Full text of Monthly Labor Review : October 1982, Volume 105, Number 10

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
U S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
October 1982


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

In this issue:
Articles on unpaid family workers
and the productivity puzzle

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Janet L. Norwood, Commissioner

The Monthly Labor Review Is published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department
of Labor. Communications on editorial matters
should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief,
Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Washington, D.C. 20212.
Phone: (202) 523-1327.
Subscription price per year—
$23 domestic; $28.75 foreign.
Single copy $3.50
Subscription prices and distribution policies for the
Monthly Labor Review (ISSN 0098-0818) and other Government
publications are set by the Government Printing Office,
an agency of the U.S. Congress. Send correspondence
on circulation and subscription matters (including
address changes) to:
Superintendent of Documents,
Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402
Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents.
The Secretary of Labor has determined that the
publication of this periodical is necessary in the
transaction of the public business required by
law of this Department. Use of funds for printing
this periodical has been approved by the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget
through October 31, 1982. Second-class
postage paid Laurel, Md.
Library of Congress Catalog
Card Number 15-26485

Regional Commissioners
for Bureau of Labor Statistics
Region I — Boston: Anthony J. Ferrara
1603 JFK Federal Building, Government Center,
Boston, Mass. 02203
Phone: (617) 223-6761
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Region II — New York: Samuel M. Ehrenhalt
1515 Broadway, Suite 3400, New York, N.Y. 10036
Phone: (212) 944-3121
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Region III — Philadelphia: Alvin /. Margulls
3535 Market Street
P.O. Box 13309, Philadelphia, Pa. 19101
Phone: (215) 596-1154
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Region IV — Atlanta: Donald M. Cruse
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Ga. 30367
Phone: (404) 881-4418
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Region V — Chicago: William £ Rice
9th Floor, Federal Office Building, 230 S. Dearborn Street,
Chicago, III. 60604
Phone: (312) 353-1880
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Region VI — Dallas: Bryan Richey
Second Floor, 555 Griffin Square Building, Dallas, Tex. 75202
Phone: (214) 767-6971
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Regions VII and VIII — Kansas City: Elliott A. Browar
911 Walnut Street, Kansas City, Mo. 64106
Phone: (816) 374-2481
VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming

October cover:
Girl at a Sewing Machine,
a 1922 oil painting on canvas
by Edward Hopper;
courtesy International Exhibitions Foundation,
Washington, D.C.,
from “ 20th Century Masters:
The Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection.”
Cover design by Ann Meekins,
Division of Audio-Visual Communications,
U.S. Department of Labor


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

Regions IX and X — San Francisco: D. Bruce Hanchett
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017,
San Francisco, Calif. 94102
Phone: (415) 556-4678
IX
American Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington

" 'ï.

M

jjs»'v

V

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW

'■-V'"

W
OCTOBER 1982
VOLUME 105, NUMBER 10

mi

Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chief
Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor

L IB R A R Y
NOV 3

1982

Patricia A. Daly

3

Unpaid family workers: long-term decline continues
The number of those working without pay in family businesses in 1981 was less than
half the total recorded in 1950, the sharpest drop occurring in the agricultural sector

A. S. Herman, J. W. Ferris

6

Productivity growth average in farm machinery manufacturing
Productivity gains, aided by new technology, especially computers, but moderated
by cyclical downturns, averaged 2.6 percent a year during the 1958-80 period

M. K. Farris, J. D. York

11

Hand and edge tool industry experiences slow rise in productivity
During 1958-80, annual productivity growth averaged just 1.3 percent, less than half the
rate of manufacturing as a whole; industry employment grew by more than 50 percent

Paul S. Adler

15

The productivity puzzle: numbers alone won’t solve it
From management, labor, academia, and government, contributors to four recent books
grapple with the lag in productivity growth, with little help from economic theory

Helen Ginsburg

22

Sweden combats unemployment of young and older workers
Joblessness among the 16- to 24-year-olds and those 45 years and over in Sweden,
although low by American standards, worsened during the recessions of the 1970’s

REPORTS
J. A. Bunn, J. E. Triplett
Mark S. Sieling
Julie Misner
Harish C. Jain


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

Reconciling the CPI and the PCE Deflator: second quarter 1982
Occupational salary levels for white-collar workers, 1982
Political issues dominate ILO conference; worker standards adopted
Canadian legal approaches to sex equality in the workplace
DEPARTMENTS
Labor month in review
Anatomy of price change
Research summaries
Foreign labor developments
Major agreements expiring next month
Developments in industrial relations
Book reviews
Current labor statistics

Labor M onth
In Review
COOPERATION between management
and labor was the focus of an unusual
conference that drew nearly 1,000 in­
dustrial relations practitioners to
Washington, D.C., September 9 and 10.
Sponsored by the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service, the conference
featured a report by Peter Pestillo, vice
president for labor relations of the Ford
Motor Company, about union-manage­
ment cooperation in the auto industry,
and a score of discussions and workshop
sessions dealing with labor-management
committees, quality of worklife pro­
grams, quality circles, and similar ef­
forts. Excerpts:
Daniel Quinn Mills, Harvard Univer­
sity: Collective bargaining practiced
primarily as rule-making has become
self-defeating for both unions and
management. We must go beyond both
rule-making and the adversarial em­
phasis if a major new contribution to
American economic performance is to
be made. Rule-making may be replaced
by a greater degree of employee par­
ticipation and commitment in the
workplace, but unless the adversarial
posture changes, increased participation
is of no use. Instead of resolving produc­
tion problems, participatory schemes
will simply add additional delays to
management decisionmaking.
It is time to draw on the older tradi­
tion of the American labor movement to
move beyond the concept of collective
bargaining as primarily a rule-making
process. This should be done by putting
far more flexibility into the collective
bargaining agreement through less
detailed provisions, through reorganized
work arrangements, and through dif­
ferent incentives for both management
and labor. Some rule-making and the
legal enforceability of contracts are not
to be abandoned. But they must now
take a back seat to attempts to move the

2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

collective bargaining process beyond
continual confrontation and into a more
constructive mode.
A commitment to enhancing produc­
tivity is not easily made by American
unionists. Too often increased produc­
tivity has simply meant speeding up the
pace at which managers require
employees to work. But there is far more
to improving productivity than speedups; and the failure to seek productivity
improvement in a company threatens the
continued existence of jobs that the
company provides. Unions must find a
way to be more sophisticated in their
response to management efforts to im­
prove productivity. Some efforts should
be opposed, but others must be sup­
ported. And the goal of improving pro­
ductivity should be accepted.
Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of
Labor: I recently created, within the
Department’s Labor-Management Serv­
ices Administration, a Division of
Cooperative Labor-Management pro­
grams. This new unit, whose work is just
now getting under way, will serve as the
focal point of our various activities in
this area of concern. It will be responsi­
ble for developing and administering a
program of technical assistance and in­
formation designed to encourage and
assist employers and unions to under­
take joint efforts to enlist the talents and
energies of workers in a common cam­
paign to improve productivity and quali­
ty of working life. When fully operative,
management and union officials, as well
as academic and other third parties,
should have at their disposal a hitherto
unavailable store of information about
current issues and innovative industrial
relations practices. While these kinds of
data may now exist in goodly amounts,
they are widely scattered and not readily
accessed by those most in need of them.
As a result of this information clutter,

there is too much reinventing of the
wheel and too little chance to build on
the basis of experience already gained.
The type of central information ex­
change we envision should go far to cor­
rect this problem.
One of the chief purposes of the
Labor Department’s program is to
bolster existing institutional capabilities
by providing services primarily to such
intermediate support groups as area and
industry labor-management committees,
productivity and quality of working life
centers, trade associations and interna­
tional unions. These are the organiza­
tions that local employers and unions
should rely on to obtain more direct
forms of assistance in developing their
own cooperative programs.
Glenn Watts, president, Communica­
tions Workers of America: During the
past few years, Quality of Work Life has
become a controversial topic for
American labor. A growing number of
unions have become involved in q w l ef­
forts, either on their own initiative or
management’s; but at the same time op­
position has become stronger.
The controversy comes from the fact
that q w l challenges many of the tradi­
tional ways in which unions do business.
It is based, first of all, on a cooperative,
problem-solving relationship between
labor and management, instead of the
familiar adversarial style.
One result is that in most q w l efforts
the grievance rate drops significantly.
And further, q w l increases the direct
contact between employers and shopfloor workers, threatening to bypass
the union.
These aspects of q w l are seen by
many in the labor movement as a threat.
But others—and I include myself among
them—see it as offering a great oppor­
tunity to extend the reach of collective
bargaining.
□

Unpaid family workers:
long-term decline continues
The number of those working without pay
in fam ily businesses dropped by 1981
to less than half of the 1950 total;
agriculture, where most had been employed,
registered the sharpest loss of jobs
Patricia A. D aly
For more than 30 years, the total number of persons
working without pay in family businesses has dwindled
to a point that, by 1981, was less than half of the 1950
total. At 650,000, unpaid family workers accounted for
less than 1 percent of total employment in 1981, down
from almost 3 percent in 1950.
Historically, the vast majority of unpaid family work­
ers had been in the agricultural sector, but there are
now fewer unpaid family workers in agriculture than in
other industries. Unpaid family workers accounted for
one-sixth of farm employment in 1950, but for less than
one-tenth in 1981. The largest numerical decline oc­
curred between 1960 and 1970, a decade which experi­
enced dramatic declines in total agricultural employ­
ment. Although the number of unpaid family workers
in nonagricultural industries has fluctuated in the last
30 years, the levels for 1950 and 1981 were virtually the
same at about 400,000, a very small share of nonfarm
employment. (See table 1.)
This article is the first by the Bureau of Labor Statis­
tics to examine and analyze the available data on un­
paid family workers. The group, although numerically
small, exhibits some interesting characteristics and re­
flects some of the widespread changes in the work force
and the economy.
Patricia A. Daly is an economist in the Division of Employment and
Unemployment Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics.


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

Classification of workers
Since the 1940’s, the Current Population Survey (a
monthly survey of households) has obtained informa­
tion on an individual’s labor force activity during a des­
ignated period. Based on the responses of a household
member to a series of questions, each individual aged 16
years and older is classified as employed, unemployed,
or not in the labor force. To be considered employed, a
person must be paid for at least one hour of work
(wage and salary worker); operate one’s own business,
profession, or farm (self-employed); or work without
pay for 15 or more hours per week in a family business
or on a family farm (unpaid family worker). Those who
have a job but are not at work temporarily for such
reasons as illness, vacation, or an industrial dispute are
also counted as employed, whether or not they are paid.
The first question asked the respondent about each
appropriate household member is, “What was . . . doing
most of last week— working or something else?’’ This is
followed by “Did . . . do any work at all last week, not
counting work around the house?” If there is already a
farm or business operator enumerated in the household,
the respondent is asked specifically about unpaid work.
Data are collected on hours worked at all jobs; how­
ever, an individual is assigned to an occupation, indus­
try, and class-of-worker category based on the job in
which he or she worked the most hours. Thus, individu3

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Unpaid Family Workers

Table 1. Unpaid family workers in agriculture and
nonagricultural industries by sex, annual averages,
selected years, 1950-81
[Numbers in thousands]
Total
Industry
and year

All industries:
1950 . .
1960 . .
1970 . .
1981 . .

Men

Women

Percent of
Percent of
Percent of
Number
Number
Number
employment
employment
employment

.
.
.
.

1,573
1,499
1,001
656

2.7
2.3
1.3
.7

523
385
213
138

1.3
.9
.4
.2

1,050
1,114
788
519

6.1
5.1
2.7
1.2

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

1,190
901
499
266

16.6
16.5
14.4
7.9

466
310
160
91

7.8
6.9
5.6
3.4

724
596
339
176

62.5
60.4
56.4
26.4

Nonagriculture:
1950 . . .
1960 . . .
1970 . . .
1981 .. .

383
598
502
390

.7
1.0
.7
.4

57
75
53
47

.2
.2
.1
.1

326
518
449
343

2.0
2.5
2.2
.8

Agriculture:
1950
1960
1970
1981

Agriculture
Men
Women

Total number
(in thousands) . .
Percent ................
Ages 16-24 . .
Ages 25-54 . .
Ages 55 and
o v e r............

als who do unpaid family work but work more hours in
another job are not counted as unpaid family workers.

Demographic changes
Sex. Women are far more likely to be unpaid family
workers than men, particularly in nonagricultural indus­
tries. As the mix between agriculture and nonagricul­
tural industries has changed, the female proportion of
unpaid family workers has increased:
1950

1960

1970

1981

Total employment (in percent):
Men ...............................
Women ..........................

30
70

26
74

21
79

21
79

Agriculture:
Men ...............................
Women ..........................

35
65

34
66

32
68

34
66

Nonagriculture:
Men ...............................
Women ..........................

15
85

13
87

11
89

12
88

The number of unpaid female family workers declined
by 530,000 between 1950 and 1981 and the number of
male workers, by 300,000. The percentage declines were
more drastic for men overall (74 percent) than for wom­
en (51 percent). Table 1 provides employment levels
and the percent of agriculture and nonagricultural em­
ployment which unpaid family work represents.
The employment declines may reflect changing soci­
etal values and economic conditions which include the
fact that more women are seeking paid employment and
that there is an increasing societal acceptance and ex­
pectation of this phenomenon. In agriculture, particular­
ly, the trends are consistent with the breakup of the
traditional family farm which has resulted in increases
in farm size, decreases in the number of farms, more in­
corporations, and more part-time farming.
Digitized 4for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Age. One of the ways in which young persons can gain
valuable experience and assist their families until they
begin their own careers is by doing unpaid family work.
As the following percentage distribution of 1981 data
suggests, the vast majority of male unpaid family work­
ers are under 25 years of age, while most women in this
category are in the central age group— 25 to 54:
Nonagriculture
Men

Women

91

176

47

343

100
81
11

100
13
67

100
57
23

100
7
73

8

20

19

20

The large differential may reflect the fact that men in
the central age group were somewhat more likely to
seek paid employment. What may be more important,
however, is that, in a family operated business or farm,
the husband may be counted as self-employed and the
wife as an unpaid family worker. This would explain
the large percentage of female unpaid family workers in
the 25-54 age group. The fact that men accounted for
almost 90 percent of the self-employed in agriculture
and nearly 70 percent in nonagricultural industries
lends some support to this interpretation.
Race. Although black and other minority races made
up about 13 percent of the civilian labor force, they
accounted for only 2 percent of unpaid family workers
in agricultural industries and 6 percent of those in
nonagricultural industries. This is undoubtedly related
to the low proportion of blacks and other minorities
operating their own farms and businesses— 4 percent of
self-employed workers in agriculture and 7 percent in
other industries.

Occupational trends
An examination of data on unpaid family workers by
occupation revealed sharp differences between men and
women as well as a shift from farm to white-collar oc­
cupations as the most common job categories for un­
paid family workers. Women accounted for almost 80
percent of unpaid family workers in 1981 and they had
more jobs than men in every occupational group. More
than half were doing white-collar work, while most of
the male unpaid family workers were in farming.
With the decline in unpaid family work on farms,
white-collar occupations have overtaken farm occupa­
tions as the dominant group for unpaid family workers.
Within the white-collar group, three-fourths of unpaid
family workers had clerical jobs in 1981 and more than
100,000 were bookkeepers. Unpaid family workers were

also frequently employed as secretaries and as sales
clerks in retail trade. Individuals doing unpaid family
work were dispersed throughout other white-collar oc­
cupations, and a sprinkling may be found in blue-collar
and service occupations.
The number of farm laborers declined by half a mil­
lion between 1960 and 1970 and by a quarter million
since 1970. Nevertheless, at 254,000 in 1981, farm labor­
ers ranked the highest among the specific occupations.
The nature of various occupations obviously makes
them more or less suitable for unpaid family work. It is
more likely that a family member will be called upon to
do farm chores or typing than plumbing or carpentry.

rather than as employed.1 In 1981, there were 130,000
persons in this group— mostly women in nonagricultural
jobs.
Although obtaining information on the number of
hours worked is important, it may be difficult to re­
member exactly how many hours were worked if no pay
was involved. Reporting by another household member
(proxy response) may be even less reliable. Nonetheless,
it is worthwhile to compare average hours at work for
agricultural and nonagricultural workers by whether
they work for wages or salary, or are self-employed, or
are unpaid family workers:
Agriculture

Patterns by industry
In general, there was a higher incidence of unpaid
family workers in industries with a large number of selfemployed workers. Agriculture, for instance, had an ex­
tremely high percentage of self-employed workers (al­
most half), and thus had the largest percentage and
number of unpaid family workers.
Trade also had a substantial number of unpaid family
workers— about 170,000 in 1981 or one-fourth of all
unpaid family workers. Most unpaid family workers
were in retail trade, with particularly high concentra­
tions in eating and drinking places, groceries, and gaso­
line service stations— establishments which had a high
number of self-employed workers.
Among the service industries, business and repair ser­
vices such as automobile repair, personal services such
as laundry and cleaning, and professional services such
as those of physicians and dentists employed more un­
paid family workers than others. The self-employed
were also well represented in these industries.
Between 1970 and 1981, the greatest industrial change
among unpaid family workers was the decline in agricul­
tural employment as its proportion of the total dropped
from 50 to 41 percent, representing a reduction of over
200,000 workers. The construction, manufacturing, and
miscellaneous service industries all gained in the percent­
age of unpaid family workers, although only construc­
tion and manufacturing actually added jobs.

Wage and salary .....................
S elf-em p lo y ed ....................
Unpaid family workers . .

40.8
49.3
39.4

Nonagriculture
37.7
40.5
35.8

While unpaid family workers averaged fewer hours
than either wage and salary or self-employed workers,
the differential was not as large as might be anticipated.
Thus, in terms of worker input as measured by time,
unpaid family work is not a marginal form of employ­
ment but rather a significant contribution to family
businesses.
and labor force trends in
recent years would seem to preclude the possibility of
an increase in either the number or concentration of un­
paid family workers in the foreseeable future. If employ­
ment in agriculture continues to decline, unpaid family
workers will undoubtedly do the same. This tendency is
compounded as farms grow larger, incorporate, and
consequently employ more wage and salary workers.
Because unpaid family work accounts for less than 1
percent of total employment, the aggregate changes are
not of great importance. The real significance is the so­
cioeconomic changes which influence a person to choose
this kind of work.
□
T h e ECONOMIC STRUCTURE

--------- FOOTNOTE----------

Hours worked
Unpaid family workers who put in less than 15 hours
a week on the job are classified as not in the labor force


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

1The number of hours worked is integral to the assignment of a
worker to the unpaid family worker category, in that the individual
must work 15 or more hours per week to be counted in this group.

5

Productivity growth average
in farm machinery manufacturing
Productivity gains, aided by new technology,
especially computers, but moderated
by cyclical downturns, averaged 2 .6 percent
a year over the 1958-80 period
A rthur S. H erman

and

John W. F erris

Productivity, as measured by output per employee hour,
in farm machinery manufacturing1 was about the same
as the average for all manufacturing industries over the
1958-80 period. Growth was aided by numerically con­
trolled machine tools, automatic welding, computerized
manufacturing, industrial robots, and computerized au­
tomatic warehouses, but was partially offset by sharp
declines in demand. Almost every decline in productivi­
ty during the period studied can be associated with a
drop in output, which, in turn, usually coincides with
downturns in the economy. During the 22-year period,
productivity in the farm machinery industry grew at a
rate of 2.6 percent a year, compared with 2.7 percent
per year for all manufacturing industries; 1.9 percent for
construction machinery, an industry which uses similar
manufacturing techniques; and 3.2 percent for motor
vehicles, another similar industry.

Output, productivity follow farm income
Productivity growth in the farm machinery industry
can be divided into three distinct periods. From 1958—
65, productivity grew at an annual rate of 1.7 percent;
from 1965-74, it accelerated to a 3.3-percent rate; and
from 1974-80, slowed to 0.2 percent. (See tat>le 1.) The
higher rate of gain during the 1965-74 period can be as­
sociated with years of very high output, fueled by dra­
matic increases in farm income.
Arthur S. Herman is an economist and John W. Ferris is a statistician
in the Division of Industry Productivity Studies, Bureau of Labor Sta­
tistics.

Digitized for
6 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Productivity changes in the farm machinery industry
are closely tied to output changes over the short term.
Demand for farm machinery is based on a number of
interrelated factors. A major factor is the overall state
of the economy. However, an even more directly related
factor is farm income. Changes in the output of farm
machinery closely parallel changes in farm income.
When farm income is up, farmers tend to purchase new
equipment. Among the determinants of income are crop
size, both actual and anticipated in the near future, and
farm prices. Crop size is, of course, affected by a num­
ber of variables, including the weather, farm prices,
government policies, and the worldwide food supply.
Other important factors affecting the production of
farm machinery are farmers’ costs, such as for loans,
new machinery, land, fertilizers, and pesticides, as well
as age and condition of existing equipment and imports
and exports of farm equipment.
When income is low and prospects appear poor,
farmers tend to make do by repairing, rather than re­
placing, existing equipment. Conversely, when income is
growing and prospects for further expansion of profits
appear good, they tend to purchase new, more produc­
tive equipment. Demand for machinery increases signifi­
cantly during these expansive periods, as does produc­
tivity.
The impact of the numerous variables affecting
demand changes rapidly over time; therefore, output of
farm machinery shows wide swings. Productivity, how­
ever, moves in a less volatile manner. For example, out­
put grew by 6.3 percent between 1958 and 1959, but

then dropped precipitously in 1960, a recession year,
falling 18.3 percent. Concomitantly, productivity had
no growth in 1959 and dropped sharply, by 7.1 percent,
in 1960. In 1966, output increased substantially, up 19.4
percent, then declined for 4 consecutive years, one of
which was the recession year of 1970. Following output,
productivity also grew substantially in 1966, up 6.2 per­
cent, and then dropped sharply, averaging 0.8 percent
from 1967 to 1970.
The early 1970’s were a period of high output
growth, with gains of 16.5 percent in 1972, 21.3 percent
in 1973, and 14.3 percent in 1974. This strong growth
can be attributed to a sharp increase in farm income re­
sulting, in part, from large exports of farm products, in­
cluding sales of grain to Russia. Productivity recorded
its largest advances during this period, with increases of
8.9 percent in 1971, 9.3 percent in 1972, 5.2 percent in
1973, and 3.6 percent in 1974.
In the more recent period— 1980, a recession year—
output dropped 15.1 percent, as farm income declined
precipitously. In turn, productivity declined 6.7 percent.
A factor affecting output over the long term is the
continuously increasing size of farms. The average farm
in the United States has shown a significant increase in
size, growing about 40 percent in acreage over the peri­
od studied.2 This created a need for an increase in the
physical dimensions and horsepower of farm machinery.
To cope with the growing acreage, farmers purchased
larger, more powerful equipment, rather than increasing
their labor force. For example, the average horsepower
(pto) rating of tractors was 106 in 1980, compared with
67 in 1958. Demand for farm equipment has also been
enhanced by such equipment as 4-wheel drive tractors,
which allow farming in previously marginal areas, and
such amenities as air conditioning and stereo radio and
cassette equipment in the cabs of the larger units.
Demand for larger, more productive farm machinery
has been one factor leading to the industry’s long-term
growth rate in output of 4.2 percent, somewhat higher
than the 3.8 percent for the total manufacturing sector.
Highly advanced farm equipment is one of many rea­
sons that productivity has been significantly higher in
the farm sector than in the nonfarm sector.

Plants located in Farm Belt
The farm machinery manufacturing industry has
paralleled the growth of agriculture in the United
States. Some of the larger firms can trace their origins
to the development of horse drawn harvesting equip­
ment in the early 1800’s. Therefore, farm machinery
manufacturing is a mature industry, producing a variety
of equipment for both U.S. markets and export.
There were 2,148 establishments in the farm machin­
ery industry as of 1977, a significant increase over the
1,949 establishments reported in 1958. The number of

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

Table 1. Output per employee hour and related indexes
in the farm machinery equipment industry, 1958-80
[1977 = 100]
Employee hours

Output per hour

Nonpro­
Nonpro­ Output
Production
All
Production
All
duction
duction
employees workers
employees workers
workers
workers

Year

1958 . ..
1959 . ..
1960 . . .

65.1
65.1
60.5

64.9
63.4
61.3

65.5
70.3
58.6

49.4
52.5
42.9

75.9
80.7
70.9

76.1
82.8
70.0

75.4
74.7
73.2

1961
1962
1963
1964
1965

.
.
.
.
.

..
..
..
..
..

62.9
65.1
66.6
70.2
72.2

61.3
65.1
64.3
66.9
68.6

67.7
64.8
74.3
82.0
84.8

45.7
48.8
53.7
60.1
64.0

72.7
75.0
80.6
85.6
88.6

74.5
75.0
83.5
89.9
93.3

67.5
75.3
72.3
73.3
75.5

1966
1967
1968
1969
1970

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

76.7
76.8
76.7
73.8
75.7

72.3
73.3
75.0
73.2
75.2

92.7
88.8
82.1
75.9
77.3

76.4
73.6
70.8
65.8
65.1

99.6
95.8
92.3
89.1
86.0

105.6
100.4
94.4
89.9
86.6

82.4
82.9
86.2
86.7
84.2

1971
1972
1973
1974
1975

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

82.4
90.1
94.8
98.2
97.7

83.0
87.0
90.7
92.6
95.3

81.0
99.9
109.2
118.3
105.2

66.2
77.1
93.5
106.9
100.0

80.3
85.6
98.6
108.9
102.4

79.8
88.6
103.1
115.4
104.9

81.7
77.2
85.6
90.4
95.1

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

.
.
.
.
.

101.1
100.0
100.8
103.2
96.3

100.5
100.0
100.1
101.7
99.6

103.1
100.0
103.1
108.0
88.1

98.9
100.0
95.6
114.7
97.4

97.8
100.0
94.8
111.1
101.1

98.4
100.0
95.5
112.8
97.8

95.9
100.0
92.7
106.2
110.6

..
..
..
..
..

Average annual rates of change (percent)'

1958-80
1958-65
1965-74
1974-80

2.6
1.7
3.3
0.2

2.7
1.0
3.4
1.2

2.4
3.9
2.9
-2 .9

4.2
3.9
3.7
-0.1

1.5
2.2
0.5
-0.3

1.5
2.9
0.4
-1.4

1.8
( 2)
0.8
2.9

1 Based on the least squares trend of the logarithms of the Index numbers.
2 Rate of change Is less than 0.05 percent.

employees per establishment has remained fairly con­
stant, dropping slightly from 74 in 1958 to 70 in 1977
(the average for all manufacturing industries was 53).
The industry has a few very large firms with numer­
ous establishments making a variety of equipment—
tractors, combines, and other harvesting equipment,
crop sprayers, plows, harrows, planters, cultivators, hay
balers, and fertilizing equipment. These firms are highly
integrated and manufacture many of the parts that are
assembled into the final products, including both gaso­
line and diesel engines, as well as replacement parts for
the older units in operation. The large firms generally
produce the larger equipment, such as grain harvesting
combines, 4-wheel drive tractors, and accessories. There
are numerous medium and small firms in the industry.
They usually specialize in a particular line or type of
equipment, such as milking, poultry, or irrigation equip­
ment. Many of them serve local markets for highly spe­
cialized equipment. The smaller firms also make lawn
and garden equipment, such as walk-behind lawnmowers and snowblowers.
Farm machinery manufacturers are concentrated in
the Farm Belt, with most plants in midwestern States—
Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, and
7

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Productivity in Farm Machinery Manufacturing
Kansas. Texas and California also have a large number
of plants.
The largest export market for U.S. manufacturers is
Canada. In turn, Canada provides the largest amount of
imports of farm machinery into the United States.

Employment and hours rapidly adjusted
Over the 1958-80 period, the number and hours of
production workers and nonproduction workers in the
farm machinery industry have grown at similar rates.
Production workers increased at an average annual rate
of 1.7 percent and their hours grew 1.5 percent.
Nonproduction workers grew at rate of 1.7 percent, and
their hours increased at a rate of 1.8 percent.
Year-to-year changes in employment and hours in
this industry tend to move in a similar but less volatile
pattern than changes in output. This indicates that the
industry can adjust its hours and employment fairly
rapidly to changing demand. For example, when de­
mand is falling overtime usually is cut, the number of
shifts worked are reduced, the normal summer shut­
downs may be extended, and workers may be laid off.
The extent of the adjustments in hours due to chang­
es in demand is influenced by the occupational makeup
of the work force. In the farm machinery industry, the
largest occupational group is operatives, most of whom
are assemblers. Welders, precision machine operators,
punch and stamp machine operators, and transportation
operators also are important. These employees, along
with laborers (mainly freight handlers) are most affected
by reductions in demand. The industry also employs a
large group of craftworkers— machinists, mechanics,
tool and die makers, and blue-collar supervisors.3
Craftworkers are least affected by declines in produc­
tion; because of their skill levels, employers are reluc­
tant to lay them off for fear that they may not be
available when demand picks up.

Technology aids productivity
Technological change varies greatly among plants in
the farm machinery industry. The more advanced highly
sophisticated equipment is used, for the most part, by
larger firms engaged in mass production of various
products. Slower changes are undertaken by the smaller
firms which make short runs of highly specialized prod­
ucts and generally have limited capital.4
The level of complexity of farm machinery manufac­
turing differs greatly depending on the product, which
can range from a simple plow pulled by a tractor to a
complex self-propelled grain harvesting combine. How­
ever, there are factors common to most farm equipment
manufacturing: most of the components are made of
iron and steel; they are shaped by such processes as
casting, cutting, stamping, punching, boring, and ma­
chining; and they are joined to form the final product in
8

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

an assembly operation which uses welding and fastening
with air powered tools. Farm machinery is usually fin­
ished by painting, either in the parts stage or as a com­
pleted unit.
Because of the complex nature of many of the
products, the varied manufacturing operations involved
in producing units, and the fact that farm machinery
manufacturing is a mature industry with many old
plants, there are numerous areas that are subject to
technological change. The larger companies usually
make most of the parts they assemble into the final
product. Therefore, the technological innovations they
employ cover a range of manufacturing operations and
have resulted in significant labor savings.
During the 1960’s, capital expenditures per employee
for new plant and equipment were consistently below
the average for all manufacturing industries. However,
because of sustained demand for farm equipment in the
early 1970’s which strained the industry’s capacity,5
firms began to increase their capital expenditures for
new plant and equipment. By 1975, capital expenditures
per employee had almost tripled, compared to the level
in 1970. This resulted in the installation of advanced
manufacturing equipment and large scale plant modern­
ization and probably was one of the factors leading to a
higher rate of productivity increase during the 1970’s
than during the earlier decade.
Computers are among the widespread innovations
with significant impact upon the industry. They are
used for many functions, including inventory control,
data collection, tracking progress of semi-completed
products, design, and for numerous accounting and oth­
er business purposes. In recent years, computers have
been more directly used for manufacturing operations
on the factory floor.
Numerically controlled machine tools are used exten­
sively by major companies in the manufacture of the
parts used in assembling farm machinery. A recent in­
novation is computerized numerically controlled ma­
chine tools, which are more versatile than standard
equipment because they can be programmed for chang­
es by the operator rather than from tapes. One unit in­
stalled in a large firm is a completely computercontrolled gear case transfer line, using numerically
controlled machine tools, where parts automatically go
through 87 machining operations.6
One plant is experimenting with a change in machine
tool layout, from the traditional setup consisting of
banks of individual machines designed for a single oper­
ation to cells of machine tools based on workflow. This
new layout requires high volume, but has cut bottle­
necks in production and has resulted in operating effi­
ciencies.
Automatic welding has replaced manual welding in a
number of installations. In addition, industrial robots

are being introduced for welding functions, resulting in
more versatile automatic welding operations.
Significant efforts have been made to increase efficien­
cy in materials handling and warehousing functions.
These functions are very important because of the nu­
merous parts that must be moved, the many operations
that must be carried out, and the large size of the facto­
ries involved in the manufacture of the more complex
farm machines. A number of plants have installed
computerized automatic warehousing and materials han­
dling systems. In one plant, such a system is used for
the materials receiving warehouse. The system is located
in a special high rise building attached to the single
story plant. Materials are shipped in using the plant’s
containers, logged on the computer, and moved auto­
matically to a preassigned location. When needed, they
are called for by the computer, which automatically
sends a remote controlled sideloader for them, and are
sent via conveyor to the location requesting them. This
warehouse is run by a single computer operator. The in­
stallation of this system resulted in substantial labor
savings, while doubling warehouse capacity, because the
previously used equipment required numerous forklift
operators.
Sideloaders are an important innovation in the indus­
try, even though they require operators. They are
narrower and higher than the conventional forklifts
which they replace, allowing for increased storage space
and versatility in the warehouse. Sideloaders are in­
creasingly being used in semi-automatic computerized
high rise warehousing systems installed in a number of
plants.
An example of the most advanced technology for as­
sembly line manufacture in the industry is a recently
built tractor plant designed specifically for computer
control .7 This plant is unique in that almost all phases
of its operations are computer controlled or directed.
The plant has high rise computerized automatic ware­
houses. The parts to be assembled are programmed to
move in the correct sequence to produce a finished trac­
tor via conveyor through the various assembly lines.
This is a major advance over the system where parts are
made in advance and stored until needed, boxes of parts
are moved to the assembly line via forklift trucks, and
assemblers pick the correct parts out of the boxes to as­
semble the final product. The new plant uses industrial
robots for welding and painting. The robotic painting
machines are programmed to move their spray guns to
paint the correct part of the tractor chassis as it moves
by on the conveyor line. This differs from conventional
automatic spray painting equipment, which uses fixed
spray guns, in that it more closely approximates a hu­
man spray painter. Almost all welds for the frame of
the tractor cabs made at this plant are done on an
electronically controlled automatic framing buck which

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

is run by a single operator. The assembly lines are set
up so that fasteners and other small parts are fed di­
rectly to the assemblers at the correct height for their
use. This plant’s design significantly cuts parts invento­
ry, reduces handling, increases manufacturing efficiency,
and results in overall labor savings.
Besides robotic painting, which is just being intro­
duced in the industry, there are a number of other inno­
vations that increase painting efficiency. One system,
electrostatic painting, has been used for a number of
years. In this process, electrically charged parts move
through an automatic paint spray booth, with the paint
mist attracted to the charged part. Another innovation
is electric dip paint lines, in which charged parts are
dipped into a paint-filled tank from which paint is pre­
cipitated out on the part. These systems have resulted
in savings in both paint and labor.
While the advanced innovations are most readily
adapted by the larger multiline companies, smaller firms
in the industry tend to introduce new technology more
slowly. Many of the latter specialize in a particular
product, such as pipeline milking units or self-propelled
irrigation systems. Although these units are usually pro­
duced from common components (pipes, tanks, spray
guns, and pumps), they are generally assembled to fit a
particular farmer’s need. Because of the semicustom na­
ture of production used by these smaller firms, it is dif­
ficult to adapt much of the available new technology
which is designed for volume production. In addition,
many of the smaller firms are located in rural areas near
the farms they serve and do not have the access to the
capital markets as do the major companies.

Future trends uncertain
Changes in output and productivity in the farm ma­
chinery industry are expected to continue to reflect
changes in farm income. In the near future, the outlook
for farm income is uncertain. It has been falling since
1979; and currently, there are pressures on farm prices
that are expected to slash farm profits. In addition, such
factors as high interest rates and high fertilizer and pes­
ticide costs are also expected to reduce farm income.
The export market is uncertain, and farm prices are
down. This situation could result in a continuation of
the recent negative pressure on demand for farm ma­
chinery. In addition, technological changes in the near
future may be affected by the financial difficulties of a
number of the major companies in the industry, which
are expected to limit capital expenditures for new plant
and equipment.
Over the long term, modernization of plant and
equipment is expected to continue in the farm machin­
ery industry, with particular emphasis on labor savings
and cost reduction. These changes will be fueled by
possible competition with Japan in the market for larger
9

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Productivity in Farm Machinery Manufacturing
farm equipment, which is presently dominated by U.S.
concerns. Japan currently holds a large share of the
U.S. market for small tractors .8 The future will see
growing installation of automatic welding equipment

and increasing use of industrial robots for welding,
painting, and other high volume, difficult operations.
Computers will increasingly be used for manufacturing
operations and in design functions.
[3

FOOTNOTES

' Average annual rates of change are based on the linear least
squares trends of the logarithms of the index numbers. The farm ma­
chinery and equipment industry is designated industry 352 in the
Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1972 Edition, issued by the
Office of Management and Budget. The industry comprises establish­
ments primarily engaged in the manufacture of farm machinery and
equipment, and garden tractors and lawn and garden equipment. A
technical note describing the indexes is available from the Office of
Productivity and Technology, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington,
D.C. 20212. The indexes for this industry will be updated and includ­
ed in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ annual bulletin, Productivity
Measures fo r Selected Industries.

1 Statistical Abstract o f the United States, 1980 (U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1980), p. 686.
3 1 970 Census o f Population, Occupation by Industry, Voi. PC(2)-7C
(U.S. Department of Commerce, 1972), pp. 281-88.
4 Based on discussions with industry experts.

5 U.S. Industrial Outlook, 1974 (U.S. Department of Commerce,
1973), p. 301.
6John Deere Harvester Works (Deere and Company, 1979), p. 10.
7John Deere Tractor Works (Deere and Company, 1980), pp. 6-18.
8 U.S. Industrial Outlook, 1981 (U.S. Department of Commerce,
1980), p. 260.

