
139.3
167.5
114.8
Dec. 63
97.6
118.4
97.7
116.7
97.6
116.4
98.6
117.7
98.7
117.6
Dec. 63
167.6
129.3
166.8
129.0
163.9
128.4
161.5
128.2
160.4
128.2
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
82.3
83.4
206.1
225.4
226.9
227.1
225.4
167.0
115.0
( 2)
165.6
115.3
( 2>
165.5
113.7
(2)
165.0
113.6
( 2)
98.9
117.3
99.5
117.7
00.2 100.0
100.2 1117.7
117.9
101.4
117.9
160.4
127.8
159.8
127.7
160.2
127.6
158.2
127.3
156.7
126.7
226.7
o
117. 4
112.1
135.5
101.0 101.0
129.9
195.5
217.6
111.1
131.8
118.3
118.4
101.7
119.1
156.4
126.5
155.9
126.1
155.8
123.8
154.7
123.7
131.3
150.6
130.1
148.7
129.0
146.5
158.0
150.0
109.6
155.8
148.1
108.7
153.6
145.7
107.6
119.1
116.4
118.2
115.3
117.8
114.8
137.3
159.7
136.7
158.1
136.1
156.7
135.6
156.4
134.8
155.0
134.3
154.9
133.9
154.1
133.5
153. 8
133.1
153. 1
169.2
161.3
109.0
167.9
160.2
108.6
l c6 .0
158.5
108.6
164.4
157.2
108.6
164.1
156.8
108.6
162.8
154. 9
108.7
162.7
154.8
108.7
161.8
154. 0
109.0
161.4
153.5
160.7
152.6
109.9
158.9
151.0
109.4
123.9
119.1
123.2
118.2
123.2
118.3
123.1
118.5
122.5
118.2
117.7
121.4
116.9
116. 5
116.5
120.4
116.6
113.3
Dec. 63
130.3
113.1
119.8
129.5
112.7
119.6
129.6
112.5
119.4
129.3
116. 5
127.1
111.5
115.2
125.9
111.4
114.5
125.6
111.3
113.6
125.0
110.4
120.0
Dec. 63
120.3
119.9
119.6
119.3
117.7
117.4
117.3
116.9
116.5
115.9
115.2
110.3
141.2
109.9
139.5
109.1
139.5
108.3
138.8
107.4
137.8
108.3
134.7
Mar. 59
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
110.2 110.2
149.9
149.2
110.3
149.0
122.0
11.6
111.8 1117.4
118.9
128.4
128.0
111.3
116.8
127.6
119.0
118.6
118.1
110.0
121.0 120.6
111.2
110.0 110.0 110.1 110.0 110.2
146.1
i Priced only in season.
* Not available.
This item is a replacement for bedroom suites, good or inexpensive quality, which
was discontinued after March 1970.
‘ This item is a replacement for dining room suites, which was discontinued
after March 1970.
FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
82.1
138.1
160.9
Financial and miscellaneous personal
expenses:
3
81.6
132.2
151.5
and
Bank service charges, checking
___________
accounts..
Legal services, short form w ill—
81.3
216.8
237.0
Cigarettes, nonfilter tip, regular
Whiskey,
81.4
82.2
82.3
82.0
99.1
99.1
100.0 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.1 110.4
00.1 100.1 110.5
100.1 1110.7
110.0
110.8 111.4 111.2 110.7
111. 1 113.6 110.4
1
1
1
.6
111.4
1
1
2
.0
1
1
1
.2
113.1
1
1
1
.6
1
1
2
.0
113.7
113.3
133.2
133.9
132.6
135.9
134.1
135.0
133.7
137.1
136.9
138.0
3 208.3
212.0 210.5 211.7 210.
215.4
221.4
220.0 217.9
223.6
205.
4
207.3
212.8
207.7
203.2
218.5
240.7
Reading and education:
Newspapers, street sale and
delivery 7____________ _____
Cigarettes, filter tip, king size___
Cigars, domestic, regular size___
122.0
89.8
re-
Film developing, black and w h ite.
124.1
111.2 108.6
02.1 102.1 102.0
101.6 102.0 1126.8
125.0
126.6
1 1 1 .1
76.6
stereo-
picture tube
110.0
102.2 102.1 102.1
89.2
Dec. 63
repairs,
127.3
112.0 111.6 111.8 111.6
114.6
76.6
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
TV
110.0
136.1
136.6
137.1
00.1 100.0
100.2 179.9
80.1
80.0
122.0 120.6 119.3
102.1
121.2 120.8
Dec. 63
Movie cameras, Super 8, zoom
Drive-in movie admissions, adult.
123.9
148.2
145.6
145.1
142.7
142.3
120.0
116.3
110.1 109.9
112.0 110.6 110.5
121.8
123.0
122.3
5Item discontinued.
...
..
. . .
. . „ , ;l
6This item is a replacement for box springs, which was discontinued after A p ril
1970.
? June 1970 index revised.
NOTE: Monthly data for individual nonfood items not available for 1968.
92
25.
CONSUMER PRICES
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
Consumer Price Index1—U.S. city average, and selected areas
[1957-59=100 unless otherwise specified]
1970
Annual
avg.
1969
Area2
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
1969
All items
136.0
135.7
135.2
134.6
134.0
133.2
132.5
131.8
131.3
130.5
129.8
(4)
Atlanta, Ga.._......................................................................
O)
Baltimore, M d ... ------ ------- ---------------------------------------Boston, Mass............................. ................................ ........ (4)
Buffalo, N.Y. (Nov. 1963 = 100)....... ....................... ............. 127.9
Chicago, 1II.—Northwestern In d ..________________ ____ 133.1
Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky..................................... .............
(0
(4)
(4)
139.5
0)
132.3
(4)
133.6
135.2
(4)
(4)
131.5
131.2
(4)
(4)
(4)
127.0
131.1
(4)
(4)
(4)
137.9
(4)
130.2
(4)
131.9
133.5
(4)
(4)
129.9
129.2
(4)
(4)
(4)
125.3
129.3
(4)
(4)
(4)
136.1
(4>
129.1
(4)
129.9
131.9
(4)
(4)
128.3
127.7
(4)
(4)
(4)
123.2
127.7
(4)
(4)
(4)
134.7
(4)
126.9
(4)
128.6
130.4
(4)
(4)
127.2
125.5
( 4)
( 4)
(4)
121.2
126.1
(0
126.7
128.3
131.8
120.5
124.9
124.6
Cleveland, Ohio.................................................................... 135.6
Dallas, Tex. (Nov. 1963 = 100)__ _____ ______ ________ 128.3
Detroit, Mich........ ................................ ................... ........... 135.3
Honolulu, Hawaii (Dec. 1963 = 100)-._________________
(4>
Houston, Tex ................................ ...................... .............
(4)
Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas...................... ...............................
(4)
(4)
(4)
135.5
(4)
133.7
(4)
(4)
(4)
135.2
123.3
(4)
137.9
134.3
127.1
134.9
(4)
(4)
(4)
0)
(4)
133.8
<4>
132.9
(4)
(4)
(4)
133.1
122.0
(4)
134.6
132.3
125.6
132.2
(4>
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
131.1
(4)
130.9
(4)
(4)
(4)
130.8
119.7
(4)
133.2
129.5
123.7
129.8
(4)
«
(4)
(4)
(4)
129.2
(4)
129.8
(4)
O)
0)
128.6
118.1
(4)
131.4
127.3
121.2
128.5
(4)
( 4)
(4)
126.3
120.3
127.1
117.0
127.0
130.1
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif............. ....................... ........
Milwaukee, Wis.................... .......... .....................................
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn. ___ _________________
New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J ______ ____ _______
Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J_____________________________
Pittsburgh, Pa___________________ _____ ___ ______
Portland, Oreg.-Wash.*........................................... ............
134.3
131.2
(4)
142.6
137.9
(4)
( 4)
135.1
(4)
136.7
142.1
137.4
134.6
134.1
133.9
( 4)
(4)
141.6
137.0
(4)
(4)
133.8
130.0
(4)
140.7
136.5
(4)
(4)
133.5
(4)
135.1
140.1
135.7
132.4
133.4
132.2
(4)
(4)
139.1
135.4
(4)
(4)
131.6
128.5
(4)
138.1
134.1
( 4)
( 4)
131.2
(4)
132.8
137.0
132.9
129.4
130.7
131.1
(4)
(4)
136.0
132.2
(4)
130.0
127.0
, <4>
134.6
131.7
(4)
(4)
130.1
(4)
130.3
134.1
131.2
128.5
130.1
129.6
0)
133.5
131.0
(4)
(4)
128.9
123.9
(4)
132.5
130.2
( 4)
( 4)
128.0
123.6
127.4
131.8
128.9
127.0
128.4
St. Louis, Mo.—1II...............................................................San Diego, Calif. (Feb. 1965=100).— _________ _______
San Francisco-Oakland, Calif...... .......... . . . . . _________
Scranton, Pa.*....................................................................
Seattle, Wash_________ ______ ____________________
Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va...............................................—
(4)
121.8
(4)
137.9
134.6
137.8
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
C)
134.1
(4)
137.5
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
120.9
(4)
136.9
133.9
136.7
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
132.4
(4)
136.1
(4)
O
(4)
(4>
118.6
( 4)
134.4
132.2
134.6
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
130.7
(4)
134.5
(4)
117.0
(4)
127.3
130.0
132.0
(4)
(4>
(4)
0)
(4)
(4)
129.2
(4)
132.8
(4)
0)
«
(0
116.0
(4)
130.5
129.5
130.8
127.5
115.1
131.1
129.2
128.3
129.5
U.S. city average3.....................................................................
0)
0)
0)
(4)
129.3 128.7
0)
127.7
Food
133.5
133.4
132.7
132.4
132.0
131.6
131.5
130.7
129.9
128.1
127.2
127.5
127.4
125.5
Atlanta, Ga.................... ....................................................... 131.7
Baltimore, Md ______________________ ____ _______ 137.8
Boston, Mass________________ ____ _______________ 139.1
Buffalo, N.Y. (Nov. 1963=100)..... ................... ................... 128.4
Chicago, 1II.—Northwestern 1nd......... .......................... .......... 135.0
130.1
Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky............................... ............
131.4
137.6
138.1
129.5
133.8
130.5
131.1
136.7
137.0
128.6
133.6
129.7
130.0
136. 5
136.6
128.1
133.1
129.1
130.6
135.9
135.9
128.4
132.6
128.6
130.5
136.2
135.4
127.3
133.0
127.9
130.7
135.4
135.0
127.0
133.2
127.8
129.0
134.9
134.3
125.4
132.8
127.2
128.4
134.1
133.1
125.1
131.3
126.6
126.9
132.3
131.6
122.8
129.4
125.1
126.5
131.5
131.2
121.9
128.3
124.1
126.7
131.8
131.4
121.8
130.2
123.6
126.3
130.8
131.8
122.5
130.5
123.2
123.8
128.8
129.3
120.6
127.2
122.1
Cleveland, Ohio.......................................................... ..........