APPENDIX: Measurement techniques and limitations
Indexes of output per employee hour measure chang­
es in the relation between the output of an industry and
employee hours expended on that output. An index of
output per employee hour is derived by dividing an in­
dex of output by an index of industry employee hours.
The preferred output index for manufacturing indus­
tries would be obtained from data on quantities of the
various goods produced by the industry, each weighted
(multiplied) by the employee hours required to produce
one unit of each good in some specified base period.
Thus, those goods which require more labor time to
produce are given more importance in the index.
In the absence of adequate physical quantity data,
the output index for this industry was constructed by a
deflated value technique. The value of shipments of the
various product classes were adjusted for price changes
by appropriate Producer Price Indexes to derive real

10 FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

output measures. These, in turn, were combined with
employee hour weights to derive the overall output
measure. These procedures result in a final output index
that is conceptually close to the preferred output mea­
sure.
Employment and employee hour indexes were derived
from data from the Bureau of the Census. Employees
and employee hours are each considered homogeneous
and additive, and thus do not reflect changes in the
qualitative aspects of labor such as skill and experience.
The indexes of output per employee hour do not
measure any specific contributions, such as that of labor
or capital. Rather, they reflect the joint effect of factors
such as changes in technology, capital investment, ca­
pacity utilization, plant design and layout, skill and ef­
fort of the work force, managerial ability, and labormanagement relations.

Hand and edge tools industry
experiences slow rise in productivity
During 1958-80, annual productivity growth
averaged just 1.3 percent,
less than half the rate for manufacturing as a whole;
industry employment grew by more than 50 percent
M ary K. F arris

and

James D. Y ork

Despite the growing do-it-yourself market and the in­
troduction of new technology, productivity growth has
been sluggish in the manufacture of wrenches, hammers,
axes, files, and other hand and edge tools. During the
23-year period ended in 1980, output per employee hour
increased at less than half the annual rate of all manu­
facturing.
This modest productivity rise in the hand and edge
tools industry stems from the very gradual nature of
technological improvements. These improvements have
been characterized by increases in equipment speed and
the continued introduction of automated controls.
As measured by output per employee hour, produc­
tivity in the industry grew at an average annual rate of
only 1.3 percent during 1958-80, compared with 2.8
percent for all manufacturing .1 Output increased at a
rate of 3.3 percent and employee hours, by 2.0 percent.
(See table 1.)
During the period, the industry experienced moderate
productivity growth in the early years and a significant
slowdown in the later years— a pattern exhibited in
general by the manufacturing sector. From 1958 to 1965,
output per employee hour increased at an average annu­
al rate of 2.6 percent. Productivity increased in every
year except 1960. During 1965-80, productivity growth
slowed significantly from the earlier period, advancing
at an average rate of only 0.7 percent a year. The aver­
age annual output increase slowed to 2.6 percent while
Mary K. Farris and James D. York are economists in the Division of
Industry Productivity Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics.


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

employee hours went up by 1.9 percent a year.
This marked falloff in productivity growth in turn re­
flects developments during two subperiods, 1965-73
and 1973-80, with different growth rates. From 1965 to
1973, productivity grew at an average annual rate of 1.3
percent, and during 1973-80, by 0.5 percent per year.
The productivity trend was not steady, however, with
both the largest increase and decrease occurring during
the earlier subperiod. The largest drop, 6.4 percent, was
in 1970, a recessionary year, during which output fell
7.1 percent and employee hours declined 0.7 percent.
Both continued to decrease in 1971, but in 1972 the in­
dustry experienced a large turnaround; output rose by
17.1 percent, greatly outstripping the rise in employee
hours of 9.2 percent. The resulting productivity gain of
7.2 percent was the largest during the study period.
The slow growth during the 1973-80 period reflected
in part the 1974-75 recession. In 1974, output per em­
ployee hour dropped by 4.8 percent and in 1975, by 3.1
percent. Industry productivity rebounded strongly from
the recession, however, rising by 3.9 percent in 1976
and by 2.5 percent in 1977. Productivity gains slowed
in 1978 and 1979 as output growth moderated. The in­
crease in 1978 was only 0.6 percent, followed by a rise
of 3.7 percent in 1979. In 1980, with the economy expe­
riencing a strong downturn, productivity fell by 5.1 per­
cent.

Employment and plant size
The level of employment in the industry has grown
56 percent since 1958, from 30,300 to 47,200, equivalent
11

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Hand and Edge Tool Industry Productivity
to an average annual increase of 2.2 percent. Employee
hours advanced at an annual rate of 2.0 percent during
the period, reflecting a slight decline in average hours
per person. The number of production workers in­
creased 53 percent; the share of the total work force
accounted for by production workers has remained
close to 80 percent.
A trend to larger plant size has resulted in an in­
crease in the average number of employees per estab­
lishment. Between 1958 and 1977, the average number
of employees per establishment rose from 40 to 65. The
number of establishments with 500 employees or more
almost tripled during this period, growing from 8 to 22.
However, despite the trend to larger plant size, most es­
tablishments in the industry remain small. In 1977, 59
percent had fewer than 20 employees, although they
only accounted for 5 percent of the shipments. The
larger firms (100 employees or more) accounted for 79
percent of industry shipments.

Markets
Automotive distributors, industrial distributors, and
consumers constitute the major markets for handtools.
The largest group of handtools consists of mechanics’
hand service tools, the bulk of which is marketed by au­
tomotive jobbers or distributors. Some of these vendors
are “wagon peddlers” who sell the tools directly to ga­
rages and professional mechanics, providing quality

Table 1. Productivity and related indexes for hand and
edge tools, 1958-80
[1977 = 100]
Output per
employee hour

Output

Employee hours

Employees

1958 .............
1959 .............
1960 .............

74.0
79.0
77.0

47.2
55.0
52.1

63.8
69.6
67.7

64.5
67.9
66.2

1961
1962
1963
1964
1965

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

79.8
81.5
84.0
86.1
91.2

55.7
60.8
56.9
61.5
70.2

69.8
74.6
67.7
71.4
77.0

68.1
71.7
67.0
69.6
75.1

1966
1967
1968
1969
1970

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

88.8
93.9
95.5
97.2
91.0

75.6
73.3
74.4
80.4
74.7

85.1
78.1
77.9
82.7
82.1

80.9
76.4
76.6
81.1
80.2

1971
1972
1973
1974
1975

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

94.4
101.2
101.8
96.9
93.9

72.7
85.1
92.2
87.1
75.8

77.0
84.1
90.6
89.9
80.7

75.7
83.6
89.8
89.4
80.9

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

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

97.6
100.0
100.6
104.3
99.0

85.1
100.0
107.8
112.1
95.5

87.2
100.0
107.2
107.5
96.5

87.7
100.0
106.8
108.7
100.4

Year

Average annual rates of change (in percent)
1958-80 . . . .
1975-80 . . . .

12

1.3
1.4


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

3.3
6.1

2.0
4.7

2.2
5.2

tools and service-oriented marketing. Mechanics’ hand
tools are a fast growing segment of the industry. De­
mand is generated from the design changes made by au­
tomakers (including the conversion to metric) neces­
sitating the purchase of new tools by the professional
mechanic.2
Distribution to industrial users creates another mar­
ket for handtools. Demand in this segment generally
follows overall economic trends— rising during industri­
al expansion and slackening during economic down­
turns. Construction activity also has an impact on sales
of handtools, especially heavy forged tools such as
sledges and picks.
The burgeoning do-it-yourself market has influenced
some domestic producers to orient their product lines
toward the household market. Rising interest rates and
declining housing starts have generated more remodel­
ing and self-improvement projects which require tools.
Expenditures for maintenance and repairs tripled during
1965-79, and construction improvements quadrupled.3
In the 1970’s, some companies redesigned their line of
specialized professional tools to provide the amateur
with popularly priced, good-quality versions. The pro­
portion of the population in the household-forming
years has been increasing, thus providing the industry
with a potentially good future market. The do-it-your­
self market is somewhat countercyclical, providing some
cushion to the companies during economic downturns.
Do-it-yourself sales grew 27 percent during the 1974-75
recession.4
Competition from imports has been intensifying in re­
cent years and is becoming an increasingly important fac­
tor in the domestic market. Imports of all handtools as a
percent of new supply (domestic shipments and imports)
have increased considerably since 1968, rising from about
6 percent to 11.5 percent in 1979.5The export market has
declined in relative importance during the last few years.
Exports as a percent of domestic product shipments
reached a peak during 1974 and 1975, rising to ratios of
15 and 16.2 percent. The ratio has declined steadily since
then, falling to 12.4 percent in 1979.

Technological advancement
The hand and edge tools industry produces a wide
variety of products ranging from wrenches of all types
and sizes to striking tools such as hammers, axes, and
sledges. The industry also makes garden equipment
such as hoes, rakes, and forks.
Although the basic processes involved in the produc­
tion of hand and edge tools have changed little over the
period, there have been improvements in the equipment
and methods used. Many of these changes have been
evolutionary in nature and have occurred on an inhouse basis, with individual plants developing much of
their own equipment to improve productivity. The re-

suit has been faster equipment speeds, increasing auto­
mation of certain processes, and more rapid materials
flow. The introduction of robots by some manufacturers
has been part of the effort to achieve more complete
mechanization of the production processes. Robots are
an integral part of an automated materials handling op­
eration. They are used to help move workpieces to and
from forging presses and to and from the forging press
dies, and to assist with other operations such as the
movement of workpieces to and from the oil quenching
process.
One of the most basic processes involved in the pro­
duction of products requiring a high degree of strength
and hardness is forging. The objective of forging is to
“hot work” the steel into specific shapes, concentrating
the grain structure and fiber formation at the point of
greatest shock and stress. This results in the achieve­
ment of the utmost strength and toughness inherent in
the specific grade of steel that is used. This is especially
im portant for striking tools.
To make hand and edge tools, a steel bar is sheared
to the desired length and is then heated in an electric,
oil, or gas-fired furnace. The bar is heated to a plastic
condition and is then transferred to the forging ham­
mer. Typically, drop forging hammers using closed im­
pression dies perform the actual forging operation.
(However, forging presses can also be used.) Intermit­
tent blows of the hammer refine the steel billet or bar
through a series of cavities in the die attaining the re­
quired shape in the finishing impression. A matched set
of dies is used, with the lower die remaining stationary
while the upper die vertically strikes the steel bar. Sepa­
rate die impressions are used for preliminary and final
forming operations.
Improvements in the ovens used to heat the metal for
the forging operation have contributed to faster produc­
tion rates. The speed with which these ovens can raise
the temperature of the metal to the necessary level has
improved, thus reducing the time needed for heating.
Improved ovens have also reduced the amount of excess
metal that needs to be removed from forged pieces, re­
sulting in less finishing work.
There has been increasing mechanization in the “feed­
ing” of metal to the forging equipment. Correspond­
ingly, the operating speed of the forging equipment has
also been improved. It is important that the proper
temperature for the particular metal and the specific job
be maintained throughout the successive stages of forg­
ing. The faster forging equipment has facilitated this
and has thus reduced the problems associated with
reheating.
In recent years, some plants have adopted horizontal
impact forging equipment, which provides a high degree
of automation. The piece of metal being worked is
moved along by an electrically controlled manipulator.

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

The dies, which are attached to pneumatically powered
rams, act on the metal pieces horizontally as they shape
them. The pieces are automatically moved from impres­
sion to impression within the die as successive stages of
forging are carried out. The automatic control of the
dies and the movement of the workpieces results in re­
duced labor requirements.
After forging is completed, a trimmer press may be
used to remove the excess (flash) metal squeezed out by
the impact pressure. Grinding and polishing operations
may subsequently be performed on the forged piece of
metal. Improvements in grinding and polishing equip­
ment have also contributed to productivity gains; both
procedures were formerly done with hand-fed and hand­
held equipment. However, manufacturers have increas­
ingly been adopting equipment which permits these op­
erations to be performed on a continuous flow basis.
Further reduction in the time required for grinding and
polishing has been achieved through redesign of the
product to reduce the surfaces which need to be worked
on.
Heat treating of the forged pieces is frequently
performed for various reasons such as achieving a more
uniform grain structure, relieving stresses, hardening the
surface, and increasing the ease of machining. Improve­
ments in heat treating ovens, including better controls,
have aided productivity. Increasing automation in heat
treating has reduced the operators’ work in this process.
The adoption of cold forming techniques is also aid­
ing productivity. In the cold forming process, dies are
still used to give the workpieces their final shape. How­
ever, advancements in the feeding mechanisms permit
preforming of the pieces to such an extent that they can
enter the dies without the usual need for heating. This
technique is becoming increasingly popular, especially
in the production of mechanics’ hand tools.
Some manufacturers have achieved additional efficien­
cies through the use of edge hardening equipment. For
items whose strength requirements are primarily limited
to edge strength, such as hedge shears, this can mean
faster production because the hardening of the workpiece is concentrated only on critical edges versus the
whole piece.
Efficiencies have also occurred in the broaching opera­
tion, which is the metal cutting process that enlarges or
changes the contour of the tool openings (for example,
wrench openings). The increased use of manipula­
tors, which control point-to-point movement of workpieces, has reduced the work performed by operators.
Computers have encouraged productivity growth in
several ways. In addition to helping with administrative
functions such as payroll and inventory, the computer
has proven valuable for production planning. Its use en­
ables many of the activities involved in daily production
operations to be scheduled more efficiently. Computers
13

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Hand and Edge Tool Industry Productivity
also aid in coordinating the setup of production lines
and the scheduling of die changes and downtime. This
contributes to better utilization of die shops and other
related in-house functions.

The outlook
Productivity should benefit from continued mechani­
zation of production processes and gradual improve­
ments in equipment. Continued introduction of robots
and the increasing adoption of cold forming techniques
should be contributing factors, as will the expanded use
of computer technology.

Horizontal impact forging equipment may be a factor
in future productivity increases as more plants adopt
this technology, especially where long production runs
are involved. The cost and setup time associated with
this equipment, however, may hinder its adoption. The
demand for industry output has benefited from growth
in the do-it-yourself market and demographic factors
suggest that this trend could continue. However, com­
petition from imports, as measured by the import pene­
tration ratio, has been increasing— as a percent of new
supply they rose from 7.5 percent in 1975 to 11.5 per­
cent in 1979.
□

FOOTNOTES

' The hand and edge tool industry is composed of establishments
primarily engaged in the manufacture of files and other hand and
edge tools for metalworking, woodworking, and general maintenance.
The industry is designated as SIC 3423 in the Standard Industrial
Classification Manual, 1972. Establishments primarily engaged in the
manufacture of saws are classified in industry 3425 and power-driven
hand tools in 3546. All average annual rates of change are based on
the linear least squares trends of the logarithms of the index numbers.
Extension of the indexes will appear in the annual BLS Bulletin, Pro­
ductivity Measures fo r Selected Industries.

2 See Kathleen Wiegner, “Quality Still Matters,” Forbes, Aug. 21,
1978, pp. 114-15.
' Residential Alterations and Repairs, Construction Reports C50 (Bu­
reau of the Census).
“Stanley Works: Capitalizing on the homeowner do-it-yourself
trend,” Business Week, Feb. 26, 1979, pp. 125-26.
The import penetration ratio is calculated by dividing the value of
shipments of imports by the value of new supply, where new supply is
defined as the sum of the value of imports and domestic product ship­
ments.

APPENDIX: Measurement techniques and limitations
Indexes of output per employee hour measure chang­
es in the relation between the output of an industry and
employee hours expended on that output. An index of
output per employee hour is derived by dividing an in­
dex of output by an index of industry employee hours.
The preferred output index for manufacturing indus­
tries would be obtained from data on quantities of the
various goods produced by the industry, each weighted
(multiplied) by the employee hours required to produce
one unit of each good in some specified base period.
Thus, those goods which require more labor time to
produce are given more importance in the index.
In the absence of adequate physical quantity data,
the output index for this industry was constructed using
a deflated value technique. The value of shipments of
the various product classes were adjusted for price
changes by appropriate Producer Price Indexes to de­

Digitized14for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

rive real output measures. These, in turn, were com­
bined with employee-hour weights to derive the overall
output measure. The result is a final output index that
is conceptually close to the preferred output measure.
Employment and employee-hour indexes were derived
from data published by the Bureau of the Census be­
cause BLS data were not available. Employees and em­
ployee hours are each considered homogeneous and
additive, and thus do not reflect changes in the qualita­
tive aspects of labor, such as skill and experience.
The indexes of output per employee hour do not
measure any specific contributions, such as that of labor
or capital. Rather, they reflect the joint effect of factors
such as changes in technology, capital investment, ca­
pacity utilization, plant design and layout, skill and ef­
fort of the work force, managerial ability, and labormanagement relations.

A Review Essay

The productivity puzzle:
numbers alone won’t solve it
From vantage points in management,
labor, academia, and government,
contributors to four recent books
grapple with the productivity slowdown,
with little help from economic theory
Paul S. A dler
Over the last two decades, there has been a major de­
cline in the rate of growth in U.S. productivity. The lag
in the ratio of output to input has also occurred in
many other industrial countries, including Japan.
Orthodox economic theory hypothesizes a basically
technical link between trends in output and input,
namely, the production function. This hypothesis has
been put to a severe test, for the precise extent, the ori­
gins, and the significance of the productivity slowdown
are yet to be analyzed with a clarity that would demon­
strate the usefulness of traditional economics in ana­
lyzing such problems.
There is, in particular, a surprising contrast between
the wealth of studies that attempt to quantify the decline
and calculate its causes, and the poverty of material
on the role played by such a lag in macroeconomic per­
formance. It should be remembered that, in general, at a
company and an industry level, labor productivity and
profitability are not well correlated, and that in capitalist
economies decisions are based on the latter, not the for­
mer. Paul Samuelson’s neoclassical paradigm claims its
Paul S. Adler, a research economist with the Employment Research
Center of the French Ministry of Labor, has been a guest scholar at
the Brookings Institution and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. He is
currently a visiting assistant professor of economics at Barnard Col­
lege, Columbia University, N.Y.


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

originality in the capacity to link the two factors, in a
synthesis of micro- and macro-economics. But so far,
this approach has not shed light on the most elementary
part of the productivity puzzle: Is the productivity slow­
down basically a cause or an effect of current economic
problems?
Research on productivity thus progresses somewhat
unevenly. Three foci of study have emerged: data analy­
sis, study of management practices, and research into
labor relations and conditions. Productivity: Prospects fo r
Growth, edited by Jerome Rosow, deals with all three
subjects. The interdependence of the three themes
makes this presentation most judicious. Three other re­
cent books have also addressed one or other of these
matters. Before discussing the major issues, we will
identify the overlapping concerns of the four volumes.
Productivity: Prospects fo r Growth includes five contri­
butions to the task of data analysis. Solomon Fabricant
of New York University and Dale Jorgenson of H ar­
vard University present the growth accounting data, Je­
rome Mark of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the mea­
surement consideration, and Howard Samuel and Rudy
Oswald of the AFL-CIO, their views on the role of for­
eign trade and labor unions.
The reader seeking more detail on current data analy­
sis methods can consult Aggregate and Industry-Level
15

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • The Productivity Puzzle
Productivity Analysis, edited by Ali Dogramaci and
Nabil R. Adam, both of Rutgers University; this is the
second volume of the Studies in Productivity Analysis
series. Two papers address methodology: that by
Ephraim Sudit of Rutgers University and Nachum Fin­
ger of Ben Gurion University presents a general survey
and that by Douglas Moon of Columbia University, the
dynamic input/output model. The formidable problems
posed by time-series analysis are discussed by Lawrence
Cohen of Columbia University and Salin Neftci of Bos­
ton College. Tom Boucher of Cornell University
assesses technical change; J. R. Norsworthy and Mi­
chael Harper of the Bureau of Labor Statistics consider
capital formation, and Frank Gollop of Boston College
and Mark Roberts of Pennsylvania State University an­
alyze imported intermediate inputs.
The next theme, management, is examined in Produc­
tivity: Prospects fo r Growth by John Donnelly, who
discusses the role of the chief executive, and by Alfred
Neal, former president of the Committee for Economic
Development, who analyzes the role of the tax system.
Exploring technological change at the corporate level
are Reginald Jones, chairman of General Electric, John
Diebold, chairman of the Diebold Group, Thomas
Donahue, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO, and Rob­
ert Ranftl of Hughes Aircraft Corp.
The problems of productivity management are also
the theme of papers edited by Vernon M. Buehler and
Y. Krishna Shetty, both of Utah State University, in
Productivity Improvement: Case Studies o f Proven Prac­
tice. Represented are 11 companies and three unions.
Contributors also include Murray Weidenbaum, former
chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, and
Clement Preiwisch of the General Accounting Office.
The last theme, dealing with labor, is discussed in
Productivity: Prospects fo r Growth from four perspec­
tives. Rosow of the Work in America Institute surveys
the problems associated with the various “human fac­
tors” and discusses their possible remedies. Writing on
worker participation are Stephen Fuller, vice president
of General Motors, Douglas Fraser, president of the
United Auto Workers, and Wayne Horvitz, director of
the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.
These problems are given more theoretical treatment
in Stephen Hill’s Competition and Control at Work: The
New Industrial Sociology, the fruit of his teaching at the
London School of Economics.
The four books incorporate some of the most ad­
vanced thinking in this, somewhat fragmented, area of
research. Our review will thus attempt to assess some of
the strengths and weaknesses of the state of the art. The
first two sections will deal with conceptual and analyti­
cal problems and will therefore consider the contribu­
tions of the Rosow volume and Dogramaci and Adam
collection. The following two sections will cover the
Digitized 16
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

management and labor aspects, as they are discussed in
Buehler and Shetty, Hill, and the other chapters of
Rosow. In a concluding section, we sketch some alter­
native lines of research.

The conceptual problems of data analysis
The literature on the productivity problem shows lit­
tle patience with the troublesome theoretical problems
of economics. These books are no exception. Fabricant’s
overview gives theory scant attention; M ark’s discussion
of measurement problems includes an extensive survey
of the reliability of our data, but from an exclusively
pragmatic point of view. Sudit’s discussion of method­
ological issues is broad-ranging but makes no effort to
draw any conclusions concerning the value of the em­
pirical work that is founded on fragile hypotheses. Most
of his fellow contributors to the Dogramaci/Adam col­
lection, concentrating on empirical industry-level and
time-series analysis, struggle with the practical difficul­
ties associated with these problems without the benefit
of a viable theoretical framework. Not surprisingly,
such studies are principally of interest to the profession­
al student of productivity.
Two theoretical problems in particular would seem to
merit discussion. Productivity analyses inspired by the
neoclassical paradigm attempt to quantify the contribu­
tion of each factor of production to output growth. The
productivity growth that cannot thus be explained,
called the residual, has been attributed to technical
change. Growth is thus decomposed into movements
along a production function (representing a certain tech­
nology), and shifts o f the production function (indica­
tive of a change in technology). If this sounds plausible
for small, marginal changes, Nelson1has already drawn
attention to the absurdity of the attempt to extrapolate
the procedure to major changes such as we have
witnessed over the postwar period.
The second question warranting additional research
takes us further back, into the great “Capital Debate”
between Cambridge (U.S.) and Cambridge (U.K.). The
conclusion was that the neoclassical attempt to base a
theory of distribution on the theory of production was
fatally flawed: even under competitive equilibrium con­
ditions, the remuneration of capital is not determined
by its marginal productivity, because the definition of a
quantity of capital presupposes determination of the
distributional variable. This conclusion vitiates much of
the growth accounting exercise, because the calculation
of a stock of plant and equipment— at first sight purely
physical entities— involves a nontechnical factor like
the rate of return. Multifactor productivity studies,
however, continue to calculate a stock of capital (or a
flow of capital services) by virtue, as C. E. Ferguson put
it, of an “act of faith” : “The question that confronts us
is not whether the [British] Cambridge Criticism is the-

oretically valid. It is. Rather the question is an empiri­
cal or econometric one: is there sufficient substitutabili­
ty within the system to establish neoclassical results? . . .
Until the econometricians have the answer for us, plac­
ing reliance upon neoclassical economic theory is a
matter of faith.”2 It is somewhat disconcerting to find
the current productivity research pursued as if the Cam­
bridge U.K. school had never existed.
Some relief from these attacks on the very legitimacy
of growth accounting models may be forthcoming from
the sophistication of more recent econometric tech­
niques. Much of the capital debate concerned the circu­
larity of reasoning in the neoclassical theory, attacking
its explanatory power, but perhaps not its descriptive
power. To our knowledge, however, none of the parti­
sans of the growth accounting techniques has made this
case. Most of the technical debates to date— for exam­
ple, those surrounding the replacement of Laspeyres
and Paasche indexes by Divisia indexes— are by com­
parison of limited import.
The basic problem posed by such theoretical interro­
gations concerns the usefulness of the neoclassical
paradigm for dynamic analysis in conditions of realworld complexity. As Joan Robinson has written,3 there
is something inherently wrongheaded in trying “to find
out from the record of what actually happened, what
growth of output would have been if the value of capital
had grown as much as it did without any technical
progress having taken place.” The value for long-term
analysis of the distinction between shifts of and along a
production function seems at best extremely limited.
The concrete problems of a choice of productivity in­
dicators are thus posed against a backdrop of vast theo­
retical disputes; and the latter permeate the former. The
usefulness of multifactor indexes, on the one hand, in
attempting to define quantities of the different inputs, is
limited by the need to assume that factors are remuner­
ated at their marginal product. If this assumption is of
dubious legitimacy for capital, the case of labor is not
simple either. Obviously, different qualities of labor
have different productive potentials; but it is much less
clear that relative pay reflects these differences.
The use of simple labor productivity indexes, on the
other hand, is theoretically uncontroversial. But their
use does little to reduce the productivity puzzle to its
purely quantitative dimension. The substitution of capi­
tal for labor must be somehow incorporated into the
analysis. Relying on labor productivity, therefore, sup­
poses the development of a model of accumulation,
which the neoclassicists thought they had provided.
Beyond these properly economic disputes, there is
also confusion over broader issues.
Measures of output, including those of the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, are often approximate, especially in the
many industries with no clearly defined products or

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

quality range. In an extreme case, that of the computer
equipment industry, the difficulty of the task of measur­
ing quality change has led to total capitulation, and the
price deflator is conventionally set at 1, as if there had
been no qualitative improvement at all since the birth of
the computer industry. Some, not implausible, estimates
of quality changes in this industry can be shown to
boost output measures so much that the productivity
lag for manufacturing disappears entirely.4
The rapid development of the service sector aggra­
vates this problem. It is remarkable that as we narrow
our focus from GNP, to private business sector output,
and further to manufacturing output, the productivity
slowdown appears progressively less dramatic. This
seems perhaps normal, when one contrasts automation
trends in manufacturing with those of service industries
like shoe-shining. But the image of a technically back­
ward service sector is belied by the example of comput­
erization in telecommunications, banking, and insur­
ance.
Two hypotheses thus compete in explaining the dif­
ference between the roles of manufacturing and services
in the productivity slowdown. The first is that we
mismeasure and underestimate service output; pushed
far enough, this hypothesis could lead to the argument
that there has been no serious productivity lag. Against
such skeptics, it can, however, be shown that in the
manufacturing sector, too, and in particular in many in­
dustries where measurement problems are least impor­
tant, there seems to have been a significant productivity
slowdown. The second hypothesis reverses the perspec­
tive, to emphasize the collapse of the service sector’s ap­
parent productivity. Could this reflect a real breakdown

Books reviewed
Jerome Rosow, ed., Productivity: Prospects for Growth.
New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, Work in Ameri­
ca Series, 1981, 340 pp. $19.00.
Ali Dogramaci and Nabil R. Adam, eds., Aggregate and
Industry-Level Productivity Analysis. (Volume 2 of
Studies in Productivity Analysis.) Hingham, Mass.,
Martinus Nijhoff, 1981, 195 pp. $25.00
Vernon M. Buehler and Y. Krishna Shetty, eds., Pro­

ductivity Improvement: Case Studies of Proven Prac­
tice. New York, a m a c o m , American Management
Associations, Inc., 1981, 273 pp. $19.95.
Stephen Hill, Competition and Control at Work: The
New Industrial Sociology. Cambridge, Mass., Massa­
chusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1981, 280 pp.
$25.00 cloth, $9.95 paper.

17

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • The Productivity Puzzle
in the efficiency with which this sector performs its me­
diating and informational functions? Unfortunately, lit­
tle research has been conducted on the industrial
dynamics of these functions.5
Deeper conceptual problems are not absent here ei­
ther: how should we treat nonmarket goods? Pollution
control expenses are commonly included in the cost side
of production, but are difficult to include in the output
side as, for example, clean air. Do market prices bear
sufficient relation to utility to justify our reliance on
them for evaluating economic performance? There is a
venerable tradition of rejecting output (and therefore
productivity) statistics as irrelevant to real welfare. The
rub, of course, is that even if the data reflect the specifi­
cally market forms of welfare calculation, it is such cal­
culations which orient real-world decisions. As limited
as these measures are, they therefore have a key role to
play in analysis.
The Rosow and Dogramaci/Adam volumes give
these problems but scant attention.

Looking for scapegoats
Beyond the conceptual and measurement difficulties,
there has nevertheless probably been a fall in labor pro­
ductivity growth rates. This deceleration is sufficiently
important in a large enough range of indicators, both
aggregate and industry level, to overcome most skepti­
cism. Do we have an explanation for it?
In the aggregate data, the slowdown is particularly
dramatic since 1973. In the total factor productivity
framework, this shows up as a precipitous decline in the
main factor contributing to growth, the residual. This
fact alone should be sufficient to show that Edward F.
Denison’s interpretation of the residual as primarily re­
flecting advances in knowledge cannot be sustained.6
Whatever slowdown one may imagine taking place in
research and development, the accumulation of knowl­
edge can hardly be imagined to have braked so
suddenly.
A first hypothesis might be that companies today
treat labor as a quasi-fixed factor, and that therefore the
adjustment of employment to production is slower than
it used to be. This has been verified statistically, and
many of the contributors to the Buehler/Shetty volume
claim that increased labor flexibility is the key to in­
creasing corporate profitability. While this may explain a
certain (downside) volatility of productivity ratios over
the shorter period, the question remains as to why the
slowdown persists.
Indeed, the U.S. debate has been characterized by a
great resistance to the idea that the recent recessionary
trends could be other than purely cyclical or exogenous­
ly generated. Jorgenson,7 in Productivity: Prospects for
Growth and elsewhere, develops the exogeneity thesis,
arguing for the importance of energy prices in
Digitized for
18 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

explaining the slowdown. The data are far from show­
ing this; but, above all, one would want to ask: why
have the major economies proved themselves to be so
incapable of surmounting such a handicap? The vigor of
the upturns in g n p growth since 1973 has slowed recog­
nition in this country that the long-term growth path
has been shifted downward.
Under the title “Free the Fortune 500,” Weidenbaum
presents the now-classic case for assigning the role of
chief culprit to government regulation. No statistics,
and certainly not Denison’s, have been advanced to
substantiate his claim. The text is a candidly ideological
manifesto that gives the reader a glimpse into the mind
set of the recently resigned head of the Council of Eco­
nomic Advisers.
The most serious candidate for blame is capital for­
m ation— the object of a study by Norsworthy and
Harper in Aggregate and Industry-Level Productivity
Analysis. The proportion of GNP going to investment
has been remarkably stable over the last decade, but as
GNP growth has slowed, so has capital formation. Other
data in this contribution indicate that the price of capi­
tal services sharply accelerated from 1973, almost
reaching the rate of increase in hourly labor compensa­
tion. The combination of higher interest rates, massive
increases in the labor force owing to the arrival of the
baby-boom generation and to the “mobilization” of
women, as well as more direct pressure on real wage
levels, may have thus led to such a cheapening of labor
relative to capital as to slow the substitution of the lat­
ter for the former.8 The principal difficulty with these
explanations of the productivity slowdown is that the
reduction in investment flows only marginally affects the
“productivity” of the stock of capital. A further
hypothesis is explored by Alfred Neal in Productivity:
Prospects fo r Growth; he blames “excessive” taxation for
insufficient investment. The argument is weakened by
the ubiquity of the slowdown in countries with widely
different taxation trends. Energy costs have also been
incriminated, their rise rendering redundant a certain
fraction of the capital stock because of energy/equip­
ment complementarities.
Any or all of these factors may have played a role,
but a key lesson from John Maynard Keynes seems to
have been forgotten: the “animal spirits” of the investor
will surmount many such obstacles if the weather fore­
casts for the business climate are good.9 In particular,
that somewhat tired old culprit, deficiency in savings,
cannot constitute a real brake in a modern economy in
which investment is financed on a credit-based, for­
ward-contract system. If business prospects are good,
low levels of retained corporate earnings will be supple­
mented by extra external finance, and a lack of deposits
in the lending institutions will be overcome by moneycreating credit.

The problem would thus appear to be systemic rather
than localized. Any particular difficulty can be sur­
mounted, and, often, transformed into a stimulus. The
search for the origin of, and the cure for, the productiv­
ity “problem” has therefore recently turned to manage­
ment and labor, the major actors in a socioeconomic
system, the dynamism of which may be faltering.

The role of management
The link between productivity and management is
difficult to establish because product change and mar­
keting flexibility are often more direct determinants of
commercial survival and success than the technical effi­
ciency with which a firm produces a hypothetically sta­
ble product. Accordingly, management itself tracks
profitability rather than the more abstract notion of
productivity.
The second part o f Productivity: Prospects fo r Growth
discusses a number of management problems related to
the productivity issue. The principal area of analysis is
the dynamism of technological change in the firm.
Diebold sketches the (well known and still) fascinating
account of the Office of Tomorrow, with a refreshingly
pragmatic touch as to the limits both of the current
technology and above all of its impact on office-work
productivity. This contribution is valuable in reminding
us that the availability of new technologies does not
guarantee their rapid implementation— the delays are
often measured in decades. Furthermore, implementa­
tion does not guarantee improvement of the standard
productivity indexes, for new technologies create new
tasks.
Other contributions include a disappointingly low-key
union assessment of technological trends by Donahue,
somewhat in contrast with the more thought-provoking
piece by Oswald, AFL-CIO research director, on the gen­
eral productivity question. The contribution of John
Donnelly, the chairman of Donnelly Mirrors, Inc., is
useful in outlining one manager’s perception of the im­
portance of practical labor-management cooperation in
the framework of a Scanlon Plan.
This latter approach to labor, seeking to transform
the presence of unions from a handicap into an advan­
tage for corporate competitiveness, is in sad contrast to
the approaches outlined in the case study volume
published by a m a c o m (a division of American Manage­
ment Associations). The reader cannot but be impressed
by the presence of such im portant companies as Kaiser
Aluminum and Chemicals, Hughes Aircraft, and Burger
King, even if the papers themselves are disappointingly
short and lacking in detail. The message is basically
that productivity demands more Taylorism, more con­
trol, more incentive pay schemes, and a small dose of
Japanese-style Quality Circles. The last are designed to
capitalize on workers’ intimate knowledge of the pro­

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

duction process. The Quality Circle view, in contrast to
the “quality of worklife” philosophy to which Rosow
and others allude, excludes any commitment to real co­
operation in which the gains of labor would not be pre­
mised on the prior increase of company profits.
Some cracks do, nevertheless, appear in the manage­
ment orthodoxy. Nucor Corp. insists on the importance
of job security and has implemented group bonus
schemes that include foremen and maintenance crew.
Crompton Co., Inc., has instituted a 36-hour, 3-day
workweek paid 40 hours. Hughes Aircraft declares its
commitment to designing “meaningful” jobs by enlarg­
ing the range of tasks.
The union contributions by Cass Alvin of the A F L CIO echo somewhat alone in this landscape. The conser­
vatism of his interlocutors would indeed seem to consti­
tute a major handicap in putting the United States back
onto the map of innovative entrepreneurship. Aber­
nathy, Clarke, Hayes, and K antrow10 have recently
launched a major critique of this conservatism. They at­
tribute the decline in the relative strength of U.S. com­
panies to the short-term, bottom-line myopia of
corporate decisionmaking. Overemphasis on quarterly
and annual results, according to the Harvard authors,
cripples American corporations’ capacity for long-term
technological programming. Symptomatic of the disease
is the U.S. managers’ tendency, perfectly explicit in the
case studies, and above all in the “Free the Fortune
500” contribution, to interpret every constraint on their
prerogatives as an intolerable shackle on individual cre­
ativity. Whence the paradox: in the United States,
where Government intervention and unions are smaller
and weaker than in most other developed countries, the
blame attributed to Government and unions in causing
the current crisis is greatest.
The difficulty, of course, with this critique of manage­
ment, is that in less expert hands it can easily slide into
the same “blame the victim” mode that constitutes one
of management’s own shortcomings. Can one sustain
the argument that the current economic woes of the
United States are principally due to a particularly in­
competent group of managers? Is not their myopia the
most rational programming strategy in a period of great
uncertainty? Is it not the flip side of the flexibility of
operations that European managers so envy? Is not
long-term technological programming vastly easier for
those in second place who are imitating the
frontrunner?"
Alternatively, one could perhaps hypothesize that the
Cyclical characteristics of capitalist growth can be
dampened in the shorter term but not eliminated. The
problem is thus rephrased: in the current worldwide re­
cessionary climate the only way to limit the cost of the
market system’s congenital myopia is by aligning shortand long-term prospects. Such a reconnection implies a
19

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • The Productivity Puzzle
stabilization of macroeconomic conditions. Because
markets are in themselves unable to provide such stabil­
ity, capitalist growth seems to necessitate its imposition
by non-market forces, via the further institutionalization
of social consensus and conflict-resolution mechanisms.