Dallas, Tex. (Nov. 1963 = 100)_____ ____ _____________
Detroit, Mich________________________ _____ ______
Honolulu, Hawaii (Dec. 1963 = 1 00 ).................................
Houston, Tex. _________ _____________ _______ ___
Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas.................................... ...............
131.9
127.4
133.3
124.3
134.7
138.4
132.1
125.9
133.3
123.5
134.3
138.3
131.2
125.8
132.2
123.8
133.3
136.9
130.8
126.0
132.1
123.2
133.4
136.8
129.7
125.5
131.2
123.4
133.8
136.4
129.3
125.5
130.9
123.4
132.7
135.9
128.4
125.9
130.2
122.9
133.3
135.8
129.0
125.0
129.8
123.0
132.3
135.1
128.5
124.2
129.3
120.8
131.2
134.4
125.7
122.8
126.8
119.5
129.2
132.9
125.0
121.7
126.1
119.7
128.7
131.2
125.1
122.0
126.5
119. 1
129.2
131.9
125.2
121.9
127.3
118.0
129.0
131.3
123.2
119.8
124.3
117.4
126.9
129.4
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif...........................................
Milwaukee, Wis............. .......................................................
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn......................................... ........
New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N .J ...______________ .
Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J______________________________
Pittsburgh, Pa_____________________________ ______
Portland, Oreg.-Wash.* ........... ........................... . . ..
128.3
130.0
132.4
137.5
133.0
128.7
128.9
130.0
132.3
137.9
133.1
129.6
127.9
127.8
129.4
131.4
136.8
132.4
128.7
128.1
129.4
131.3
136.0
132.3
128.8
127.4
129.3
131.2
135.7
131.5
128.3
128.5
126.7
130.2
131.2
135.1
132.0
128.2
127.2
130.1
130.6
134.7
132.0
128.0
126.2
129.5
129.5
133.8
130.7
127.5
126.7
125.8
128.4
128.2
132.9
129.7
127.1
124.7
127.8
127.2
130.6
128.0
125.7
124.0
127.6
126. 5
129.6
127.0
123.3
124.4
124.0
127.9
125.9
129.1
127.2
123.2
123.9
127.6
126.4
128.7
127.2
123.9
122.6
125.2
123.7
127.1
125.5
122.4
124.0
St. Louis, M o .-IIL................................................................
San Diego, Calif. (Feb. 1965 = 100)........................
San Francisco-Oakland, C a lif............. .................
.....
Scranton , Pa. .............
Seattle, Wash................................................................. ._
Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va...................................................
137.9
122.8
129.7
132.0
131.3
136.1
137.7
123.0
130.5
136.7
122.0
129.1
136.5
121.3
128.8
136.6
120.8
128.2
135.5
120.0
127.2
132.6
118.3
124.9
130.1
136.6
128.5
135.7
127.8
134.8
127.6
133.5
133.5
119.1
126.2
131.9
126.2
131.2
132.4
117.8
125.6
130. 3
137.1
137.4
121.3
128.7
131.3
129.2
136.2
136.6
120.6
128.2
130.6
137.6
136.3
122.3
129.0
131.3
130.6
136.2
125.2
130.5
125.9
131.6
131.2
118.6
124.9
127.5
126.2
132.5
129.5
117.0
123.8
125.0
124.5
129.5
U.S.city average3............................................... ....................
1See table 23. Indexes measure tlme-to-time changes in prices. They do not indicate
whether it costs more to live in one area than in another.
2 The areas listed Include not only the central city but the entire urban portion of the
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined for the 1960 Census of Population;
except that the Standard Consolidated Area is used for New York and Chicago.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3
Average of 56 "cities” (metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan urban places
beginning January 1966).
* All items indexes are computed monthly for 5 areas and once every 3 months on a
rotating cycle for other areas.
5 Old series.
WHOLESALE PRICES
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
26.
93
Wholesale price indexes,1 by group and subgroup of commodities
[1957-59=100 unless otherwise specified]1
1970
Code
1969
A nnual
average
Commodity Group
1969
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
....................................
117.2
117.7
117.0
116.8
116.6
116.6
116.4
116.0
115.1
114.7
114.0
113.6
113.4
113.0
FARM PRODUCTS AND PROCESSED FOODS
AND FEEDS_________________________
117.0
119.3
117.5
117.0
117.6
118.8
118.7
118.2
116.4
115.7
114.3
114.3
114.6
113.5
117.1
116.9
116.7
116.6
116.2
115.8
115.5
115.1
114.6
114.2
113.8
113.2
112.8
112.7
01
01-1
01-2
01-3
01-4
01-5
01-6
01-7
01-8
01-9
Farm products
______________________ _____ _
Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables
_______
Grains_________
Livestock............. ................ .....................
Live poultry............................................. .
Plant and animal fibers........ ........................
Fluid milk......... ............................................
Eggs________________________________
Hay, hayseeds, and oilseeds_____________
Other farm products-------
108.2
99.6
89.2
118.6
77.5
66.2
139.5
89.6
116.6
118.3
113.1
112.6
89.2
126.2
81.9
66.1
139.7
111.2
116.8
116.5
111.3
122.2
89.2
123.0
77.9
65.7
139.6
85.3
112.6
114.9
111.0
123.5
88.4
122.2
83.7
65.6
139.5
79.7
111.1
115.0
111.3
112.7
87.8
124.8
82.8
65.4
141.1
94.9
109.8
114.7
114.3
118.2
85.5
129.6
90.8
64.9
139.7
120.1
106.3
114.8
113.7
117.2
85.9
124.9
87.1
65.4
140.8
136.9
106.3
115.2
112.5
116.6
85.9
117.3
94.8
65.3
140.5
152.2
107.7
116.3
111.7
112.4
82.9
120.2
86.9
65.7
138.3
155.8
105.1
113.1
111.1
125.3
81.7
116. 6
86. 3
66. 0
137.6
139.8
103.4
115. 9
107.9
101.3
84.8
118.7
85.3
66.1
136.8
113.8
101.2
116.7
108.4
103.4
83.4
119.2
89.0
66.4
135.6
122.5
105.7
110.6
108.9
106.7
81.9
123.6
92.3
66.9
135.1
100.5
107.3
109.5
108.5
02
02-1
02-2
02-3
02-4
Processed foods and feeds----------------------- ---------
126.1
126.5
122.5
136.2
119.6
132.4
121.1
118.5
109 9
107 5
114.5
128.6
128.1
126.6
125.8
126.3
135.7
118.9
132.3
120.4
111.3
103.0
103.8
113.2
128.2
127.4
124.8
124.6
123.7
135.4
118.5
130.4
120.3
111.5
105.3
102.8
113.2
126.7
120.8
124.1
124.6
122.5
135.4
118.1
129.4
120.3
116.8
106.6
106.4
113.1
124.1
119.4
124.9
124.6
124.9
135.1
117.5
128.7
118.8
118.8
114.7
107.7
113.6
125.8
121.4
124.9
123.7
127.1
133.1
116.5
127.4
118.4
133.7
110.7
111.9
112.4
127.1
119.0
125.2
123.3
124.9
134.1
117.3
127.7
118.3
115.7
99.5
99.8
107.5
127.4
131.3
125.1
122.3
125.8
133.9
116.9
129.1
117.4
121.8
121.9
120. 5
131.2
116.3
127.9
116.0
123.0
97.0
91.1
106.5
127.2
119.5
121.6
121.2
120.2
130.7
116.0
127.7
115.0
118.3
88.4
88.9
104.7
131.6
119.9
121.3
120.4
122.9
133.4
116.6
127.2
113.1
104.0
79.8
85.0
102.1
121.2
119.3
121.5
120.1
124.5
133.0
116.8
127.2
112.6
105.0
80.0
84.7
102.1
119.8
118.2
119.8
86.4
97.8
107.5
126.5
131.7
122.6
122.0
121.9
133.9
116.4
127.1
116.1
115.6
86.1
97.9
108.0
126.4
121.8
109.5
Cotton products.. ...................... .................. 106.3
Wool products............................................ 102 4
Manmade fiber textile products-------------- 88.0
Silk yarns........................ .............................. 201.0
Apparel____
________ _______ _____ 119.0
Textile housefurnishings________________ 110.5
Miscellaneous textile products___________ 128.2
109.2
105.8
102.6
88.4
201.0
118.4
109.8
125.5
109.3
105.9
102.8
89.0
199.5
118.4
109.7
124.3
109.3
105.8
103.8
89.5
204.8
118.0
108.7
125.6
109.3
105.8
104.0
89.9
201.3
117.9
108.6
121.4
109.5
105.8
104.4
90.4
194.2
117.9
108.6
126.5
109.4
106.1
104.3
91.0
196.3
117. 5
109.0
124.3
109.5
106.1
104.3
91.5
193.5
117.2
109.1
129.0
109.2
106.1
104.3
91.1
191.1
116.9
108.1
127.8
109.2
106.0
104.6
91.5
184.6
116.7
108.0
129.6
109.1
105.8
104.5
91.6
183.9
116.5
103.0
127.2
109.0
105.9
105.0
92.1
181.2
116.2
107.3
121.4
108.7
105.7
104.8
92.7
177.1
115.8
104.7
119.6
108.0
105.2
104.6
92.2
169.7
114.5
106.7
127.1
92.8
118.9
137.9
121.1
127.1
90.8
119.8
137.9
121.0
127.3
93.8
119.8
137.9
120.9
127.9
101.8
120.4
137.8
120.4
128.5
106.6
120.4
138.4
120.0
126.8
99.4
118.2
136.9
119.9
126.7
101.1
117.3
136.9
119.8
126.6
102.8
119.6
135.9
119.2
126.5
108.9
119.7
135.0
118.5
126.8
110.4
119.6
135.5
118.6
127.4
118.0
120.3
135.2
118.4
128.2
128.7
121.7
134.9
117.9
126.4
123.1
121.0
132.7
117.6
125.8
116.9
119.9
133.2
116.9
109.6
157.8
141.0
137.2
105.5
103.3
103.1
108.9
155.5
141.0
137.0
104.8
103.3
102.4
108.6
152.8
139.6
136.3
104.3
104.5
102.2
109.1
146.9
139.6
136.1
104.2
104.5
104.2
107.5
145.9
139.6
136.2
103.7
104.5
101.3
106.3
133.4
126.9
135.0
103.6
104.5
100.8
106.4
131.7
126.9
135.2
103.6
104.5
101.2
105.6
125.4
126.9
132.4
103.4
104.5
101.0
106.1
124.6
126.9
131.8
103.4
104.5
102.2
105.5
123.5
126.9
128.8
103.4
104. 5
101.6
105.4
120.6
126.9
128.7
103.7
104.5
101.6
104.7
115.9
120.3
123.0
103.5
104.5
101.8
104.7
115.5
120.3
121.8
102.4
104.5
102.5
104.6
116.2
101.1
98.6
122.8
91.6
95.5
112.0
91.6
80.6
118.5
100.9
98.8
122.8
91.5
95.0
107.7
91.0
80.8
118.4
100.5
98.0
122.8
91.8
94.8
108.1
91.8
80.2
117.8
100.6
98.2
122.8
93.2
94.7
106.8
91.7
80.6
117.7
100.4
97.9
122.8
92.6
94.7
107.6
92.4
81.1
116.8
100.0
97.3
122.8
92.6
95.0
102.2
92.0
81.2
116.5
99.5
97.7
122.0
92.8
94.6
94.3
91.4
80.3
115.7
99.1
97.9
121.7
93.4
94.5
95.0
87.6
80.0
115.5
98.8
97.8
120.3
93.4
94.6
92.8
86.7
80.1
115.1
98.9
97.8
120.3
93.1
94.2
100.5
86.7
79.6
114.9
98.6
97.6
120.3
93.9
94.0
98.9
86.3
80.2
114.3
98.9
98.2
119.2
93.3
94.0
102.1
87.4
81.0
113.9
98.7
98.2
119.2
93.3
93.8
99.3
88.4
80.7
112.9
98.3
97.7
119.2
92.8
93.8
88.7
89.8
80.7
112.9
106.3
Crude rubber.................... ............................ 85.7
Tires and tu b e s ........................................... 107.5
Miscellaneous rubber products___________ 118.7
Plastic construction products(Dec.l969=100)_ 97.0
105.6
86.0
107.5
116.5
96.8
104.1
86.8
101.7
115.7
97.4
104.2
87.1
101.7
115.7
97.6
104.2
87.5
101.7
114.3
98.7
104.4
87.6
101.7
114.3
99.1
104.6
89.4
101.7
114.3
99.1
104.7
89.3
101.7
114.0
99.8
104.5
103.5
89.7
100.6
111.7
102.7
90.6
99.2
110.7
103.0
92. 5
99.2
110.8
102.1
101.7
113.4
100.0
104.4
88.7
101.7
113.0
120.2
123.0
131.0
99.0
119.4
119.6
121.8
131.1
98.5
119.4
120.2
123.0
131.1
98.5
119.3
121.0
124.3
131.1
99.5
119.3
120.1
123.5
130.8
97.2
119.3
119.5
123.3
130.7
94.5
119.5
120.2
124.1
130.7
96.3
119.5
121.6
126.9
131.5
95.5
119.5
122.5
128.2
131.7
96.9
118.4
123.9
129.3
133.2
99.6
116.7
122.6
128.0
133.9
95.8
116.7
123.2
129.5
134.4
94.4
116.5
124.0
131.1
135.1
93.6
116.8
132.0
142.6
132.2
109.3
114.8
ALLCOMMODITIES
.
INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES............. ...........
FARM PRODUCTS, AND PROCESSED FOODS
AND FEEDS
02-5
02-6
02-71
02-72
02-73
02-74
02-8
02-9
__
_______
.
.
-----
---------------
Cereal and bakery products---------------------Meats, poultry, and fish............. ...................
Dairy products........... ....................................
Processed fruits and vegetables....................
Sugar and confectionery.................. ...........
Beverages and beverage materials..... ..........
Animal fats and oils__________ _________
Crude vegetable oils................
...............
Refined vegetable oils......... ..........................
Vegetable oil end products-----------------------Miscellaneous processed foods.................. .
Manufactured animal feeds...........................
111.0
111.0
83.3
118.3
89.8
67.1
134.8
112.9
109.2
109.1
120.2
119.5
131.9
115.7
123.6
112.9
100.3
83.5
90.3
103.5
121.5
118.2
INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES
Textile products and apparel....... ........ ................ ........
03
03-1
03-2
03-3
03-41
03-5
03-6
03-7
04
04-1
04-2
04-3
04-4
Hides, skins, leather, and related products_____ ____ _
05
05-1
05-2
05-3
05-4
05-61
05-7
Fuels and related products and power...... ......................
06
06-1
06-21
06-22
06-3
06-4
06-5
06-6
06-7
Chemicals and allied products...........................................
07
07-11
07-12
07-13
07-21
Rubher and plastic products........................ ..................
08
08-1
08-2
08-3
08-4
Lumber and wood products.............................................
Hides and skins................................... ........
Leather...... ............................................. .......
Footwear_______________________ ____
Other leather and related products............
Coal...............................................................
Coke...............................................................
Gas fuels (Jan. 1958 = 100)______ ______ _
Electric power (Jan. 1958 = 100)......... .........
Crude petroleum.. .............................. .......
Petroleum products, refined..........................
Industrial chemicals___________ ______ _
Prepared paint________ _________ _____
Paint materials_______________ ________
Drugs and pharmaceuticals...........................
Fats and oils, inedible_________ ________
Agricultural chemicals and chem. products.
Plastic resins and materials.......... ................
Other chemicals and allied products...........
Lumber.........................................................
Millwork................. .......................... ............
Plywood..................... ...................................
Other wood products (Dec. 1966 = 100).........
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
88.1
122.8
122.0
124.5
102.7
103.7
101.8
89.4
98.2
110.8
94
WHOLESALE PRICES
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
26. Wholesale price indexes,1 by group and subgroup of commodities—Continued
[1957-59=100 unless otherwise specified]2
1970
Coda
1969
Annual
average
Commodity Group
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
112.2
112.3
112.5
112.1
111.8
111.1
109.5
113.0
105.0
99.0
121.7
95.5
113.6
93.3
113.0
105.0
104.2
121.6
96.7
113.4
93.3
113.2
105.0
108.5
121.6
97.0
113.5
93.4
112.9
104.7
108.5
121.6
97.0
112.9
92.9
112.5
104.7
108.2
121.5
97.1
112.2
93.0
111.8
103.7
107.5
120.3
96.0
111.9
93.4
110.1
98.0
106.7
117.4
96.0
110.7
93.9
129.0
120.4
122.8
152.6
126.1
126.3
125.1
103.3
119.1
131.2
129.1
120.2
122.0
155.0
125.0
125.9
124.7
102.4
118.1
130.4
128.7
118.9
120.5
157.2
125.0
125.4
124.0
101.7
117.3
128.3
127.8
117.3
118.7
157.1
125.0
125.2
123.2
101.3
116.4
127.5
127.0
117.7
118.4
153.4
125.0
124.9
122.8
100.5
116.0
127.1
126.1
117.0
117.7
152.8
125.0
124.7
122.8
114.6
125.2
124.9
114.6
115.5
152.8
120.6
124.2
122.8
99.7
114.0
124.9
124.8
137.6
141.6
141.5
130.1
124.7
137.4
141.2
142.2
129.8
124.1
137.1
141.0
141.7
128.2
123.7
137.4
140.9
141.3
127.9
123.4
137.3
140.8
140.3
127.6
123.1
137.1
140.6
139.8
127.1
122.8
137.2
140.3
139.3
126.5
135.4
108.8
123.2
135.1
108.6
123.0
134.3
108.2
123.1
134.0
107.5
122.9
133.6
107.3
122.8
133.6
107.2
122.3
Furniture and household durables.................................
Household furniture........... ........................... ..
Commercial furniture........................................
Floor coverings......... ..................................... ..
Household appliances........ ............................ ..
Home electronic equipment. ____________
Other household durable goods....... ......... ..
108.9
126.6
128.4
92.7
95.1
77.2
135.8
108.8
126.3
127.6
92.7
94.9
77.2
135.8
108.6
126.0
127.6
92.6
94.9
77.0
135.5
108.3
125.9
125.1
92.8
94.9
77.0
135.3
108.3
125.6
125.1
93.1
94.8
77.0
135.6
13
13-11
13-2
13-3
13-4
13-5
13-6
13-7
13-8
13-9
Nonmetallic mineral products......... .................................
Flat glass....................... ............................. .......
Concrete ingredients................ ........... ...........
Concrete products_________ _____ _______
Structural clay products exc. refractories___
Refractories_____________ ____________ _
Asphalt roofing..................... .............................
Gypsum products..................... .........................
Glass containers.................................................
Other nonmetallic m inerals............................
118.5
122.1
122.4
118.9
121.3
125.7
93.6
104.7
120.9
114.6
118.1
122.1
122.4
118.3
121.3
125.7
92.0
100.7
120.9
113.9
117.9
121.6
122.3
118.1
121.2
125.8
92.7
100.7
120.9
113.7
117.9
121.1
122.1
117.4
121.2
126.1
95.1
104.0
120.9
113.7
14
14-1
14-4
Transportation equipment (Dec. 1968=100)_______
Motor vehicles and equipment___ ______ .
Railroad equipment (Jan. 1961 = 100)..........
103.3
109.5
119.3
103.2
109.4
119.3
103.3
109.5
119.3
103.2
109.4
119.0
15
15-1
Miscellaneous products..................................................
Toys, sporting goods, small arms, ammuni
tion................. ............................. ............... ..
Tobacco products...............................................
Notions............................... ............ ....... .........
Photographic equipment and supplies______
Other miscellaneous products______ ______
121.5
121.4
121.0
116.2
131.8
109.8
117.2
118.3
115.9
131.7
109.8
117.0
118.2
115.8
132.3
109.4
116.1
116.8
Aug.
July
June
112.3
112.5
09-11
09-12
09-13
09-14
09-15
09-2
Pulp, paper, and allied products----------------------------- - Pulp, paper, and products, excluding build
ing paper and board----- ----------- -------------................ .........
W oodpulp.-.................... ..
Wastepaper,.................... - ........... ....... ........... Paper...................................................................
Paperboard-------- ------------------- ----------- -------Converted paper and paperboard products...
Building paper and board................................ ..
113.1
109.6
92.6
122.5
95.5
113.2
93.1
113.3
109.6
95.3
121.9
95.5
113.7
93.2
10
10-1
10-13
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-7
10-8
Metals and metal products......... ...................................
Iron and s t e e l. . . .............................................
Steel m ill products___________ __________
Nonferrous metals------------- ----------- ------------Metal containers___________ ____ _______
Hardware................... ................... .....................
Plumbing fixtures and brass fittings------------Heating equipm ent.. ______
. . ------Fabricated structural metal products----------Miscellaneous metal products..................... ..
128.8
120.3
122.8
151.1
126.1
127.1
124.8
103.4
119.4
131.6
11
11-1
11-2
11-3
11-4
11-6
Machinery and equipment--------------------------------------Agricultural machinery and equipment_____
Construction machinery and equipment------Metalworking machinery and equipment___
General purpose machinery and equipm ent..