The role of labor
The frequency with which incentive pay schemes are
mentioned by the contributors to the case studies is per­
haps not to be simply attributed to the blame-the-victim
syndrome. Assuring the cooperation of labor is a major
permanent task; poor labor relations can be very costly
in terms of excess supervisory personnel, of under-per­
formance of workers, of underutilization of plant, and
of lack of product quality and timeliness. If these costs
are less important than those associated with a deficit of
technical and organizational adaptation, they are by no
means negligible.
Stephen Hill’s book presents a valuable framework
for the analysis of these problems. Written from an En­
glish perspective, but with a solid grasp of U.S. devel­
opments, its dual reference to Max Weber and to a
context where class conflict is manifest could prove a
tonic for a U.S. audience. Especially in the current peri­
od when labor leaders have rediscovered the pertinence
of a “class war” rhetoric.
U.S. industrial sociology has been dominated by a
Durkheimian perspective which privileges the reproduc­
tion of a community of values. The absence of consen­
sus thus constitutes the horizon of much social
thinking: conflict is ever present but always on the hori­
zon, beyond theoretical grasp. This approach contrasts
with that of Weber, for whom the conflict of interests is
the starting point of social analysis.
The fundamental hypothesis of Hill’s work is that an­
tagonistic interests compete within the firm. This con­
flict is not just over income distribution, but also over
power, and in particular allocative power on the shop
floor (work rules, staffing patterns and levels, work in­
tensity, and so on). The fact that U.S. unions are seen
as having de-emphasized allocative struggles in ex­
change for concessions in income distribution should
not, in Hill’s view, be interpreted as implying that shopfloor conflicts can be relegated to the status of a prob­
lem of maintaining consensus within the unions. The
basic separation of ownership or control and productive
activity— as opposed to their unity in a cooperative sys­
tem — makes competition and conflict primary, if not
permanent, features of the capitalist firm.
Hill’s Weberianism is not the diluted version to
which U.S. audiences are accustomed. Power within the
capitalist firm is inexorably asymmetrical. The wage re­
lation is a power relation, not just a “contract,” because
the worker, while free not to enter this or that particu­
lar employment contract, must enter some contract on
Digitized for
20 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

pain of distressing unemployment. (Milton Friedman’s
identification of Capitalism and Freedom rests on ob­
scuring the general constraint in order to vaunt the free­
dom of its particularity.)
This leads to an interesting if somewhat fragmented
discussion of Taylorism that contrasts favorably with
what one often finds in the U.S. literature. Hill follows
much of the recent research which characterizes
Taylorism as an expression of this asymmetry in the la­
bor process: management control over the immediate la­
bor process is gained at the expense of craft-type
worker autonomy. But he tempers this account by a
discussion of the limits of Taylorism: its partial adop­
tion in management circles, the resistance of workers to
its effects, and, most importantly, the fact that the pro­
duction process always necessitates some degree of co­
o p eratio n -ev en within the framework of conflict.
The conflictuality of labor-management relations is,
in this perspective, somewhat independent of the degree
of institutionalization taken by the forms of its resolu­
tion. By contrast, U.S. discussion of quality of worklife
programs seems hampered by the assumption that coop­
erative and adversarial relations can and should be two
totally distinct modes of labor-management interaction.
It is as if an overly consensual (and individualist) ideol­
ogy blocked recognition by management and by unions
that plant-level conflict was healthy and that coopera­
tive moments within this conflictual relation were per­
fectly normal. Whence a fruitless polarization between
the cynics and the naive.
The import of such research for the productivity
puzzle is considerable, for many discussants locate the
root of productivity decline in shop-floor tensions. The
value of Hill’s work is to remind such “radicals” — who
appear at all points of the political spectrum— that
growth in capitalist economies is not a zero-sum game.
Workers’ gains are not simply capitalists’ losses, be­
cause in the longer run such gains are one of the most
potent stimuli to technical change and hence to produc­
tivity growth. Whether worker resistance plays this role
depends on the dynamism of the system.

The dynamism of socioeconomic systems
The productivity puzzle is a valuable indicator of the
current state of economics, reflecting this discipline’s
difficulties— heoretical, quantitative, historical, and so­
ciological. Richard Nelson has drawn the uncomplimen­
tary parallel with the drunk looking for his lost watch
under the lamp post “because that’s where the light is.”
But why is the economics profession tipsy? Part of the
reason may be its excessive focus on formulating policy
recommendations, an objective not always conducive to
major theoretical research.
The role played by this policy focus might, however,
shift from debilitating to revivifying. The urgent need

for vigorous policy remedies to current economic prob­
lems will not, we believe, be satisfied by a reliance on
the automaticity of market adjustments. The demand
for serious policy may thus, indirectly, become a stimu­
lus for the revival of those theoretical trends that have
for too long been relegated to the margins of economic
theory: the heterodoxies of institutionalist and “funda­
mentalist” Keynesian theories.
The most fruitful areas of research may be at the inter­
section of Joseph Schumpeter and Nelson, in its
proximity with that developed by certain French re­
searchers12along the lines suggested by Michel Aglietta.13
It would associate the analysis of macroeconomics to
that of social institutions, going beyond the neoclassi­
cal, market-centered model by breaking with its implicit
assumption that real developments, such as a productiv­
ity slowdown, can be accounted for by the juxtaposition
of purely exogenous shocks and the spontaneous equili­
brating market mechanism.
Market mechanisms need to be integrated into a his­
torical model that explains their (always limited)
pertinence to any given epoch. Periods of economic his­
tory are thus distinguished according to their moneycreation regimes, wage-setting institutions, price de­
termination mechanisms, and international trade

hierarchies. The coherence of these social forms with
the dominant macroeconomic relations of productivity
and income growth— “deepening” or “widening”
modes of accumulation— assures a harmonious balance
in the expansion of output and demand; their incoher­
ence generates a protracted, KondratiefF-like period of
instability.
Periods of coherence naturally exhaust their dyna­
mism. Tensions accumulate. The diffusion of finite sets
of organizational and technological innovations reaches
higher plateaus. Virtuous circles become vicious. No
meta-auctioneer guarantees the timely replacement of
failing system-stabilizers.
In such a perspective, the downward shift in growth
paths, of which the productivity deceleration is but a
symptom, is attributable neither to a single cause nor
the accidental conjunction of several causes. Longer
downswings are part of our economic history, as the
system exhausts and then recreates the social-structural
conditions of accumulation.
Economic history, the real history of cycles, short
and long, of accumulation and crashes, is made in the
interstices of “economics” as Academia currently imag­
ines it. At least, such might be the lesson of the produc­
tivity puzzle.
□

FOOTNOTES

1Richard R. Nelson, “Research on productivity growth and
productivity differences: dead ends and new departures,” Journal o f
Economic Literature, September 1981, pp. 1029-64.
2C. E. Ferguson, The Neoclassical Theory o f Production and Distri­
bution (London and New York, Cambridge U.P., 1969).
'Joan Robinson, Contributions to Modern Economics (New York,
Academic Press, 1978).
4 Unpublished paper by Michael J. McKee of the Council of Eco­
nomic Advisers staff.
5But see Robert S. Cohen, The Internationalization o f Capital and
U.S. Cities (Ph.D. dissertation, New School for Social Research,
1979), and Thomas Stanback Jr. and Thierry Noyelle, Services/the
New Economy (Montclair, Allanheld, Osmun, 1981).
6 Edward F. Denison, Accounting fo r Slower Growth (Washington,
The Brookings Institution, 1979).
7 Dale W. Jorgenson, interview, Challenge, November-December
1980, pp. 16-25. Note, however, that the rate of capital/labor substi­
tution does not seem to have slowed in manufacturing.
8Gregory Schmid, “Productivity and Reindustrialization: A Dis­
senting View,” Challenge, January-February 1981, pp. 24—29.
, Martin Baily, “Productivity and the Services of Capital and


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

Labor” (Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1, 1981) discusses this
hypothesis in relation to Tobin’s q ratio between market valuation
and replacement costs of capital. The practical import of the Cam­
bridge U.K. position may lie in the modeling of the tensions generat­
ed by the real-world gap between the competing financial estimates of
capital stocks approximated in q's numerator and denominator.
10William J. Abernathy, Kim B. Clark, and Alan M. Kantrow,
“The New Industrial Competition,” H arvard Business Review, September-October 1981, pp. 68-81; and William J. Abernathy and Robert
H. Hayes, “Managing Our Way to Economic Decline,” H arvard Busi­
ness Review, July-August 1980, pp. 67-77.
" Robert Z. Lawrence, Phase 1 Report: International Trade, to the
National Science Foundation. Essay number two: Trade performance
patterns, unpublished paper, (Washington, The Brookings Institution,

April 1982).
12 See, in particular, Robert Boyer and Pascal Petit, “Employment
and Productivity in the EEC,” Cambridge Journal o f Economics, Vol.
5 No. 1, March 1981, pp. 47-58. Also see Robert Boyer, “Wage For­
mation in Historical Perspective: the French Experience,” Cambridge
Journal o f Economics, Vol. 3, No. 2, June 1979, pp. 99-118.
13 Michel Aglietta, A Theory o f Capitalist Regulation: the U.S. Expe­
rience {London, N.L.B., 1979).

21

How Sweden combats unemployment
among young and older workers
Joblessness among the 16- to 24-year-olds
and those 45 years and over in Sweden,
although low by American standards,
worsened during the recessions of the 1970's;
government responded with innovative policies
to increase job prospects for these groups
H

elen

G

in s b u r g

The Swedish Government Bill of 1966, which forms the
basis of labor market guidelines, states that its aim is to
“achieve and maintain full, productive and freely chosen
employment.” Although unemployment only averaged
about 2 percent in the 1970’s, that goal has not yet
been attained for all young people, women, immigrants,
older workers, and the disabled. The proportion who
are unemployed in these groups is small by American
standards, but not by Swedish standards. One of the
major challenges of Swedish society, with its strong
commitment to full employment, is to provide jobs for
these workers. This article discusses some of the policies
Sweden uses to contend with unemployment among its
young (16 to 24 years) and older (45 years and over)
workers.

Causes of youth unemployment
As recently as the mid-1960’s, jobs were plentiful for
most Swedish youngsters, regardless of whether they
had only completed the 9-year comprehensive school
(which is compulsory for 7- to 16-year-olds), upper secHelen Ginsburg is Associate Professor of Economics, Brooklyn Col­
lege, City University of New York. This article is excerpted by per­
mission of the publisher from her forthcoming book, Full Employment
and Public Policy: The United States and Sweden (Lexington, Mass.,
Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Co., copyright 1982, D.C. Heath
and Co.).


22
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

ondary school (which follows), or had graduated from a
university.1
In the 1970’s, job prospects became less promising.
Sweden’s first recession of the 1970’s, starting in 1971,
drove the annual unemployment rate up to 2.5 percent
and slightly higher for several consecutive years. Youth
were hard hit. Since then, unemployment rates of 7 and
8 percent have been common for 16- to 19-year-olds
(reaching 9 percent in 1981), as have rates of 3 to 5 per­
cent for 20- to 24-year-olds. (See table 1.) Myriad fac­
tors affected the rise of youth employment. For exam­
ple, apprenticeships practically disappeared and most
companies that once provided on-the-job training for
youngsters no longer did so because many already re­
ceived training in the secondary schools. In the 1970’s,
manufacturing employment stagnated as a result of pro­
ductivity gains that reduced labor requirements, reces­
sions, structural problems that beset important export
industries, and the tendency of Swedish transnational
corporations to locate more manufacturing jobs abroad.
Thus, many blue-collar jobs that might have been avail­
able to youngsters disappeared. Gone, too, were other
jobs— such as delivering packages— that once gave
some employment in small businesses. Most job cre­
ation was in the public sector, but some fast growing
areas— for example, hospitals— were often out of
bounds for persons under 18 years because they cannot

work at night, drive vehicles, or do other unsuitable
work. And in some cases, housewives, who entered the
labor force in large numbers, were hired in preference to
the young.
In slack labor markets, lack of experience became a
more im portant barrier to employment for young work­
ers, and employers often claimed that wages for youths
were too high.2Unlike the United States, Sweden has no
minimum wage law, but the negotiated contracts that
set most wages allow youths to earn less than adults.
Partly as a result of the wage solidarity principle of the
Swedish Trade Union Confederation ( l o ), to which
most blue-collar workers belong, the youth to adult
wage differential narrowed in the 1970’s. (The aim of
this policy is to reduce wage differentials in accordance
with the rule of equal pay for equal work, regardless of
the profitability of the firm.) However, the narrowing of
the youth to adult differential has been occurring for
three decades and some of it reflects the higher average
age of young workers resulting from longer schooling.
To the extent that this is a factor, subsidies that reduce
the cost to the employer of hiring the young have been
used in preference to lowering the differential. Swedish
unions present no barriers to employment of the young
— anyone who is hired is accepted as a member.
Some employers contend that employment security
laws caused the youth unemployment problem. Howev­
er, youth unemployment worsened before the advent of
these laws, although employers may now be more reluc­
tant to hire any workers but those perceived as
“prime.” Interestingly, the law permits hiring for a pro­
bationary period if sanctioned by a collective bargaining
contract, which usually is the case. Also, many firms
had “no hiring” policies in effect at times during the
1970’s, especially in the middle of the decade.3 These
policies hurt new labor market entrants. And, with
many policies aimed at maintaining employment, recov­
ery from a recession often meant that some additional
demand for labor could be met without additional hir­
ing.
In the early 1970’s, about 70 percent of Swedish com­
prehensive school graduates went directly to upper
secondary school, and that figure was about 85 percent
by the end of the decade.4 Secondary schools in Sweden
are more specialized and more vocationally-oriented
than those in the United States. There are more than 20
lines or courses of study that last from 2 to 4 years.
Lines are practical or theoretical (academic) and
designed to prepare a student for further education, al­
though some higher education is now also open to those
who study practical lines.5Youngsters from lower socio­
economic backgrounds are more likely to either take
shorter, more practical courses and to drop out along
the way, or not to enter secondary school at all. Hence,
youth unemployment has a class as well as an age di­

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

mension. Changes in higher education during the 1970’s
worsened the relative position of the youngest and least
educated workers by increasing the supply of better ed­
ucated young workers. Unemployment among universi­
ty graduates led to a substantial decline in enrollment
in higher education, which added to the competition in
the job market. Some college graduates had to take
lower level jobs that they would not have accepted in
previous years, including jobs that once had gone to
secondary school graduates. These better educated
young people were often preferred by employers and
this caused a chain reaction that reverberated down the
line and ultimately affected even the comprehensive
school graduate.6 Similar competition results from an­
other factor. University applicants with work experience
are now given extra credit, making it easier for them to
gain entrance. Hence, more students work for a few
years before going on to higher education.

Policies to increase job prospects
Policies to combat youth unemployment are wide
ranging and include those targeted at youth as well as
those targeted at specific kinds of unemployment which
disportionately affect young people. General economic
policies, needless to say, are particularly important be­
cause recessions inevitably hit the young harder than
adults.
Role o f schools. Within the school system, there are ef­
forts to inform students about the world of work. For
example, students visit a variety of work sites in their
last years of comprehensive school. In addition, there
are vocational guidance officers in all schools, and the

Table 1. National and youth unemployment rates in
Sweden, 1963-81
Year

All
ages

16- to 19-year-olds

20- to 24-year-olds

Total

Men

Women

Total

Men

Women

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

1.7
1.6
1.2
1.6
2.1
2.2
1.9

3.8
4.4
2.9
3.7
5.2
5.7
4.6

2.9
3.7
1.9
2.7
4.7
5.0
3.8

4.7
5.1
5.1
4.8
5.8
6.5
5.4

2.2
2.0
1.9
2.2
3.2
3.0
2.8

2.1
2.1
1.2
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.6

2.3
1.8
2.9
2.3
3.5
3.0
3.0

1970 ..................
1 9 7 1 ..................
1972 ..................
1973 ..................
1974 ..................
1975 ..................

1.5
2.5
2.7
2.5
2.0
1.6

4.3
7.7
8.2
6.8
6.6
5.5

3.4
7.1
7.8
5.8
5.2
4.2

4.8
8.4
8.7
8.0
8.1
7.1

2.2
3.7
4.5
4.4
3.2
2.8

2.5
3.7
4.2
4.2
2.7
2.1

2.4
3.8
4.9
4.7
3.8
3.5

1976 ..................
1977 ..................
1978 ..................
1979 ..................
19801 ...............
1981 ..................

1.6
1.8
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.5

5.5
6.7
7.9
7.4
7.6
9.4

4.1
5.4
7.1
7.0
6.5
8.2

7.0
8.1
8.7
7.9
8.8
10.5

2.7
3.2
4.3
3.7
3.7
4.7

2.2
2.9
4.3
3.6
3.5
4.8

3.4
3.5
4.3
3.8
3.9
4.6

1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969

1Because of a conflict in the labor market, data exclude second quarter.
Data are based on Sweden’s Central Bureau of Statistics Labor Force Surveys.
The unemployment rate is the percentage of the labor force that is unemployed.
N ote :

23

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Sweden Combats Unemployment
Labor Market Board (a tripartite board which carries
out labor market policies) provides personnel from its
Public Employment Service to talk to secondary school
students and at parents’ meetings. Also, as part of its
broad educational effort, the board prepares printed
material and radio and television programs aimed at
students.
There is excellent cooperation between the local La­
bor Market Boards and the Boards of Education. They
work together to develop special courses in the adult
municipal school system, and in folk high schools (a
type of boarding school with no official syllabus or
compulsory subject matter and run by local govern­
ments, churches, trade unions, temperance societies, and
other nonprofit organizations). Labor Market Boards
and Boards of Education also cooperate to develop
courses in the regular school system and in the more
than 50 government-sponsored labor market training
centers located throughout Sweden.
Planning councils. Since 1977, there have been planning
councils for youth in all municipalities. These are head­
ed by local school authorities and include representa­
tives of other municipal agencies, the Employment
Service, labor, and management. Under this arrange­
ment, schools are responsible for maintaining contact
for 2 years with all students who leave compulsory
school without continuing their education. Until these
youths are 18 years of age, they must be guided and ad­
vised about jobs or other educational opportunities that
may arise, such as special courses or the availability of
additional openings in particular lines in the regular
school system. The aim is to prevent out-of-work 16and 17-year-olds from drifting aimlessly on their own.7
Occupational stereotyping. Breaking down the stereo­
typing of jobs by sex is considered very im portant in
the fight against youth unemployment. Young women
already in the labor market are encouraged to consider
nontraditional jobs and greater efforts are being made
within the school system, among employers, within the
family, and in the media to stop the stereotyping of oc­
cupations.8
Monetary support. Cash assistance for those who have
never worked or are otherwise ineligible for regular un­
employment benefits was introduced in the 1970’s with
the young and women in mind. Persons who have fin­
ished secondary school (or the equivalent) are eligible
for these benefits, which pay less than regular unem­
ployment insurance, if they have unsuccessfully sought
work for 3 months through the Employment Service.
Those who have not completed secondary school and
who are at least 16 years old must have worked for at
least 5 months. Slightly more than half of all recipients


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
24
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

of cash assistance at the end of the 1970’s were under
25 years, representing only 30 percent of the unem­
ployed in that age group.9 However, some may have
been receiving regular unemployment benefits. Sweden
does not consider unemployment insurance a solution
to joblessness among the young; it views such benefits
as temporary income until something more substantive
can be arranged— a job or training for a job.
Placement efforts. The Employment Service (at which
almost all jobs must be listed) helps in the job search
and often intensified placement efforts are made for
youths. However, if employers demand an experienced
worker or a highly skilled worker, there is little the ser­
vice can do. Telephone follow-ups and even personal
visits to job sites by placement officers have occasional­
ly proven helpful in placing young people in jobs.
Relief work. Until the 1970’s, there were few young peo­
ple in labor market training or “relief work” (compara­
ble to Public Service Employment jobs in the United
States). With few exceptions, training was reserved for
persons 20 years and over. The major thrust of relief
work was to help adults in the work force adapt to
changing demands for labor. With rising youth unem­
ployment, the proportion of trainees under 25 years
rose from 30 percent in 1969 to 38 percent in 1979.10In
the 1970’s, the age limit for relief work was relaxed and
about 10 percent of the training slots were taken by
teenagers.11 Youngsters uncertain about their occupa­
tional choice were encouraged to try several types of
jobs before deciding on further training or more formal
education. Programs were developed for those with spe­
cial problems who were turned off by ordinary school­
ing: groups of about eight young people were given
alternating periods of general education and work— 2
weeks of education followed by 6 to 8 weeks of relief
work, repeated with different jobs.
The biggest expansion was in relief jobs at regular
wages for the young. Between 1970 and 1979, the pro­
portion of persons under age 25 in relief work rose from
4 percent to 68 percent. The expansion was particularly
important for young women — 83 percent of women,
but only 57 percent of men in relief work in 1979 were
that young.12 In the public sector, office work, mainte­
nance and repair work, environmental conservation, and
care of children and the elderly were popular, to cite
some examples. Private sector employees who hired
young people referred by the Employment Service were
also able to provide relief work, and received a 75-per­
cent subsidy if these jobs were in addition to their regu­
lar recruitment and included some useful training. The
hope that employers would offer regular jobs after the
6-month maximum for relief work often did not materi­
alize. Sometimes a succession of relief workers were

taken on for 6 months, and training was sometimes
lacking or cursory.
In the case of 16- and 17-year-olds, the government
feared that labor market training and relief work would
compete with regular schooling and might even induce
students to quit school for short-term jobs. Secondary
school students in Sweden receive a stipend which, in
1979, was 208 kronor a month (a krona was equivalent
to 22 cents in U.S. currencies in 1979), while relief jobs
paid from 3,000 to 4,000 kronor a month.
Did this high pay for students lure them away from
school and into the temporary jobs? That, along with
questions about the reliability of some of the training
were major reasons for the policy changes toward 16and 17-year-olds approved by Parliament in June 1980.
The new approach is less costly and possibly that was
also a consideration of the government. Both relief
work and labor market training were considered inap­
propriate for youths under 18 years. Now, 16- and
17-year-olds are not eligible for these programs. In­
stead, they are encouraged to return to secondary
school. If they do not wish to do that, they are offered
additional vocational education and training within in­
dustry or some flexible “sandwich course” arrangement
of education and practical work experience, with the re­
sponsibility shifted from the Labor Market Board to the
educational authorities. The stipend paid is the same as
for other secondary school students. The Social Demo­
crats (not in power at the time) opposed ending relief
work, contending that to do so would retreat from the
Parliament’s goal of a “youth guarantee” to insure ei­
ther training or employment for all out-of-school youth.
13The success of the new program will surely depend on
the adequacy of the training and the ability to attract
back into the program students who had become alien­
ated from the educational establishment. Not enough
time has elapsed to know the results, but early reports
are positive. However, the ability to absorb the young
into the labor market in the 1980’s will also depend on
the state of the economy.

Special protection for older workers
For both men and women in Sweden, unemployment
declines steadily with age until it reaches a trough of
about 1 percent among 45- to 54-year-olds and then
rises to about 2 percent among 55- to 65-year-olds. (See
table 2.) Beyond age 65, there appears to be no unem­
ployment, but labor force participation is very low, 14
percent for men and 4 percent for women (1979). Many
older workers who lose their jobs slip into retirement,
as the pensionable age was lowered to 65 during the
1970’s. Although older workers are less likely to lose
their jobs, they are out of work longer than those who
are younger. This pattern is the same as that in the
United States.

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

Table 2.
1979-81

Unemployment rates in Sweden, by age and sex,
Men

Total
Age

16-74
years ..
16 to 19 . . .
20 to 24 . . .
25 to 34 . . .
35 to 44 . . .
45 to 54 . . .
55 to 64 . . .
65 to 74 . . .

Women

1979

1980

1981

1979

1980

1981

1979

1980

1981

2.1
7.4
3.7
1.9
1.2
1.0
2.0
.0

2.0
7.6
3.7
1.8
1.1
1.0
1.6
.0

2.5
9.4
4.7
2.3
1.4
1.3
2.0
.0

1.9
7.0
3.6
1.8
.9
.9
1.8
.0

1.7
6.5
3.5
1.5
.9
.9
1.6
.0

2.4
8.2
4.8
2.2
1.3
1.4
2.2
.0

2.3
7.9
3.8
2.1
1.5
1.1
2.2
.0

2.3
8.8
3.9
2.2
1.4
1.1
1.6
.0

2.6
10.5
4.6
2.5
2.5
1.3
1.8
.0

N ote : These data are based on Sweden’s Central Bureau of Statistics, Labor Force
Sample Surveys. The unemployement rate is the percentage of the labor force that is unem­
ployed.

The situation of older workers started to deteriorate
in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, partly because of the
demand for higher productivity, the LO contends.14
During that time, whenever there was a plant closing or
cutback in production, most of those who lost their
jobs found others. But, even in nonrecession years, a re­
sidual group was left without work, usually older work­
ers and the handicapped. The recession of the early
1970’s made their plight worse. Many of the laws that
protect these workers came after that period, partly in
response to these developments in the labor market.
Policies towards older workers fall into two main cate­
gories: those that seek to maintain employment and
those that seek to maintain income when there is no
work. (Policies for disabled workers such as subsidized
employment and workplace and job redesign also apply
to many older workers. These are not discussed in this
article.)

Keeping older workers at work
Much of the sweeping labor legislation of the 1970’s
aimed at increasing the security of all workers. But the
vulnerable status of older workers and the handicapped
was recognized and they were given special protection.
The Security of Employment Act requires prior notice
of dismissal and also requires the time of notice to vary
with age, reaching a maximum of 6 months for employ­
ees older than 45 years.15 Seniority determines the order
of dismissal and that tends to protect older workers.
The computation of the length of service for those over
45 years is also governed by more generous rules. And,
the Security of Employment Act states that there must
be reasonable grounds for dismissal. Illness and reduced
work capacity are not generally considered sufficient
grounds, unless an employee is “no longer capable of
doing work of any significance.” In the case of illness,
the workers are given disability pensions; if they are un­
able to carry a full work load, the employer must find
less demanding work for them. Thus, there is great job
security for older (and disabled) workers whose capaci­
ty to do certain work has diminished or who cannot
25

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Sweden Combats Unemployment
perform their old jobs but can do other types of work.
The Promotion of Employment Act helps both older
and handicapped workers by requiring that the County
Labor Market Board be notified before any layoff or
plant closing. The employer must, if requested, provide
information about the number of employees above a
certain age or with diminished work capacity, so that
special plans can be made for their reemployment, al­
though these employees are usually retained unless the
plant actually shuts down. That act also gives the
County Board the day-to-day responsibility of consult­
ing with employers— even when no dismissals are in­
volved— in order to improve the situation of elderly or
handicapped workers already within firms and to pro­
mote their recruitment.16 Thus, the primary thrust of
policies toward older workers is to prevent their unem­
ployment by maintaining their existing jobs.
Labor market training is not extensively used by the
older worker. During the 1979-80 fiscal year, for exam­
ple, about 15 percent of the unemployed were over 55
years old, but only 2 percent of those in labor market
training (excluding inplant training) were in that age
group.17 In most cases, the problem confronting older
workers is not lack of skill, but lack of an employer
who will hire them. Relocation is not used much either,
because older workers have so many ties to a locality
and relatively few working years left.
Some older workers are in relief work. Those 45 years
and older held about 45 percent of all relief jobs in
1975. But, the large expansion of relief work in the late
1970’s was aimed at persons under age 25; as a result,
only 13 percent of relief workers were age 45 or older at
the beginning of 1979.18

Income support
Despite the protection given to older employed work­
ers, unemployment does happen, particularly when
plants close. And then, income support plays an impor­
tant role. Regular unemployment benefits are usually
payable for up to 60 weeks, but for persons age 56 to
64, benefits are payable for 90 weeks, if necessary. The
Cash Labor Market Assistance, available to those who
have exhausted benefits, also varies with age, rising
from 30 weeks for persons under age 55, to 60 weeks
for those age 55 to 59; for those age 60 and over, and
for some structurally unemployed persons, benefits can
be paid until age 65, when the normal retirement pen­
sion begins.
However, unemployed workers over age 60 often can
qualify for a disability pension. The medical test is more
lenient for older workers than for younger persons. If a
person is considered permanently unemployed, there is
no medical test at all, if he or she has exhausted regular
benefits or has received cash labor market support for
90 weeks. Liberalization in granting disability pensions
Digitized 26
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

resulted from concern of the blue-collar workers’ union
for older workers who, at the end of the 1960’s, began
to encounter increasing difficulties in the labor market.
Statutory amendments were passed in the early 1970’s
to change the rules that govern eligibility for disability
pensions. It is estimated that a worker earning the aver­
age wage receives about 88 percent of prior after-tax in­
come from a government disability pension and, for
most workers, there is also a union-negotiated disability
pension.19 So, older workers who leave the labor market
in this way maintain their living standards.
While there is much talk in the United States about
increasing the age of eligibility for full social security re­
tirement benefits from 65 to 68, Sweden has been going
in the opposite direction. In 1976, the pensionable age
for full benefits was lowered from 67 to 65, and reduced
benefits can be received at age 60. Unlike an American
worker, a jobless Swedish worker is not forced to take
early retirement with its permanently reduced benefits,
because there are no alternative sources of income. The
disability pension can maintain income until age 65,
when the old-age pension would start.
The most interesting option for an employed worker
who wishes to gradually reduce working prior to full re­
tirement is the partial pension system that was intro­
duced in 1976. Partial pensions are geared to part-time
work. The rule is that working hours must be reduced
by at least 5 hours a week and, after the reduction,
must still be at least 17 hours weekly. The worker must
also have been employed for at least 10 years after the
age of 45. (Because of these rules, the partial pension
has been used disproportionately by men.) The partial
pension pays 50 percent of the loss of earnings that re­
sult from the reduction in hours. However, because of
Sweden’s high marginal tax rates, the actual disposable
income from the combined partial pension and parttime earnings is substantial. Unlike early retirement
benefits, a partial pension does not result in a smaller
pension at age 65. At age 65 a worker can receive a full
old-age pension without any retirement test. It is also
possible to postpone collecting all or part of the old-age
pension. If that is done, the pension will be larger when
payments finally start.
The partial pension plan is extremely popular. It pro­
vides a bridge between work and full-time retirement.
Many people who retired faced a shock— an abrupt
change in their way of life after a lifetime of work. They
missed their friends and social contacts at work. Doc­
tors and psychologists supported unions in their desire
to enable a more gradual transition into retirement. The
main argument against disability pensions for the older
unemployed worker in Sweden is not based on econom­
ics, but is based on the feeling that such pensions lead
to social isolation and a self-identification as disabled.20
The partial pension avoids these problems and also is

available to workers not threatened by unemployment.
Partial pensions also enable some workers who might
not be able to function on a full-time basis to avoid dis­
ability pensions. The partial pension increases the indi­
vidual’s freedom of choice about the age and extent of

retirement. It does not, however, resolve the problem of
those older workers whose jobs are eliminated by a plant
closing. One cannot work part time at a nonexistent
job. Nor does it resolve the problems of older jobless
workers who still have not reached the age of 60.

FOOTNOTES

This research, part of a larger study of Swedish
labor market policies for full employment, was supported, in part, by
a Swedish Bicentennial Fund Travel/Study Grant. The author is
grateful to Marna Feldt of the Swedish Information Service in New
York for her many years of help and to Charlotte Ganslandt of the
Swedish Institute in Stockholm for arranging numerous interviews.
Special thanks are due to the following persons for providing informa­
tion about youth and older workers. In Stockholm: Göran Borg, then
with the Swedish Trade Union Confederation — LO (now with the
Swedish Metalworkers Union); Lars Ettarp, Ministry of Labor; Ingrid
Jonshagen, National Labor Market Board (AMS); Gunnar Lindström,
Swedish Employers’ Association (SAF): Sten Markusson, Swedish
Confederation of Professional Association (SACO/SR); Marianne
Pettersson, The Center for Working Life; Bertil Rehnberg, Director
General, National Labor Market Board; and Anders Reuterswärd,
Ministry of Labor. In Malmö: Björn Pettersson, Director, and Ronny
Nilsson, Planning Department, Malmöhus County Labor Market
Board; Carl-Axel Johansson, Vocational Guidance Coordinator, Pub­
lic Employment Service; Sylvia Hyrenium, Immigration Officer, Mal­
möhus County; and all the members of the “Youth Guarantee” Pro­
gram. In Lund: Eskil Wadensjö, then with Lund University (now
with the Swedish Institute for Social Research, Stockholm). In
Östersund: Gert Korths-Aspergren, Director, and Kjell Risberg,
Jämtland County Labor Market Board. In Sundsvall: Ake Dahlberg,
Chairperson, Employment Committee, Commune of Sundsvall and
Curt Landen, Director, Public Employment Service. The author also
wishes to thank the following persons for helpful comments on an
earlier version of this article: Marianne Pettersson, the Center for
Working Life; Anne Marie Qvarfort, Swedish Ministry of Labor; Berit
Rollen, National Labor Market Board of Sweden; Eskil Wadensjö,
Swedish Institute for Social Research; and Fredrik Winter, National
Labor Market Board of Sweden. Thanks also to Sune Ahlen of the
Swedish Embassy for his helpfulness.
1Eva-Lena Ahlqvist, “Youth Unemployment in Sweden,” Current
Sweden, No. 216, April 1979, p. 3.
2This paragraph draws heavily from Gösta Rehn and K. Helveg
Peterson, Education and Youth Em ploym ent in Sweden and Denmark,
a Study Prepared for the Carnegie Council on Higher Education (Car­
negie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, 1980), pp. 7577. This comprehensive study of Swedish youth deals with all aspects
of behavior, attitudes, education, employment, and unemployment.
3 Rehn, p. 74.
4 “The Integrated Upper Secondary School in Sweden” (Stockholm,
The National Board of Education, 1976), p. 1, and “Primary and Sec­
ondary Education in Sweden,” Fact Sheets on Sweden (Stockholm,
the Swedish Institute, 1981), p. 4.

A c kno w ledg m ents:


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

5Ibid., pp. 3-4.
6 Ahlqvist, p. 3.
7See, for instance, Unemployment Among Young People in Sweden —
Measures and Experience (Solna, Sweden, National Labor Market
Board, 1979), p. 3.
8Sweden, National Committee on Equality Between Men and
Women, Step by Step: National Plan o f Action fo r Equality, SOU
1979-56 (Stockholm, Liber Forlag, 1979), ch. 2.
4Ahlqvist, p. 7.
10 Rehn, p. 92.
" Ibid. Derived from data on p. 91.
12Sweden, National Central Bureau of Statistics, Arbetsmarknadsstatistisk a rsbok 1979-1980 (Stockholm, Liber Forlag, 1980), table
2.14.6, p. 179.
13 Rehn, p. 90.
14 Swedish Trade Union Confederation-LO, Report on Labor M arket
Policy (Stockholm, Swedish Trade Union Confederation-LO, 1975),
pp. 15-17. See also, the Swedish Government’s Commission on LongTerm Employment Policy, Em ploym ent fo r Handicapped Persons: A
Sum m ary o f the Commission's Report, January 1978 and o f Five R e­
search Projects (Stockholm, Ministry of Labor, 1978), p. 3.

15For the detailed contents of this act see, Ministry of Labor, Swed­
ish Laws on Security o f Employment, Status o f Shop Stewards,
Litigation in Labour Disputes (Stockholm, Ministry of Labor, 1977),
pp. 1-2 and 6-20.
16Ibid., pp. 2-3 and 21-24.
17 Derived from Central Bureau of Statistics, Labor Force Sample
Survey, unpublished data; and Swedish Em ploym ent Policy, 1979/80,
Annual Report, Reprint (Solna, Sweden, The National Labor Market
Board, 1979), p. 16.
18Swedish Em ploym ent Policy 1978/79, Annual Report, Reprint (Sol­
na, The National Labor Market Board, 1979). Derived from data on
p. 23.
” Eskil Wadensjo, “Disability Policy in Sweden: The Swedish Con­
tribution to the Cross National Disability Study” (Stockholm, Swed­
ish Institute for Social Research, March 1981), Part 4, table 4.7, p.
22. This study will be part of Victor Halberstadt and Robert
Haveman, eds., The Economics o f Disability: A Cross National Perspec­
tive (tentative title), forthcoming. Wadensjo estimates that a worker
earning half the average earnings receives 117 percent of prior after­
tax income and one earning twice the average receives 66 percent.
20 Ibid., part 5, p. 3.

27

The A natom y of
Price Change
Reconciling the CPI and the
PCE Deflator: 2nd quarter 1982

Table 2. "Reconciliation” of the CPI-U and the Personal
Consumption Expenditure price measures: cumulative
percent change from 1972 to the dates shown
1981'
Difference

Julie A. Bun n

This article presents the fifth reconciliation of the
Federal Government’s two major inflation measures—
the Consumer Price Index (cpi), published by the Bu­
reau of Labor Statistics, and the Implicit Price Deflator
for Personal Consumption Expenditures (pce Deflator),
produced by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The
first reconciliation, which established the technical basis
for the analysis, appeared in the September 1981 Review
and showed that the divergence between the two price
measures could be reconciled in terms of three factors
— differences in the measurement of housing costs, dif­
ferences in “weighting” , and the effects of “all other”
factors.1
Table 1. "Reconciliation” of annual and quarterly percent
changes in the CPI-U and the Personal Consumption Ex­
penditure price measures, 1980 to second quarter 1982
Difference

1980

1981

Jack E. T riplett

and

198112

19801 19811
I

II

III

II

1982
III

IV

I

II

CPI-U (1972 = 100)2 ...........
PCE Deflator (1972 = 100)3 .
(Current-Weight)...............

197.0
179.2

Total difference4 (CPI-U minus
PCE Deflator)....................

17.8

22.9

21.1

21.7

24.0

24.8

24.1

24.9

Housing treatment5 ..
Weighting effect6 . . .
“ All other” effect7 . . .

11.7
5.6
0.5

14.5
7.6
0.8

13.3
7.4
0.4

13.7
7.6
0.4

15.4
7.5
1.1

15.5
7.7
1.6

15.3
7.7
1.1

16.0
7.7
1.2

217.4 210.3 214.3 220.4 224.6 226.3 228.9
194.5 189.2 192.6 196.4 199.8 202.2 204.0

10wing to changes in seasonal adjustment factors and to the July 1982 revision of data
produced by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, annual and
quarterly figures may differ slightly from those which appeared in table 2, p. 38, July 1982,
Monthly Labor Review (MLR).
2Annual data for the CPI-U are annual averages, 1972=100. The quarterly data for 1981
and 1982 were computed by the Office of Research and Evaluation, employing seasonally
adjusted monthly data provided by the Office of Prices and Living Conditions (BLS).
3 Data for the Implicit PCE Deflator, or “ PCE: Current-Weight” index, were provided by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. The data incorporate revi­
sions released in August 1982.
4 CPI-U minus PCE Deflator equals the sum of "housing treatment” , “ weighting” , and “ all
other” effects.
5 CPI-U minus CPI-X1. See September 1981 MLR, p. 5, for fuller explanation. Data source
for the CPI-X1 is the same as footnote 2.
6 “ PCE: 1972-Weight” minus ' PCE: Current-Weight” . See September 1981 MLR, p. 6, for
fuller explanation. Data source for the “ PCE: 1972-Weight” is same as footnote 3.
7 CPI-X1 minus “ PCE: 1972-Weight” . See September 1981 MLR, p. 6, for fuller explana­
tion.

1982
IV

I

II

CPI-U3 .................................
PCE: Chain-Weight4 ...........

13.5
10.7

10.4
9.1

11.0
10.3

7.8
7.4

11.8
8.0

7.7
7.2

3.2
5.2

4.6
3.7

Total difference5 ..................
(CPI-U minus PCE: ChainWeight)
Housing treatment6 .........
Weighting effect7 .............
“ All other” effect8 ...........

2.8

1.3

0.7

0.4

3.8

0.5

-2.0

0.9

2.3
0.5
0.0

0.9
0.2
0.2

0.4
0.6
-0.3

0.5
0.3
-0.4

2.7
-0.4
1.5

-0.5
-0.1
1.1

-1.3
-0.4
-0.3

1.6
-0.4
-0.3

10wing to the July 1982 revision of data produced by the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
U.S. Department of Commerce, the annual and quarterly figures may differ slightly from
those which appeared in table 1, p. 37, July 1982, Monthly Labor Review (MLR).
2 Seasonally adjusted annual rates.
3Annual and quarterly changes in the CPI-U are taken from tables provided by the Office
of Prices and Living Conditions, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The changes are compiled
from 1967 based indexes.
4 Data for the “ PCE: Chain-Weight” were obtained from the Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA), U.S. Department of Commerce.
5 CPI-U minus “ PCE: Chain-Weight” equals the sum of “ housing treatment” , “ weighting",
and “ all other" effects.
6 Change in CPI-U minus change in CPI-X1. See September 1981 MLR, p. 12, for fuller
explanation. Source of CPI-X1 data is same as footnote 3.
7 Change in “ PCE: 1972-Weight” minus change in “ PCE: Chain-Weight” . See September
1981 MLR, pp. 8-9, for fuller explanation. Data source for “ PCE: 1972-Weight” changes is
same as for footnote 4.
8 Change in CPI-X1 minus change in “ PCE: 1972-Weight". See September 1981 MLR, p.
6, for fuller explanation.

Julie A. Bunn is an economist in and Jack E. Triplett is assistant
commissioner of the Office of Research and Evaluation, Bureau of La­
bor Statistics.

Digitized 28
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

I

As with earlier articles in this series, two different
reconciliations are presented, one dealing with periodto-period changes in the price measures, and the other
with total movement over the decade from 1972 to
date.
Reconciling period-to-period changes. In the second quar­
ter of 1982, the Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers ( c p i -u ) rose more rapidly than the “ PCE:
Chain-Weight” index.2 This followed an unusual first
quarter in which, for only the second time in 3 years,
the reverse had been true. (Compare the first two lines
in table 1.)
The renewed acceleration of the CPI-U relative to the
“ PCE: Chain-Weight.” index in the most recent quarter
is, however, attributable only to the reemergence of a
positive “housing treatment” effect. During the most re­
cent quarter, the CPI-U was once again accelerating at a
faster rate than the C P l-X l, the Consumer Price Index
which approximates a rental equivalence measure of
housing comparable to that employed in the PCE Defla­
tor (the difference between the two being 1.6 percentage

points— the “housing treatment” effect).
The other two components of the difference between
the CPI-U and the “ PCE: Chain-Weight” index— the
“weighting effect” and “all other effect” — remain nega­
tive and are both identical to their values in the first
quarter of 1982. The “ PCE: Chain-Weight” index, which
draws its weights from the immediately preceding peri­
od, continued to rise more rapidly than a fixed weight
index (1972=100) based on the same price data,3 giving
rise to the negative “weighting effect” recorded in table
1. The latter, as noted in previous articles, is unexpected

and unusual, though it has now persisted for four quar­
ters. Included in the “all other” effect is the influence of
different seasonal adjustment procedures followed in the
CPl-Xl and the “ PCE: 1972-Weight” indexes.

' The initial reconciliation and technical basis for the analysis are
contained in Jack E. Triplett, “Reconciling the CPI and PCE Defla­
tor,” Monthly Labor Review, September 1981, pp. 3-15. Subsequent
reconciliations appeared in the January, May, and July 1982 issues of
the M onthly Labor Review.
2 As discussed in Triplett, pp. 7, 13-14, the PCE Deflator, a

Paasche-formula index, cannot be used for this reconciliation because
Paasche formulas lend themselves to statistical interpretation only
when referring back to the base year (in this case, 1972).
3
See footnote 7 to table 1 and the September 1981 M L R article for
information on the computation of the weighting effect.


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

Reconciling cumulative changes. Table 2 updates cumu­
lative comparisons of the CPI-U and PCE Deflator which
appeared in previous articles, extending the reconcilia­
tion through the second quarter of 1982. Results are
complementary to those of the period-to-period recon­
ciliation.

A note on communications
The Monthly Labor Review welcomes communications that supple­
ment, challenge, or expand on research published in its pages. To be
considered for publication, communications should be factual and an­
alytical, not polemical in tone. Communications should be addressed
to the Editor-in-Chief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statis­
tics, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20212.

29

Research
Summaries

Occupational salary levels
for white-collar workers, 1982

a

Table 1. Percent increases in average salaries by work
level category, 1970-62
Group A (GS
grades 1-4)

Group B (GS
grades 5-9)

1970-82 ...........................

130.4

123.0

135.0

1970-71 ...........................
1971 7 2 '...........................
1972-73 ...........................
1973-74 ...........................
1974-75 ...........................

6.2
6.3
5.5
6.2
9.1

6.3
5.2
4.4
5.7
8.6

6.2
5.6
5.7
6.2
8.8

1975-76
1976-77
1977-78
1978-79
1979-80

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

7.6
6.9
7.5
7.2
9.1

6.4
6.3
8.0
7.5
10.1

6.5
7.7
8.8
8.0
9.3

1980-81 ...........................
1981-82 ...........................

9.8
9.5

9.6
9.4

10.2
10.4

Period

M a r k S. S i e l in g

The Bureau of Labor Statistics recently released the re­
sults of its March 1982 survey of professional, adminis­
trative, technical, and clerical pay in medium and large
firms. The survey, 23rd in an annual series, provides na­
tionwide salary averages and distributions for some 100
work level categories covering two dozen occupations.1
The number of work levels per occupation varied from
one for messengers to eight for engineers. Each level de­
scribes duties and responsibilities in private industry
that are comparable with those of specific groups of
Federal white-collar employees. In keeping with the
Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1970, the narrowly
defined occupational classifications of the survey pro­
vide the link between private and Federal Government
sectors, thereby permitting compliance with the con­
gressional directive that “Federal pay rates be compara­
ble with private enterprise pay rates for the same levels
of work.”2
Among the various skill levels of white-collar work,
salary increases continued to be largest for journeyman
and senior levels of professional and administrative oc­
cupations. Table 1 shows that Group C jobs—
equivalent to grades 11-15 of the Federal Government’s
General Salary (GS) Schedule— experienced a record
10.4-percent salary rise in 1981-82. Group C pay in­
creases also led those of the two lower groups in 4 of
the preceding 5 years. (See table 2 for identification of
the survey classifications that equate to each GS grade.3)
A closer look finds that the pay gap between entrylevel professionals and their experienced coworkers wid­
ened in the 1970’s, as the latter group generally chalked
up substantially larger salary increases. The following

Mark S. Sieling is an economist in the Division of Occupational Pay
and Employee Benefit Levels, Bureau of Labor Statistics.


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

Group C (GS
grades 11-15)

' Actual survey-to-survey increases have been prorated to a 12-month period.

tabulation illustrates this point by showing pay levels of
four journeyman classifications (GS 11 equivalents) as a
percent of the corresponding entry levels (GS 5).4 Note
that the journeyman advantage has slipped slightly
since 1979:
1970
1979
1982
A c c o u n ta n t...........
A u d ito r ...................
Chemist .................
E n g in e e r .................

150
158
155
144

174
183
176
150

173
179
173
146

In recent years, however, the strong demand for engi­
neers has bolstered their starting salaries, thus keeping
the pay gap between their entry and journeyman levels
relatively small. This practice is evident when engineer
salaries are compared to those of another technical pro­
fession— chemist. In 1982, average salaries for entrylevel engineers were 20 percent higher than starting
chemist salaries; at the journeyman level, in contrast,
the difference was only 1 percent (table 2).
The effects of such changes are reflected in the overall
salary structure for professional jobs since 1970. Based
on a matrix analysis of five professional occupations
spanning 30 work levels, the average difference for 435
paired comparisons was 65 percent in 1982 and 58 per­
cent in 1970.5 How these individual jobs and their work

Table 2.

Average salaries of employees in selected white-collar occupations in private establishments, March 1982
Occupational level and
Federal GS grade equivalent

Number of
employees’

Accountants and auditors
Accountants
Accountants
Accountants
Accountants
Accountants
Accountants

1(G S -5 )...................................................
II (GS-7) .................................................
III (GS-9) .................................................
IV (G S -11 )...............................................
V (GS-12) ...............................................
VI (GS-13 ) ...............................................

Auditors
Auditors
Auditors
Auditors

$18,260
22,068
25,673
31,658
38,680
48,549

I (G S -11)........................................
II (GS-12) ......................................
III (GS-13 ) ......................................
IV (GS-14 ) ......................................

654
953
672
180

34,506
39,708
50,414
61,255

I (G S -5 )..........................................................
II (GS-7) ........................................................
III (GS-9) ........................................................
IV (G S -11 ).....................................................

2,456
3,760
4,797
2,559

17,901
22,065
26,502
32,004

9,035
9,570
8,485
4,439

17,266
19,177
22,830
27,286

1,628
3,008
3,622
2,919
1,896
707

25,162
31,696
39,649
49,818
61,579
76,202

Public accountants
Public accountants
Public accountants
Public accountants

I (GS-7) ........................................
II (G S -9)........................................
III (GS-11) ....................................
IV (GS-12) ....................................
Attorneys

Attorneys
Attorneys
Attorneys
Attorneys
Attorneys
Attorneys

I (G S -9 )........................................................
II (GS-11) ...................................................
III (GS-12) ...................................................
IV (GS-13 ) ...................................................
V (GS-14) ...................................................
VI (GS-15 ) ...................................................
Buyers

Buyers
Buyers
Buyers
Buyers

I (G S -5)............................................................
II (GS-7) ..........................................................
III (G S -9 )..........................................................
IV (G S -11)........................................................

I (G S -5).............
II (GS-7) ...........
III (G S -9 )...........
IV (G S-11).........
V (GS-12 ) .........

31,293
60,083
116,212
138,972
101,701
45,853
14,102
2,874

$23,622
26,060
29,331
34,443
40,677
47,442
54,338
62,494

I (G S -3 ).................................
II (GS—4) ...............................
III (GS-5) ...............................
IV (G S -7 )...............................
V (GS-9) ...............................

7,178
20,271
31,340
36,630
21,651

14,688
17,246
20,219
23,620
26,761

I (G S -2 )..........................................................
II (G S -3)..........................................................
III (GS—4) .......................................................
IV (G S -5 ).......................................................
V (GS-7) .......................................................

3,161
11,929
23,277
26,149
20,762

11,739
14,257
17,046
20,964
25,909

I (GS-4) ......................................
II (G S -5 )......................................
III (GS-6) ...................................
IV (GS-7) ...................................
V (GS-8) ...................................
VI (GS-9) ...................................

6,141
14,928
29,523
16,252
3,212
360

11,896
13,895
15,804
19,325
22,889
23,267

Photographers II (G S -5 )...............................................
Photographers III (GS-7) ............................................
Photographers IV (GS-9) ............................................

570
725
434

18,773
22,425
25,392

I (G S -2 )..........................................
II (G S -3)..........................................
III (GS-4) ........................................
IV (G S -5 )........................................

27,738
85,417
58,670
23,519

10,478
12,488
14,713
18,083

File clerks I (GS-1) .....................................................
File clerks II (G S -2 ).....................................................
File clerks III (G S -3).....................................................

22,496
12,109
4,037

9,018
10,474
12,794

Key entry operators I (GS-2) ......................................
Key entry operators II (G S -3 )......................................

59,672
40,048

11,771
13,956

Messengers (G S -1 ).....................................................

Engineers I (G S -5).......................................................
Engineers II (GS-7) .....................................................
Engineers III (G S -9 ).....................................................
Engineers IV (G S -11)...................................................
Engineers V (GS-12) ...................................................
Engineers VI (GS-13 ) ...................................................
Engineers VII (GS-14) .................................................
Engineers VIII (GS-15 ) .................................................
Technical support

Engineering technicians
Engineering technicians
Engineering technicians
Engineering technicians
Engineering technicians
Drafters
Drafters
Drafters
Drafters
Drafters

Computer
Computer
Computer
Computer
Computer
Computer

operators
operators
operators
operators
operators
operators

6,422
18,901
17,561
5,449

18,074
22,174
27,424
33,409

13,043
30,366
45,970
26,360
7,950

17,535
20,629
25,192
29,365
35,430

13,931

9,999

216
444
822
524

18,573
19,900
25,028
31,221

Personnel
Personnel
Personnel
Personnel

I (G S -3 )...........................
II (GS-4) ........................
III (G S -5 )........................
IV (G S -6 )........................

2,353
4,683
3,576
1,787

11,706
14,122
15,718
18,432

1,061
2,120
958
287

31,136
38,168
47,553
57,859

Purchasing assistants I (GS-4) ...................................
Purchasing assistants II (G S -5 )....................................
Purchasing assistants III (GS-6) .................................

4,791
4,605
1,577

13,589
17,117
22,276

I (GS-4) ...................................................
II (GS-5) ...................................................
III (G S -6 )...................................................
IV (GS-7) .................................................
V (G S -8 )...................................................

63,768
63,060
106,688
45,616
22,679

14,000
14,939
17,051
18,603
21,546

Stenographers I (GS-3) ...............................................
Stenographers II (G S -4)...............................................

15,562
11,534

14,867
18,094

Typists I (G S -2)............................................................
Typists II (GS-3) ..........................................................

31,703
17,822

10,893
13,723

Programmers
Programmers/programmer-analysts
Programmers/programmer-analysts
Programmers/programmer-analysts
Programmers/programmer-analysts
Programmers/programmer-analysts

Average
annual
salary2

Occupational level and
Federal GS grade equivalent

Chemists and engineers— Continued
14,281
23,570
35,575
21,187
7,614
1,344

Chief accountants
Chief accountants
Chief accountants
Chief accountants

Number of
employees’

Average
annual
salary2

Clerical

Accounting
Accounting
Accounting
Accounting

clerks
clerks
clerks
clerks

Personnel management
Job
Job
Job
Job

analysts
analysts
analysts
analysts

Directors of
Directors of
Directors of
Directors of

I (G S -5)...................................................
II (GS-7) .................................................
III (G S -9 ).................................................
IV (G S -11)...............................................

personnel
personnel
personnel
personnel

I (G S -11).................................
II (GS-12) ...............................
III (GS-13 ) ...............................
IV (GS-14 ) ...............................

Chemists and engineers
Chemists I (G S -5 )........................................................
Chemists II (G S -7)........................................................
Chemists III (GS-9) .....................................................
Chemists IV (G S -1 1 )...................................................
Chemists V (GS-12) ...................................................
Chemists VI (GS-13 ) ...................................................
Chemists VII (GS-14 ) ...................................................

3,617
6,677
10,900
11,028
8,912
3,828
1,438

19,640
23,474
28,016
34,047
40,207
46,971
53,658

’ Occupational employment estimates relate to the total in all establishments within scope
of the survey and not to the number actually surveyed.
2 Salaries reported relate to the standard salaries that were paid for standard work schedules; i.e., the straight-time salary corresponding to employee’s normal work schedule exclud­
ing overtime hours. Nonproduction bonuses are excluded, but cost-of-living bonuses and
incentive earnings were included.


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

clerks/assistants
clerks/assistants
clerks/assistants
clerks/assistants

Secretaries
Secretaries
Secretaries
Secretaries
Secretaries

N ote : The following occupational levels were surveyed but insufficient data were obtained to
warrant publication: Chief accountant V; director of personnel V; chemist VIII; personnel
clerk/assistant V; engineering technician VI; and photographer I and V.

31

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Research Summaries
levels fared in salary increases over the 1970-82 period
is shown below:
P erce n t increase

Accountant . . . .
A tto r n e y ..............
Auditor ..............
Chemist ..............
E n g in eer..............

L evel
I

L evel
II

A v era g e f o r
re m a in in g
levels

115
112
101
114
131

130
133
122
129
135

146
139
131
137
141

Although the salary structure widened, it left the rela­
tive ranking of professional work levels by pay virtually
unchanged. Only 2 (Attorneys I and II) of 30 moved
more than one position between 1970 and 1982.
In 1982, the survey’s highest professional salary aver­
age was for top-level (VI) corporate attorney at $76,202
a year; the lowest-paid professional classification— en­
try-level (I) auditor— averaged $17,901 (table 2). These
extremes reflect the wide range of duties and responsi­
bilities represented by all professional categories covered
by the survey. In contrast, the typical salary spread
among job categories with equivalent levels of work is
relatively narrow. Thus, annual average salaries for the
six work levels surveyed that equate to Federal GS
grade 13 ranged from $46,971 for chemist VI to
$50,414 for chief accountant III6— a difference of only
7 percent. Salary relationships produced by the survey
are evidence that companies recognize equivalent duties
and responsibilities among a wide range of occupations
within broad categories.
Another characteristic of white-collar workers report­
ed in the survey is the pronounced variation in their
earnings within occupational work levels. Salaries of the
highest paid employees in a single work level were com­
monly twice those of the lowest paid employees. Conse­
quently, some professional workers in the first
journeyman level earned as much as, or more than,
their counterparts in more senior levels; for example, 10
percent of accountants III and 7 percent of accountants
V earned between $30,000 and $32,500 annually in
March 1982. Factors contributing to dispersed salaries
include such traditional wage determinants as firm size,
industry, and geographic location in addition to rangeof-rate plans used by many employers to recognize mer­
it or seniority.
A MORE DETAILED a n a l y s i s of white-collar salaries
and complete results of this year’s survey are contained
in the National Survey o f Professional, Administrative,
Technical, and Clerical Pay, March 1982, BLS Bulletin
2145, September 1982. It includes salary distributions
by occupational work level, and relative employment
and salary levels by industry division for the two dozen
occupations studied.
□
Digitized for
32 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

--------- FOOTNOTES---------' The survey is conducted annually with a March reference period
in metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan counties in the United
States, except Alaska and Hawaii. Metropolitan areas accounted for
nine-tenths of the employees in occupations for which salary data
were developed.
2 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5301(a)(3)(l 970). The pay-setting role of the Profes­
sional, Administrative, Technical, and Clerical Survey is described in
George L. Stelluto, “Federal pay comparability: facts to temper the
debate,” M onthly Labor Review, June 1979, pp. 18-28.
3In 1982, a total of 101 work levels produced publishable data out
of the 108 levels within scope of the survey. Of these 101 work levels,
92 were sufficiently unchanged in definition between the 1981 and
1982 surveys to be used in computing the 1981-82 increases shown in
table 1. Widely varying duties and responsibilities may be embodied
in work levels within each of the broad categories of table 1; for ex­
ample, Group B includes journeyman, clerical, and technical levels,
such as accounting clerk IV and engineer technicians III through IV,
as well as the entry and developmental levels of professional occupa­
tions.
4A similar pattern was found for the 1970’s in the salary relation­
ship of recent law graduates with bar membership (survey job
attorney I) and attorneys with experience handling legal work with
few precedents (attorney III)— GS grade equivalents 9 and 12, re­
spectively. The salary relatives were 142 in 1970 and 158 in 1979 and
1982.
5The pay matrix helps to analyze the comparative salary position of
each job classification with each of its counterparts. The matrix ex­
pands upon the traditional approach which limits comparisons of oc­
cupational averages to the highest and lowest levels or to setting a
single job as the base for all others to be measured against. The dif­
ference between the resulting means of the paired comparisons in
1970 and 1982 was statistically significant at a 5-percent level. For a
description of the matrix and its use, see Mark S. Sieling,
“Interpreting pay structures through matrix applications,” Monthly
Labor Review, November 1979, pp. 41-45.
6 In the survey coding structure, the level designations among vari­
ous occupations are not synonymous: For example, the first level of at
torneys equates to the third levels of accountants, chemists, and most
other professional and administrative occupations. See table 2 for
more details on job level equivalents. Classification of employees in
the occupations and work levels surveyed is based on factors detailed
in definitions which are available upon request.

Employment Cost Index continues
to decelerate in second quarter
The Employment Cost Index (ECl), measuring changes
in employer compensation costs, increased 1.1 percent
in the 3 months ended in June. Wages and salaries alone
rose 0.9 percent. The index stood at 107.5 for compen­
sation costs (wages, salaries, and employer costs for em­
ployee benefits) based on June 1981 = 100. The ECl does
not cover farm, private household, and Federal govern­
ment workers and is not seasonally adjusted.
The deceleration in rates of increase for both compen­
sation costs and for wages and salaries alone that began
in 1981 continued to be widespread among occupational
and industrial groups measured by the ECI. Compensa­
tion costs for all private nonfarm workers slowed to a
1.3-percent rise in the second quarter, down from 1.9

percent a year earlier. The corresponding wage and sal­
ary increase, 1.1 percent, was down from 2.0 percent a
year earlier.
Workers in occupations and industries that typically
receive the bulk of their wage adjustments in the second
quarter showed relatively small gains. Transport equip­
ment operatives, for example, posted a 0.9-percent wage
increase. The advance was dampened by the recent
trucking industry bargaining settlements that provided
no specified wage increases and diverted part of the
cost-of-living adjustment to maintain existing employee
benefits. Over the past 5 years, second-quarter wage in­
creases for transport equipment operatives ranged be­
tween 3 and 5 percent.
Wages for workers in the construction industry rose
1.3 percent in the second quarter— an unusally low in­
crease for an industry with a heavy bargaining schedule
in the spring and summer months. Second-quarter wage
increases in construction ranged between 2 and 3 per­
cent over the past 5 years.
A substantial deceleration in rates of increase in com­
pensation costs and wages and salaries for the year
ended in June 1982 compared with the preceding year
also occurred. A particularly dramatic slowdown oc­
curred in compensation cost increases for blue-collar
workers in private industry. These costs slowed to a
7.0-percent increase in the year ended in June 1982,
from a 10.5-percent rise in the year ended in June 1981.
Wage increases alone for these workers slowed to 6.6
percent, down from 9.2 percent a year earlier.
Among white-collar workers, compensation costs rose
7.2 percent for the 12 months ended in June 1982 com­
pared with 10.2 percent during the year ended in June
1981; their wages and salaries increased 7.3 percent,
down from 9.4 percent in June 1981. Rates of change
within the white-collar group varied substantially, how­
ever. Salesworkers’ wages, which include volatile com­
mission earnings, rose only slightly, 1.8 percent, for the
June 1981-82 period in contrast to 10.2 percent for
June 1980-81. However, wage increases for clerical
workers, 8.3 percent for the 12 months ended in June
1982, were only slightly below the June 1981 advance
of 8.8 percent.
Compensation costs for union workers rose 8.4 per­
cent in the June 1981-82 period, contrasted to 11.5 per­
cent a year earlier; union wage and salary increases
dropped to 8.1 percent from 10.1 percent.
The slowdown was also evident for nonunion work­
ers. Compensation costs increased 6.5 percent for the 12
months ended in June, down from 9.8 percent a year
earlier; wage increases were 6.5 percent and 9.0 percent.
Compensation costs for State and local government
employees, coverage introduced in June 1981, increased
9.3 percent over the year. Wages for these workers ad­
vanced 8.7 percent.

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

Additional data on second-quarter ECI results appear
in the Current Labor Statistics section of the Review. □

GAO study focuses on problems
of teenagers in labor market
Teenage unemployment, especially that of blacks, has
been a concern among policymakers in recent years.
According to the General Accounting Office ( g a o ), un­
employment among black teenagers had increased
sharply since 1970— along with a coincident rise in
crime among all teens.
During 1949-80, the unemployment rate of white
male teenagers stayed about three times higher than
that of adult males. However, a substantial amount of
the difference in these rates can be traced to teens vol­
untarily leaving jobs and the labor force.
Of all teenagers, those who are unemployed represent
only a fraction; but this relatively small group is largely
composed of poor and black persons. Therefore, high
unemployment indicates a serious labor market problem
for black teenagers.
GAO found that using labor force and employment
status as the major criteria for ascertaining the need for
teenage employment services was insufficient. Many
teenagers lack the basic reading, writing, and computa­
tion skills required to compete and succeed in the job
market, the congressional agency reported. Therefore,
using a detailed analysis of the educational achievement,
labor force status, and demographic characteristics of
teens, GAO estimated that in 1977 “approximately
962,000 economically disadvantaged teenagers (16 to 21
years old) with a high school degree or lower attain­
ment [were] most in need of Federal assistance.” In
subsequent years, the number in need depends on how
long the average person needs assistance.
Since 1940, there have been extensive racial dif­
ferences in teenage unemployment outside the South.
From 1940 to 1950, non white unemployment was lower
in the South than white unemployment during the same
period. However, since 1970, the difference has widened
significantly in all U.S. regions.
GAO cities two major unresolved questions— why did
the black teenage unemployment rate rise so sharply
since 1970 and what are the underlying factors of the
large and persistent (40 plus years outside the South)
teenage unemployment difference? The study finds the
most im portant reasons to be lower scholastic achieve­
ment, which, in turn, is a function of many family back­
ground variables, and inaccessibility to job vacancy
information.
Factors which caused the racial dissimilarities in teen­
age labor participation were difficult to find. A partial
33

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Research Summaries
explanation appears to be discouragement. Teenagers,
who lack the personal qualifications necessary for a job,
may have had a few bad employment experiences and
then decided to withdraw from the labor force, discour­
aged over their predicament.
Some additional evidence on this issue is provided by
an analysis of other possible causes. It shows that near­
ly three-fourths of the racial difference in labor force
participation of out-of-school teens is explained by fami­
ly background. The analysis also suggests that black
teenagers living in households receiving Aid for Fami­
lies with Dependent Children since 1960 may have been
a cause of the relative worsening of labor force partici­
pation and unemployment rates among young blacks in
recent years.
The claim that a teenager’s inability to find a job can
have an effect on his or her inclination to commit a
crime seems plausible, the GAO study states. However,
evidence on the causes of crime does not show how im­
portant the effect of unemployment is. Some studies
suggest that it may be important, but they are flawed
statistically and those that do not have these flaws deal
with problems other than unemployment.
Inability to find a job is not the only factor potential­
ly contributing to crime. Being unable to qualify for a
job would logically seem much more conducive to crim­
inal behavior, but, because of insufficient data, GAO has

Digitized for
34 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

not been able to analyze this group. Regardless of a
link to crime, teenagers unqualified for jobs are a seri­
ous social problem, GAO noted.
Considering the effect of low wage jobs versus unem­
ployment may also be important. A “job-qualified”
teenager might not be driven to crime by a moderately
difficult period of unemployment, but, depending on as­
pirations, the prospect of a lifetime of very modest pay­
ing jobs might make crime attractive, according to the
study.
On the bright side, GAO could find no evidence that
being out of work occasionally as a teenager has any
adverse effect on future labor market opportunities or
successes. This held true even for out-of-school teenagers.
The GAO report concludes that studies should be con­
ducted to find new ways of identifying and delivering
education and training services to disadvantaged teens.
Also, the agency believes that extended research is nec­
essary on the link between teenage unemployment and
crime. However, the study notes that the Department of
Labor disagrees with both suggestions.
The full report, Labor Market Problems o f Teenagers
Result Largely from Doing Poorly in School, Washing­
ton, D.C., March 1982, ( p a d -82-06), is available from
the U.S. General Accounting Office, Document Han­
dling and Information Services Facility, Gaithersburg,
Md. 20760.
□

Foreign Labor
Developments
Political issues dominate ILO conference;
new worker standards adopted

Ju l i e M i s n e r

The International Labor Organization ( i l o ), which this
year had grown to number 150 member states, held its
68th general conference in Geneva, Switzerland. Alfon­
so Grados Bertorini, labor minister from Peru, was
elected conference president. Although the conference
adopted a number of new international labor standards,
its deliberations were dominated by political issues, ac­
cording to members of the U.S. delegation.
Founded in 1919, the ILO is unique among the United
Nations’ specialized agencies because of its tripartite
structure. Worker and employer delegates enjoy equal
and independent representation with governments. The
ILO’s mission is to promote employment, better working
conditions, and worker and employer rights. Its tools
include an annual conference, smaller technical meet­
ings, research, and technical cooperation.
From the outset, all the elements were present to
make the June 2-23 conference a political arena— the
Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the Argentine-British hos­
tilities in the Falkland Islands, apartheid, Poland, and
the Iran-Iraq war. In reaction to these developments,
some delegates used the conference plenary sessions to
make political denouncements, often insulting other
member states and straying far from the competence of
the ILO conference. Other delegates, including those of
the United States, reminded the conference of the one
political issue germane to and at the very heart of the
ILO: freedom of association. These participants lamented
the renewed and heightened challenges to the principles
of freedom of association and the unfortunate absence
of Poland’s Lech Walesa, who had participated in the
1981 conference— to the cries of “political interference”
from Communist delegates.
The same political undercurrents were present— al­
though usually unstated— in the technical work of the
Julie Misner is a program analyst in the Office of International Orga­
nizations, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, U.S. Department of
Labor.


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

conference and during the special visits by French Presi­
dent Francois Mitterand and Pope John Paul II. But it
was in three committees, which by their mandate and
makeup were politically charged, that most of the dra­
ma of the conference developed: the Resolutions Com­
mittee, the Committee on the Application of Conven­
tions and Recommendations, and the Committee on
Apartheid.

Resolutions deadlock
Because it considers proposals unrelated to any item
on the conference agenda, the Resolutions Committee is
always a prime target for excessive and extraneous po­
liticization. In theory, resolutions should deal with tech­
nical labor issues and propose new areas for ILO
program emphasis. In practice, such resolutions are usu­
ally overshadowed by politically inspired resolutions
having little to do with the ILO.
This year’s Resolutions Committee was so beset by
chaotic procedural wrangling (including one session
adjourned because of a bomb threat and another
adjourned following an almost total breakdown of or­
der) that it ended in a deadlock. Not only were no reso­
lutions forwarded to the conference plenary for
adoption, but the committee was unable to adopt a re­
port describing its work. Nevertheless, after 2Vi weeks
of chaos in committee, the anticipated blowup when the
“non-report” reached the plenary never materialized.
Eighteen draft resolutions were submitted to the con­
ference secretariat prior to the May 18 deadline (that is,
15 days before the opening of the conference, as re­
quired by ILO rules). The most potentially difficult and
explosive of these was an Arab resolution concerning
“The Observance of a Day of Solidarity with the Work­
ers and People of Palestine, the Golan and the other oc­
cupied Arab Territories.” 1
The Arab bloc and its allies joined the committee in
unprecedented numbers to ensure adoption of the reso­
lution, but when results of the secret ballot for the five
priority resolutions were announced, the Arab resolu­
tion— for the first time in almost 10 years— had not
taken first place. The committee had decided to consid­
er the draft resolutions in the following order:
• Freedom of association
• Arab resolution concerning Palestinian workers
35

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Foreign Labor Developments
• Employers’ group resolution on possible ILO funding
of conference delegations
• Sudanese resolution on African refugees
• ILO participation in the International Youth Year
This meant that the discussion on the freedom of as­
sociation resolution— which contained language unac­
ceptable to the Soviet bloc— would have to be
completed before the committee could consider amend­
ments to the Arab resolution. What ensued, according
to many knowledgeable participants and observers, was
an apparently calculated disruption and blockage of the
committee’s proceedings, and the ultimate failure of the
committee to agree on anything. Following a general
discussion of the first three resolutions, the committee
never progressed beyond the first 5 of 71 amendments
to the freedom of association resolution. In its last sit­
ting, the committee was even unable to adopt a report
describing its lack of progress.
On the final day of the conference, the President not­
ed the absence of a Resolution Committee report and
concluded that there was, as a result, nothing to dis­
cuss. His statement, to the great surprise of many dele­
gates who anticipated a major confrontation sparked by
the Arabs’ failure to win passage of their resolution,
went unchallenged, and the conference quietly proceed­
ed to the next item of business. However, the toll had
already been taken the day before on the report of the
Committee on the Application of Conventions and Rec­
ommendations.

Poland criticized
The Committee on the Application of Conventions
and Recommendations faced a particularly difficult task
this year, with 115 cases concerning approximately 70
countries. Among the politically sensitive cases on the
agenda were Poland, the Soviet Union, Cuba, Czecho­
slovakia, Argentina, Nicaragua, Chile, and Bolivia. Cou­
pled with the sheer number of cases to be examined, as
well as the sensitive nature of some of them, were the
emotional tensions surrounding the Israeli invasion of
Lebanon and the clear disregard for the whole process
of standards supervision on the part of the Eastern bloc.
Despite its frequently electric atmosphere, the Com­
mittee on the Application of Conventions and Recom­
mendations for the most part continued to successfully
use its new methods of work (that is, a new special list
system for highlighting both cases of progress and
problems in implementing standards) adopted in 1980.
This system includes a heading called “continued failure
to implement,” in which are listed governments which
violated ratified ILO standards for a number of years
and have failed to cooperate with ILO efforts to bring
their law and practice into line. This is the iLO’s most
serious form of censure.
Digitized for
36 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

In the committee’s report, Chile was cited for “con­
tinued failure to implement” Convention 111 concern­
ing discrimination in employment— in this case dismis­
sals of persons from the public service because of their
political opinions. The governments of Bolivia and Bur­
ma were highlighted in special paragraphs for their
problems in implementing Convention 87 on freedom of
association.
But it was the case of Poland which took and
maintained center stage throughout the proceedings of
the Committee on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations, both in terms of the substance of
discussion as well as the influence it exerted over the
subsequent work of the committee. The Government of
Poland came under the scrutiny of the committee for its
violations of freedom of association stemming from its
December 1981 declaration of martial law and impris­
onment of hundreds of Solidarity leaders and members
— this immediately following a separate examination on
the same subject by the Governing Body’s Committee
on Freedom of Association. Although the Polish gov­
ernment initially expressed its willingness to cooperate
with the ILO’s supervisory machinery, it reversed its po­
sition when the committee recommended that the case
be highlighted in a special paragraph— even going so
far as to call for a vote on that part of the committee’s
report. (The committee in its conclusions commended
the Polish government’s recent efforts and progress, but
nevertheless expressed its deep concern regarding the in­
fringements of Convention 87 and associated itself with
the very strong recommendations of the Committee on
Freedom of Association.)
Following some discussion as to whether such a vote
could be taken— that is, after the set of conclusions had
already been accepted by the committee— a vote by
show of hands resulted in the adoption of the special
paragraph. One week later, the committee unanimously
adopted its full report. However, those who believed
that the subject of Poland had been laid to rest were
quite surprised when the committee report reached the
plenary.
In plenary, just as conference President Alfonso
Grados was about to move that the report of the Com­
mittee on the Application of Conventions and Recom­
mendations be adopted by consensus, a delegate from
the Soviet bloc took the floor to protest the special
paragraph on Poland and requested that the report as a
whole be put to a vote by the conference. What ensued
were two successive votes (first a show of hands, then a
record vote the next morning) which prevented the re­
port from being adopted by lack of a quorum — al­
though by a very narrow 8-vote margin.
A breakdown of the record vote on the Committee
on the Application of Conventions and Recommenda­
tions report revealed that many Arab delegates had

joined the Soviets to prevent a quorum from being
obtained, at least partly because of their frustration
over the events in the Resolutions Committee. Only
twice before, in 1974 and 1977, has the conference sim­
ilarly failed to adopt such a report. While the failure
to adopt was disappointing, several delegates made
powerful statements— starting with the U.S. Govern­
m ent— commending the work of the committee, sup­
porting the other aspects of the ILO’s machinery for
the supervision of international labor standards, and
pointing out that the conference’s failure to adopt the
report did not affect the ILO’s continued scrutiny of
events in Poland.