Special industry machinery and equipment
(Jan. 1961 = 100)___________________ _
Electrical machinery and e q u ip m e n t...........
Miscellaneous machinery.......... .......................
12-2
12-3
12-4
12-5
12-6
Jan.
Dec.
. Nov.
1969
Oct.
Sept.
109.3
109.0
108.8
108.7
108.2
109.9
98.0
107.0
117.0
96.0
110.6
94.4
109.6
98.0
107.2
116.5
95.9
110.3
94.6
109.3
98.0
108.4
116.5
95.9
109.8
95.1
109.2
98.0
110.3
117.2
95.8
109.2
95.2
108.6
98.0
108.3
116.6
94.4
108.8
97.1
123.8
113.9
116.4
150.1
120.6
123.0
122.8
99.7
113.7
124.5
122.9
113.7
116.4
146.4
120.6
122.7
122.2
99.3
113.6
124.4
122.4
113.7
116.4
144.8
120.6
122.2
120.8
98.7
113.4
124.4
121.7
113.2
115.5
143.5
120.3
121.0
120.2
98.0
112.8
124.2
120.4
112.7
115.4
139.5
119.7
120.6
119.4
97.7
112.6
123.2
118.9
111.0
113.7
137.4
119.7
120.5
118.7
97.6
111.5
122.0
122.5
136.7
140.2
138.6
126.1
121.9
136.4
139.8
138.0
124.8
121.0
135.8
138.6
136.5
123.7
120.5
133.2
137.7
135.4
123.4
119.9
133.0
136.1
134.4
122.6
119.1
132.3
134.9
133.5
121.8
119.0
132.8
135.5
133.4
121.4
133.4
106.9
121.7
133.3
106.8
121.5
132.8
106.2
121.0
130.6
106.0
120.4
130.2
105.6
120.0
129.6
105.4
119.2
129.2
104.7
118.5
128.7
104.8
118.1
108.1
125.3
124.9
93.4
94.7
77.2
134.6
107.9
125.1
124.5
93.5
94.4
77.2
134.8
107.5
124.3
124.4
93.5
94.4
77.2
133.0
107.2
123.6
124.1
93.1
93.6
77.8
133.3
106.9
123.6
124.0
93.1
93.6
131.1
106.5
123.3
122.4
93.1
93.1
77.9
131.2
106.4
123.0
121.7
93.2
93.0
77.9
131.4
106.2
123.0
119.5
93.2
93.0
77.9
131.4
106.1
122.3
120.0
94.1
93.0
78.2
130.6
117.8
121.5
121.9
117.2
120.9
125.9
95.1
105.6
120.9
113.5
117.3
119.9
120.8
117.0
119.8
125.4
97.8
107.0
120.9
112.4
116.9
119.0
120.6
116.4
119.4
125.1
100.8
108.3
120.9
116.5
118.4
120.1
115.9
119.4
123.5
101.8
107.3
120.9
111.0 111.0
114.5
117.8
116:7
114.2
118. 5
120.9
101.2
104.3
116 1
110.6
113.9
116.2
116.7
113.6
118.5
117.2
94.0
109.8
116.1
110.6
113.8
116.2
116.6
113.5
117.8
117.2
96.7
105.9
116.1
110.6
113.5
116.2
116.5
113.2
117.5
117.2
96.7
106.1
116.1
109.6
113.0
116.2
116.1
112.4
117.0
117.0
96.7
103.2
116.1
109.2
112.8
114.6
115.6
112.2
117.0
115.1
98.3
106.4
116.1
109.1
103.1
109.3
118.8
103.2
109.4
118.7
102.9
109.1
117.7
102.9
109.1
117.4
102.7
109.0
115.7
102.7
109.0
115.1
102.3
108.7
115.1
100.0
106.1
114.4
99.9
106.0
114.3
100.7
107.0
112.4
118.2
117.8
117.8
117.5
117.4
117.0
117.0
116.7
116.4
115.9
114.7
115.1
124.1
109.0
116.2
116.6
115.0
124.1
109.0
116.2
115.0
115.3
124.1
109.0
115.9
114.8
114.2
124.0
109.0
115.8
114.8
114.1
124.0
107.2
115.7
115.1
112.7
124.0
107.2
115.3
114.9
112.8
124.0
107.2
115.0
114.9
112.3
123.8
106.7
114.9
114.8
112.1
123.8
106.7
113.9
114.3
111.8
123.5
106.7
111.4
114.2
120.8
103.6
113.0
113.1
Aug.
INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES— Continued
09
09-1
11-7
11-9
12
12-1
15-2
15-3
15-4
15-9
i As of January 1967, the indexes incorporated a revised weighting structure reflect
ing 1963 values of shipments. Changes also were made in the classification structure,
and titles and composition of some indexes were changed. Titles and indexes in this
table conform with the revised classification structure, and may differ from data pre
viously published. See Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes, January 1967 (final) and
February 1967 (final) for a description of the changes.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
99.9
77.7
111.3
2
As of January 1962, the indexes were converted from the former base of 1947-49 =
100 to the new base of 1957-59=100. Technical details and earlier data on the 1957-59
base furnished upon request to the Bureau.
NOTE: For a description of the general method of computing the monthly Wholesale
Price Index, see BLS Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies (BLS Bulletin 1458,
1966), Chapter 11.
WHOLESALE PRICES
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
95
27. Wholesale price indexes for special commodity groupings 1
[1957-59=100, unless otherwise specified]’
1970
1969
Annual
Commodity group
averag e
1969
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
Processed foods........................................
118.1
122.3
125.9
118.1
124.9
126.7
117.6
123.5
125.2
117.4
122.8
124.6
117.2
123.2
125.4
116.8
124.9
125.7
116.6
124.5
124.6
116.3
125.0
124.5
115.4
123.3
122.8
115.0
123.1
122.1
114.7
119.8
121.8
114.1
120.1
121.6
113.8
119.9
121.9
113.4
119.0
119.9
Textile products, excluding hard and bast
fiber products........ ...............................
Hosiery....................... .............................
Underwear and nightwear................ .......
Refined petroleum products....................
East Coast...... ................................ .
Mid-Continent....................................
Gulf Coast_________ _______ ____
Pacific Coast___
. ___________
Midwest (Jan. 1961 = 100)____ ____
99.6
92.2
117.0
103.1
116.7
106.3
98.9
92.3
101.3
99.6
92.2
117.0
102.4
115.0
104.7
97.8
92.3
101.3
99.9
92.2
116.9
102.2
113.2
101.4
97.5
94.8
100.9
100.2
92.3
116.7
104.2
110.2
111.7
99.6
94.8
101.8
100.4
92.3
116.7
101.3
103.6
98.5
98.6
94.0
99.3
100.6
92.4
116.4
100.8
103.4
99.2
99.3
92.2
96.8
101.0
92.8
116.4
101.2
103.4
102.2
99.3
91.2
98.0
101.3
92.8
116.2
101.0
103.4
101.2
98.4
92.5
98.0
101.0
92.7
115.9
102.2
103.4
103.9
100.7
92.5
99.1
101.1
92.7
115.7
101.6
103.4
102.5
99.8
92.5
98.4
101.1
92.7
115.7
101.6
103.4
98.7
101.4
92.3
97.4
101.3
92.7
115.6
101.8
103.4
98.0
101.4
94.9
97.0
101.3
92.7
115.6
102.5
103.4
103.9
101.4
94.9
97.0
101.0
92.7
115.0
101.8
103.4
102.0
100.7
93.0
97.5
All commodities—less farm products__________
All foods_____ ___________________________
Pharmaceutical preparations______ . . .
Lumber and wood products excluding
millwork and other wood products3___
Special metals and metal products4____
Machinery and motive products________
Machinery and equipment, except electrical...... ................................................
Agricultural machinery, including tractors.
Metalworking machinery_____________
Total tractors............................ ...............
Industrial valves________ ______ _____
Industrial fittings........ ............ ..................
Abrasive grinding w he e ls.......................
Construction materials..... .........................
97.7
97.1
96.9
96.9
96.8
97.4
97.0
97.0
97.1
96.7
96.5
96.5
96.2
96.3
117.5
123.2
120.0
116.5
123.3
119.8
117.4
123.4
119.5
118.6
123.1
119.3
117.3
122.5
119.0
116.4
122.0
118.9
117.5
121.4
118.6
119.3
120.6
118.4
120.6
119.9
117.9
122.2
119.2
117.4
120.1
118.8
116.9
120.8
117.5
115.5
121.7
116.6
115.1
134.6
116.0
115.3
135.0
139.8
149.7
134.9
139.6
149.7
134.3
139.4
149.0
134.1
139.8
148.3
133.7
139.7
147.1
133.3
139.6
146.6
132.9
139.7
146.0
132.6
139.3
145.2
131.9
139.1
144.6
130.6
138.5
143.6
129.9
135.5
143.4
129.0
135.3
141.7
128.3
134.6
140.9
128.1
135.2
140.5
142.9
134.3
127.3
107.1
119.2
142.6
133.7
127.7
107.1
118.8
142.6
131.8
124.2
107.1
118.6
142.8
131.2
124.2
107.1
118.5
142.8
130.1
124.2
107.1
118.0
142.9
130.0
124.2
107.1
117.5
143.0
129.4
124.2
107.1
117.4
142.8
128.5
123.2
107.1
117.4
142.5
127.3
119.4
107.1
116.9
141.3
125.8
118.6
107.0
116.9
139.4
125.8
118.0
102.6
116.3
138.4
124.8
118.0
102.6
115.9
137.1
124.8
115.3
102.6
115.7
138.1
124.2
115.9
103.3
117.7
'See footnote 1, table 26.
’ See footnote 2, table 26.
’ Formerly titled "Lum ber and wood products, excluding m illwork.”
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4
Metals and metal products, agricultural machinery and equipment, and motor
vehicles and equipment.
96
WHOLESALE PRICES
28.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
Wholesale price indexes,1 by stage of processing
[1957-59 = 100] 2
1970
1969
Annual
Commodity group
Aug.
Ju ly
June
May
A pr.
Mar.
Feb
ALL COMMODITIES............................ ...........
117.2
117.7
117.0
116.8
116.6
116.6
CRUDE MATERIALS FOR FURTHER PROCESSING________________ ____ ______
110.9
113.8
113.0
112.8
113.4
Foodstuffs and feedstuffs___ ____ _____
112.4
116.6
114.8
114.4
Nonfood materials exceptfuel.................. .