Conclusions on apartheid questioned
The stated task of the newly established permanent
Committee on Apartheid was to review the DirectorGeneral’s report on the application of the June 1981
“Declaration Concerning the Policy of Apartheid” in
South Africa, which contained information on efforts to
eliminate apartheid. The information had been submit­
ted by governments and workers’ and employers’ orga­
nizations since adoption of the declaration. The
committee’s six sessions consisted primarily of a series
of speeches denouncing apartheid and calling for meas­
ures— mostly economic— to combat it. Its conclusions
outlined a number of recommended steps to be taken
by governments and the private sector to reduce or
eliminate economic relations with South Africa, includ­
ing supplying information on foreign companies with
investments in South Africa, and providing direct assist­
ance to national liberation movements.
Both in the committee and in plenary, a significant
minority of government and employer delegates, includ­
ing those of the United States, stated that while they
abhorred apartheid, they found unacceptable the confer­
ence’s tendency to disregard the ILO’s established proce­
dures for due process and to take the organization
“beyond its appropriate mandate and competence.” The
committee’s conclusions took note of the reservations
expressed by these members, and the anticipated, heated
plenary discussion of the apartheid report never came to
pass. The report was adopted without vote and without
incident.

New labor standards adopted
The 1982 conference considered four technical agenda
items. Two items resulted in the adoption of new Con­
ventions and Recommendations, one in the minor revi­
sion of an existing Convention; the remaining item will
undergo final discussion at the 1983 conference.
An i l o Convention is an international treaty that car­
ries a legal obligation under international law for states
which ratify it. A Recommendation, on the other hand,
is simply what the name implies— a document which

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

suggests specific measures that can be taken to imple­
ment labor policies. Recommendations are not subject
to ratification and therefore bear no legal obligation.
Termination o f employment. The conference adopted
both a Convention and a Recommendation concerning
the termination of employment at the initiative of the
employer, updating a 1963 Recommendation. At the
end of last year’s discussion of this item, workers and
employers had been diametrically opposed on virtually
every point of the proposed standards, with govern­
ments divided according to their law and practice. The
major controversy surrounded the amount of govern­
ment regulation that is necessary and appropriate to
protect workers against arbitrary and unfair dismissal.
This year the committee remained controversial and
at times confrontational, but a small worker-employer
working group did successfully propose shifting some of
the more objectionable provisions from the Convention
to the Recommendation and otherwise moderate the
former. Nevertheless, the employers and a number of
governments, including the United States, contended
that the Convention adopted by the conference still
relies too heavily on government intervention and too
little on private initiative. As a result, they argued that
the instrument is not sufficiently flexible and universal
to be widely ratified and implemented.
Social security fo r migrant workers. The conference also
adopted a new Convention (actually a revision of a
1948 Convention) concerning the social security rights
of workers and family members who are employed out­
side their home countries. The new standard extends
coverage to all forms of social security and opens the
way for applying social security standards to selfemployed persons as well as to salaried employees.
Most of the provisions of the Convention would take
effect as a result of bilateral or multilateral agreements
between governments, though some provide for direct
and immediate application as a consequence of a mem­
ber state’s ratification of the instrument.
Although U.S. legislation is not completely compati­
ble with the provisions of the new Convention, and U.S.
ratification is thus not likely in the foreseeable future,
the entire U.S. delegation was able to support adoption
of the instrument. The Convention was adopted in an
overwhelming affirmative vote by the conference.
Next year, the conference will take up an unprece­
dented third discussion of the social security issue. This
discussion, preceded by a tripartite meeting of social
security experts, will formulate model provisions
designed for bilateral and multilateral international so­
cial security agreements. These provisions will take the
form of a Recommendation to supplement the new
Convention.
37

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Foreign Labor Developments
Vocational rehabilitation. The 1982 conference held a
general discussion which will lead to the possible adop­
tion in 1983 of a Recommendation supplementing the
Vocational Rehabilitation (Disabled) Recommendation
of 1955. While the provisions of the original instrument
are still relevant, new developments in the field have
made it necessary to broaden its scope by updating and
expanding its definitions of the terms “vocational reha­
bilitation” and “disabled.” The conference did not ac­
cept the ILO secretariat’s proposal to include among
disabled persons the socially maladjusted, but proposed
coverage in the revised instrument for all individuals
whose prospects of securing and retaining suitable em­
ployment are substantially reduced as a result of “an
impairment of a physical, mental, or psychological na­
ture duly recognized by a competent authority.”
During the committee’s discussions, the workers’
group unsuccessfully proposed that the supplementary
standard on vocational rehabilitation should take the
form of a Convention. While the committee’s draft con­
clusions were easily adopted both in committee and in
plenary, the workers are expected to rekindle their call
for a Convention next year.

structure be included in the 1983 conference agenda.
The structure question involves, among other things,
proposed changes in the size and composition of the
ILO’s Governing Body and its relationship to the confer­
ence. Although some of the issues have been ironed out,
the structure question is being considered as a “pack­
age” and nothing can be resolved until complete agree­
ment is reached.
□

Revision o f the Plantations Convention. In the shortest
and quietest technical discussion in ILO history, the con­
ference easily adopted a protocol revising Article One of
the 1958 Convention concerning the Conditions of Em­
ployment of Plantation Workers. The objective of the
revision was to limit the ILO’s very broad definition of
the term “plantation” and thereby pave the way for
wider ratification and implementation of the instrument.
There was no substantive discussion of conditions of
work on plantations.
The revision of the Plantations Convention marks the
first time that the protocol format has been used by the
ILO conference. The new procedure eliminates the need
for publishing an entire new text (only 1 article of 99
was changed) with a new number. In the future, gov­
ernments will have the option of ratifying either version
of the Plantations Convention.

During the last several decades, labor market discrimi­
nation against women has become a m atter of consider­
able social and political concern. The rising female
labor force participation rate over the years and its pro­
jected further increase render this issue even more im­
portant.1 This type of discrimination can take concept­
ually two forms: employment discrimination and pay
discrimination. The former can be defined as unequal
job levels for men and women with similar qualifica­
tions, and the latter as unequal pay for men and women
who have equal qualifications and are performing simi­
lar jobs, jobs of equal value, or both (that is, compara­
ble worth).2
In this report, equal employment and equal pay
legislation are discussed; then, selected cases decided by
courts and boards of inquiry are analyzed; and finally,
conclusions and policy implications are presented.

Other work of the conference

Public policy

In the Conference Finance Committee, which is com­
posed only of government members, contributors to the
ILO began— at the initiative of the United States— to
take a closer and more critical look at the ILO’s grow­
ing practice of using supplemental budget requests to fi­
nance so-called “unforeseen” expenditures, that is, in
excess of the organization’s biennial program and bud­
get.
The Structure Committee, on the other hand, accom­
plished little more than to call for the reconstitution
and resumption of the Working Party on Structure
(now in its 9th year) and to request that an item on

Equal pay. All Canadian jurisdictions have laws which
require equal pay for equal work within the same estab­
lishment, without sex discrimination. These provisions
have been incorporated either in human rights legisla­
tion (Federal jurisdiction, Alberta, British Columbia,
New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Northwest Territories,
Prince Edward Island, and Quebec) or in labor stand­
ards legislation (Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Sas­
katchewan, and Yukon Territory).

38 FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

--------- FOOTNOTE---------1Sponsors were the government delegations of Algeria, Democratic
Yemen, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,
Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Repub­
lic, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.

Canadian legal approaches
to sex equality in the workplace
H a r i s h C . Ja i n

Harish C. Jain is a professor of personnel and industrial relations,
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

At the Federal level, equal pay legislation was first
put into effect in 1956 and amended in 1967. It required
equal wages for men and women performing the same
or similar work under the same or similar working con­
ditions on jobs requiring the same or similar skill, ef­
fort, and responsibility. This legislation remained in
effect until 1977, when it was replaced by the Canadian
Human Rights Act embodying the equal value princi­
ple. According to the act, men and women performing
work of equal value (regardless of whether the work is
similar) must be paid equal wages. The act also elabo­
rates on how the value of work may be assessed; section
11 (2) specifies that in assessing the value of work per­
formed by persons employed in the same establishment,
the criterion to be applied is the composite of skill, ef­
fort, and responsibility required in the performance of
the work and the conditions under which the work is
performed. The Quebec legislation calls for equal pay
for equivalent work.3
Compared with the Federal and Quebec jurisdictions,
the various provincial jurisdictions follow a narrow defi­
nition of equal work, such as “same work,” “similar
work,” or “substantially the same work.” In 6 of the 12
jurisdictions (Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,
Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatche­
wan), legislation also specifies factors on which equality
of work may be based. These factors are education, skill,
experience, effort, responsibility, and working conditions.
The legislation in a majority of jurisdictions provides
for a general exception permitting differentials between
the pay of men and women based on any factor other
than sex. Other jurisdictions list specific exceptions
which include seniority, work experience, and merit.
Several court decisions have helped to provide a more
precise interpretation of equal pay legislation in Cana­
da.4 In the Greenacres Nursing Home case in 1970, the
Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that “the same work”
did not necessarily imply “identical work” and that job
comparisons should be based on work performed rather
than on formal job descriptions or terms of employ­
ment. In the Riverdale Hospital Case in 1973, the con­
cept of equal work was further broadened. Here, the
Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that different job titles
do not necessarily indicate different work, slightly dif­
ferent job assignments do not make the work unequal,
and within an occupation, if some men do the same
work as women, equal pay is justifiable for the whole
occupation. The last point was clarified in a case in
which the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal declared that
even when only 5 of 46 male caretakers performed work
similar to female cleaners, it should be considered a suf­
ficient number within the provincial equal pay legisla­
tion, and that “some” employees being paid a rate of
pay higher than others doing similar work warrants
equal pay.5

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

The courts have also dealt with what might properly
constitute “a factor other than sex” in justifying malefemale pay differentials. In two decisions at the Federal
level— the C.T.V. Television Network case in 1975 and
the La Societe Radio-Canada case in 1977— the Court
ruled that differences in the quality of work as assessed
by management are sufficient to justify unequal pay.
The Court acknowledged that such an assessment might
be subjective and, thus, might involve an error of judg­
ment; however, the Court held that it was not within
the competence of the judiciary to review management’s
judgment. The courts have also ruled on whether the
existence of two separate bargaining units could be con­
sidered “a factor other than sex” to permit pay differen­
tials between them. The Alberta Court of Appeals in
the Gares case in 1976 decided against it.6
Equal employment. As in the case of equal pay, all ju ­
risdictions in Canada have also enacted human rights
legislation. All the statutes prohibit discrimination on
the basis of race, national origin, color, religion or
creed, sex, marital status, and age. The age groups pro­
tected vary among jurisdictions, with the most common
being between the ages of 40 or 45 and 65. Discrimina­
tion due to physical disability is proscribed in seven ju ­
risdictions. Other prohibited grounds include sexual
orientation in Quebec and pardoned offenses in the Fed­
eral jurisdiction.7These statutes apply to employers, em­
ployment agencies, and trade unions. Discrimination is
prohibited with respect to advertising and terms and
conditions of employment including promotion, trans­
fer, and training.
Indirect or systemic discrimination. Both direct8 and in­
direct employment discrimination is prohibited. The
Canadian Human Rights Act, as well as numerous deci­
sions by boards of inquiry in several provinces, has bor­
rowed the concept of indirect discrimination from U.S.
case law and relevant British legislation, that is, the
Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act.
In the United States, the concept was articulated by
the Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. in 1971.
The Court unanimously endorsed a results-oriented def­
inition of what constitutes employment discrimination
and indicated that intent does not matter; the conse­
quences of an employer’s actions determine whether it
may have discriminated under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act.9
Enforcement. In the enforcement of both the equal pay
and equal employment legislation, the method common
to all jurisdictions is investigation based on employee
complaints. (Although, sometimes, Human Rights Com­
missions may file a complaint or commence an investi­
gation.) All the acts provide for the settlement of com39

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Foreign Labor Developments
plaints, if possible, by conciliation and persuasion and
for an initial, informal investigation into a complaint by
an officer who is directed to effect a settlement. If con­
ciliation fails, a board of inquiry is usually appointed; it
may issue orders for compliance, compensation, and so
on. This order may be appealed to the Supreme Court
of the Province on questions of law, fact, or both. The
Federal jurisdiction allows an appeal by either the com­
plainant or defendant to a review tribunal, if the origi­
nal tribunal had fewer than three members.10 In
practice, the emphasis has been to concentrate on ef­
fectuating a satisfactory settlement rather than legal
guilt.11

Analysis of cases
Methodology. In order to study the incidence of preand post-employment sex discrimination, 52 board of
inquiry and court cases were analyzed.12 These were all
the cases that were adjudicated by boards of inquiry,
and in some cases by courts, from 1975 to 1980, in Al­
berta, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia,
Ontario, and Saskatchewan. (To our knowledge, no rel­
evant cases were decided by either boards or courts in
other jurisdictions.)
Although the bulk of a typical human rights commis­
sion’s workload consists of cases that do not go to a
board, the data on, for example, conciliated cases or
cases under investigation are confidential and, therefore,
are not analyzed.
The cases covered a cross-section of industries and in­
stitutions and were not confined to blue-collar or lower
level white-collar workers; professional, technical, and
to some extent administrative and managerial workers
were also involved. A majority of the cases involved
secretarial workers (38 percent) and unskilled laborers
(21 percent).
Pre- and post-employment discrimination cases. Pre-em­
ployment discrimination cases decided by selected
boards of inquiry include allegations regarding male-fe­
male job stereotypes, height and weight restrictions, re­
fusal to interview female applicants, sex not being a
bona-fide occupational requirement, discriminatory job
interviews, and discriminatory job advertisement.
Decisions of boards of inquiry have prohibited such
pre-employment barriers as height and weight require­
ments for a police constable’s job,13and for jobs requir­
ing physical strength;14discriminatory or sex stereotyped
questions in job interviews;15and employers’ misconcep­
tions and stereotypes about traditionally male or female
jobs such as not considering: a woman for the job of a
cost accountant trainee,16 a man for the position of a
copywriter,17 a woman as a rental clerk for a rental
truck agency,18 and a woman for heavy-duty janitorial
work.19
0
Digitized 4for
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

A bona-fide occupational qualification exemption with
respect to sex discrimination has been very narrowly
construed by the boards. Employers’ arguments such as:
work being too strenuous for a woman,20 customer pref­
erence for service from either a man or a woman,21 res­
taurant atmosphere is created by having all female
waitresses,22 lack of restroom facilities for women,23 and
male-dominated and remote worksite,24 have been reject­
ed by boards of inquiry in several jurisdictions.
Post-employment discrimination cases deal with casu­
al workers denied full-time jobs; promotion; dismissal;
reemployment; pregnancy; and sexual harassment.
Casual to permanent employment. At least three boards
of inquiry in Saskatchewan,25 New Brunswick,26 and On­
tario27 have dealt with complaints from women regard­
ing their attempt to switch from part- to full-time
permanent jobs with the same employer. In these cases,
the boards of inquiry held against the employers for de­
nying women permanent positions because of their sex.
Pregnancy. In British Columbia, the “reasonable cause”
provision of the Human Rights Code has had a major
impact in broadening the scope of prohibited grounds
of discrimination that otherwise would have been ex­
cluded.28 In one case, a British Columbia board of in­
quiry ruled that a woman who was fired from her job
as a reservation clerk, when she told her employer that
she was pregnant, had been discriminated against.29 In
another case, a board of inquiry allowed sick leave ben­
efits to teachers absent from employment for sickness
caused or aggravated by pregnancy, under the “reason­
able cause” provision.30
Sexual harassment. In a precedent-setting decision, an
Ontario board of inquiry declared in August 1980 that
sexual harassment is discrimination based on sex, ac­
cording to section 4(1) of the Human Rights Code. In
this case, Anna Korchzak and Cherie Bell v. Ernest Lada
and the Flaming Steer House Tavern, Inc., the complain­
ants had alleged that they had been sexually harassed
by their employer, the owner of the restaurant. Al­
though the complainants lost, Board Chairman Owen
Shime declared that “ . . . there is no reason why the
law, which reaches into the work place so as to protect
the work environment from physical or chemical pollu­
tion or extremes of temperature, ought not to protect
employees from negative psychological and mental ef­
fects where adverse gender-directed conduct emanating
from a management hierarchy may reasonably be con­
strued to be a condition of employment.” Thus, sex as a
prohibited ground of discrimination includes sexual ha­
rassment where because of a worker’s sex some term or
condition of employment is modified by the sexual ha­
rassment.31

Indirect or systemic discrimination. In 7 of the 52 cases,
systemic discrimination was found. An analysis of these
cases revealed that the approach adopted in the Griggs
case, which was previously mentioned, has now been
widely emulated in Canada; malice or intent to discrim­
inate is no longer a relevant factor. For example, in a
case involving a female applicant, the board decided
that the Commission’s minimum height requirement of
5 feet, 10 inches “virtually eliminates women as police
constables,” as only 5 percent of Canadian women are
that tall.32
Remedies ordered. In most cases in which discrimination
was found and that went before a board of inquiry, more
than one remedy was ordered. The most frequently given
one was compensation for lost wages; the other remedies
(in order of frequency) were orders to employers to:
• display the relevant human rights code in predomi­
nant places in employer premises;
• stop their unlawful conduct;
• compensate for general damages;
• compensate for expenses incurred by the complain­
ant;
• compensate for pain and humiliation suffered by the
complainant;
• reinstate the complainant;
• send a letter of apology to the complainant;
• offer employment or interview at the next available
opening;
• have the relevant human rights commission conduct a
human rights workshop for company executives;
• amend application form or other selection tools, or
both;
• send a letter of apology to the relevant human rights
commission; and
• provide separate facilities for women.

Conclusions
The cases discussed in this report seem to indicate
that entry and training requirements should be carefully
established and maintained only if they are necessary
prerequisites for employment and promotion. Therefore,
employers should develop clear equal opportunities poli­
cies to ensure that they are not discriminating by default
of appropriate action and to give themselves some safe­
guard in case their policies are challenged. For instance,
organizations must issue explicit instructions regarding
the employment interview through their personnel de­
partments. Interviews should be structured and only
questions of direct relevance to the job should be asked.
Organizations should keep in mind that, over the
years, substantial evidence of validity has accumulated
for many of the predictors. When comparing employ­
ment tests, ability tests and work sample tests— relative

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

to personality and interest tests— have proved the most
valid. References, recommendations, and interviews usu­
ally have been found to be less valid as predictors of
job success.33 Choices of predictors to be used in staffing
systems should be governed by the nature of the job,
and the validity of the predictors. Staffing systems can
be improved considerably by standardization (to obtain
reliable information), and by the validation process.
Emerging research evidence seems to indicate that va­
lidity of tests need not be specific to the situation.34
There would appear to be three broad types of human
resource policies which might be used to assist minority
workers.35 First, taking labor supply and demand as giv­
en, one might attempt to make the labor market operate
more efficiently by means of placement activities, worker
counseling, and labor mobility or related measures,
which would be appropriate regardless of the labor mar­
ket structure. Second, one might attempt to upgrade the
supply of minority workers by means of greater invest­
ment in education and training. Third, following the
labor market segmentation approach, one might recom­
mend solutions lying on the demand side rather than
the supply side, with a requirement for government em­
ployment and expenditure policy to favor those in the
secondary sector. This would include equal opportunity
and affirmative action programs.
Critics have suggested changes in both the scope and
enforcement of equal opportunity legislation in Canada
in order to improve its effectiveness. Instead of the caseby-case approach adopted by most human rights com­
missions, class action suits, routine investigation of
firms,36and contract compliance have been advocated.
Equal opportunity legislation may be a necessary
condition for the elimination of sexual inequality. But
legal approaches are limited because they operate only
on the demand side of the problem (that is, the employ­
er side) and do little to change supply (that is, educa­
tion and training). Moreover, the existing empirical
evidence points to only a limited impact of such legisla­
tion; the small number of complaints filed is apparently
because of ignorance of legislation, lack of resources,
and fear of employer reprisals.37 However, these and
other cases do have an educational effect and may have
served to enhance public awareness of the need to pro­
vide equality of opportunity.
□
------FOOTNOTES---------' In January 1982, women accounted for more than 40 percent of
the Canadian labor force. By the year 2000, the labor force participa­
tion rate of women is expected to approach that of men. See Carole
Swan, Women in the Canadian Labour Market (Ottawa, Ontario, Em­
ployment and Immigration Commission, July 1981).
Naresh C. Agarwal, “Pay discrimination: Evidence, policies and
issues, in Harish C. Jain and Peter J. Sloane, Equal Employment Is­
sues: Race and Sex Discrimination in the USA, Canada and Britain
(New York, Praeger Publishers, 1981).
41

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Foreign Labor Developments
Harish C. Jain, “Employment and pay discrimination in Canada:
Theories, evidence and policies,” in John Anderson and Morley
Gunderson, eds., Union-Management Relations in Canada (Toronto
and Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley, 1982).
4 Harish C. Jain, Ibid. Also see Naresh C. Agarwal, “Pay discrimi­
nation.”
5Ibid.
6Ibid.
7Harish C. Jain, “Race and sex discrimination in Canada,” Rela­
tions Industrielles, forthcoming.
8Ibid.
9In this case, the Court struck down educational requirements and
employment tests, stating that these requirements could not be justi­
fied on the grounds of business necessity because they were not valid
or related to job performance, and they had adverse impact because
they screened out a greater proportion of blacks than whites. Howev­
er, if business necessity could be proved, that is, if the educational
and testing requirements that had disproportionate or adverse impact
on minorities were related to job performance, then the practice was
not prohibited.
10Harish C. Jain, “Employment and pay discrimination.”
" Daniel G. Hill, “The Role of the Human Rights Commission:
The Ontario Experience,” University of Toronto Law Journal, Vol. 19,
1979, pp. 390-401.
17 Harish C. Jain, “Race and sex discrimination.”
" Ann Colfer v. Ottawa Board of Commissioners o f Police, 1978, an
Ontario board of inquiry decision.
14 Kathleen Grafe v. Sechelt Building Supplies (1971) Ltd., a British
Columbia board of inquiry.
''K erry Segrave v. Zeller's Ltd., 1975, an Ontario board of inquiry
decision.
16Stairs v. Maritime Cooperative Services Ltd., 1975, a New Bruns­
wick board of inquiry decision.
11 Francis Perry v. Robert Simpsons Ltd., 1976, a Nova Scotia board
of inquiry decision.
18 Betty-Ann Shack v. London Drive-Ur-Self Ltd., 1974, an Ontario
board of inquiry decision.
" E. Garnett v. Kompleat Industries Ltd., 1979, a British Columbia
board of inquiry decision.
20Betty-Ann Shack. Similarly, in the David J. Foreman et al v. Via
Rail Canada Inc., 1980, a Federal case, the tribunal held that Via’s
acuity standards were not based on a bona-fide occupational require­
ment because Via had failed to justify the standards. This was not a
sex discrimination case; however, it is an important bona-fide occupa­
tional case.
21 Donald J. Berry v. The Manor Inn, 1980, a Nova Scotia board of
inquiry decision.
12 Kesterton v. Spinning Wheel Restaurant, 1975, a British Columbia
board of inquiry decision.
23 Jean Tharp v. Lornex Mining, 1975, a British Columbia board of
inquiry decision.
24Ibid.
Gail Oliver v. Her Majesty the Queen in right of Saskatchewan as
represented by the Minister o f Highways and Transportation o f Sas­

Digitized 42
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

katchewan, 1976, a Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission formal
inquiry decision.
26Shirley Naugler v. The New Brunswick Liquor Corporation, 1976, a
New Brunswick board of inquiry decision.

27Hetty Hendry v. L.C.B.O., 1980, an Ontario board of inquiry deci­
sion.
28 Bill Black, “ ‘Reasonable cause’ in Human Rights Legislation,”
Labour Research Bulletin, Vol. 9, February 1981.
29H.W. v. Riviera Reservations, 1976, a British Columbia board of
inquiry decision.
30Kerrance Gibbs and Surrey Teachers Association v. Board of School
Trustees School District # 3 6 (Surrey, B.C.), 1979, a British Columbia
board of inquiry decision.
31Anna Korchzak and Cherie Bell v. Ernest Lada and the Flaming
Steer Steak House Tavern Inc., 1980, an Ontario board of inquiry de­
cision.
32Ann Colfer v. Ottawa Board of Commissioners of Police, 1978, an
Ontario board of inquiry decision.
33 Herbert G. Heneman III, Donald P. Schwab, John A. Fossum,
and Lee D. Dyer, Personnel/Human Resource Management (Homewood, 111., Richard D. Irwin, 1980).
34 Frank L. Schmidt and John E. Hunter, “Development of a gener­
al solution to the problem of validity generalization,” Journal o f Ap­
plied Psychology, Vol. 62, October 1977, pp. 529-40. Also see, Marvin
D. Dunnette and Walter C. Borman, “Personnel Selection and Classi­
fication Systems,” Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 30, 1979, pp.
A ll-525', Frank L. Schmidt, John E. Hunter, Robert C. McKenzie
and Tressie W. Muldrow, “Impact of valid selection procedures on
work-force productivity,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 64, De­
cember 1979, pp. 609-26; and Mary L. Tenopyr, “Trifling he stands,”
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 34, Spring 1981, pp. 1-17.
35 Harish C. Jain and Peter J. Sloane, Equal Employment Issues.
36 Apparently, routine investigation of firms does bring increased
backpay settlements. For instance, 157 investigations and routine au­
dits under Ontario’s equal pay regulations resulted in $284,000 of sal­
ary increases and backpay settlements for female employees over a
10-month period, April 1980 to January 1981. Thirty-six employers
were found guilty in cases involving 134 women. The beefed-up in­
spection procedures by the Ministry of Labour were made possible by
the hiring of 11 officials who were added to the Ministry’s equal pay
monitoring team in Spring 1980. See Globe and Mail, Feb. 27, 1981,
p. B-8. A comparison of previous statistics highlights the role of rou­
tine audits in increasing backpay settlements. In 1979-80, nine em­
ployers were found guilty involving 44 employees and $56,212 in
settlement; in 1978-79, eight employers involving 29 employees were
found guilty and the settlement was $8,311; in 1977-78, nine employ­
ers involving 20 employees were found guilty and the settlement was
$6,672.67. The exception to the rule was during 1976-77 when 29 em­
ployers and 452 employees were involved and the settlement was
$535,966.02. However, during 1975-76, the settlement sum of
$31,248.88 was in line with other years and involved 17 employers
and 76 employees. These figures were provided by the Women’s Bu­
reau of the Ontario Ministry of Labour.
37The Status of Women in Canada (Ottawa, Ontario, Information
Canada, 1970).

M ajor Agreements
Expiring Next M onth
T h is list o f co lle c tiv e bargaining agreem en ts exp irin g in N ovem ber is based on con tracts on file in
the B u reau ’s O ffic e o f W a g es and Industrial R ela tio n s. T he list includes agreem ents coverin g 1,000
w orkers or m ore.

N u m b er of

L ab or o r g a n iz a tio n 1

In d u stry

E m p lo y e r and lo c a tio n

w ork ers

Allis-Chalmers Corp. (La Porte, I n d . ) .................................................................
Allis-Chalmers Corp. (West Allis, W is .)..............................................................
A partm ent Building Owners and Managers Association of Chicago
(Illinois)
A rm strong Cork Co. (Lancaster, Pa.) .................................................................

Machinery ...................................
Machinery ...................................
Services ........................................

A uto W o r k e r s ...........................................
A uto W o rk e rs ...........................................
Service Employees ...................................

1,000
1,900
3,000

Miscellaneous manufacturing . .

Rubber Workers

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

2,000

Bendix A utolite Corp. (M ic h ig a n ).........................................................................

Transportation equipment . . . .

A uto W o r k e r s ...........................................

1,200

Carrier Corp. (Syracuse, N . Y . ) ..............................................................................
Central States Area Tank Truck Agreement (Interstate)2 ..............................
Chain and Independent Food Stores (Wisconsin)2 ...........................................
Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Jersey City, N . J . ) ...........................................................

Machinery ...................................
Trucking ......................................
Retail trade ................................
C hem icals......................................

Sheet Metal Workers ..............................
Teamsters (Ind.) ......................................
Food and Commercial W o r k e r s ...........
Employees Association, Inc. of ColgatePalmolive Co. (Ind.)

3,250
15,000
2,300
1,200

Film Exchange Employees Agreement (Interstate)2 ........................................
Food Employers Council, Inc. (Los Angeles, Cal.) ........................................

A m u sem e n ts................................
Retail trade ................................

Theatrical Stage E m p lo y ee s...................
Food and Commercial W o r k e r s ...........

1,500
6,500

General Telephone Co. of Indiana (In d ia n a )......................................................
G raphic A rts Association of Delaware Valley, Inc. (P ennsylvania).............
G reater Boston Hotel and M otor Inn Association (Boston, Mass.) ...........

C om m unication ...........................
Printing and publishing ...........
H o t e l s ...........................................

1,550
1,200
3,000

Hotel and Motel Association of G reater St. Louis (St. Louis, Mo.) ...........

H o t e l s ...........................................

Electrical Workers (IBEW) ...................
G raphic A r t s ..............................................
Hotel Employees and Restaurant
Employees
Hotel Employees and Restaurant
Employees

IC I United States, Inc. (Charlestown, Ind.)

Fabricated metal products

Chemical W orkers ...................................

1,250

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

.. .

2,500

Londontown Corp. (I n te rsta te )..............................................................................

A p p a r e l........................................

Clothing and Textile W orkers

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

1,950

Retail Distribution Agreement (San Diego, Cal.)2 ...........................................

Retail trade

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

Food and Commercial W o r k e r s ...........

1,200

United States Potters Association (I n te r s ta te )...................................................
U SA IR (In te rsta te )....................................................................................................
United Aircraft Corp., P ratt and W hitney Aircraft Division, 4 agreements
(Connecticut)

Stone, clay, and glass products
Air tra n s p o rta tio n .....................
Transportation equipment . . . .

P o t t e r s ........................................................
Air Line Pilots ........................................
Machinists ................................................

1,500
1,100
18,350

G o v e rn m en t a c tiv ity

Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh Board of E d u c a tio n ...................................................

' Affiliated with A F L -C IO except where noted as independent (Ind.).
2Industry area (group of companies signing same contracts).


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

E d u c a tio n ......................................

L ab or o r g a n iz a tio n 1

American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees

1,050

Developments in
Industrial Relations

Westinghouse workers to contribute to pensions
Only minutes before a July 25 strike deadline, Wes­
tinghouse Electric Corp. and three electrical workers’
unions agreed on 3-year contracts that included a “con­
tributory” pension plan. In the 1979 negotiations, Westinghouse’s demand that workers begin financing part
of their pensions resulted in a 7-week strike by the three
unions and other union members of the Coordinated
Bargaining Committee formed in 1965 to strengthen
bargaining with Westinghouse and General Electric Co.
Westinghouse maintained that partial financing of pen­
sions by employees was necessary to alleviate a compet­
itive cost advantage held by General Electric, which has
had a contributory plan since the early 1950’s.
The unions involved were the International Brother­
hood of Electrical Workers, the International Union of
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, and the United
Electrical Radio and Machine Workers. All three
unions bargain with Westinghouse on a “national” basis
for about 31,000 workers. A union official said the deci­
sion was not a “concession” and that the unions were
not “philosophically opposed” to the concept if Wes­
tinghouse made several changes in its proposal. The
unions’ negotiators also maintained that the Westinghouse contributory plan was better than that at General
Electric.
The Westinghouse plan requires employees to con­
tribute an amount equal to 3 percent of annual earnings
in excess of $14,700, in contrast to the $12,000 thresh­
old at General Electric. Minimum monthly benefits
were increased to a range of $14 to $17.50 a month
(depending on preretirement average annual earnings),
compared with a range of $12 to $17.50 at General
Electric. In 1984, the range will rise to $14 to $19.50 at
both companies. The preretirement average annual earn­
ings for Westinghouse retirees will be based on the last
3 years of work, compared with the last 5 years at Gen­
eral Electric. All Westinghouse workers were also given

“Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by George Ruben
of the Division of Developments in Labor-Management Relations,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is largely based on information from
secondary sources.
4 FRASER
Digitized 4for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

the option of staying in the existing company-financed
plan, with the benefit rate remaining at $ 13 a month.
The pension changes negotiated by the three electrical
unions (and subsequently accepted by the other Coordi­
nated Bargaining Committee unions for 9,OCX) additional
workers) were identical to those the Federation of Westinghouse Independent Salaried Unions negotiated in
July for 11,000 employees. The Federation had already
agreed to a contributory pension plan in its 1979 settle­
ment.
Except for the pension differences, all of the Westinghouse contracts provided for essentially the same wage,
benefit, and job security terms as at General Electric
(see Monthly Labor Review, September 1982, 44-45).

Steel industry update
There were several occurrences in the financially
pressed steel industry. The United Steelworkers rejected
an employer proposal for labor-cost consessions and ef­
forts to end alleged “dumping” of foreign steel in the
United States continued with no clear outcome in sight.
In announcing the rejection of the industry’s consession proposals and the termination of negotiations,
Steelworkers President Lloyd McBride said the bargain­
ers “have spent a great deal of time trying to find an­
swers to our mutual problems and we simply have
failed.” He said the talks with the eight Coordinating
Committee Steel Companies, which generally set the
bargaining pattern for other producers, had floundered
because the employers’ final proposal “went too far” by
indicating “if you can’t accept that [the proposals],
there’s no deal.” McBride contended that the proposals
called for much greater sacrifices than the revised con­
tracts the Auto Workers negotiated with Ford Motor
Co. and General Motors Corp.
The unanimous decision by the union’s Basic Steel
Industry Conference (which consists of 400 local union
officials) drew a bitter response from J. Bruce Johnston,
U.S. Steel Corp. vice president and chief industry bar­
gainer. Johnston said that the union’s refusal to accept
wage and benefit cuts suggests to unemployed steel­
workers that their problems will be solved by a recov­
ery in steel order volume, when in fact, it is “their ever-

increasing wage costs [that] are pulling against any
sustained recovery for domestic steel.”
The rejected proposal would have superseded the re­
maining year of the current 3-year contract and would
have terminated on August 1, 1985. It called for a
freeze on wages; suspension of automatic quarterly costof-living adjustments; elimination of extended vacations;
a 50-cent-an-hour increase in employer financing of
Supplemental Unemployment Benefits; guaranteed dura­
tions of benefit payments to laid-off workers with 10
years of service; establishment of stock ownership and
individual retirement accounts; and a possible contract
reopening linked to the level of steel production.
McBride said the parties were not considering a re­
newal of the Experimental Negotiating Agreement. This
opens the possibility of an industry strike if the parties
are unable to agree on a new wage-and-benefit contract
in 1983. The Experimental Negotiating Agreement,
which was introduced in 1973, essentially banned
industrywide strikes at the termination of agreements in
exchange for an “economic floor” under wage-and bene­
fit settlements.
Meanwhile, Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldrige
announced that the Reagan Administration would not
reopen negotiations with six European nations to gain
import limitations. The parties had reached agreement
on limits, but the accord was rejected by the seven do­
mestic producers that had filed the unfair trade charges
in January against South Africa and Brazil, as well as
the European countries. The producers had charged
that some nations were unfairly subsidizing steel pro­
duced for export to the United States.
Baldrige said a resumption of talks would not be
fruitful because “there comes a time when both sides
say enough is enough.” He maintained that U.S. negoti­
ators had gained all the import restrictions the domestic
companies had sought, but the U.S. companies later de­
cided they wanted lower import quotas.
In another aspect of the controversy, the Department
of Commerce announced a preliminary finding that the
steel products from the six countries were, in fact, being
sold in the United States at unfairly low prices. As a re­
sult, importers of steel from these nations were required
to begin posting bonds to assure payment of penalty
duties that could be imposed when the department is­
sues a final ruling later in the year.

it represents in the New York City area.
The United Telegraph Workers accord provided for a
reported 31.066-percent increase in wages and benefits
over the term, including a 30-percent rise in pension
rates. The wage portion of the package calls for in­
creases of 8 percent the first year, 7 percent the second,
and 7.1 percent the third. With these increases, pay will
average $10.43 an hour, according to the union.
Other terms included additional pay increases for
some job classifications, a new optical care plan, and a
$50,000 increase in major medical coverage, to
$ 200, 000 .

Union mergers
A 91,000-member Glass, Pottery, Plastics and Allied
Workers union resulted from the merger of the Pottery
Workers and the Glass Bottle Blowers unions. Speaking
to a special convention of the Pottery Workers, union
president James E. Hatfield said the move was neces­
sary to increase “unity and strength” in negotiations
with employers. Hatfield will head the new organiza­
tion, and Pottery Workers’ President Lester H. Null
will serve as assistant president. The 11,000-member
Pottery Workers, which, like the Glass Blowers, traced
its origins to the 1800’s, had been an autonomous af­
filiate of the Seafarers from 1976 to 1978.
A 70,000-member Aluminum, Brick and Glass Work­
ers International Union resulted from the merger of the
Aluminum, Brick and Clay Workers and the Glass and
Ceramic Workers. Aluminum Workers President Law­
rence A. Holley will head the new union and will be
assisted by Glass and Ceramic Workers President Jo­
seph Roman.
Merger talks between the Steelworkers and the Insur­
ance Workers failed for the second time. The first round
of consolidation talks ended in 1980, when the unions
were unable to agree on a dues structure. This also was
the main barrier to success in the recent talks. The exec­
utive board of the Insurance Workers rejected the pro­
posal because of concerns that the formula— 1.15
percent of 80 percent of the agents’ average earnings—
would amount to $20 to $25 a month. Current monthly
dues are $ 11 a month for the Insurance Workers and 2
hours of pay for the Steelworkers.
AFL-CIO Executive Council holds summer session

Western Union contract ends 90-minute strike
A 90-minute strike against Western Union Telegraph
Co. ended when the parent Western Union Corp. and
the United Telegraph Workers agreed on a 3-year con­
tract. About 8,800 workers were involved. Later, the
Communications Workers agreed to virtually identical
terms for the 900 Western Union Telegraph employees

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

The summer session of the AFL-CIO Executive Council
focused on the economy. In 1 of 16 policy statements,
the council charged that Reagan Administration eco­
nomic actions were pushing “the lowest-paid workers
into a frightening abyss of subpoverty” and they are in­
creasingly being joined “by workers with valuable,
hard-won skills who previously had a respected place in
45

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Developments in Industrial Relations
the community.” Further, the council contended, the
damage was being exacerbated by “deep budget cuts in
social programs at the exact moment the recession
makes them so needed.”
In a move to strengthen workers’ role in the 1984
presidential campaign, the council decided that the Fed­
eration’s general board (which consists of officials from
all the affiliated unions) will meet before the first politi­
cal primary to decide whether to endorse a candidate.
In recent presidential campaigns, the member unions
were not unified in their choice and entered the cam­
paign later, which reduced their role in the selection, ac­
cording to Federation officials. Federation President
Lane Kirkland said that member unions will not be
bound to back any candidate endorsed by the general
board.
In other actions, Kirkland announced formation of
committees to examine the changing work force and the
organizing outlook; develop and promote greater partic­
ipation by retirees in attaining labor’s objectives; and
coordinate efforts to defeat the proposed constitutional
amendment requiring a balanced Federal budget.

Maintenance of Way Employees convene
Delegates to the quadrennial convention of the Main­
tenance of Way Employees approved a plan that could
lead either to an autonomous division or a separate
union for Canadian members. The 450 delegates, meet­
ing in Vancouver, British Columbia, unanimously en­
dorsed the proposal in a voice vote. The delegates also
amended the constitution to provide for the U.S. vice
president and executive board members to be elected by
delegates from their region, rather than by all U.S. dele­
gates. In other affairs, Ole M. Berge was elected to an­
other term as president of the 120,000 member union,
and Geoffrey N. Zeh, the union’s general counsel and
research director, defeated incumbent B.L. Sorah for the
vice presidency.

Electrical workers in New York get raises
About 7,500 workers were covered by a 2-year con­
tract negotiated between the International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers and the Niagara Mohawk Power
Co. of Syracuse, N.Y. Wages increased by 9.5 percent
on June 1, and will rise an additional 9 percent on June
1, 1983. New employees will be paid $1 an hour less
than the current starting rate. Prior to the settlement,
pay averaged $11.19 an hour for the 1,900 clerical
workers and $11.48 for other workers.
Other terms included a raise in normal pensions,
which will be financed by increasing the number of
years used in calculating career average annual salary;
$300,000 major medical coverage, instead of $200,000;
Digitized 46
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

free eye examinations every 2 years for 500 customer
service representatives who use video display terminals
regularly; changes in work schedules, including one that
requires some employees to work as late as 9 p.m. to
read the meters of customers who are not home during
usual business hours; and a raise (to $20) in the bonus
paid to employees who discover a theft of service.

Accord ends 7-week casino strike
Carpenters, painters, and maintenance workers at
three hotel-casinos in Atlantic City, N.J., approved a
5-year settlement that was later extended to other hotelcasinos. The accord, which ended a 7-week strike at the
Playboy, Bally’s Park Place, and Caesar’s Boardwalk
Regency, called for a 7-percent pay increase in the first
year, 8 percent in each of the next 3 years, and 7 per­
cent in the final year. The previous wage rate was $10
an hour for the employees, who are represented by the
Operating Engineers, Carpenters, and Painters unions.
The casinos also agreed to pay 25 cents an hour into
an annuity fund for the employees during the last 6
months of the contracts. The money will be distributed
at retirement, transfer out of the local union, or death.

Wages of Oregon State employees frozen
The State of Oregon, which has been experiencing
budget problems because of the economy and, in partic­
ular, the severe cutbacks in its lumber and wood prod­
ucts industry, received some aid when State employees
agreed to give up $20 million in wages. The Oregon
Public Employees Union, which represents half of the
workers, agreed to a wage freeze for the fiscal year be­
ginning July 1. The union’s 17,000 members had been
scheduled for pay increases of 3 percent on July 1 and
November 1 of 1982 and March 1, 1983 under their
current 2-year contract, negotiated in 1981. In exchange
for the freeze, the workers will receive 6 additional paid
vacation days during the 12 months.
Instead of a pay freeze, the Teamsters agreed to re­
duce the paid workweek of State employees it represents
to 37.5 hours, from 40.
The pay increases and the 40-hour week will be re­
stored after July 1, 1983. The State also negotiated
comparable concessions with 10 other unions.

NLRB orders company to bargain with union
In a departure from usual practice, the National La­
bor Relations Board ordered a company to bargain
with a union even though the union was unable to show
support by a majority of the workers. The board said
the bargaining order was warranted because the firm,
Conair Corp. of Edison, N.J., had engaged in “outra-

geous and pervasive” conduct to counter an organizing
campaign by Local 222 of the Ladies Garment Workers
union.
According to the board, the union had obtained au­
thorization cards from 46 percent of the 380 workers
early in 1977, but Conair, a maker of hair and beauty
care products, had then initiated a massive and unre­
lenting campaign to defeat the drive. Some of the illegal
tactics cited by the board included threats to close the
plant and move the operations to Hong Kong and
threats that employee benefits would be terminated.
Subsequently, the union struck, but was forced to end
the walkout after 5 months because of continued coer­
cive tactics by the company. About 9 months after the
start of the organizing drive, the union garnered only
about one-third of the votes cast in a representation
election held in December 1977.
The board held that the order to bargain with Local
222 was necessary because Conair had “foreclosed any
possibility of holding a fair representation election,”
and therefore, “we find that a remedial bargaining order
is the only way to restore to employees their statutory
right to make a free and uncoerced determination
whether they wish to be represented in collective
bargaining by a labor organization. Anything short of a
bargaining order would deny employees that right
which has been the hallmark of national labor policy
for nearly five decades.”
In the majority opinion, several board members said
that Conair’s conduct fell within the “exceptional” cate­
gory specified in the Supreme Court’s 1969 decision in
Gissel Packing Co. In that ruling, the Court said that
when an employer engages in flagrant violations that
preclude a fair election, the board could issue a
bargaining order “without need of inquiry into majority
status on the basis of cards or otherwise.”

Serious violations target of mine safety agency
A change in mine safety and health regulations by
the Department of Labor indicates it will concentrate
on correcting serious violations by mine owners. A
spokesman for the Department’s Mine Safety and
Health Administration said the agency will seek greater


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

penalties for operators who are “found to be negligent”
or who do not correct violations, but the agency will
now propose only a $20 fine for minor violations.
Previously, all penalties were set through a lengthy pro­
cess based on six criteria. As before, penalties require
the approval of the independent Mine Safety and
Health Review Commission.
The Bituminous Coal Operators Association applaud­
ed the changes, saying that it will reduce paperwork for
inspectors and allow everybody to concentrate on the
more serious violations. Sam Church, president of the
United Mine Workers, said he was disappointed with
the reduced penalties for minor violations but noted
that the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety
and Health had promised that the program would not
be used by operators to circumvent the law.

Employer with EEO plan guilty of bias
In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court held that
even an employer with a successful equal employment
opportunity program can be guilty of discrimination in
administrating parts of the program. The case arose
when four black employees of the State of Connecticut’s
Department of Income Maintenance complained that
they failed to gain promotions because the written ex­
amination was biased against blacks. In their complaint,
filed under provisions of title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, the four employees said that blacks had
passed the examination at only 68 percent of the rate
for white candidates.
In its response, the State contended that only the
overall results of the program should be considered,
noting that 23 percent of the blacks who passed the test
were promoted, compared with only 13 percent of the
whites who passed.
However, the Court rejected the contention. Writing
for the majority, Justice William J. Brennan said that
the four blacks who failed the test and initiated the
complaint did not get promotions, so the fact that other
blacks did was not beneficial to the four, that “the prin­
cipal force of the statute is the protection of the individ­
ual employee, rather than the protection of the minority
group as a whole.”
□

47

Book Reviews

The ‘comparable worth’ conundrum
Comparable Worth: Issues and Alternatives. Edited by E.
Robert Livernash. Washington, Equal Employment
Advisory Commission, 1980. 260 pp.
Women, Work, and Wages: Equal Pay for Jobs o f Equal
Value. Edited by Donald J. Treiman and Heidi I.
Hartmann. Washington, National Academy Press,
1981. 136 pp.

If the saying that timing is everything has any validi­
ty, then 1982 and its high level of unemployment is
probably not an optimum time for action on the pay
equity issue of comparable worth. It is, however, a good
time to prepare for any future action. To do so, I
strongly recommend that people of all persuasions on
the issue— for, against, undecided, or unknowledgeable
— use the two books in this review as their primers.
Although each has a different outlook, both books
agree on two main points. First, that the most generally
accepted definition of comparable worth is equal pay
for work of comparable (or equal) value; and second,
that the comparable worth issue is an extension of the
issues covered in the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In simple terms, the Equal Pay Act mandates equal
pay for equal work without regard to sex, race, and
other factors. It exempts any wage differential attribut­
able to systems of seniority, merit, quantity, or quality
of production. Title VII prohibits employment discrimi­
nation with respect to pay and terms, conditions, or
privileges of employment because of sex, race, and so
forth, except when wage differentials are based on sys­
tems of seniority, merit, quantity, or quality of produc­
tion (the Bennett amendment).
After some 15 years of litigation under these laws,
many women’s groups began to lobby for stronger
methods of dealing both with the male-female wage dif­
ferences that had not sufficiently improved and the
seemingly intractable job segregation of women. Thus,
in the late 1970’s, the comparable worth concept resur­
faced, having had a brief tenure during World War II,
and earlier periods. (See the excellent historical back­
ground provided by Herbert R. Northrup in Compara­
ble Worth: Issues and Alternatives.)
Digitized 48
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Knowing the sponsor of each book provides a good
indication of the stand each takes. Comparable Worth:
Issues and Alternatives was funded by a grant from the
Business Roundtable and was published by the private,
business-oriented Equal Employment Advisory Council.
The book takes an employer-oriented approach and ar­
gues strenuously against comparable worth.
Women, Work, and Wages: Equal Pay fo r Jobs o f
Equal Value was funded by a grant from the Federal
Government’s Equal Employment Opportunity Com­
mission and was published by the National Academy of
Sciences. This book takes an employee-oriented ap­
proach, concluding that sex-based job evaluation and
biases still exist and that a comparable worth mecha­
nism should be pursued to remedy the situation.
E. Robert Livernash, Professor Emeritus of the Har­
vard School of Business, edited the Equal Employment
Advisory Council’s book. He also wrote the introducto­
ry Overview, which is so overwhelmingly subjective and
vitriolic, that this is one of the rare times I must recom­
mend reading an Overview last, more as a conclusion.
Otherwise, I believe a considerable number of readers,
especially women, may be deterred from reading the
seven topical chapters, which for the most part, contain
a great deal of valuable information.
For example, Janet R. Bellace’s excellent chapter on
“A Foreign Perspective” discusses the equal pay and
comparable worth concept in 13 countries, beginning
with ILO Convention 100 in 1951 and Article 19 of the
Treaty of Rome in 1957. She points out that today
there is hardly any uniformity in defining comparable
worth and that in some countries the term is synony­
mous with equal pay.
In his chapter on “Job Evaluation and Pay Setting,”
Donald P. Schwab provides a thorough review of the
current state of the art, its good points and deficiencies.
He emphasizes the importance of external market con­
straints, such as regulations and unions, in the job eval­
uation process, as well as the role of internal key and
nonkey jobs. Schwab concludes that “At present [1980]
there is no mechanism for defensibly establishing com­
parable worth. Certainly, job evaluation does not do
it.”
About two-thirds of Herbert R. N orthrup’s chapter
on “Wage Setting and Collective Bargaining” presents

exceptionally interesting historical material on wage
structure relationships and bargaining techniques be­
tween unions and management. The remaining third of
the chapter contains a strongly worded case against
government intervention and regulation in job evalua­
tion and pay-setting processes. In N orthrup’s words,
“Perhaps the most pernicious aspect of the comparable
worth theory is that it would establish a government
agency as the final arbiter of wages.”
Other chapters and authors are “The Emerging De­
bate,” by George T. Milkovich; “The Market System,”
by George Hildebrand; “Statistical Biases in the Mea­
surement of Employment Discrimination,” by Harry V.
Roberts; and “The Legal Framework,” by Robert E.
Williams and Douglas S. McDowell.
The Equal Employment Advisory Commission vol­
ume concludes that comparable worth has neither been
operationally defined by its supporters, nor will it ever
be, and that a nonarbitrary wage structure requires the
use of traditional job evaluation procedures and market
rate standards. “ . . . any attempted implementation of
comparable worth would encounter substantial difficul­
ties and would have disruptive and undesirable conse­
quences.” A viable alternative is “ . . . the accelerated
promotion of women, particularly within the managerial
and professional hierarchy,” a course which “is being
effectively pursued by many companies.” Upward mo­
bility programs for workers are seen as the most prom­
ising path employers can follow.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commis­
sion was established in 1965 to enforce Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act. In 1977, the EEOC commissioned the
National Academy of Sciences to produce a study on
the issues involved in obtaining a measure of the com­
parable worth of jobs. An interim study, Job Evalu­
ation: An Analytical Review, was released in 1979. The
final volume entitled Women, Work, and Wages: Equal
Pay fo r Jobs o f Equal Value reflects the work of the
14-member Committee on Occupational Classification
and Analysis.
Chair of the committee, Anne R. Miller, Professor of
Sociology, University of Pennsylvania, writes in the
book’s Preface, “The format of the report reflects [the
committee’s] consensus. A major portion of our early
discussion focused on whether, in fact, the existing wage
rate is a good approximation of the worth of a job. Our
ultimate view, as described in chapter 3 and summa­
rized in chapter 5, is that the substantial influence of in­
stitutional and traditional arrangements makes it
impossible to view current wage rates as set solely by
the free play of neutral forces operating in an entirely
open market, no m atter how attractive such a theoreti­
cal formulation may be. Our examination of the out­
comes— that is, the earnings differentials reviewed in
chapter 2— and the processes— the arrangements by

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

which workers are allocated and wages are set, covered
in chapter 3— led us to that judgment.”
Despite the committee’s consensus on many impor­
tant issues, evidence of dissension can be found in the
minority and supplementary reports at the end of the
book and in some equivocating elsewhere in the book
about the feasibility of measuring comparable worth
scientifically. One committee member, Ernest McCor­
mick, Professor Emeritus of Industrial Psychology,
Purdue University, filed a minority report on two
counts. First, he disagreed with the committee about
concluding that institutional and traditional arrange­
ments frequently are a major factor in setting current
wages. Second, McCormick thought the final report
should have included his views on job evaluation proce­
dures.
Another committee member, Gus Tyler, Assistant
President, International Ladies’ Garment Workers’
Union, filed a supplementary report, which was also en­
dorsed by member Mary C. Dunlap, lawyer and lectur­
er at the University of California, Berkeley. Their
statement supports the committee’s report but says it is
too narrowly focused to have a major impact on the
root causes of pay differentials. Tyler and Dunlap be­
lieve broader issues are involved, including a maldistri­
bution of workers by sex, with women entering
traditionally low paying, service sector jobs; indexing
the minimum wage; regulating imports; and supple­
menting the traditional wage with a social wage (rent
supplements, health care, social security, and so forth).
Donald J. Trieman, Professor of Sociology, Universi­
ty of California, and Heidi I. Hartmann, Associate Ex­
ecutive Director, Assembly of Behavioral and Social
Sciences, National Academy of Sciences, edited the
book’s five chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the main
points on which the committee focused, with wage dis­
crimination an overwhelming theme. The text states
that women who are nurses, librarians, government em­
ployees, and clerical workers have assessed their skills
and requirements of their jobs and have argued that
their jobs are underpaid relative to jobs of comparable
worth that are held by m en— that is, jobs requiring
similar levels of skill, effort, and responsibility and simi­
lar working conditions. “ . . . the issue raised is that of
pay equity in a labor market that is highly segregated
by sex. While the opportunity to move out of segregat­
ed job categories may be welcome to many women,
many others, who have invested considerable time in
training for their jobs, demand wage adjustments in
‘women’s jobs’ rather than opportunities to work in
other jobs.”
Taken together, chapters 2, 3, and 4 present a superb
roundup of statistics and research, including reviews of
many studies of sex differences in earnings, empirical
and theoretical frameworks for investigating earnings
49

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Book Reviews
inequalities, and the efficacy of various econometric
modeling techniques in determining wage discrimina­
tion.
Chapter 2, “Evidence Regarding Wage Differentials,”
takes the reader through a thicket of statistics, studies,
and theories in an effort to pinpoint the underlying rea­
sons for earnings inequalities by sex. Provided are ex­
ceptionally clear discussions about the explanatory
value of human capital factors and about measures of
segregation within occupations and firms.
This chapter concludes that because wages may not
reflect the entire reward paid for a job and that differ­
ences in the productivity of many workers are neither
easily nor accurately measured, measures of wage dis­
crimination often cannot be obtained with a high degree
of confidence.
Chapter 3, “Wage Differentials and Institutional Fea­
tures of Labor Markets,” emphasizes the belief of insti­
tutional economics that while wage rates reflect the
forces of supply and demand, supply and demand them­
selves are strongly affected by such institutional factors
as union contracts, promotions from within firms, and
segmentation of workers into noncompeting groups on
the basis of sex, race, and so forth.
This chapter’s discussion on job segregation is espe­
cially provocative, including the historical information
on women’s underpayment in the labor markets of the
1930’s and World War II.
Chapter 4, “Wage Adjustment Approaches to Over­
coming Discrimination,” reviews a variety of job evalua­
tion procedures that adjust wages through conventional
factor point methods and statistical adjustments of pay
rates to estimate and remove the effects of the sex, race,
and ethnic composition of job categories. The committee
concludes that, “Techniques used in job evaluation have
not kept pace with developments in econometrics, psy­
chometrics, and sociological measurement. Serious atten­
tion should be given to the selection and measurement
of compensable factors, the functional form of regression
models, and assumptions about error structures, each of
which can seriously affect the factor weights and the pay
rates predicted by these models.”
The conclusion of the National Academy of Sciences
book (chapter 5) seems a bit schizophrenic; that is, the
committee’s review of the evidence “strongly suggests
that wage discrimination is widespread.” But “would
the low-paying jobs be low-paying regardless of who
held them, or are they low-paying jobs because of the
sex, race, or ethnic composition of their incumbents?”
In the committee’s judgment, a correct response recog­
nizes that both elements account for observed earnings
differentials.
I have not dwelled on the few misprints and errors in
some of the tables and text in both volumes. Readers
will discover these on their own. I believe, however,
Digitized50
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

that they do not detract from the richness of the infor­
mation and opinions provided. We are indeed fortunate
to have available two highly readable books with differ­
ent views on such a controversial subject.
— E l iz a b e t h W a l d m a n

Division of Labor Force Studies
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Retirement issues: required reading
The Economics o f Aging: The Future o f Retirement.
Edited by Malcolm H. Morrison. New York, Van
Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1982. 294 pp. $24.
This book focuses upon several key issues pertaining
to our national retirement policies and programs. It es­
pecially emphasizes the areas of social security, other
public and private retirement income programs, and
employment policies and programs for older workers.
All seven chapters are clearly written but some are a lit­
tle redundant. Several chapters contain both analytical
and new material on the subjects covered. I believe that
Economics o f Aging will become a major reference for
those working in the broad fields of aging, income
maintenance, and employment.
The introductory chapter by Ruth Blank is a compre­
hensive discussion of the history of retirement as a social
institution in preindustrial, industrial, and postindustrial
America. It has a most complete set of references on re­
tirement practices and programs in the United States.
The second chapter, by Elizabeth Meier and Barbara
Boyle Torrey, is a scholarly discussion of future demo­
graphic changes and retirement age policy in the United
States. This includes an interesting discussion of the
likely consequences of an increasing dependency ratio
that will see, in the next century, a smaller working
population having to transfer more of its income to a
larger retired population, especially after the year 2010.
Meier and Torrey argue that some increase in the nor­
mal retirement age (65) seems economically and socially
desirable. However, they do caution that any increase in
the eligibility age for retirement benefits in social securi­
ty and other public and private retirement income pro­
grams should be planned thoughtfully and introduced
gradually over a number of years.
The next two chapters are major contributions to the
social policy literature on retirement income issues.
Chapter 3, by Eric Kingson, is an excellent discussion
of current retirement trends, including both voluntary
and involuntary early retirement trends, barriers to the
continued employment of older workers, and an assess­
ment of both the voluntary and involuntary factors that
govern why people leave the work force prior to age 65.
The section on early retirement trends should be re-

quired reading for any one who wishes to participate in
the current and future debate regarding changing the re­
tirement age in the massive social security program.
Kingson, whose major academic research is the area of
early retirement practices and trends, cautions against
raising the normal social security age past 65. He be­
lieves, and I agree, that such a move could greatly acer­
bate the economic position of involuntary early retirees,
by, in effect, forcing them to retire on greatly actuarially reduced benefits than is now the case in social securi­
ty and various public and private retirement income
programs.
Chapter 4, by Gary Hendrick and James Storey of
the Urban Institute, is a broad and incisive analysis of
the characteristics and goals of social security, public
employee retirement plans, private pensions, and tax
subsidies. Hendrick’s and Storey’s major retirement pol­
icy questions: When should nondisabled workers retire?
How should various retirement benefits be coordinated?
What proportion of workers’ former earnings should be
replaced by retirement? When should nondisabled
workers retire? How should retirement benefits be ad­
justed for inflation or economic growth, and so on. I
was impressed by the authors’ candor in addressing
these and other questions in their discussion. The chap­
ter includes a section on specific policy responses to
these questions. Their agenda would include, in part, a
gradual rise in the retirement age in social security, im­
proving benefits to a 70- to 75-percent wage replace­
ment level for workers at or below the median wage,
modifying the present “indexing” system of benefits,
and eliminating the so-called “welfare” aspects of social
security. It is not a tame agenda by any standard.
The final three chapters concentrate on employment
policies and programs for older persons. Chapter 5, by
Charles Harris and Dorothy Bauer, discusses current
employment programs and current and projected em­
ployment prospects for older workers. They foresee a
somewhat optimistic future for the next generation of
older workers— a debatable point. Their review of cur­
rent programs is inclusive but largely descriptive. I
would have appreciated a much stronger analysis and
critique of the role, or nonrole, of the U.S. Employment
Service in aiding older workers. They do point out,
however, that over the years there has been strong resis­
tance in the field of manpower and employment in serv­
ing the older worker population.
Chapter 6, covering the subject of age discrimination
and mandatory retirement, by Edward Howard, Nancy
Peavy, and Lauren Selden, is a superior piece of policy
analysis and scholarship. They discuss, in depth, the
evolution and implementation of the Age Discrimina­
tion in Employment Act of 1967 and 1978. Their sec­
tion on the issues and problems that have been
associated with the enforcement of this act is excellent.

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

I also liked their description of the dynamics of the leg­
islative process associated with the 1978 law.
The book concludes with an interesting discussion by
Malcolm Morrison on the need for a broader range of
alternative work patterns and more flexible retirement
options and a brief summary. Morrison is disturbed
over, and raises several objections to, the prevalent “lin­
ear life pattern” of education, work, and retirement in
our society. He believes such a pattern is dysfunctional
and contributes to various employment problems of
both younger and older workers. He suggests and rec­
ommends that a number of employment and retirement
options be introduced into the work force. These would
include reduced workweek schedules prior to retire­
ment; extra vacation time in the years prior to retire­
ment, reduced hours of work, job transfer programs,
and other innovations being experimented with current­
ly in the Scandinavian countries, West Germany, and
France.
— W il l ia m D . B e c h il l

Chairman, Social Administration Concentration
School of Social Work and Community Planning
University of Maryland

Book notes
Youth Without Work, Three Countries Approach the
Problem. By Shirley Williams and others. Paris,
France, Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development, 1981. 255 pp. $15, OECD Publi­
cations and Information Center, Washington, D.C.
20006.
Employment among young people in many countries
is hindered by traditional and rigid institutional atti­
tudes such as antipathy towards hiring young people,
especially minorities; refusal to train young women in
nontraditional occupations; and reluctance to allow vo­
cational training in school.
This book analyzes the youth employment problem of
three countries in the Organization for Economic Coop­
eration and Development ( o e c d ): Denmark, West Ger­
many, and the United States. It also analyzes their
educational and training policies and provides recom­
mendations.
In Denmark, unemployment among persons 18 to 25
years of age was much higher than for those under 18
years of age. A high guaranteed minimum wage for
workers 18 years of age and over and highly regulated
collective agreements between employers and unions
have affected youth employment and added to labor
market segmentation.
Of all OECD countries, the Federal Republic of Ger­
many has the most elaborate transition system from
51

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Book Renews
school to work. The author maintains, however, that
West Germany underestimates the unemployment mea­
surement of their youngsters by including them in the
labor force figure (denominator) and excluding them
from the unemployed figure (numerator) if they are
seeking an apprenticeship.
The United States created 12 million jobs in the pub­
lic and private sectors during the 1970’s, but an in­
creased number of middle-aged women returned to the
labor force and filled over 7 million jobs. Unemploy­
ment among young people remained high. The authors
advocate expansion of apprenticeships and other train­
ing programs to enlarge the supply of skilled labor.

Company Productivity: Measurement for Improvement.
By Irving H. Siegel. Kalamazoo, Mich., W. E. Up­
john Institute for Employment Research, 1980. 88
pp. $3.50, paper.
American businessmen have become more concerned
with improvement of national productivity performance,
which is generally recognized as essential for countering
inflation and preserving jobs and living standards.
Irving H. Siegel maintains that companies can inex­
pensively improve their productivity performance by
adoption and use of a system for measuring it. He of­
fers a practical application of measurement techniques
and notes a number of specific ways in which a system
can improve organizational performance. Siegel points
out that productivity monitoring may help a company
anticipate and locate operational anomalies and take
corrective steps and appraise the effectiveness of such
remedial action.

Working-Class Life “The American Standard” in Compar­
ative Perspective, 1899-1913. By Peter R. Shergold.
Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1982. 306
pp. $21.95.
In his provocative work, Peter R. Shergold compiles
extensive data on the standards of living in Pittsburgh
and Birmingham in the first decade of the century. Min­
ing the Pittsburgh Survey, various bulletins and reports
of the U.S. Bureau of Labor, reports of the British
Board of Trade, and many other sources, Shergold de­
velops substantial materials on wages, hours, diet, food
prices, rents, fuel, and clothing costs, as well as labor
force participation by women and children. His an­
nounced goal is to examine the thesis that high wages
gave the American worker a high standard of living,
thus encouraging a conservative “business” unionism
rather than a revolutionary labor movement. Indeed,
Shergold finds that the skilled worker in Pittsburgh did
Digitized 52
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

earn higher wages than his counterpart in Birmingham.
At the same time, however, the unskilled earned about
the same, and, in fact, the Birmingham laborer enjoyed
more leisure time and greater security against unem­
ployment.
Shergold acknowledges the influence on his work of
Alan Dawley, David Brody, and Herbert Gutman, radi­
cal American labor historians. Ironically, his findings
seem to contradict their working-class ideology. Indeed,
Shergold emphasizes the wide range of wage rates found
in Pittsburgh, a structure reinforced by ethnic and ra­
cial prejudice: “American workers found it profoundly
difficult to perceive their very diverse lifestyles as the
product of a common exploitation.”
The book leaves many questions unanswered. Indeed,
the author poses a number of topics for further study.
And, he seems at times overwhelmed by the discussion
of methodology. Yet, Shergold shows the value to labor
history of detailed economic analysis, and one might
wish for more such investigation rather than the ideo­
logical debates frequently encountered in the field.

Steelmasters and Labor Reform, 1886-1923. By Gerald
G. Eggert. Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh
Press, 1981. 212 pp. $17.95.
Formation of the U.S. Steel Corporation in 1901
symbolized the technological, managerial, and financial
revolutions reshaping American economic institutions,
and William Brown Dickson’s career spanned crucial,
formative years. Beginning in 1881 as a manual laborer
at Carnegie’s Homestead mill, Dickson left the Steel
Corporation in 1911, resigning his position as first vice
president. As an officer in the corporation, he had
fought for two major reforms: safety programs and
shorter hours. He carried his ideas into Midvale Steel
and Ordnance, which he helped form in 1915 and which
he served as vice president and treasurer until its demise
in 1923, establishing an employee representation plan
during World War I.
Dickson’s high position and reform interests put him
at the heart of the Steel Corporation’s deliberations,
and Gerald G. Eggert provides an insider’s view of the
struggles for power and control within the corporation,
the establishment of labor policy, and the birth of “wel­
fare capitalism.” Indeed, Dickson’s difficulties at U.S.
Steel and Midvale emphasized the inherent limitations
of the “welfare” or “industrial betterment” movement.
It is a useful story but rather limited. Eggert sets the
context well in the introduction, but he relies on
Dickson’s papers, Steel Corporation minutes, and Iron
Age for the bulk of his sources, and he focuses on
Dickson. The result is a book longer on anecdote than
on interpretation and analysis of broader implications.

Publications received

Health and safety

Agriculture and natural resources

Aoyama, Hideyasu, “Workers’ Participation in Occupational
Safety and Health in Japan,” International Labour Review,
M arch-April 1982, pp. 207-16.

“Gas Pipeliners,” Business Week, Aug. 2, 1982, pp. 44-48.
Schultz, Theodore W., “On the Economics of Agricultural
Production Over Time,” Economic Inquiry, January 1982,
pp. 10-20.
Stuart, Alexander, “Getting Lean and Mean in the Oil Busi­
ness,” Fortune, June 14, 1982, beginning on p. 162.
“The Offshore Story,” Canada Today, May 1982, entire issue.

Economic growth and development
“Essays on Forecasting and Economic Policy,” National Insti­
tute Economic Review, May 1982, pp. 14-21.
Hall, Peter, “Keys to Regional Growth,” Society, July-August
1982, pp. 48-52.
Mathews, David, “The Future of the Sunbelt,” Society, JulyAugust 1982, pp. 63-65.
Murrell, Peter, “The Comparative Structure of Growth in the
Major Developed Capitalist N ations,” Southern Economic
Journal, April 1982, pp. 985-95.

Economic and social statistics

Clarke, R .D ., “Worker Participation in Health and Safety in
Canada,” International Labour Review, March-April
1982, pp. 199-206.
Parmeggiani, L., “State of the Art: Recent Legislation on
Workers’ Health and Safety,” International Labour Re­
view, M ay-June 1982, pp. 271-85.

Industrial relations
Bolger, T. Michael and David D. Wilmoth, “Dismissal of
Tenured Faculty Members for Reasons of Financial Exi­
gency,” Marquette Law Review, Spring 1982, pp. 347-65.
Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Labor Relations in an Eco­

nomic Recession: Job Losses and Concession Bargaining.
Washington, The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1982,
98 pp.
Cordova, E., “Workers’ Participation in Decisions Within En­
terprises: Recent Trends and Problems,” International
Labour Review, March-April 1982, pp. 125-40.

Birch, Dan E., Alan A. Rabin, Leland B. Yeager, “Inflation,
Output, and Employment: Some Clarifications,” Econom­
ic Inquiry, April 1982, pp. 209-21.

Gellens, Kathryn A., “Determining Supervisory Status and
Bargaining Unit Composition in the Nursing Profession,”
Labor Law Journal, June 1982, pp. 352-58.

Caves, Douglas W„ Laurits R. Christensen, W. Erwin
Diewert, “Multilateral Comparisons of Output, Input,
and Productivity Using Superlative Index Numbers,” The
Economic Journal, March 1982, pp. 73-86.

Hill, Herbert, The AFL-CIO and the Black Worker: TwentyFive Years After the Merger. Reprinted from The Journal
of Intergroup Relations, Spring 1982, 79 pp. Madison,
Wis., University of Wisconsin-Madison, Industrial Rela­
tions Research Institute (Reprint, 241), $1.50.

Chamberlain, Gary, Panel Data. Cambridge, Mass., National
Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1982, 118 pp. (NBER
Working Paper Series, 913.) $1.50.
Greenlees, John S., “Sample Truncation in FHA Data: Impli­
cations for Home Purchase Indexes,” Southern Economic
Journal, April 1982, pp. 917-31.
Hardy, Melissa A., “Social Policy and Determinants of Re­
tirement: A Longitudinal Analysis of Older White Males,
1969-75,” Social Forces, June 1982, pp. 1103-22.
Janson, Philip and Jack K. Martin, “Job Satisfaction and
Age: A Test of Two Views,” Social Forces, June 1982,
pp. 1089-1102.
Robey, Bryant and Cheryl Russell, “How America Is Chang­
ing: 1980 Census Trends Analyzed,” American Demo­
graphics, July-August 1982, pp. 16-27.
U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, Statistical Supplement, 1980
Annual Report, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board. Chicago,
111., 1982, 142 pp.

Education

Industrial Relations Research Association, Proceedings of the

Thirty-Fourth Annual Meeting, Held in Washington, De­
cember 28-30, 1981. Madison, Wis., Industrial Relations
Research Association, 432 pp. $10.
Jones, Ethel B., “U nion/N onunion Differentials: Membership
or Coverage,” The Journal of Human Resources, Spring
1982, pp. 276-85.
Kaufman, Bruce E., “The Determinants of Strikes in the Unit­
ed States, 1900-1977,” Industrial and Labor Relations
Review, July 1982, pp. 473-90.
Mauro, Martin J., “Strikes as a Result of Imperfect Informa­
tion,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, July 1982,
pp. 522-38.
Paldam, Martin and Peder J. Pedersen, “The Macroeconomic
Strike Model: A Study of Seventeen Countries, 19481975,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, July 1982,
pp. 504-21.

Le Grand, Julian, “Distribution of Public Expenditure on Ed­
ucation,” Economica, February 1982, pp. 63-68.

Reischl, Dennis K., “Applying Collyer in the Federal Sector:
Past Due Remedy,” Labor Law Journal, June 1982, pp.
359-65.

Mandt, Edward J., “The Failure of Business Education— and
What to D o About It,” Management Review, August
1982, pp. 47-52.

Skeels, Jack W., “The Economic and Organizational Basis of
Early United States Strikes, 1900-1948,” Industrial and
Labor Relations Review, July 1982, pp. 491-503.

Rotter, Naomi G., “Images of Engineering and Liberal Arts
Majors,” Journal of Vocational Behavior, April 1982, pp.
193-202.

Stephens, Elvis C. and Donna Ledgerwood, “D o No-Strike
Clauses Prohibit Sympathy Strikes?” Labor Law Journal,
May 1982, pp. 204-305.


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

53

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Book Reviews

Industry and government organization
Aylen, Jonathan, “Plant Size and Efficiency in the Steel Indus­
try: An International Comparison,” N a tio n a l I n stitu te
E c o n o m ic R eview , May 1982, pp. 65-76.
Raines, John C., Lenora E. Berson, David M cl. Gracie, eds.,
C o m m u n ity a n d C a p ita l in C on flict: P la n t C losin gs a n d
J o b L oss. Philadelphia, Penn., Temple University Press,

1982, 318 pp. $19.50.
Ravallion, Martin, “The Welfare Economics of Local Public
Spending: An Empirical Approach,” E co n o m ica , Febru­
ary 1982, pp. 49-61.