103.6
102.0
121.0
104.4
102.9
121.0
105.9
104.6
120.7
136 9
130.0
146 1
135.9
129.3
144.8
116.6
115.8
124.2
M a n ufa ctu rin g ___________________
C o nstruction _________ ________ _
Crude fuel_________________________
M anufa ctu rin g in d u strie s _________
N onm an u fa cturin g in d u strie s _____
INTERMEDIATE MATERIALS, SUPPLIES AND
COMPONENTS_______________________
Materials and Components for Manufacturing_______________________
M aterials fo r food m a n u fa c tu rin g ...
M aterials fo r nondurable m anufactu rin g ________ ________ ________
M aterials fo r durab le m an ufa ctu rin g .......................... ..............................
Components fo r m a n u fa ctu rin g ___
.
1969
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
116.4
116.0
115.1
114.7
114.0
113.6
113.4
114.2
113.0
110.7
109.9
109.0
108.7
108.7
109.5
107.9
115.3
117.3
115.5
112.9
112.2
111.0
110.5
110.4
112.1
110.4
106.9
105.6
120.3
107.0
105.8
120.2
106.6
105.6
118.0
106.9
105.9
117.5
105.3
104.3
116.4
104.2
103.2
115.3
104.0
103.0
115.3
104.0
103.0
115.1
104.8
103.9
114.9
104.1
103.2
114.1
102.0
101.0
114.0
134.4
128.1
143.0
131.8
126.2
139.2
131.5
126.0
138.8
125.2
121.5
130.3
124.7
121.2
129.4
122.2
119.6
125.8
121.5
118.8
125.0
121.1
118.6
124.5
119.9
117.8
122.8
118.1
116.7
120.1
117.2
115.6
119.4
117.6
116.0
119.8
116.4
115.9
115.7
115.3
114.8
114.7
114.4
113.5
113.1
112.8
112.4
111.9
111.8
115.7
124.3
115.4
123.0
115.3
122.5
115.0
123.4
114.4
122.9
113.9
121.5
113.6
121.1
112.9
119.9
112.6
120.0
112.2
119.2
111.8
118.3
111.4
118.4
110.8
116.8
113.0
102.8
102.6
102.4
102.8
102.7
102.4
102.3
102.3
101.6
101.7
101.5
101.7
101.7
101.2
125.3
120.8
125.5
120.3
125.6
119.7
125.4
119.0
124.5
118.7
123.4
118.3
122.7
118.0
122.1
117.7
121.4
117.0
120.4
116.7
120.0
116.1
119.6
115.1
118.7
114.3
118.1
114.0
Materialsand Componentsfor Construction..
119.6.
119.1
118.9
118.6
118.2
117.7
117.3
117.3
116.8
116.7
116.2
115.8
115.5
116.9
Processed fuels and lubricants___________
M anufacturing in d u s trie s _________
N onm an u fa cturin g in d u strie s______
106.4
109.0
102.3
105.5
108.2
101.3
104.8
107.6
100.4
105.1
107.3
101.6
103.6
106.7
98.8
103.0
106.1
98.3
103.0
106.0
98.3
102.4
105.3
97.8
102.7
105.1
99.0
102.1
104.5
98.4
102.3
104.8
98.4
101.0
103.2
97.6
100.6
102.3
97.8
100.9
103.1
97.4
Containers_________________________
118.7
119.1
118.7
118.5
118.5
118.1
117.6
116.2
114.8
114.6
114.5
114.2
113.7
113.3
Supplies__________________________
M anufa ctu rin g in d u s trie s ....... ...........
N onm an u fa cturin g in d u strie s______
M anufactured anim al fee d s_____
O ther s u p p lie s _________________
120.8
121.9
119.5
120.2
115.3
120.7
122.3
119.2
119.4
115.2
118.9
122.1
116.8
112.9
114.8
118.3
121.9
116.0
111.4
114.5
118.5
121.7
116.4
113.2
114.2
117.6
121.1
115.4
110.7
113.9
120.1
120.9
119.1
122.8
113.4
119.7
120.5
118.6
123.7
112.3
116.9
119.4
115.1
114.1
111.8
115.9
118.7
113.9
111.6
111.4
115.6
118.0
113.9
112.3
111.0
115.1
117.8
113.3
111.7
110.4
114.4
117.4
112.4
110.5
109.7
114.4
117.0
112.5
110.6
109.8
FINISHED GOODS (Including Raw Foods and
Fuels)______________________________
119.1
119.7
119.0
118.7
118.6
119.0
118.8
118.8
118.0
117.6
116.5
116.0
115.7
115.3
117.2
123.3
107.6
126.2
116.4
108.3
118.0
125.9
118.3
127.3
116.0
108.3
117.3
124.2
115.4
125.3
115.9
108.1
117.0
123.6
115.0
125.2
115.6
108.0
116.8
124.1
114.3
125.9
114.9
107.8
117.4
126.0
123.3
126.4
114.7
107.8
117.3
125.9
128.0
125.4
114.6
107.6
117.3
126.4
131.6
125.3
114.2
107.4
116.5
124.5
129.5
123.5
114.1
107.2
116.2
123.9
131.0
122.5
113.8
107.1
115.1
121.2
114.2
122.4
113.6
106.9
114.7
121.6
116.9
122.4
113.3
105.3
114.4
121.2
112.4
122.8
113.0
105.2
114.0
120.3
117.5
120.7
112.3
105.8
124.9
130.9
119.4
124.6
130.6
119.2
124.2
129.9
119.0
124.0
129.5
118.8
123.7
129.1
118.7
123.5
128.9
118.5
123.1
128.4
118.2
122.9
128.0
118.0
122.3
127.5
117.4
121.5
126.2
117.0
120.8
125.8
116.1
119.9
125.0
115.0
119.3
124.4
114.4
119.3
124.1
114.7
Crude materials for further processing, excluding
crude foodstuffs and feedstuffs, plant and animal fibers, oilseeds and leaf tobacco..............
117.2
118.0
119.5
120.0
120.3
118.5
118.5
116.0
114.5
114.1
113.7
113.9
112.5
110.5
Intermediate materials supplies and compo
nents, excluding intermediate materials for
food mfg., and mfr.'d animal feeds_______
115.8
115.6
115.4
115.2
114.7
114.2
113.9
113.5
112.9
112.6
112.2
111.8
111.3
111.3
Consumer finished goods, excluding consumer
foods_________ ______ ______________
113.3
113.1
112.9
112.7
112.2
112.1
111.9
111.7
111.5
111.3
111.1
110.3
110.1
109.9
Consumer Goods._______ ____________
Foods_______________ _____ ______
C rude ......... ..................................... ..
Processed_____________________
O ther nondurable goods__________
Durable goods.................... ....................
Producer Finished Goods_______ _____
M a nufacturing in d u s t r ie s . . . ............
N o nm anufacturing in d u strie s_____
SPECIAL GROUPINGS
1 See footnote 1, table 25.
JSee footnote 2, tab le 26.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: For description of the series by stage of processing, see Wholesale Prices
and Price Indexes, January 1967 (final) and February 1967 (final).
WHOLESALE PRICES
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
29.
97
Wholesale price indexes,1 by durability of product
11957-59=1001 »
1970
Annual
1969
averag e
Commodity group
1969
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
117.2
121.7
113.9
117.7
121.6
116.8
121.3
113.6
116.6
120.9
113.6
116.6
120.5
113.9
120.0
115.1
119.0
112.4
114.7
118.4
111.9
113.6
117.1
113.4
116.5
113.9
116.0
119.6
113.4
114.0
117.9
114.8
117.0
121.5
113.8
116.4
Total durable goods.........................
Total nondurable goods___________
113.0
116.6
110.3
Total manufactures...........................................................................
118.0
121.6
117.4
121.3
113.6
121.0
117.1
120.1
116.1
119.4
113.0
115.3
118.8
111.9
111.6
114.6
117.9
111.4
113.9
117.0
113.6
116.4
113.3
116.6
113.2
116.4
119.7
113.2
114.9
118.3
113.4
116.9
120.5
113.4
116.6
114.4
118.0
121.5
114.5
111.0 111.0 110.1
112.6
115.7
114.7
128.9
113.9
114.5
131.9
113.6
114.7
131.9
113.8
116.3
134.0
115.3
116.0
133.8
115.1
114.8
128.9
114.1
113.9
125.3
113.3
113.1
124.0
112.5
122.8
110.3
111.6
123.7
110.9
111.5
119.7
111.1
110.9
115.8
110.7
All commodities_________________________
Durable_________ _____ _________
Nondurable....... ..................... .............
Total raw or slightly processed goods__________
Durable_______________________
Nondurable................................ .
121.2
112.1
124.4
115.2
1See footnote 1, table 26.
»See footnote 2, table 26.
30.
111.2 111.1 111.1
111.0
NOTE: For description of the series by durability of product and data beginning with
1947, see "Wholesale Price and Price Indexes, 1957” (BLS Bulletin 1235,1958).
Industry-sector price indexes for the output of selected industries1
[1957-59=100 unless otherwise indicated]
Feb.2
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Annual
average
1969
1211
1311
1421
Anthracite________________________
___
Bituminous coal___ . .
Crude petroleum and natural gas.
_ _
Crushed and broken stone______ . . .
119.3
132.7
111.0
116.3
119.3
125.9
111.0
115.1
118.4
124.9
110.9
114.5
114.9
124.2
110.9
114.5
111.4
121.3
110.8
114.2
111.4
116.2
110.9
114.2
108.0
116.1
110.6
113.6
108.0
116.0
110.5
113.6
104.2
115.0
110.6
113.6
104.2
114.1
110.7
112.6
106.2
113.4
110.9
112.5
107.4
113.1
109.9
112.5
107.4
113.1
106.6
112.5
109.0
116.7
110.0
113.4
1442
1475
1476
1477
Construction sand and gravel........ ... __
Phosphate rock___ _______
.. _
______
Rock salt_____________
Sulfur... _______ _ _ _________ .
125.8
147.4
107.0
104.2
124.7
147.4
107.0
115.8
123.0
147.4
107.0
115.8
123.0
147.4
107.0
115.8
123.0
147.4
107.0
124.1
122.5
147.4
107.0
165.4
121.5
147.4
107.0
165.4
121.5
147.4
107.0
165.4
120.7
147.4
107.0
165.4
120.6
147.4
107.0
165.4
120.8
147.4
107.0
165.4
120.6
147.4
100.8
165.4
119.8
147.4
100.8
165.4
121.4
147.4
105.5
154.4
2011
2013
2015
2021
2033
Meat slaughtering plants____
_____
Meat processing plants... .