International economics
Chatterji, M. and M .R. Wickens, “Productivity, Factor
Transfers and Economic Growth in the UK,” E co n o m ica ,
February 1982, pp. 21-38.
Haynes, Stephen E. and Joe A. Stone, “Spurious Tests and
Sign Reversals in International Economics, S o u th ern E c o ­
n o m ic J o u rn a l, April 1982, pp. 868-76.
“High-Technology Gateway,” B u sin ess W eek, Aug. 9, 1982,
pp. 40-44.
“How Well D o Economic Sanctions Work?” B u sin ess W eek,
Aug. 2, 1982, pp. 56-57.
Kuzmin, S.A., “Structural Change and Employment in Devel­
oping Countries,” I n te rn a tio n a l L a b o u r R eview , M ayJune 1982, pp. 315-26.
“New Restrictions on World Trade,” B u sin ess W eek, July 19,
1982, pp. 118-22.

Labor force
Employment and Immigration Canada, A n n u a l R e p o r t o f th e
C a n a d a E m p lo y m e n t a n d I m m ig r a tio n C o m m issio n a n d
D e p a r tm e n t o f E m p lo y m e n t a n d Im m ig ra tio n , F isca l Y ea r
1 9 8 0 -1 9 8 1 . Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1982, 60 pp.

Great

Britain, Department of Employment, U n reg istered
Y ou th U n e m p lo y m e n t a n d O u trea ch C a reers W ork: F in a l
R ep o rt, P a r t Two, O u trea ch C a reers W ork. By K. Rob­

erts, Maria Noble and Jill Duggan. London, Great Brit­
ain Department of Employment, 1982, 38 pp.
Lunbar, Robert, “Why Unemployment Will Hang High,”
F ortu n e, June 14, 1982, beginning on p. 114.
New Zealand, Department of Labour, “The Labour Market
Situation,” L a b o u r a n d E m p lo y m e n t G azette, March
1982, pp. 2-7.
Parsons, Donald O., “The Male Labour Force Participation
Decision: Health, Reported Health, and Economic
Incentives,” E co n o m ica , February 1982, pp. 81-91.
Rimmer, Lesley and Jennie Popay, “The Family at Work,”
E m p lo y m e n t G a zette, June 1982, pp. 255-60.
Robson, Marie P., W o rk er P a rtic ip a tio n in th e U n ite d K in g ­
d o m , Bradford, West Yorkshire, England, MCB Publica­
tions Ltd., 1982, 187 pp. $45.95.
Sabel, Charles F., W o rk a n d P olitics: T h e D ivision o f L a b o r in
In d u s tr y . New York, Cambridge, University Press, 1982,
304 pp., bibliography. $39.50.
Schlottmann, Alan M. and Henry W. Herzog, Jr., “Home
Economic Conditions and the Decision to Migrate: New
Evidence for the U.S. Labor Force,” S o u th ern E c o n o m ic
J o u rn a l, April 1982, pp. 950-61.
Digitized for
54 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Smith, Lee, “From High Pay to N o Jobs in a GM Town,”
F ortu n e, June 14, 1982, pp. 122-27.
Stone, Joe A., “The Impact of Unemployment Compensation
on the Occupation Decisions of Unemployed Workers,”
T h e J o u r n a l o f H u m a n R esou rces, Spring 1982, pp. 299306.

Management and organization theory
“Black Managers: Caught in the M iddle,” P u b lic M a n a g em e n t,
June 1982, pp. 2-23.
Cason, Roger L., “Recognizing and Correcting Financial Fal­
lacies,” M a n a g e m e n t R eview , August 1982, pp. 17-22.
Cohen, Allan R., “Crisis Management: How to Turn Disas­
ters Into Advantages,” M a n a g e m e n t R eview , August
1982, beginning on p. 27.
Cosgrove, D on J. and Robert L. Dinerman, “There Is N o
Motivational M agic,” M a n a g e m e n t R eview , August 1982,
pp. 58-61.
Duncan, Greg J., “Who Gets Ahead? And Who Gets Left Be­
hind?” A m e r ic a n D em o g ra p h ics, July-August 1982, pp.
38-41.
Reitzfeld, Milton, C o n tro llin g T ra v el Costs. New York, Ameri­
can Management Associations, AM A Membership Publi­
cations Division, 1982, 60 pp. $7.50, AM A members; $10,
nonmembers.
Smith, Martin R., “How to D evelop— and K eep— A Solid
Management Team,” M a n a g e m e n t R eview , August 1982,
pp. 43-4-6.
Stanton, Erwin S., R e a lity -C e n te r e d P eo p le M a n a g e m e n t: K e y
to I m p r o v e d P ro d u c tiv ity . New York, AMACOM, A divi­
sion of American Management Associations, 1982, 150
pp. $14.95.
Thompson, Philip C., Q u a lity C ircles: H o w to M a k e T h em
W o rk in A m eric a . New York, AMACOM, A division of
American Management Associations, 1982, 198 pp.
$15.95.

Monetary and fiscal policy
Aim, James, “State Government Fiscal Choices and Individu­
al M obility,” S o u th ern E c o n o m ic J o u rn a l, April 1982, pp.
877-92.
Coats, Warren L., Jr., “Interest Rate Consequences of
Targeting M oney,” In te r n a tio n a l M o n e ta r y F u n d S t a f f P a ­
p e rs, March 1982, pp. 31—47.
Cornes, Richard and Avinash Dixit, “Comparative Effects of
Devaluation and Import Controls on Domestic Prices,”
E co n o m ica , February 1982, pp. 1-10.
Cullison, William E., “Money, the Monetary Base, and N om i­
nal GNP,” E c o n o m ic R eview , Federal Reserve Bank of
Richmond, M ay-June 1982, pp. 3-13.
Folkerts-Landau, D.F.I., “Potential of External Financial
Markets to Create Money, Credit, and Inflation,” I n te r ­
n a tio n a l M o n e ta ry F u n d S t a f f P apers, March 1982, pp.
77-107.
Overturf, Stephen Frank, “Risk, Transactions Charges, and
the Market for Foreign Exchange Services,” E c o n o m ic I n ­
qu iry, April 1982, pp. 291-302.
“The Flat-Rate Tax: An Old Idea With New Appeal,” B u si­
ness W eek, July 19, 1982, pp. 130-31.

Prices and living conditions
Fama, Eugene F., “Inflation, Output, and M oney,” Journal of
Business, April 1982, pp. 201-31.
Haddock, David D., “Basing-Point Pricing: Competitive vs.
Collusive Theories,” The American Economic Review,
June 1982, pp. 289-306.
Ono, Yoshiyasu, “Price Leadership: A Theoretical Analysis,”
Economica, February 1982, pp. 11-20.

Productivity and technological change
Clark, Kim B. and Zvi Griliches, Productivity Growth and

R&D at the Business Level: Results from the PIMS Data
Base. Cambridge, Mass., National Bureau of Economic
Research, Inc., 1982, 35 pp. (NBER Working Paper Se­
ries, 916), $1.50.
“New Technology— New Challenges, Au Courant, Vol. 3, No.
1, 1982, pp. 10-11.
New Zealand Department of Labour, “Technological Change
in the Retailing Industries,” Labour and Employment Ga­
zette, March 1982, pp. 10-11.
Rogers, Everett M. and Judith K. Larsen, “Silicon Valley
Confronts Japan,” Society, July-August 1982, pp. 53-57.
Rothwell, Shelia and David Davidson, “New Technology and
Manpower Utiliation,” Employment Gazette, June 1982,
pp. 252-54.
Schatz, Gerald S., “Factory-Automation in Japan and in
Western and Eastern Europe,” News Report, National
Academy of Sciences, April 1982, pp. 3-11.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor and Material Require­
ments for Commercial Office Building Construction. Pre­
pared by Barbara Bingham, assisted by Maurice G.
Wright. Washington, 1982, 50 pp. (Bulletin 2102.) $3.25,
Superintendent of Documents, Washington 20402.
------------ Productivity Measures f o r Selected Industries, 1 9 5 4 —80.

Washington, 1982, 218 pp. (Bulletin 2128.) Stock No.
029-001-02702-8. $7, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington 20402.

-------- Technology and Labor in Four Industries.

Prepared by
Gary E. Falwell, Richard W. Lyon, A. Harvey Belitsky,
and Robert V. Critchlow, Washington, 1982, 46 pp. (Bul­
letin 2104.) For sale by the Superintendent of D ocu­
ments, Washington 20402.

Social institutions and social change
“Black Africa: A Generation After Independence,” Daedalus,
Spring 1982, entire issue.
Farley, Jennie, Academic Women and Employment Discrimina­
tion: A Critical Annotated Bibliography. Ithaca, N.Y.,
Cornell University, New York State School of Industrial
Relations, ILR Publications, 1982, 112 pp. $8.95, paper.
Ferber, Marianne A. and Carole A. Green, “Traditional or Re­
verse Sex Discrimination? A Case Study of a Large Public
University,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review,
July 1982, pp. 550-64.
Hudson, Walter W., “Scientific Imperatives in Social Work
Research and Practice,” Social Service Review, June 1982,
pp. 246-58.
Mahaffey, Maryann and John W. Hanks, eds. Practical Poli­
tics: Social Work and Political Responsibility. Washington,

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

National Association of Social Workers, Inc., 1982, 260
pp. $17.95, cloth; $14.95, paper.
North, David S., Lawrence S. Lewin, Jennifer R. Wagner, Ka­

leidoscope: The Resettlement of Refugees in the United
States by the Voluntary Agencies. Washington, New
TransCentury Foundation, Lewin and Associates, and
National Opinion Research Center, 1982, 139 pp.
Rodriguez, Armando M„ “A Look at Equal Employment Op­
portunity,” Labor Law Journal, May 1982, pp. 259-64.
Willborn, Steven L., “Insurance, Public Policy, and Employ­
ment Discrimination,” Minnesota Law Review, July 1982,
pp. 1003-31.
Westfall, Loy Glenn, “Immigrants in Society,” Americas, JulyAugust 1982, pp. 41-45.

Wages and compensation
Bartel, Ann P., “Wages, Nonwage Job Characteristics, and
Labor M obility,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review,
July 1982, pp. 578-89.
Davies, R„ L. Hamill, S. Moylan, C. H. Smee, “Incomes In
and Out of Work,” Employment Gazette, June 1982, pp.
237-43.
Freedman, Sara M., Robert T. Keller, John R. Montanari,
“The Compensation Program: Balancing Organizational
and Employee Needs,” Compensation Review, Vol. 14,
N o. 4, 1982, pp. 47-53.
Gordon, Robert J., “Why U.S. Wage and Employment Be­
haviour Differs from that in Britain and Japan,” The Eco­
nomic Journal, March 1982, pp. 13-44.
Greene, Robert J., “Issues in Salary Structure Design,” Com­
pensation Review, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1982, pp. 28-33.
Markandya, A., “The Measurement of Earnings Mobility
Among Occupational Groups,” Scottish Journal of Politi­

cal Economy,

F ebruary 1982, pp. 7 5 -8 8 .

O’Malley, Ian K., “Paid Educational Leave in Australia, Can­
ada, Ireland and the United Kingdom,” International
Labour Review, March-April 1982, pp. 169-83.
“Recent Trends in Unit Wage Costs,” Employment Gazette,
June 1982, pp. 261-63.
Schuster, Michael and Gary Florkowski, “Wage Incentive
Plans and the Fair Labor Standards A ct,” Compensation
Review, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1982, pp. 34—46.
Swidinsky, Robert and David A. Wilton, “Minimum Wages,
Wage Inflation, and the Relative Wage Structure,” The
Journal o f Human Resources, Spring 1982, pp. 163-77.
Treas, Judith, “U.S. Income Stratification: Bring Families
Back In,” Sociology and Social Research, April 1982, pp.
231-51.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Area Wage Surveys: Seattle —
Everett, Washington, Area, December 1981 (Bulletin 301070, 27 pp., $2.50); Selected Metropolitan Areas, 1980 (Bul­
letin 3000-72, 128 pp., $5.50); Jackson, Mississippi, Met­
ropolitan Area, January 1982 (Bulletin 3015-1, 40 pp.,
$2.75); Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota — Wisconsin, Met­
ropolitan Area, January 1982 (Bulletin 3015-2, 41 pp.,
$3); Huntsville, Alabama, Metropolitan Area, February
1982 (Bulletin 3015-3, 25 pp., $2.50); Newark, New Jer­
sey, Metropolitan Area, January 1982 (Bulletin 3015—4, 40
pp., $2.75); York, Pennsylvania, Metropolitan Area, Febru55

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Book Reviews
ary 1982 (Bulletin 3015-5, 28 pp., $2.50); Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, Metropolitan Area, January 1982 (Bulletin
3015-6, 56 pp., $3.25); Davenport— Rock Island —Mo­
line, Iowa—Illinois, Metropolitan Area, February 1982
(Bulletin 3015-7, 27 pp., $2.50); Washington, D.C .—
Maryland — Virginia, Metropolitan Area, March 1982
(Bulletin 3015-8, 39 pp., $2.75); Chicago, Illinois, Metro­
politan Area, March 1982 (Bulletin 3015-9, 42 pp.,
$4.50); San Jose, California, Metropolitan Area, March
1982 (Bulletin 3015-10, 34 pp., $4.25); St. Louis, Missouri
—Illinois, Metropolitan Area, March 1982 (Bulletin 3015—
11, 53 pp., $4.75); San Francisco— Oakland, California,
Metropolitan Area, March 1982 (Bulletin 3015-12, 39 pp.,
$4.50); Wichita, Kansas, Metropolitan Area, April 1982
(Bulletin 3015-13, 28 pp., $3.50); Paterson — Clifton—
Passaic, New Jersey, Metropolitan Area, April 1982 (Bulle­
tin 3015-14, 28 pp., $3.50); Detroit, Michigan, Metropoli­
tan Area, April 1982 (Bulletin 3015-15, 53 pp., $4.75).
Worcester, Massachusetts, Metropolitan Area, April 1982
(Bulletin 3015-16, 27 pp., $3.50); Atlanta, Georgia, Met­
ropolitan Area, May 1982 (Bulletin 3015-17, 40 pp.,
$4.50); Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Metropolitan Area, May
1982 (Bulletin 3015-18, 42 pp., $4.50); San Antonio, Tex­
as, Metropolitan Area, May 1982 (Bulletin 3015-19, 28
pp., $3.50); Houston, Texas, Metropolitan Area, May 1982
(Bulletin 3015-20, 40 pp., $4.50). Available from the Su­
perintendent of Documents, Washington 20402, GPO
bookstores, or BLS regional offices.

-------- Industry Wage Survey: Cigarette Manufacturing, June
1981. Prepared by Carl F. Prieser. Washington, 1982, 12
pp. (Bulletin 2132.) $3, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington 20402.

-------- Industry Wage Survey: Machinery Manufacturing, Jan­
uary 1981. Prepared by Carl F. Prieser. Washington,
1982, 97 pp. (Bulletin 2124.) Stock No. 02 9 -0 0 1 -0 2 7 0 2 8. $5, Superintendent of Documents, Washington 20402.

-------- Industry Wage Survey: Textile Mills and Textile Dyeing
and Finishing Plants, August 1980. Prepared by Carl
Barsky. Washington, 1982, 135 pp. (Bulletin 2122.) Stock
No. 029-001-02701-0. $6, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington 20402.
Wright, Michael, “Wage Policy and Wage Determination in
1981, ” The Journal of Industrial Relations, March 1982,
pp. 69-76.

Welfare programs and social insurance
Beneton, Philippe, “Trends in the Social Policy Aims of the
United States (1960-1980),” Labour and Society, OctoberDecember 1981, pp. 401-20.
Coeffard, Alain, “Regulations Governing Social Security for
Persons Moving Within the European Community,” In­
ternational Labour Review, M ay-June 1982, pp. 243-58.
Drazga, Linda, Melinda Upp, Virginia Reno, “Low-Income
Aged: Eligibility and Participation in SSI, Social Security
Bulletin, May 1982, pp. 28-35.
Duvall, Henrietta J., Karen W. Goudreau, Robert E. Marsh,
“Aid to Families with Dependent Children: Characteris­
tics of Recipients in 1979,” Social Security Bulletin, April
1982, beginning on p. 3.

Digitized56for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Erlenborn, John N., “A New Beginning on the Horizon for
Pensions,” Labor Law Journal, June 1982, pp. 323-27.
Grimaldi, Paul L., Medicaid Reimbursement of Nursing-Home
Care. Washington, American Enterprise Institute for
Public Policy Research, 1982, 194 pp. (AEI Studies in
Health Policy, 333.) $15.95, cloth; $7.95, paper.
Moles, Ricardo R., “Social Security for Migrant Workers in
Latin America,” International Labour Review, M archApril 1982, pp. 155-68.
Parker, Stanley, Work and Retirement. Winchester, Mass.,
Allen & Unwin, Inc., 1982, 203 pp., bibliography.
$28.50, cloth; $9.95, paper.
Perrin, Guy, “To Rationalize and Humanize: Two Priority
Objectives for Social Security Reform,” Labour and Soci­
ety, October-December 1981, pp. 385-400.
Rein, Mildred, “Work in Welfare: Past Failures and Future
Strategies,” Social Service Review, June 1982, pp. 211-29.
Schobel, Bruce D. and Steven F. McKay, “Characteristics of
Newly Awarded Recipients of the Social Security Regular
Minimum Benefit,” Social Security Bulletin, June 1982,
pp. 11-19.
U.S. Social Security Administration, “Social Security in Re­
view,” Social Security Bulletin, April 1982, pp. 1-2.
----------“The Bellmon Report,” Social Security Bulletin, May
1982, pp. 3-27.
Sosin, Michael, “Emergency Assistance and Special Needs
Programs in the AFDC System,” Social Service Review,
June 1982, pp. 196-210.
Trier, Adam, “The Nordic Social Security Convention,” Inter­
national Labour Review, M ay-June 1982, pp. 259-69.
Warlick, Jennifer L., “Participation of the Aged in SSI,” The
Journal of Human Resources, Spring 1982, pp. 236-60.

Worker training and development
Betcherman, Gordon, Meeting Skill Requirements: Report of
the Human Resources Survey. Ottawa, Ontario, Economic
Council of Canada, 1982, 91 pp. $6.95, Canada; $8.35,
other countries. Available from Canadian Government
Publishing Center, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa.
Burnim, M. L. and J. H. Cobbe, “Benefits and Costs of a
CETA Public Service Employment Program,” Growth and
Change, January 1982, pp. 9-18.
Training: Public Personnel Management Journal, pp. 176-84.
Cross, Michael, “Making a New Career During the Reces­
sion,” Employment Gazette, June 1982, pp. 233-36.
Rosenfeld, Stuart, ed., Brake Shoes, Backhoes, and Balance

Sheets: The Changing Vocational Education of Rural
Women. Washington, Rural American Women, Inc., and
the National Institute of Education, 1982, 145 pp. $15,
institutions; $7, individuals.
Stewart, Phyllis L. and Muriel G. Cantor, eds., Varieties of
Work. Beverly Hills, Calif., Sage Publications, Inc., 1982,
311 pp. $25, cloth; $12.50, paper.
“Taking on Young People,” Employment Gazette, June 1982,
pp. 244—48.
□

Current
Labor Statistics

N o te s o n C u rren t L a b o r S ta tis tic s

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

S c h e d u le o f r e le a s e d a te s fo r m a jo r B L S

E m p lo y m e n t d a ta fr o m

s ta tis tic a l s e r ie s

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

h o u s e h o ld s u r v e y . D e f in itio n s a n d n o te s

1. E m p loym ent statu s of noninstitu tion al population, selected years, 1950-81
2.

E m ploym ent statu s by sex, age, and race, season ally adjusted

3.

Selected em p loym en t indicators, season ally adjusted

4.

Selected unem ploym ent indicators, season ally adjusted

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

58

59

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

59

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

60

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

61

.......................................................... , .......................................................

62

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

63

5.

U n em p lo y m en t rates, by sex and age, season ally adjusted

6.

U n em p lo y ed persons, by reason for un em p loym en t, season ally adjusted

7.

D uration o f u nem ploym ent, season ally adjusted

E m p lo y m e n t, h o u r s , a n d e a r n in g s d a ta fr o m

58

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

63

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

63

e s ta b lis h m e n t s u r v e y s . D e f in itio n s a n d n o te s

.

64

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

65

9.
10.
11.

E m p loym ent by State ...........................................................................................................................................................................................
E m p loym ent by industry d ivision and m ajor m anufacturing group, season ally adjusted .................................................
H ours and earnings, by industry division, selected years, 1950-81

65
66
67

8.

E m p loym ent by industry, selected years, 1950-81

12.

W eekly hours, by industry d ivision and m ajor m anufacturing group, season ally adjusted

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

68

13.

H ourly earnings, by industry division and m ajor m anufacturing group

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

69

14.
15.

H ourly Earnings Index, by industry division
..........................................................................................................................................
W eekly earnings, by industry division and m ajor m anufacturing group
...................................................................................

69
70

U n e m p lo y m e n t in s u r a n c e d a ta . D e f in it io n s
....................................................................................................................................
16. U n em p lo y m en t insurance and em p loym en t service operations .........................................................................................................

71
71

P r ic e d a ta . D e fin itio n s a n d n o te s
................................................................................................................................................................
17. C onsum er Price Index, 1 967-81 ......................................................................................................................................................................
18. C onsum er Price Index, U .S . city average, general sum m ary and selected item s
....................................................................

72
73
73

19.

C onsum er Price Index, cross-classification o f region and popu lation size class

20.

C onsum er Price Index, selected areas

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

79

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

21.

Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing

80

22.

Producer Price Indexes, by co m m o d ity groupings

23.

Producer Price Indexes, for special co m m o d ity groupings

24.

Producer Price Indexes, by durability o f product

25.

Producer Price Indexes for the o u tput o f selected SIC industries

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

81
82

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

84

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

84

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

84

P r o d u c t i v i t y d a t a . D e f i n i t i o n s a n d n o t e s .............................................................................................................................................
26. A n n u al in d exes o f p roductivity, h ourly com p en sation, unit co sts, and prices, selected years, 1950-81 .......................

87
87

27.

A n n u al changes in productivity, h ourly com p en sation, unit co sts, and prices, 1971-81

28.

Quarterly indexes o f productivity, hourly com p en sation, unit costs, and prices, season ally adjusted

29.

Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, h ourly com p en sation , unit co sts, and prices

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

W a g e a n d c o m p e n s a t i o n d a t a . D e f i n i t i o n s ..........................................................................................................................................

88
88
89

90

30.
31.
32.

E m p loym ent C ost Index .....................................................................................................................................................................................
E m ploym ent C ost Index, w ages and salaries, by occu p ation and industry g r o u p ....................................................................
E m p loym ent C ost Index, private nonfarm w orkers, by bargaining status, region, and area s i z e .....................................

91
92

33.
34.

W age and com p en sation change, m ajor co llective bargaining settlem en ts, 1977 to date .....................................................
Effective w age a d justm ents in co llectiv e bargaining un its covering 1,000 w orkers or m ore, 1977 to d a t e ...................

94
94

W o r k sto p p a g e d a ta . D e fin itio n
35.

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

W ork stop p ages in v o lv ing 1,000 w orkers or m ore, 1947 to d ate


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

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

93

95
95

57

NOTES ON CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS

This section of the R e v ie w presents the principal statistical se­
ries collected and calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
A brief introduction to each group of tables provides defi­
nitions, notes on the data, sources, and other material usually
found in footnotes.
Readers who need additional information are invited to
consult the BLS regional offices listed on the inside front cov­
er of this issue of the R eview . Some general notes applicable to
several series are given below.
S ea so n a l adjustm ent. Certain monthly and quarterly data are adjusted

to eliminate the effect of such factors as climatic conditions, industry
production schedules, opening and closing of schools, holiday buying
periods, and vacation practices, which might otherwise mask short­
term movements of the statistical series. Tables containing these data
are identified as “seasonally adjusted.” Seasonal effects are estimated
on the basis of past experience. When new seasonal factors are com­
puted each year, revisions may affect seasonally adjusted data for sev­
eral preceding years.
Seasonally adjusted labor force data in tables 2-7 were revised in
the March 1982 issue of the Review to reflect experience through 1981.
The original estimates also were revised to 1970 to reflect 1980 census
population controls.
Beginning in January 1980, the BLS introduced two major modifi­
cations in the seasonal adjustment methodology for labor force data.
First, the data are being seasonally adjusted with a new procedure
called X -ll/A R IM A , which was developed at Statistics Canada as an
extension of the standard X -ll method. A detailed description of the
procedure appears in The X - ll ARIMA Seasonal Adjustment Method
by Estela Bee Dagum (Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 12-564E, Feb­
ruary 1980). The second change is that seasonal factors are now being
calculated for use during the first 6 months of the year, rather than for
the entire year, and then are calculated at mid-year for the July-December period. Revisions of historical data continue to be made only
at the end of each calendar year.
Annual revision of the seasonally adjusted payroll data shown in
tables 10, 12, and 14 were made in August 1981 using the X -ll
ARIM A seasonal adjustment methodology. New seasonal factors for
productivity data in tables 28 and 29 are usually introduced
in the September issue. Seasonally adjusted indexes and percent
changes from month to month and from quarter to quarter are

published for numerous Consumer and Producer Price Index series.
However, seasonally adjusted indexes are not published for the U.S.
average All Items CPI. Only seasonally adjusted percent changes are
available for this series.
A d justm en ts for price ch an ges. Some data are adjusted to eliminate
the effect of changes in price. These adjustments are made by dividing
current dollar values by the Consumer Price Index or the appropriate
component of the index, then multiplying by 100. For example, given
a current hourly wage rate of $3 and a current price index number of
150, where 1967 = 100, the hourly rate expressed in 1967 dollars is
$2 ($3/150 X 100 = $2). The resulting values are described as
“real,” “constant,” or “ 1967” dollars.
A vaila b ility of inform ation. Data that supplement the tables in this
section are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a variety of
sources. Press releases provide the latest statistical information
published by the Bureau; the major recurring releases are published
according to the schedule given below. The BLS Handbook o f Labor
Statistics, Bulletin 2070, provides more detailed data and greater his­
torical coverage for most of the statistical series presented in the
Monthly Labor Review. More information from the household and es­
tablishment surveys is provided in Employment and Earnings, a
monthly publication of the Bureau. Historically, comparable informa­
tion from the establishment survey is published in two comprehensive
data books— Employment and Earnings, United States and Employ­
ment and Earnings, States and Areas, and their annual supplements.
More detailed information on wages and other aspects of collective
bargaining appears in the monthly periodical, Current Wage Develop­
ments. More detailed price information is published each month in the
periodicals, the CPI Detailed Report and Producer Prices and Price In­
dexes.

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

Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series
Series

Employment situation..........................................
Producer Price Index ..................................
Consumer Price Index ..........................................
Real earnings ......................................
Major collective bargaining settlements ..................................
Productivity and costs:
Nonfarm business and manufacturing ............................
Nonfinancial corporations ................................

58


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

Release
date

Period
covered

Release
date

Period
covered

MLR table
number

October 8
October 15
October 26
October 26
October 27

September
September
September
September
1st 9 months

November 5
November 16
November 23
November 23

October
October
October
October

1-10
21-25
17-20
11-15
33-34

October 28

3rd quarter
November 29

3rd quarter

26-29

EMPLOYMENT DATA FROM THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY

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

those not classified as employed or unemployed; this group includes
persons retired, those engaged in their own housework, those not
working while attending school, those unable to work because of
long-term illness, those discouraged from seeking work because of
personal or job market factors, and those who are voluntarily idle.
The n on institu tion al population comprises all persons 16 years of age
and older who are not inmates of penal or mental institutions,
sanitariums, or homes for the aged, infirm, or needy.
F ull-tim e w orkers are those employed at least 35 hours a week;
part-tim e w orkers are those who work fewer hours. Workers on part-

Definitions
E m p loyed persons are (1) those who worked for pay any time
during the week which includes the 12th day of the month or who
worked unpaid for 15 hours or more in a family-operated enterprise
and (2) those who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs
because of illness, vacation, industrial dispute, or similar reasons. A
person working at more than one job is counted only in the job at
which he or she worked the greatest number of hours.
U n em p lo y ed persons are those who did not work during the survey
week, but were available for work except for temporary illness and
had looked for jobs within the preceding 4 weeks. Persons who did
not look for work because they were on layoff or waiting to start new
jobs within the next 30 days are also counted among the unemployed.
The unem ploym ent rate represents the number unemployed as a
percent of the civilian labor force.

The civilian labor force consists of all employed or unemployed
persons in the civilian noninstitutional population; the total labor
fo rce includes military personnel. Persons not in the labor force are

1.

time schedules for economic reasons (such as slack work, terminating
or starting a job during the week, material shortages, or inability to
find full-time work) are among those counted as being on full-time
status, under the assumption that they would be working full time if
conditions permitted. The survey classifies unemployed persons in
full-time or part-time status by their reported preferences for full-time
or part-time work.

Notes on the data
From time to time, and especially after a decennial census,
adjustments are made in the Current Population Survey figures to
correct for estimating errors during the preceding years. These
adjustments affect the comparability of historical data presented in
table 1. A description of these adjustments and their effect on the
various data series appear in the Explanatory Notes of Em ploym ent
and Earnings.

Data in tables 2-7 are seasonally adjusted, based on the seasonal
experience through December 1981.

Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, selected years, 1950-81

[Numbers in thousands]
Total labor force

Year

Total non­
institutional
population

Civilian labor force
Unemployed

Employed
Number

Percent of
population

Total
Total

Percent
of
population

Agriculture

Nonagricultural
industries

Number

Percent of
labor
force

Not in
labor force

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

106,645
112,732
119,759

63,858
68,072
72,142

59.9
60.4
60.2

62,208
65,023
69,628

58,918
62,170
65,778

55.2
55.1
54.9

7,160
6,450
5,458

51,758
55,722
60,318

3,288
2,852
3,852

5.3
4.4
5.5

42,787
44,660
47,617

1965
1966
1967
1968
1969

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

129,236
131,180
133,319
135,562
137,841

77,178
78,893
80,793
82,272
84,240

59.7
60.1
60.6
60.7
61.1

74,455
75,770
77,347
78,737
80,734

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

55.0
55.6
55.8
56.0
56.5

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

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

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

4.5
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.5

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

1970
1971
1972
1973
1974

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

140,272
143,033
146,574
149,423
152,349

85,959
87,198
89,484
91,756
94,179

61.3
61.0
61.1
61.4
61.8

82,771
84,382
87,034
89,429
91,949

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

56.1
55.5
56.0
56.9
57.0

3,463
3,394
3,484
3,470
3,515

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

4,093
5,016
4,882
4,365
5,156

4.9
5.9
5.6
4.9
5.6

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

1975
1976
1977
1978
1979

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

155,333
158,294
161,166
164,027
166,951

95,955
98,302
101,142
104,368
107,050

61.8
62.1
62.8
63.6
64.1

93,775
96,158
99,009
102,251
104,962

85,846
88,752
92,017
96,048
98,824

55.3
56.1
57.1
58.6
59.2

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

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

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

8.5
7.7
7.1
6.1
5.8

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

1980 ....................................
1981 ....................................

169,848
172,272

109,042
110,812

64.2
64.3

106,940
108,670

99,303
100,397

58.5
58.3

3,364
3,368

95,938
97,030

7,637
8,273

7.1
7.6

60,806
61,460


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

59

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
2.

Employment status by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin, seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
Employment status

Annual average

1981

1982

1980

1981

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

169,848
2,102
167,745
106,940
63.8
99,303
58.5
3,364
95,938
7,637
7.1
60,806

172,272
2,142
170,130
108,670
63.9
100,397
58.3
3,368
97,030
8,273
7.6
61,460

172,559
2,160
170,399
108,818
63.9
100,840
58.4
3,404
97,346
7,978
7.3
61,581

172,758
2,165
170,593
108,494
63.6
100,258
58.0
3,358
96,900
8,236
7.6
62,099

172,966
2,158
170,809
109,012
63.8
100,343
58.0
3,378
96,965
8,669
8.0
61,797

173,155
2,158
170,996
109,272
63.9
100,172
57.9
3,372
96,800
9,100
8.3
61,724

173,330
2,164
171,166
109,184
63.8
99,613
57.5
3,209
96,404
9,571
8.8
61,982

173,495
2,159
171,335
108,879
63.5
99,581
57.4
3,411
96,170
9,298
8.5
62,456

173,657
2,168
171,489
109,165
63.7
99,590
57.3
3,373
96,217
9,575
8.8
63,324

173,843
2,175
171,667
109,346
63.7
99,492
57.2
3,349
96,144
9,854
9.0
63,321

174,020
2,176
171,844
109,648
63.8
99,340
57.1
3,309
96,032
10,307
9.4
62,197

174,201
2,175
172,026
110,666
64.3
100,117
57.5
3,488
96,629
10,549
9.5
61,360

174,364
2,173
172,190
110,191
64.0
99,764
57.2
3,357
96,406
10,427
9.5
61,999

174,544
2,180
172,364
110,522
64.1
99,732
57.1
3,460
96,272
10,790
9.8
61,842

174,707
2,196
172,511
110,644
64.1
99,839
57.1
3,435
96,404
10,805
9.8
61,867

71,138
56,455
79.4
53,101
2,396
50,706
3,353
5.9

72,419
57,197
79.0
53,582
2,384
51,199
3,615
6.3

72,559
57,250
78.9
53,791
2,422
51,369
3,459
6.0

72,670
57,262
78.8
53,693
2,383
51,310
3,569
6.2

72,795
57,355
78.8
53,504
2,413
51,091
3,851
6.7

72,921
57,459
78.8
53,354
2,382
50,972
4,105
7.1

73,020
57,665
79.0
53,122
2,311
50,811
4,543
7.9

73,120
57,368
78.5
53,047
2,390
50,657
4,322
7.5

73,209
57,448
78.5
53,097
2,386
50,711
4,351
7.6

73,287
57,554
78.5
53,006
2,377
50,629
4,548
7.9

73,392
57,730
78.7
52,988
2,382
50,606
4,742
8.2

73,499
58,164
79.1
53,260
2,464
50,796
4.904
8.4

73,585
58,016
78.8
52,985
2,424
50,561
5,031
8.7

73,685
58,084
78.8
52,996
2,474
50,522
5,088
8.8

73,774
58,026
78.7
52,887
2,436
50,451
5,139
8.9

80,065
41,106
51.3
38,492
584
37,907
2,615
6.4

81,497
42,485
52.1
39,590
604
38,986
2,895
6.8

81,671
42,666
52.2
39,841
609
39,232
2,825
6.6

81,792
42,344
51.8
39,426
608
39,818
2,918
6.9

81,920
42,831
52.3
39,814
596
39,218
3,017
7.0

82,038
42,987
52.4
39,878
63.5
39,243
3,109
7.2

82,151
42,88
52.2
39,713
572
39,141
3,175
7.4

82,260
42,868
52.1
39,764
64.9
39,115
3,104
7.2

82,367
43,031
52.2
39,744
628
39,116
3,286
7.6

82,478
43,243
52.4
39,807
636
39,172
3,435
7.9

82,591
43,301
52.4
39,715
601
39,114
3,586
8.3

82,707
43,683
52.8
40,075
634
39,441
3,608
8.3

82,811
43,904
53.0
40,350
581
39,769
3,554
8.1

82,926
44,076
53.2
40,392
600
39,791
3,684
8.4

83,035
44,115
53.1
40,490
589
39,901
3,626
8.2

16,543
9,378
56.7
7,710
385
7,325
1,669
17.8

16,214
8,988
55.4
7,225
380
6,845
1,763
19.6

16,169
8,902
55.1
7,208
373
6,835
1,694
19.0

16,131
8,888
55.1
7,139
367
6,772
1,749
19.7

16,093
8,826
54.8
7,025
369
6,656
1,801
20.4

16,037
8,826
55.0
6,940
355
6,585
1,886
21.4

15,995
8,631
54.0
6,778
326
6,452
1,853
21.5

15,955
8,643
54.2
6,771
373
6,398
1,872
21.7

15,913
8,686
54.6
6,748
359
6,389
1,938
22.3

15,902
8,549
53.8
6,679
336
6,343
1,870
21.9

15,861
8,616
54.3
6,637
326
6,311
1,979
23.0

15,820
8,819
55.7
6,782
390
6,392
2,037
23.1

15,794
8,271
52.4
6,429
353
6,076
1,842
22.3

15,753
8,362
53.1
6,344
386
5,958
2,018
24.1

15,702
8,503
54.2
6,463
411
6,052
2,040
24.0

146,122
93,600
64.1
87,715
5,884
6.3

147,908
95,052
64.3
88,709
6,343
6.7

148,144
95,163
64.2
89,221
5,942
6.2

148,370
94,884
64.0
88,628
6,256
6.6

148,562
95,365
64.2
88,734
6,631
7.0

148,631
95,535
64.3
88,498
7,037
7.4

148,755
95,329
64.1
88,010
7,319
7.7

148,842
95,120
63.9
87,955
7,165
7.5

148,855
95,333
64.0
87,990
7,344
7.7

149,132
95,508
64.0
87,956
7,552
7.9

149,249
96,015
64.3
87,988
8,026
8.4

149,250
96,641
64.8
88,450
8,191
8.5

149,429
96,223
64.4
88,173
8,050
8.4

149,569
96,493
64.5
88,137
8,356
8.7

149,536
96,414
64.5
88,133
8,281
8.6

17,824
10,865
61.0
9,313
1,553
14.3

18,219
11,086
60.8
9,355
1,731
15.6

18,266
11,069
60.6
9,267
1,802
16.3

18,297
11,134
60.9
9,319
1,815
16.3

18,333
11,188
61.0
9,313
1,875
16.8

18,362
11,207
61.0
9,321
1,886
16.8

18,392
11,226
61.0
9,279
1,947
17.3

18,423
11,188
9,314
1,874
16.8

18,450
11,205
60.7
9,265
1,939
17.3

18,480
11,217
60.7
9,197
2,020
18.0

18,511
11,170
60.3
9,111
2,058
18.4

18,542
11,335
61.1
9,216
2,120
18.7

18,570
11,253
60.6
9,174
2,079
18.5

18,600
11,322
60.9
9,223
2,098
18.5

18,626
11,412
61.3
9,262
2,150
18.8

8,901
5,700
64.0
5,126
575
10.1

9,310
5,972
64.1
5,348
624
10.4

9,400
5,924
63.0
5,340
584
9.9

9,466
5,964
63.0
5,393
571
9.6

9,559
6,074
63.5
5,422
652
10.7

9,556
6,151
64.4
5,446
705
11.5

9,519
6,095
64.0
5,426
669
11.0

9,400
6,054
64.4
5,330
724
12.0

9,341
6,065
64.9
5,298
767
12.6

9,297
6,024
64.8
5,260
764
12.7

9,235
5,933
64.2
5,191
743
12.5

9,297
6,001
64.5
5,166
834
13.9

9,428
5,931
62.9
5,131
800
13.5

9,521
5,966
62.7
5,135
832
13.9

9,689
6,087
62.8
5,197
890
14.6

Aug.