Poultry dressing plants________ . . . _
Creamery butter___ ____
______
Canned fruits and vegetables_____
12/66
12/66
116.8
123.3
105.0
104.9
110.0
117.5
119.7
111.4
104.7
109.6
114.0
121.3
105.7
106.3
109.8
113.5
118.5
103.3
105.1
109.7
113.8
119.1
101.7
105.1
109.5
116.2
120.3
104.0
105.1
109.0
117.4
122.0
107.8
104.9
108.7
121.7
118.7
103.3
104.9
108.7
121.2
117.0
101.7
104.8
107.7
114.8
109.7
102.3
104.8
107.7
108.0
104.8
96.1
104.9
107.8
104.6
103.4
99.6
103.4
107.7
103.9
101.7
98.5
103.3
107.6
112.8
113.1
101.7
104.7
108.4
2036
2044
2052
2061
2062
2063
Fresh or frozen packaged fish
___
Rice milling_____________ . . . .
Biscuits, crackers and cookies______ .
Raw cane sugar_____________ _____
Cane sugar refining.
_________
Beet sugar_______________________
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
155.9
93.1
110.5
112.2
110.5
108.0
155.3
93.1
109.7
113.9
110.8
108.0
150.8
94.0
109.7
107.0
108.9
106.1
154.1
94.0
109.7
110.1
109.3
106.6
146.5
94.0
108.0
110.5
109.2
106.7
145.9
93.1
107.1
109.6
108.4
106.4
143.8
92.6
104.5
108.9
108. 1
106.3
146.4
92.6
104.4
104.5
107.6
105.7
139.9
93.8
104.4
109.5
107.6
106.7
140.4
93.8
104.4
109.5
107.2
104.9
136.8
93.8
104.3
109.0
105.8
105.0
141.7
93.8
104.3
108.5
103.9
102.3
141.4
93.8
104,3
107.7
103.6
102.2
144.0
93.6
105.8
108.5
106.9
105.1
2073
2082
2083
2084
2091
2092
Chewing gum ..
________________
________ _
Malt liquors_______
Malt________________________
12/66
Wines and brandy.. _ _ _ . _______
Cottonseed oil mills___
... _
Soybean oil m ills..
. ... .
_____ 12/66
106.2
107.3
94.1
118.8
108.4
101.6
106.2
107.4
96.8
118.3
109.0
95.9
106.2
107.3
96.8
118.3
99.4
88.6
106.1
107.3
96.8
118.3
95.8
88.0
106.1
107.7
96.8
118.3
91.5
91.0
106.1
107.1
96.8
115.5
97.0
85.7
106.1
107.2
96.8
115.5
97.2
87.4
106.1
107.2
96.8
115.7
98.3
87.1
106.1
106.7
96.8
115.7
92.9
87.0
106.1
106.0
96.8
115.7
92.7
86.3
106.1
104.9
96.8
115.7
93.9
85.6
106.1
104.9
96.8
115.7
93.6
84.8
106.1
104.9
96.8
115.5
93.7
83.1
106.1
106.3
96.8
116.3
95.1
86.5
2094
2096
2098
2111
2121
2131
Animal and marine fats and oils.. . .
Shortening and cooking oils_______
Macaroniand noodle products____
Cigarettes.
Cigars______ ________ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chewing and smoking tobacco_______
12/66
111.5
108.6
104.6
125.1
107.2
141.4
105.2
108.3
101.9
125.1
106.8
141.4
96.4
108.8
101.9
125.1
107.3
141.4
104.9
107.2
101.9
125.0
107.3
140.6
102.1
105.5
101.9
125.0
106.8
138.5
105.8
102.6
101.9
125.0
106.8
138.3
104.6
102.5
101.8
125.0
105.2
138.1
99.6
102.3
101.9
125.0
103.8
138.1
93.8
103.3
101.8
124.9
102.7
137.1
89.0
103.1
101.8
117.5
102.7
137.0
88.9
103.2
101.5
117.5
102.7
136.0
85.1
103.1
100.4
117.4
102.1
134.7
82.9
102.9
100.3
117.4
102.0
134.7
94.5
103.8
101.5
121.9
104.3
137.2
2254
2311
2321
2322
2327
Knit underwear mills__
_________
Men's and boys'suits and coats.. ___
Men’s dress shirts and nightwear_____
Men’s and boys’ underwear___ __ . . .
Men’s and boys’ separate trousers____
12/66 '108.4
143.6
122.6
12/66 109.5
12/66 107.4
108.2
142.7
122.6
109.4
107.3
107.8
142.7
122.1
109.1
106.9
107.7
142.2
121.0
109.0
106.8
107.7
140.4
121.0
109.0
106.8
107.7
139.4
120.6
107.9
106.4
107.7
138.5
120.6
107.9
106.3
107.7
137.1
118.3
107.7
106.1
106.3
135.8
118.2
106.9
106.1
106.4
134.4
118.2
107.0
104.8
106.3
134.7
118.8
107.1
104.8
106.3
134.3
118.8
107.1
104.7
106.3
134.3
118.9
107.0
104.7
107.0
137.3
119.6
107.7
105.8
2328
2381
2426
2442
2515
Work clothing_____________________
Fabric dress and work gloves_______
Hardwood dimension and flooring__ _ 12/66
Wirebound boxes and c r a te s ..._____
12/67
Mattresses and bedsprings________
12/66
120.1
137.3
115.2
113.4
108.8
119.8
136.2
116.8
113.0
108.8
119.1
137.1
116.5
110.7
108.2
119.0
135. 4
116.6
110.0
108.7
119.0
135.4
116.7
110.0
108.5
118.3
134.8
117.2
110.0
108.5
117.7
132.1
117.3
108.6
108.5
117.4
131.9
117.8
108.3
108.3
117.4
131.9
119.0
107.4
108.2
116.6
131.9
120.7
107.4
108.2
116.6
131.7
121.1
106.5
108.3
116.6
130.8
120.6
106.4
108.2
116.6
130.6
118.8
106.4
108,2
117.6
132.8
118.2
108.2
108.2
2521
2647
2654
Wood office furniture_________ .
Sanitary paper products_____________
Sanitary food containers_____________
140.1
117.0
102.4
139.8
116.9
101.6
139.2
115.3
101.3
138.9
115.3
101.2
137.6
113.9
100.6
135.9
113.5
100.4
134.3
113.1
100.4
134.3
112.3
100.1
134.3
111.5
100.7
133.4
132.8
132.2
111.1
111.1
111.1
131.7
110.2
100.7
134.6
112.2
100.7
1963
SIC
Code
1969
1970
Industry
Other
bases
M IN IN G
m i
M A N U FA C T U R IN G
See fo o tn o te s a t end o f ta b le .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
100.6
100.6
100.4
98
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
WHOLESALE PRICES
30. Industry-sector price indexes for the output of selected industries
1963
SIC
Code
Continued
1970
1969
Other
bases
Industry
Annual
average
Feb.
2
1969
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
96.0
95.7
96.0
96.0
95.6
96.0
96.0
95.6
96.0
96.0
95.6
96.0
96.0
95.6
96.0
95.9
9b. 6
96.0
95.9
95.6
96.0
95.9
95. 6
96.0
95.9
95.6
96.0
95.8
95.6
96.0
95.3
95.8
96.0
95.3
95.8
96.0
95.7
95.7
96.0
8 6 .6
85.0
90.6
117.1
97.8
120.4
118.3
85.0
90.6
117.3
97.3
120.5
117.2
85.4
91.2
117.3
97.3
88.5
92.6
117. 5
98.1
121.5
118.2
88.7
93.1
117. 4
98.8
121.7
117. 5
99.2
93.3
117.5
98.8
99.2
93.3
116.9
98.0
99.2
93.3
115.0
98.0
12 2 .1
12 2 .2
12 2 .8
117.4
88.3
92.7
117.4
97.5
122.3
117.6
113. b
115. 4
112 .0
99.4
93.9
114.8
97.1
116.7
111.5
99.4
93.7
114.1
95.1
116.7
110.5
93.1
92.7
116.4
97.4
120.4
114.9
116.1
114.9
125.1
116.1
114.9
124.4
116.1
114.9
124.4
122.2
12 2 .2
12 2 .2
116.4
115.9
115.1
116.1
114.8
123.5
122. 0
115. 0
116.1
114.8
123. 5
117.8
114.4
116.1
114.8
123.4
117.8
114.8
116.1
114.8
123.2
117.8
115.3
116.1
114.8
123.0
117.8
115.3
116.1
114.7
121.5
116.7
115.3
116.1
111.7
121.5
116.7
115.1
116.1
114.0
123.3
119.7
115.3
104.2
143.7
131.2
115.0
114.9
102.4
139.8
130.9
114.6
114.4
106.4
114.4
107.5
102.4
139.8
130.9
114. 5
113.7
103.6
114.3
107. 0
102.4
139.8
130.9
114. 5
113. 5
105. 2
112.5
iUb. 4
100.9
137.2
127.0
113.7
112.7
108.9
10 0 .8
137.2
127.0
114.2
99.8
134.3
123.3
114.5
99.7
134.3
123.3
113.4
112 .0
111.8
106.5
110 .8
110 .6
105.1
105.1
106.5
109.5
105.1
101.7
138.4
128.1
114.3
113.3
106.7
106.3
108.9
111.7
105.9
99.8
137.2
127.0
114.2
112.3
106.5
112 .1
1 12 .1
108.4
lUb. 6
107.8
100.9
109.0
107.7
110 .0
110 .0
1 0 0 .6
110. 0
120. 5
154. 5
108.9
108.7
107.3
100.4
109.0
131.8
lbb. 9
109.0
123.8
160.6
109.0
109.0
107.3
100.5
109.0
107.4
105.7
96.9
109.0
119.5
144.6
108.9
107.4
105.6
96.9
109.0
119.8
142.8
108.8
110.3
125.5
155.6
108.7
108.4
99.4
106.8
103.7
130.4
109.7
108.4
98.8
106.8
103.6
130.3
109.1
107.8
98. 7
106.8
103.6
130.3
108.0
12 1.8
107.6
131. 2
121.5
107.6
131. 2
10 2.6
M A N U F A C T U R I N G —Continued
282?
2823
2824
?871
?87?
?8 Q?
?911
9111
3121
Synthetic rubber------------------ ------Cellulosic man-made fibers.. ------------Organic fibers, noncellulosic--------- -
12/6 6
12/6 6
12/66
Leather tanning and finishing__
Industrial leather belting----------- ---------
12/66
3221
3241
32M
3255
3259
Structural clay products, nec---------------
9?fil
9282
9289
3271
Vitreous plumbing fix tu re s ...----- ---
3278
991?
3315
9918
9917
9999
9994
9999
9951
3411
3423
9491
94Q9
3496
9498
3519
3533
3534
3537
3562
3572
.
1958
Steel wire drawing, etc----------------------
12/66
95.9
95.7
96.0
88.3
94.4
118.4
96.7
118.2
121.1
90.7
117.8
96.6
120.4
117.6
120 .8
120 .8
120.3
126.4
130.9
117.1
120.4
126.4
129.0
117.2
116.1
114.9
125.1
126.2
116.4
104.6
146.2
132.8
118.1
118.0
108.7
116.4
104.6
143.7
131.2
117.6
117.3
107.7
114.6
109.3
104.6
143.7
131.2
115.4
115.7
104.7
115.3
108.6
115.3
108.5
103.4
139.8
130.9
114.9
114.7
106.2
115.2
108.4
113.7
110.4
107.7
114.0
138.9
166.4
109.0
113.7
110.4
107.4
114.0
133.9
166.4
109.0
109.6
99.8
107.2
103.7
130.4
110 .1
120.4
104.5
128.6
120 .0
104.5
129.1
119.1
103.9
128.2
10 2.2
10 2 .1
10 2 .1
10 2.1
10 2.1
121.4
106.2
130.8
102.7
101.4
101.3
100.5
10 0 .6
10 0 .6
10 2.0
128.6
127.0
127.0
126.9
10 1.1
10 0 .2
103.6
104.3
99.8
100.3
129.9
101.3
104.4
104. 3
99. 8
99.6
10 0 .8
1 0 2.2
104.9
103.0
99.8
104.1
104.0
103.6
104.3
126.9
102.3
104.9
10 1.1
1 0 1.0
10 1.0
10 1.0
99.8
103.1
99.8
103.6
99.8
102.7
99.7
103.0
129.6
101.3
105.0
102.9
99.8
101.4
122 .6
1 1 /. 8
122 .6
1 1 /. 8
122 .6
12 1.2
90. 0
103.0
90. 0
102.9
90.0
102.9
117.8
89.9
122.3
117.8
89.9
122.3
117.8
89.9
122.3
117.7
89.9
122.3
109.6
89.8
122.7
117.3
89.7
10 2 .1
10 2 .1
10 2.0
10 2.0
10 2.0
10 2.6
92.6
115.2
113.1
111.4
92.7
115.2
92.6
115.2
92.7
115.2
92.7
115.2
112 .8
112 .8
92.6
115.2
112.5
92.6
114.9
111.3
92.4
113.8
111.4
92.6
114.1
113.9
111.3
122.4
107.6
132.6
10 2 .6
10 2.2
103.1
103.1
101. 5
129.9
10 0 .2
10 1.6
10 1.6
10 0 .1
133.2
99.3
106.7
104.4
99.9
98.5
133.0
12/66
133.4
100.3
107.1
104.8
99.9
98.4
133.0
12/67
134.7
100.9
107.5
105.2
105. 9
104.3
99. 8
123.5
123.5
121.3
90.0
103.1
123.5
87.5
103.2
123.5
121.3
89.7
103.2
92.7
115.4
117.4
92.8
115.4
115.6
92.7
115.3
115.4
111.4
12/66
12/66
100.4
107.4
104.4
132.2
12/66
101.9
133.3
100.9
107.1
105.2
99.9
101.7
12/6 6
12/6 6
123.5
121.4
87.5
103.8
123.5
121.3
87.5
103.4
92.7
116.1
118.8
113.8
92.8
115.4
119.1
112.5
12/6 6
12/66
12/6 6
12/66
12/67
12/66
12 1.2
112 .2
1 For a description of the series, see B LS Handbook of Methods for Surveys and
Studies (BLS Bulletin 1458), Chapter 12. See also. “ Industry and Sector Price Indexes.”
in Monthly Labor Review, August 1965, pp. 974-982.
Current monthly industry-sector price indexes are not available for this issue. At
the beginning of each calendar year, changes in the sample for some indexes must be
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
120 .8
104.5
13U. b
110 .1
122.5
107.7
133.6
103.7
103.2
Ball and roller bearings............... ..........
Typewriters____________ ______ ___
2
12 1.0
110 .8
122.7
107.7
133.9
103.7
103.8
12/66
Semiconductors________ __________
Primary batteries, dry and wet...............
X-ray apparatus and tubes....................
Games and toys......................................
107.8
97.8
106.5
103.4
128.5
108.7
125.1
110.5
134.0
105.7
103.9
12/66
Elevators and moving stairways.......... .
3674
3692
3693
3941
105.9
95.7
105.8
103.0
123.4
106.9
125.4
114.7
134.0
107.2
103.9
1958
Phonograph records....... ..................... .
Electron tubes, receiving type-------------Cathode ray picture tu b e s....................
Electron tubes, transmitting-----------------
106.3
95.8
105.8
103.1
123.4
107.5
112 .1
12/6 6
3652
3671
3672
3673
107.2
95.8
105.9
103.2
129.7
107.9
125.9
114.7
134.3
107.3
103.9
1 12 .6
Switchgear and switchboards....... ..........
Carbon” and graphite products................
Household vacuum cleaners__________
Electric lamps....... .......... ............ .........
106.9
96.6
106.0
103.2
129.7
108.3
110 .6
100.3
107.2
103.7
130.8
12/67
3576
3612
3613
3624
3635
3641
107.1
97.3
106.3
103.5
129.7
108.3
110 .8
12/6 6
Internal combustion engines.................
12 0 .1
100.4
107.2
103.8
130.9
110.9
Metal cans__________________ _____
Hand and edge tools....................... .......
112 .2
105.7
104.4
99.9
99.2
106.5
151.7
108.9
111.4
100.4
107.4
104.4
132.2
111.9
12/6 6
112 .6
12 0 .1
113.6
110.5
107.7
114.0
134.8
171.4
109.0
Primary nonferrous metals, nec______
112 .6
152.3
108.9
112 .1
110 .6
108.1
114.0
140.3
176.7
109.0
107.9
114.0
140.2
175.8
113.8
12/6 6
12/6 6
111.8
107.5
107.2
97.1
109.0
120.3
147.8
108.9
110 .6
12/6 6
12/6 6
114.7
110 .1
12 1.2
10 1.1
111.4
111.1
1 11.1
1 12 .6
111.1
111.0
111.2
104.5
128.6
111.1
1 11 .2
110 .1
107.8
10 1.6
made and necessary internal reweighting accomplished; this has caused the delay.
NOTE. Beginning in January 1967, index weights and classifications are based on the
1963 Censuses of Manufactures and Minerals. They were formerly based on the 1958
Industrial Censuses.
LABOR-MANAGEMENT DISPU TES
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
31.
99
Work stoppages resulting from labor-management disputes 1
Number of stoppages
Month and year
Beginning in
month or year
Workers involved in stoppages
In effect during
month
Beginning in
month or year
(thousands)
In effect during
month
(thousands)
Number
(thousands)
Percent of esti
mated working
time
1945............................................
1946.............. .............................
1947 .........................................
1948 ..........................................
1949 ____________ _______
4,750
4,985
3 ; 693
3' 419
3,606
1950............................................
1951.......... .................................
1952.................. .........................
1953 ..........................................
1954________________ _____
4,843
4,737
5; 117
5', 091
3; 468
2,400
i ; 530
38 800
22’ 900
59’ 100
2 8 300
22’ 600
1955........ ...................................
1956_________ ______ ______
1957...................................... ..
1958.......... ............... .................
1959............ ...............................
4,320
3i 825
3| 673
3; 694
3’ 708
2,650
L9 0 0
i ; 390
2' 060
I) 880
28
33
16
23
69
200
100
500
900
000
22
* 24
* 12
* 18
* 50
1960.................... ......................
1961______ ________________
1962..........................................
1963.................................. .........
1964...........................................
3,333
3| 367
3^614
3; 362
3 ; 655
1,320
i; 450
l | 230
'941
1,640
19 inn
in 3nn
is ' 6nn
16' 100
22 900
# 11
* 15
1965............................................
1966............................................
1967____ _________________
1968__________ ___________
1 9 6 9 .........................................
3,963
4,405
4; 595
5; 045
5', 700
1,550
i ; 960
2 , 870
2 , 649
2 , 481
23 300
25 400
42’ 100
49 018
42,’ 869
15
* 15
*25
*28
* 24
1967:
1968:
1969:
1970:
3,470
< 600
Man-days idle during month or year
38 000
116 000
34" 600
34’ 100
50’ 500
2 , 170
1,960
3,030
2,410
2,220
3 ; 540
0 31
r 04
January.........................
February.......................
March............................
286
292
368
443
485
545
94.4
104.1
129.9
163.5
159.2
195.4
1,247.9
1,275.8
1,507.8
.09
.10
.10
A p ril..............................
May...............................
June..............................
462
528
472
638
769
759
397.6
277.8
211.8
438.8
584.9
405.0
2,544.8
4,406.4
4,927.4
.19
.30
.33
July...............................
August.........................
September...... .............
389
392
415
682
689
681
664.6
91.3
372.8
865.5
233.1
473.6
4,328.7
2,859.5
6,159.8
.32
.18
.45
October.........................
November.....................
December.....................
449
360
182
727
653
445
178.8
2 7 7 .1
74.4
458.7
559.5
209.5
7,105.6
3,213.2
2,546.5
.47
.22
.18
January........................
February.......................
March...........................
314
357
381
483
569
618
187.8
275.0
174.5
275.7
451.3
368.7
2,668. 5
4,104.1
3,682. 0
.18
.29
.26
A p ril..............................
May...............................
June .............................
505
610
500
748
930
810
537.2
307.3
168.5
656.7
736.2
399.9
5,677.4
7,452.2
5,576.8
.38
.49
.40
July...............................
August...... ...................
September_________
520
466
448
880
821
738
202.0
153.8
169.8
465.1
359.6
349.0
4,611.9
4, 048. 9
3, 081.1
.30
.26
.22
October........................
November....................
December....... .............
434
327
183
741
617
408
279.0
129.9
64.1
414.5
306.1
189.2
3,991.7
2,430.5
1,692.5
.25
.17
.11
January.........................
February______ ____
March______________
342
385
436
511
578
651
184.9
177.1
158.1
264.3
339.9
386.3
3,173.3
2,565.8
2,412.5
.21
.18
.16
A p ril— .........................
May_________ _____
June____ ____ _____
578
723
565
831
1,054
911
309.7
286.3
214.6
462.3
507.7
500.0
3,755.0
4, 744. 7
4, 722. 7
.24
.32
.31
J u l y . . . . .......................
A u gust.........................
September__________
528
538
554
883
915
904
255.0
191.2
185.6
461.5
394.8
274.5
4,311.0
3,634. 3
2,193.4
.27
.24
.15
O cto b e r.......................
November__________
December__________
531
324
196
850
611
446
337.0
131.0
50.8
420.9
367.6
276.0
3,167. 5
4, 307.6
3, 881.8
.19
.31
.24
January*___________
February*_____ ____
March*....................... ..
260
290
390
420
460
570
55
106
294
233
296
364
3,730
1,820
2, 230
.25
.13
.14
April * . . ...................
May * _____________
June * _____________
600
750
600
810
960
840
319
309
212
385
470
428
4,181
7,516
5,040
.26
.52
.31
July * _____________
August * _____ _____
490
420
750
700
192
135
354
202
4,378
2,800
.28
.18
1 The data include all known strikes or lockouts involving 6 workers or more and
lasting a fu ll day or shift or longer. Figures on workers involved and man-days idle
cover all workers made idle for as long as 1 shift in establishments directly involved in
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or secondary effect on other establishments
or industries whose employees are made idle as a result of material or service shortages.
^Prelim inary.
100
32.
PRODUCTIVITY
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, OCTOBER 1970
Output per man-hour, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, private economy, seasonally adjusted
[Indexes 1957-59=100]
Output per
man-hour
Man-hours
Output
Compensation
per m an-hour1
Real compensa
tion per
m an-hour2
Unit labor
costs
Unit nonlabor
paym ents3
Im plicit price
de fla to r4
Year and quarter
Private
nonfarm
Private
Private
nonfarm
Private
Private
nonfarm
Private
Private
nonfarm
Private
Private
nonfarm
Private
Private
nonfarm
Private
115.5
114.9
115.3
116.1
132.4
134.7
135.2
135.3
128.4
129.8
130.9
130.9
147.6
150.4
152.4
154.3
143.3
145.6
147.8
149.7
128.7
130.3
130.6
131.1
125.0
126.0
126.6
127.2
111.5
111.7
112.8
114.1
111.7
112.1
113.0
114.4
117.7
118.8
119.9
120.6
117.9
118.8
120.3
120.8
113.8
114.3
115.5
116.5
110.3
115.4
134.4
130.0
151.2
146.6
130.1
126.2
112.5
112.8
119.2
119.4
115.1
115.2
136.9
138.1
138.8
139.5
132.4
133.7
134.2
134.6
158.5
160.8
164.1
167.5
153.6
155.7
158.4
161.7
133.3
133.7
134.7
135.9
129.2
129.5
130.1
131.3
115.8
116.5
118.2
120.1
116.0
116.5
118.1
120.2
120.4
122.3
122.0
122.3
120.8
122.7
122.6
122.7
117.5
118.7
119.6
120.9
117.8
118.8
119.7
121.1
Private
Private
nonfarm
1st q tr...............
2d q tr.... ............
3d q tr________
4th q tr _______
146.4
147.5
149.1
150.1
148.2
149.1
150.9
152.0
110.6
109.5
110.3
Ann. Avg.............. ........
148.3
150.1
1967:
Private
111.0
Private
nonfarm
114.0
114.6
115.6
116.7
1st q tr_______
2d q tr________
3d q tr________
4th q t r . . ........ ..
152.4
155.1
156.7
157.9
154.3
157.4
159.0
160.1
111.3
112.3
112.9
113.2
116.5
117.7
118.5
118.9
Ann. Avg___________
155.5
157.7
112.4
117.9
138.3
133.7
162.8
157.4
134.4
130.0
117.7
117.7
121.7
122.1
119.2
119.3
1969:
1st q t r . . . .........
2d q tr________
3d q tr________
4th q tr_______
159.0
159.8
160.9
160.4
161.1
162.4
163.4
163.1
114.2
115.1
115.3
114.8
120.1
121.2
121.7
121.4
139.3
138.9
139.5
139.7
134.1
134.0
134.2
134.3
170.0
172.4
175.9
179.6
163.9
166.2
169.2
172.4
136.3
136.0
136.8
137.8
131.5
131.1
131.6
132.2
122.1
124.2
126.1
128.6
122.2
124.1
126.1
128.4
122.8
123.2
123.6
123.3
123.0
123.0
123.5
123.2
122.4
123.8
125.2
126.6
122.5
123.7
125.1
126.4
Ann. Avg.......................
160.0
162.5
114.9
121.1
139.3
134.2
174.5
167.9
136.8
131.6
125.3
125.2
123.2
123.2
124.5
124.5
1970:
159.2
159.3
161.9
161.9
114.7
113.8
121.4
120.4
138.9
139.9
133.3
134.4
182.6
184.9
175.1
177.5
138.0
137.5
132.3
132.0
131.5
132.2
131.4
132.1
122.7
125.2
122.0
124.7
128.3
129.5
127.9
129.4
1.0
- 1 .6
2.9
5.2
1.8
2.3
1.9
4.0
3.8
3.2
2.1
3.9
3.9
0.0
6.4
- 0 .4
0.4
3.3
4.1
3.3
4.4
3.5
3.5
3.2
4.6
1.1
0.0
1.5
4.8
3.9
4.7
4.3
1968:
1st q tr_______
2d q tr j>______
Percent change over previous quarter at annual rate5
1967:
1968:
1969:
1970:
1st q tr_______
2d q t r . ...............
3d q tr________
4th q tr_______
- 1 .3
3.0
4.3
2.9
- 2 .2
2.5
4.8
2.9
0.0
- 3 .8
2.9
2.5
- 0 .3
- 2 .1
1.6
2.7
-1 .3
7.0
1.4
0.3
- 1 .8
4.6
3.2
0.3
3.1
7.8
5.4
5.1
4.3
6.3
6.3
5.4
2.4
4.8
1.2
1.6
3.6
3.4
2.0
1.9
4.4
0.7
4.0
4.7
6.2
1.6
3.1
5.1
1st q tr_______
2d q tr________
3d q tr________
4th q tr ...............
6.1
7.2
4.3
3.1
6.2
8.2
4.2
2.8
1.1
3.7
2.0
1.2
1.5
4.2
2.8
1.3
4.9
3.4
2.2
1.8
4.6
3.9
1.4
1.4
11.2
6.1
8.4
8.5
10.6
5.7
7.0
8.7
6.7
1.2
3.1
3.6
6.2
0.9
1.9
3.8
6.0
2.6
6.0
6.5
5.7
1.8
5.5
7.2
1 s tq tr________
2d q tr________
3d q tr ________
4th q tr........... .
2.8
2.1
2.5
3.4
3.3
0.9
- 1 .8
4.2
3.6
1.9
-0 .5
6.2
5.9
8.2
8.8
5.5
5.8
7.3
7.7
0.5
1.6
0.8
- 1 .5
-0 .4
0.6
0.3
1.2
1.0
2.6
3.1
2.5
- 0 .6
7.1
6.3
6.6
7.3
1.4
1.5
1.1
- 0 .8
-
- 3 .0
-2 .9
- 0 .5
-2 .9
- 2 .5
3.1
- 2 .9
3.3
6.8
5.1
6.6
5.6
1st q t r . . . .........
2d qtr ______
p
-
0.1
-
0.1
-
1.0
-
0.1
- 3 .3
-
1.1
-
3.8
3.9
2.3
- 0 .8
6.6
-
1.0
1.1
2.3
3.0
1.4
1.9
6.7
7.1
6.5
7.9
1.0
4.7
4.9
4.5
4.7
0.5
- 1 .3
0.3
- 0 .9
9.6
1.9
9.8
2.2
- 2 .0
8.2
-3 .8
9.3
5.3
4.1
4.8
4.6
-
1.0
-
1.0
Percent change over previous y e a r5
1969:
1st q tr_______
2d q tr________
3d q t r . ..............
4th q tr...............
4.3
3.1
2.7
1.6
4.4
3.2
2.8
1.9
2.6
2.5
2.2
1.4
3.1
3.0
2.7
2.1
1.7
0.6
0.4
0.2
1.3
0.2
0.0
- 0 .2
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.3
6.7
6.7
6.8
6.6
2.3
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.8
1.3
1.2
0.7
5.4
6.6
6.7
7.1
5.4
6.5
6.8
6.8
2.0
0.8
1.3
0.8
1.8
0.2
0.7
0.4
4.1
4.3
4.6
4.7
4.0
4.1
4.5
4.4
1970:
1st q tr_______
2d qtr p.............
0.2
- 0 .3
0.5
- 0 .3
0.5
- 1 .1
1.1
-0 .6
- 0 .3
0.8
- 0 .6
0.3
7.4
7.2
6.8
6.8
1.2
1.1
0.6
0.7
7.8
6.4
7.5
6.5
0.0
1.6
- 0 .8
1.4
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.6
1 Wages and salaries of employees plus employers’ contributions for social insurance
and private benefit plans. Also includes an estimate of wages, salaries, and supple
mentary payments for the self-employed.
2 Compensation per man-hour adjusted for changes in the consumer price index.
2 Nonlabor payments include profits, depreciation, interest, rental income and
indirect taxes.
4 Current dollar gross product divided by constant dollar gross product.
5 Percent change computed from original data.
6 Current quarter divided by comparable quarter a year ago.
NOTE: Data for 1967, 1968, 1969, and the first quarter of 1970 have been adjusted
to new benchmarks and are not comparable to those published in the Monthly Labor
Review prior to September 1970.
SOURCE: Output data from the Office of Business Economics, U.S. Department of
Commerce. Man-hours and compensation of all persons from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
p=Preliminary.
Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series, November 1970
Title
Productivity, wages, and prices.......... .. . _..........................................
Employment situation
____
...
_ ....................................
Wholesale Price Index, final .
Consumer Price Index __ _________
Wholesale Price Index, prelim inary,. _____
Factory labor tu rn o v e r.._______ __________
Work stoppages___________________________________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Date of release
_ __
Period covered
3d q u a rte r .___
O c to b e r............
October_______
October_______
MLR table
numbers
32
1-14
26-30
24-25
26-30
15-16
31
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1970
O — 402-610
A BRIEF
HISTORY
OF THE
AMERICAN
LABOR
MOVEMENT
The
new 1970
-m o EDITION
e d itio n
of
U.S. D E P A R T M E N T
OF LABOR
BUREAU OF
L A B O R S T A T IS T IC S
BULLETIN
1000
The widely read, authoritative account of trade unionism in the United
States, with a chronology of major events in labor history
For use by—
• students of social sciences and economics
• worker education and management training classes
• civic groups and others interested in the
development of trade unionism in America
:
I
I
O r d e r ( a t $1 a c o p y ) f r o m a n y o f
t h e B L S r e g i o n a l offices l i s t e d o n th e
i
in side f r o n t cover, or use c o u p o n .
I
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
To: Superintendent of
Documents
U.S. Government
P rin tin g Office
W ashington, D.C. 20402
Please send me___ copies of
A B rie f H istory o f the
Am erican Labor Movement
@ $1.00 each.
Payment
enclosed:
$ --------
Superintendent of Documents)
FOR USE OF SUPT. DOCS
Enclosed______________
To be m ailed la t e r _____
I
S u bscrip tion _ _ _ _ _
I
Refund ________________ .
Coupon r e fu n d _________
Postage _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(Make checks payable to
I
1
I
Name
I
I
i
Address
City, State, and ZIP Code
1
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
Division of Public Documents
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20402
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Postage and fees paid
U.S. Government Printing Office
IUFIRST
CLASS M A IL ;
----------------------------------------------------- J
<
@FedFRASER