TOTAL
Total noninstitutional population' ..........................
Armed Forces 1 ................................
Civilian noninstitutional population ’ ..................
Civilian labor fo rce ..................................
Participation rate ............................
Employed ........................................
Employment-population ratio 2 ........
Agriculture......................................
Nonagricultural industries ....................
Unemployed ..................................
Unemployment rate ........................
Not in labor force......................................
Men, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ..................
Civilian labor force ....................................
Participation rate ............................
Employed ................................
Agriculture........................................
Nonagricultural industries ....................
Unemployed ..........................................
Unemployment rate ........................
Women, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population' ..................
Civilian labor force ....................................
Participation rate ............................
Employed ......................................
Agriculture..........................................
Nonagricultural industries ....................
Unemployed ......................
Unemployment rate ........................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years
Civilian noninstitutional population' ..................
Civilian labor fo rce ..................................
Participation rate ............................
Employed ..........................
Agriculture..........................................
Nonagricultural industries ....................
Unemployed ................................
Unemployment rate ........................
White
Civilian noninstitutional population' ..................
Civilian labor force ..................................
Participation....................................
Employed ................................
Unemployed ..........................................
Unemployment rate ........................
Black
Civilian noninstitutional population' ..................
Civilian labor force ....................................
Participation rate ............................
Employed ..............................................
Unemployed ..................................
Unemployment rate ........................
Hispanic origin
Civilian noninstitutional population' ..................
Civilian labor fo rce ......................................
Participation rate ............................
Employed ..............................................
Unemployed ..........................................
Unemployement rate ......................

1The population and Armed Forces figures are not seasonally adjusted.
2 Civilian employment as a percent of the total noninstitutional population (including Armed
Forces).

Digitized60
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

N ote : Detail for the above race and Hispanlc-origin groups will not sum to totals
because data for the “other races” group are not presented and Hispanics are included
in both the white and black population groups.

3.

Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted

[ Numbers in thousands]
Annual average

1981

1982

Selected categories
Aug.

Sept.

Oct

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

100,343
57,266
43,077
38,746
23,874
5,045

100,172
57,051
43,121
38,553
23,820
5,049

99,613
56,725
42,888
38,342
23,691
5,064

99,581
56,629
42,952
38,234
23,744
5,107

99,590
56,658
42,932
38,255
23,727
5,158

99,492
56,472
43,020
38,181
23,900
5,095

99,340
56,401
42,940
38,142
23,831
5,095

100,117
56,820
43,297
38,312
24,213
4,986

99,764
56,223
43,541
38,354
24,401
5,112

99,732
56,192
43,540
38,213
24,223
5,247

99,839
56,210
43,630
38,184
24,300
5,216

52,908
16,598
11,533
6,441
18,336
31,266
12,514
10,524
3,506
4,722
13,391
2,743

53,199
16,681
11,616
6,400
18,502
30,953
12,446
10,410
3,580
4,517
13,525
2,770

53,086
16,657
11,461
6,418
18,550
30,683
12,411
10,220
3,438
4,614
13,670
2,802

53,084
16,774
11,424
6,450
18,436
30,344
12,446
10,169
3,368
4,361
13,639
2,660

52,836
16,803
11,091
6,520
18,423
30,203
12,370
9,966
3,415
4,451
13,709
2,817

52,841
16,612
11,253
6,544
18,432
30,309
12,454
9,955
3,503
4,397
13,612
2,787

52,763
16,659
11,311
6,637
18,155
30,416
12,511
9,860
3,397
4,648
13,526
2,710

53,177
16,844
11,501
6,603
18,229
29,924
12,492
9,688
3,400
4,343
13,555
2,623

53,705
16,818
11,541
6,587
18,759
29,926
12,316
9,585
3,419
4,607
13,738
2,731

53,586
17,053
11,504
6,547
18,482
29,716
12,207
9,655
3,414
4,441
13,791
2,660

53,685
17,292
11,355
6,567
18,471
29,609
12,229
9,453
3,439
4,488
13,634
2,750

53,750
17,023
11,613
6,677
18,437
29,465
12,342
9,257
3,268
4,598
13,926
2,711

1,501
1,638
256

1,461
1,643
256

1,502
1,631
261

1,436
1,641
321

1,352
1,602
228

1,377
1,674
380

1,426
1,596
359

1,416
1,644
277

1,423
1,664
270

1,541
1,698
236

1,431
1,676
251

1,530
1,674
250

1,568
1,613
254

89,543
15,689
73,853
1,208
72,645
7,097
390

89,995
15,526
74,469
1,259
73,210
7,103
387

89,376
15,475
73,901
1,102
72,799
7,217
399

89,460
15,491
73,969
1,162
72,807
7,152
451

89,238
15,397
73,841
1,204
72,637
7,141
425

88,991
15,585
73,406
1,291
72,115
7,057
410

88,759
15,578
73,181
1,248
71,932
6,971
410

88,586
15,527
73,059
1,161
71,898
7,055
408

88,526
15,492
73,034
1,225
71,809
7,126
434

88,322
15,453
72,869
1,192
71,677
7,264
413

89,051
15,422
73,629
1,202
72,427
7,269
382

88,606
15,635
72,970
1,201
71,770
7,319
397

88,541
15,443
73,098
1,200
71,898
7,268
390

88,737
15,569
73,168
1,242
71,927
7,352
409

91,377
74,339
4,499
1,738
2,761
12,539

91,569
74,467
4,350
1,729
2,621
12,752

90,878
73,794
4,656
1,759
2,897
12,428

91,384
73,886
5,009
2,006
3,003
12,489

91,323
73,915
5,026
1,945
3,081
12,382

90,922
73,360
5,288
2,121
3,167
12,274

90,125
72,803
5,071
1,783
3,287
12,251

90,892
73,028
5,563
2,193
3,370
12,300

90,548
72,649
5,717
2,237
3,480
12,183

90,596
72,335
5,834
2,223
3,611
12,427

91,282
73,036
5,763
2,211
3,552
12,483

91,020
72,662
5,444
2,064
3,380
12,914

90,501
c 72,430
5,492
2,001
3,491
12,579

90,508
72,112
5,648
2,054
3,594
12,748

1980

1981

99,303
57,186
42,117
39,004
23,532
4,780

100,397
57,397
43,000
38,882
23,915
4,998

51,882
15,968
11,138
6,303
18,473
31,452
12,787
10,565
3,531
4,567
13,228
2,741

52,949
16,420
11,540
6,425
18,564
31,261
12,662
10,540
3,476
4,583
13,438
2,749

53,141
16,621
11,460
6,490
18,570
31,611
12,724
10,658
3,530
4,699
13,282
2,753

1,425
1,642
297

1,464
1,638
266

88,525
15,912
72,612
1,192
71,420
7,000
413

90,209
73,590
4,064
1,714
2,350
12,555

CHARACTERISTIC
Total employed, 16 years and over ......................
Men ............................................................
Women........................................................
Married men, spouse present ........................
Married women, spouse present....................
Women who maintain families........................

100.840 100,258
57,551 57,471
43,289 42,787
38,961 38,855
24,043 23,626
4,988
5,015

OCCUPATION
White-collar workers............................................
Professional and technical ............................
Managers and administrators, except farm . . . .
Salesworkers................................................
Clerical workers............................................
Blue-collar workers..............................................
Craft and kindred workers ............................
Operatives, except transport..........................
Transport equipment operatives ....................
Nonfarm laborers..........................................
Service workers ..................................................
Farmworkers ......................................................
MAJOR INDUSTRY AND CLASS
OF WORKER
Agriculture:
Wage and salary workers..............................
Self-employed workers..................................
Unpaid family workers ..................................
Nonagricultural industries:
Wage and salary workers..............................
Government ..........................................
Private industries....................................
Households ....................................
Other ..............................................
Self-employed workers..................................
Unpaid family workers ..................................
PERSONS AT WORK1
Nonagricultural industries ....................................
Full-time schedules ......................................
Part time for economic reasons......................
Usually work full time..............................
Usually work part tim e............................
Part time for noneconomic reasons................

'Excludes persons "with a job but not at work” during the survey period for such reasons as vacation,
illness, or industrial disputes.


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

c = corrected,

61

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
4.

Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted

[Unemployment rates]
Annual average

1981

1982

Selected categories
1980

1981

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Total, 16 years and over................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years............................
Men, 20 years and o v e r................................
Women, 20 years and over............................

7.1
17.8
5.9
6.4

7.6
19.6
6.3
6.8

7.3
19.0
6.0
6.6

7.6
19.7
6.2
6.9

8.0
20.4
6.7
7.0

8.3
21.4
7.1
7.2

8.8
21.5
7.9
7.4

8.5
21.7
7.5
7.2

8.8
22.3
7.6
7.6

9.0
21.9
7.9
7.9

9.4
23.0
8.2
8.3

9.5
23.1
8.4
8.3

9.5
22.3
8.7
8.1

9.8
24.1
8.8
8.4

9.8
24.0
8.9
8.2

White, total ..................................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years ....................
Men, 16 to 19 years ........................
Women, 16 to 19 years....................
Men, 20 years and over..........................
Women, 20 years and over ....................

6.3
15.5
16.2
14.8
5.3
5.6

6.7
17.3
17.9
16.6
5.6
5.9

6.2
16.1
16.7
15.4
5.2
5.5

6.6
17.2
17.5
16.8
5.5
5.9

7.0
17.7
17.9
17.5
5.9
6.1

7.4
19.0
19.6
18.3
6.4
6.3

7.7
19.0
20.2
17.7
6.9
6.4

7.5
19.6
20.8
18.2
6.6
6.3

7.7
20.0
20.4
19.4
6.7
6.6

7.9
19.0
20.2
17.6
7.0
6.9

8.4
20.8
22.3
19.2
7.3
7.2

8.5
20.3
21.2
19.2
7.5
7.3

8.4
19.4
21.1
17.5
7.7
7.1

8.7
21.0
22.6
19.2
7.9
7.3

8.6
20.6
22.5
18.6
7.9
7.1

Black, total ..................................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years ....................
Men, 16 to 19 years ........................
Women, 16 to 19 years....................
Men, 20 years and over..........................
Women, 20 years and over ....................

14.3
38.5
37.5
39.8
12.4
11.9

15.6
41.4
40.7
42.2
13.5
13.4

16.3
49.0
49.9
47.8
13.6
13.8

16.3
40.8
38.5
43.4
14.5
14.0

16.8
45.6
41.6
49.5
14.7
13.9

16.8
44.1
41.9
46.6
15.5
13.6

17.3
42.2
39.6
45.1
16.5
14.1

16.8
41.2
36.3
46.7
16.3
13.3

17.3
42.3
40.7
44.2
16.0
14.5

18.0
46.0
48.5
43.1
16.0
15.4

18.4
48.1
48.3
47.8
16.9
15.6

18.7
49.8
50.6
48.9
17.0
15.3

18.5
52.6
58.1
46.2
17.1
15.0

18.5
49.7
48.3
51.2
16.8
15.5

18.8
51.6
50.1
53.1
17.2
15.1

Hispanic origin, to ta l......................................

10.1

10.4

9.9

9.6

10.7

11.5

11.0

12.0

12.6

12.7

12.5

13.9

13.5

13.9

14.6

Married men, spouse present ........................
Married women, spouse present....................
Women who maintain families........................
Full-time workers..........................................
Part-time workers..........................................
Unemployed 15 weeks and over....................
Labor force time lost’ ....................................

4.2
5.8
9.2
6.9
8.8
1.7
7.9

4.3
6.0
10.4
7.3
9.4
2.1
8.5

4.0
5.5
10.1
6.9
9.6
2.0
7.9

4.4
6.0
10.7
7.3
9.6
2.1
8.5

4.8
6.1
10.6
7.7
9.5
2.1
9.1

5.2
6.5
10.8
8.1
10.2
2.2
9.5

5.7
6.6
10.5
8.7
9.2
2.2
10.1

5.3
6.2
10.4
8.4
9.6
2.2
10.0

5.3
7.0
10.2
8.5
10.8
2.5
9.8

5.5
7.1
10.6
8.9
10.0
2.7
10.4

6.0
7.8
11.5
9.2
10.9
2.7
10.4

6.1
7.4
11.8
9.2
10.5
3.0
11.1

6.5
7.0
12.4
9.4
9.8
3.3
10.2

6.6
7.4
12.0
9.5
11.4
3.2
10.7

6.7
7.1
11.6
9.6
10.3
3.3
10.7

3.7
2.5
2.4
4.4
5.3
10.0
6.6
12.2
8.8
14.6
7.9
4.6

4.0
2.8
2.7
4.6
5.7
10.3
7.5
12.2
8.7
14.7
8.9
5.3

3.9
2.5
2.7
4.7
5.7
9.5
7.0
11.1
8.0
13.2
8.9
5.4

4.1
2.8
2.7
5.0
5.8
10.2
7.7
11.6
8.7
14.6
9.0
4.0

4.1
2.6
2.8
4.9
6.0
10.9
8.3
12.8
8.0
15.6
9.3
6.2

4.2
2.7
3.0
5.0
6.0
11.8
8.5
14.1
10.4
16.0
9.7
6.2

4.5
3.4
3.1
4.9
6.2
12.7
9.3
15.5
10.5
16.9
9.6
6.4

4.2
2.9
2.7
4.5
6.3
12.5
9.0
15.4
10.2
16.9
9.2
6.9

4.6
3.1
3.1
4.8
6.7
12.5
8.4
15.4
10.3
17.9
9.8
4.9

4.8
3.2
3.0
5.8
6.9
12.9
9.1
15.9
10.4
17.9
10.2
5.4

4.9
3.2
3.3
5.6
7.2
13.7
9.6
16.9
10.7
19.2
11.1
5.8

4.8
3.3
3.5
5.2
6.8
13.5
9.4
16.5
11.8
18.3
11.3
8.3

5.0
3.3
3.8
5.8
6.9
13.9
10.3
16.7
13.0
17.9
9.9
7.2

4.9
3.3
3.7
5.4
6.9
14.4
10.9
17.4
11.6
18.6
10.5
6.1

4.8
3.1
3.8
5.5
6.7
14.2
10.6
17.5
12.5
17.4
10.6
6.9

7.4
14.1
8.5
8.9
7.9
4.9
7.4
5.3
4.1
11.0

7.7
15.6
8.3
8.2
8.4
5.2
8.1
5.9
4.7
12.1

7.3
16.2
7.0
6.5
7.9
4.8
7.9
5.7
4.5
12.0

7.7
16.3
7.9
7.7
8.3
4.2
8.5
6.0
4.7
11.0

8.1
17.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
4.8
8.4
6.2
4.7
13.4

8.4
17.8
9.4
9.5
9.3
5.5
8.6
6.1
5.2
14.1

9.1
18.1
11.0
11.8
9.6
6.0
8.9
6.4
5.0
14.8

8.8
18.7
10.4
11.0
9.5
6.4
8.7
5.9
4.8
16.2

9.0
18.1
10.6
11.3
9.5
5.9
9.0
6.5
5.2
12.8

9.5
17.9
10.8
10.8
10.8
5.6
10.3
6.9
4.9
14.0

9.9
19.4
11.3
11.9
10.5
7.0
10.1 ■
7.0
5.3
14.6

9.9
18.8
11.6
12.2
10.7
6.5
10.6
6.9
5.0
18.2

10.0
19.2
12.3
13.2
11.0
6.9
9.7
6.8
4.6
16.3

10.2
20.3
12.0
12.7
11.0
6.1
10.5
7.0
4.6
13.8

10.1
20.3
12.1
12.9
10.8
7.0
9.8
7.0
4.6
14.3

CHARACTERISTIC

OCCUPATION
White-collar workers............................................
Professional and technical ............................
Managers and administrators, except farm . . . .
Salesworkers................................................
Clerical workers............................................
Blue-collar workers..............................................
Craft and kindred workers ............................
Operatives, except transport..........................
Transport equipment operatives ....................
Nonfarm laborers..........................................
Service workers..................................................
Farmworkers ......................................................
INDUSTRY
Nonagricultural pnvate wage and salary workers2
Construction ................................................
Manufacturing ..............................................
Durable goods ......................................
Nondurable goods..................................
Transportation and public utilities....................
Wholesale and retail trade ............................
Finance and service industries........................
Government workers ..........................................
Agricultural wage and salary workers....................

1Aggregate hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons as a
percent of potentially available labor force hours.

Digitized 62
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

2 Indudes mining, not shown separately,

5.

Unemployment rates, by sex and age, seasonally adjusted
Annual average

1982

1981

Sex and age
Sept

Oct

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

7.3
19.0
20.8
17.6
12.1
5.2
5.5
3.5

7.6
19.7
21.4
18.5
12.3
5.4
5.8
3.8

8.0
20.4
21.5
20.0
12.7
5.7
6.2
3.8

8.3
21.4
22.6
20.5
13.0
6.0
6.5
3.8

8.8
21.5
21.9
21.2
13.5
6.5
6.9
4.1

8.5
21.7
21.9
21.3
13.5
6.3
6.7
4.2

8.8
22.3
22.7
22.0
14.1
6.4
6.8
4.3

9.0
21.9
22.7
21.3
14.2
6.8
7.3
4.6

9.4
23.0
24.6
21.9
14.7
7.0
7.4
5.0

9.5
23.1
25.3
21.3
14.3
7.1
7.7
4.8

9.5
22.3
23.7
21.9
14.4
7.4
7.7
5.4

9.8
24.1
26.1
22.8
14.5
7.5
7.9
5.2

9.8
24.0
25.8
22.6
15.2
7.3
7.8
5.1

7.4
20.1
22.0
18.8
13.2
5.1
5.5
3.5

7.1
19.8
21.5
18.3
12.9
4.9
5.2
3.4

7.3
19.9
21.5
18.7
13.1
5.0
5.5
3.5

7.7
20.1
21.1
19.3
13.8
5.5
5.9
3.7

8.3
21.8
22.7
21.0
14.4
5.8
6.3
3.7

9.0
22.3
22.6
22.2
14.8
6.5
6.9
4.4

8.6
22.1
23.0
21.4
14.9
6.3
6.7
4.3

8.7
22.5
23.0
22.1
15.4
6.3
6.7
4.2

9.0
23.5
24.3
22.9
15.7
6.6
7.1
4.8

9.4
24.4
24.7
24.3
16.0
6.9
7.2
5.1

9.6
24.0
26.3
21.9
15.5
6.9
7.5
4.7

9.7
24.2
25.8
24.0
15.8
7.5
8.0
5.0

9.9
25.1
28.1
23.4
15.9
7.5
8.1
4.8

10.0
25.1
27.3
23.4
16.6
7.5
8.0
5.4

7.9
19.0
20.7
17.9
11.2
5.9
6.3
3.8

7.7
18.2
20.0
16.9
11.1
5.6
6.0
3.7

8.0
19.5
21.2
18.3
11.4
6.0
6.3
4.3

8.2
20.7
21.9
20.6
11.5
6.1
6.5
4.0

8.4
20.9
22.5
19.9
11.3
6.4
6.8
3.8

8.5
20.5
21.1
20.0
12.0
6.4
6.9
3.7

8.4
21.2
20.6
21.1
11.9
6.3
6.7
4.1

8.9
22.1
22.5
21.9
12.7
6.5
7.0
4.3

9.0
20.1
20.8
19.6
12.6
7.0
7.6
4.3

9.4
21.3
24.5
19.4
13.3
7.2
7.7
4.8

9.5
22.1
24.1
20.6
12.9
7.4
8.0
5.0

9.1
20.2
21.4
19.7
12.9
7.2
7.4
6.0

9.6
23.1
24.1
22.2
12.9
7.4
7.7
6.0

9.5
22.8
24.2
21.7
13.7
7.0
7.5
4.6

1980

1981

Total, 16 years and over......................................
16 to 19 years..............................................
16 to 17 years........................................
18 to 19 years........................................
20 to 24 years..............................................
25 years and over ........................................
25 to 54 years........................................
55 years and o ve r..................................

7.1
17.8
20.0
16.2
11.5
5.1
5.5
3.3

7.6
19.6
21.4
18.4
12.3
5.4
5.8
3.6

Men, 16 years and over ................................
16 to 19 years........................................
16 to 17 years ................................
18 to 19 years ................................
20 to 24 years........................................
25 years and ove r..................................
25 to 54 years ................................
55 years and over............................

6.9
18.3
20.4
16.7
12.5
4.8
5.1
3.3

Women, 16 years and over............................
16 to 19 years........................................
16 to 17 years ................................
18 to 19 years ................................
20 to 24 years........................................
25 years and over..................................
25 to 54 years ................................
55 years and over............................

7.4
17.2
19.6
15.6
10.4
5.5
6.0
3.2

6.

Aug.

Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
Reason for unemployment

Annual average

1982

1981

1980

1981

Aug.

Sept

Oct

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

3,947
1,488
2,459
891
1,927
872

4,267
1,430
2,837
923
2,102
981

4,106
1,276
2,830
879
2,034
971

4,426
1,452
2,974
921
2,058
977

4,573
1,631
2,942
976
2,178
1,002

4,905
1,826
3,079
916
2,339
996

5,343
2,042
3,301
923
2,244
1,021

5,205
1,860
3,345
835
2,079
1,055

5,153
1,740
3,413
964
2,277
1,100

5,622
1,828
3,794
885
2,249
1,044

5,906
1,946
3,959
937
2,365
1,081

5,901
1,969
3,932
874
2,438
1,154

6,302
2,071
4,231
813
2,372
1,088

6,177
2,079
4,098
813
2,528
1,249

6,347
2,180
4,167
806
2,440
1,328

100.0
51.7
19.5
32.1
11.7
25.2
11.4

100.0
51.6
17.3
34.3
11.2
25.4
11.9

100.0
51.4
16.0
35.4
11.0
25.5
12.2

100.0
52.8
17.3
35.5
11.0
24.6
11.7

100.0
52.4
18.7
33.7
11.2
25.0
11.5

100.0
53.6
19.9
33.6
10.0
25.5
10.9

100.0
56.1
21.4
34.6
9.7
23.5
10.7

100.0
56.7
20.3
36.5
9.1
22.7
11.5

100.0
54.3
18.3
35.9
10.2
24.0
11.6

100.0
57.4
18.7
38.7
9.0
22.9
10.7

100.0
57.4
18.9
38.5
9.1
23.0
10.5

100.0
56.9
19.0
37.9
8.4
23.5
11.1

100.0
59.6
19.6
40.0
7.7
22.4
10.3

100.0
57.4
19.3
38.1
7.5
23.5
11.6

100.0
58.1
20.0
38.2
7.4
22.3
12.2

3.7
.8
1.8
.8

3.9
.8
1.9
.9

3.8
.8
1.9
.9

4.1
.8
1.9
.9

4.2
.9
2.0
.9

4.5
.8
2.1
.9

4.9
.8
2.1
.9

4.8
.8
1.9
1.0

4.7
.9
2.1
1.0

5.1
.8
2.1
1.0

5.4
.9
2.2
1.0

5.3
.8
2.2
1.0

5.7
.7
2.2
1.0

5.6
.7
2.3
1.1

5.7
.7
2.2
1.2

NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED
Lost last jo b ........................................................
On layoff......................................................
Other job losers...........................................
Left last job ........................................................
Reentered labor force..........................................
Seeking first jo b ..................................................
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION
Total unemployed................................................
Job losers ..........................................................
On layoff......................................................
Other job losers............................................
Job leavers ........................................................
Reentrants..........................................................
New entrants ......................................................
PERCENT OF
CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE
Job losers ..........................................................
Job leavers ........................................................
Reentrants..........................................................
New entrants ......................................................

7.

Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
Annual average

Less than 5 weeks ..............................................
5 to 14 weeks ....................................................
15 weeks and o ver..............................................
15 to 26 weeks ............................................
27 weeks and over........................................
Mean duration, in weeks ......................................
Median duration, in weeks....................................


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

1982

1981

1980

1981

Aug.

Sept

Oct

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

3,295
2,470
1,871
1,052
820
11.9
6.5

3,449
2,539
2,285
1,122
1,162
13.7
6.9

3,326
2,469
2,217
1,078
1,139
14.3
7.0

3,529
2,585
2,248
1,146
1,102
13.7
6.9

3,707
2,686
2,292
1,166
1,126
13.6
6.8

3,852
2,882
2,364
1,229
1,135
13.1
6.9

4,037
3,016
2,372
1,189
1,183
12.8
6.7

3,852
3,068
2,399
1,210
1,190
13.5
7.2

3,789
3,052
2,724
1,445
1,278
14.1
7.3

3,825
3,078
2,954
1,605
1,349
13.9
7.6

3,958
3,304
3,015
1,508
1,507
14.2
8.5

3,874
3,320
3,286
1,634
1,652
14.6
9.0

3,543
3,458
3,673
1,826
1,847
16.5
9.8

3,990
3,161
3,580
1,792
1,788
15.6
8.3

3,923
3,304
3,631
1,810
1,821
16.2
8.2

63

EMPLOYMENT, HOURS, AND EARNINGS DATA FROM ESTABLISHMENT SURVEYS

E m p l o y m e n t , h o u r s , a n d e a r n in g s d a t a in this section are
compiled from payroll records reported monthly on a volun­
tary basis to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperat­
ing State agencies by 177,000 establishments representing all
industries except agriculture. In most industries, the sampling
probabilities are based on the size of the establishment; most
large establishments are therefore in the sample. (An estab­
lishment is not necessarily a firm; it may be a branch plant,
for example, or warehouse.) Self-employed persons and others
not on a regular civilian payroll are outside the scope of the
survey because they are excluded from establishment records.
This largely accounts for the difference in employment figures
between the household and establishment surveys.

Definitions
Employed persons are all persons who received pay (including holi­

day and sick pay)
12th of the month.
cent of all persons
ment which reports

for any part of the payroll period including the
Persons holding more than one job (about 5 per­
in the labor force) are counted in each establish­
them.

P rod uctio n w orkers in manufacturing include blue-collar worker
supervisors and all nonsupervisory workers closely associated with
production operations. Those workers mentioned in tables 11-15 in­
clude production workers in manufacturing and mining; construction
workers in construction; and nonsupervisory workers in transporta­
tion and public utilities; in wholesale and retail trade; in finance, in­
surance, and real estate; and in services industries. These groups
account for about four-fifths of the total employment on private
nonagricultural payrolls.
E arnings are the payments production or nonsupervisory workers
receive during the survey period, including premium pay for overtime
or late-shift work but excluding irregular bonuses and other special

Digitized for
64 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

payments. R eal earnings are earnings adjusted to reflect the effects of
changes in consumer prices. The deflator for this series is derived
from the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical
Workers (CPI-W). The H o u rly E arnings In d ex is calculated from av­
erage hourly earnings data adjusted to exclude the effects of two types
of changes that are unrelated to underlying wage-rate developments:
fluctuations in overtime premiums in manufacturing (the only sector
for which overtime data are available) and the effects of changes and
seasonal factors in the proportion of workers in high-wage and lowwage industries.
H ou rs represent the average weekly hours of production or
nonsupervisory workers for which pay was received and are different
from standard or scheduled hours. O vertim e hours represent the por­
tion of gross average weekly hours which were in excess of regular
hours and for which overtime premiums were paid.

Notes on the data
Establishment data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are
periodically adjusted to comprehensive counts of employment (called
“benchmarks”). The latest complete adjustment was made with the re­
lease of May 1982 data, published in the July 1982 issue of the Review.
Consequently, data published in the Review prior to that issue are not
necessarily comparable to current data. Complete comparable histori­
cal unadjusted and seasonally adjusted data are published in a Supple­
ment to Employment and Earnings (unadjusted data from April 1977
through February 1982 and seasonally adjusted data from January
1974 through February 1982) and in Em ploym ent and Earnings, Unit­
ed States, 1909-78, BLS Bulletin 1312-11 (for prior periods).
A comprehensive discussion of the differences between household
and establishment data on employment appears in Gloria P. Green,
“Comparing employment estimates from household and payroll sur­
veys,” M onthly Labor Review, December 1969, pp. 9-20. See also B L S
H andbook o f M ethods fo r Surveys and Studies, Bulletin 1910 (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 1976).

8.

Employment by industry, selected years, 1950-81

[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands
Service-producing

Goods-producing

Year

Total

Private
sector

Total

Mining

Construe- Manufacturing
tion

Total

Transportation
and
public
utilities

Wholesale and retail trade

Total

Wholesale
trade

trade

Government

Finance,
insurance,
Services
and real
estate

Total

Federal

State
and
local

1950 ..............................
1955 ..............................
I960’ ............................
1964 ..............................
1965 ..............................

45,197
50,641
54,189
58,283
60,765

39,170
43,727
45,836
48,686
50,689

18,506
20,513
20,434
21,005
21,926

901
792
712
634
632

2,364
2,839
2,926
3,097
3,232

15,241
16,882
16,796
17,274
18,062

26.691
30,128
33,755
37,278
38,839

4,034
4,141
4,004
3,951
4,036

9,386
10,535
11,391
12,160
12,716

2,635
2,926
3,143
3,337
3,466

6,751
7,610
8,248
8,823
9,250

1,888
2,298
2,629
2,911
2,977

5,357
6,240
7,378
8,660
9,036

6,026
6,914
8,353
9,596
10,074

1,928
2,187
2,270
2,348
2,378

4,098
4,727
6,083
7,248
7,696

1966
1967
1968
1969
1970

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

63,901
65,803
67,897
70,384
70,880

53,116
54,413
56,058
58,189
58,325

23,158
23,308
23,737
24,361
23,578

627
613
606
619
623

3,317
3,248
3,350
3,575
3,588

19,214
19,447
19,781
20,167
19,367

40,743
42,495
44,160
46,023
47,302

4,158
4,268
4,318
4,442
4,515

13,245
13,606
14,099
14,705
15,040

3,597
3,689
3,779
3,907
3,993

9,648
9,917
10,320
10,798
11,047

3,058
3,185
3,337
3,512
3,645

9,498
10,045
10,567
11,169
11,548

10,784
11,391
11,839
12,195
12,554

2,564
2,719
2,737
2,758
2,731

8,220
8,672
9,102
9,437
9,823

1971
1972
1973
1974
1975

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

71,214
73,675
76,790
78,265
76,945

58,331
60,341
63,058
64,095
62,259

22,935
23,668
24,893
24,794
22,600

609
628
642
697
752

3,704
3,889
4,097
4,020
3,525

18,623
19,151
20,154
20,077
18,323

48,278
50,007
51,897
53,471
54,345

4,476
4,541
4,656
4,725
4,542

15,352
15,949
16,607
16,987
17,060

4,001
4,113
4,277
4,433
4,415

11,351
11,836
12,329
12,554
12,645

3,772
3,908
4,046
4,148
4,165

11,797
12,276
12,857
13,441
13,892

12,881
13,334
13,732
14,170
14,686

2,696
2,684
2,663
2,724
2,748

10,185
10,649
11,068
11,446
11,937

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

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

79,382
82,471
86,697
89,823
90,406

64,511
67,344
71,026
73,876
74,166

23,352
24,346
25,585
26,461
25,658

779
813
851
958
1,027

3,576
3,851
4,229
4,463
4,346

18,997
19,682
20,505
21,040
20,285

56,030
58,125
61,113
63,363
64,748

4,582
4,713
4,923
5,136
5,146

17,755
18,516
19,542
20,192
20,310

4,546
4,708
4,969
5,204
5,275

13,209
13,808
14,573
14,989
15,035

4,271
4,467
4,724
4,975
5,160

14,551
15,303
16,252
17,112
17,890

14,871
15,127
15,672
15,947
16,241

2,733
2,727
2,753
2,773
2,866

12,138
12,399
12,919
13,147
13,375

1981 ..............................

91,105

75,081

25,481

1,132

4,176

20,173

65,625

5,157

20,551

5,359

15,192

5,301

18,592

16,024

2,772

13,253

’ Data Include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959.

9.

Employment by State

[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]

June 1982

July 1982 p

288.7
624.3
418.3
401.8
3,130.8

289.2
617.2
418.3
400.4
3,112.4

281.8
605.7
417.4
397.5
3,100.0

New Mexico..............................................................
New York..................................................................
North Carolina ..........................................................
North Dakota ............................................................
Ohio ........................................................................

475.9
7,331.2
2,347.4
249.6
4,326.0

474.5
7,346.7
2,350.0
253.4
4,256.2

471.8
7.272.2
2,289.1
251.4
4,203.1

2,145.9
404.6
311.1
4,625.5
2,012.0

Oklahoma ................................................................
Oregon ....................................................................
Pennsylvania ............................................................
Rhode Island ............................................................
South Carolina ..........................................................

1,186.4
1,016.9
4,749.7
394.0
1,194.6

1,218.0
985.5
4,587.6
394.4
1,180.2

1,202.2
964.8
4,497.2
384.7
1,160.1

1,051.7
936.7
1,159.8
1,622.1
421.0

1,030.7
913.1
1,127.9
1,616.9
413.6

South Dakota............................................................
Tennessee ................................................................
Texas ......................................................................
Utah ........................................................................
Vermont....................................................................

238.2
1,737.7
6,166.0
556.5
202.7

237.8
1,726.9
6,287.6
563.5
200.9

231.3
1,711.9
6,257.1
559.5
201.3

1,697.2
2,642.6
3,230.7
1,736.4
793.5
1,970.6

1,688.4
2,596.1
3,195.6
1,703.6
789.6
1,953.9

Virginia......................................................................
Washington ..............................................................
West Virginia ............................................................
Wisconsin..................................................................
Wyoming ..................................................................

2,171.9
1,595.5
642.5
1,929.7
223.2

2,180.9
1,581.0
605.3
1,882.4
222.2

2,167.5
1,550.8
605.1
1,870.7
214.7

Virgin Islands ............................................................

38.4

34.8

35.9

State

State

July 1981

June 1982

July 1982 p

Alabama ......................................................................
Alaska ..........................................................................
Arizona ........................................................................
Arkansas ......................................................................
California......................................................................

1,354.6
192.0
1,021.4
736.2
10,017.3

1,333.0
194.2
1,018.2
721.9
10,042.9

1,326.4
199.4
1,002.5
714.6
9,940.4

Montana....................................................................
Nebraska ..................................................................
Nevada ....................................................................
New Hampshire ........................................................
New Jersey ..............................................................

Colorado ......................................................................
Connecticut ..................................................................
Delaware.......................................................... ........
District of Columbia........................................................
Florida..........................................................................

1,282.5
1,432.7
264.6
629.0
3,663.6

1,292.0
1,429.4
259.2
608.5
3,761.0

1,279.1
1,406.4
261.4
625.6
3,702.3

Georgia........................................................................
Hawaii..........................................................................
Idaho............................................................................
Illinois ..........................................................................
Indiana..........................................................................

2,172.8
408.9
325.5
4,794.8
2,109.3

2,155.6
402.6
317.1
4,640.8
2,027.7

Iowa ............................................................................
Kansas ........................................................................
Kentucky ......................................................................
Louisiana......................................................................
Maine ..........................................................................

1,078.4
941.3
1,165.4
1,638.9
427.5

Maryland ......................................................................
Massachusetts..............................................................
Michigan ......................................................................
Minnesota ....................................................................
Mississippi ....................................................................
Missouri........................................................................

1,720.8
2,631.4
3,366.2
1,758.8
818.9
1,972.9

July 1981

p= preliminary.


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

65

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
10.

Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted

[Nonagricultural payroll data, In thousands]
Annual average

1981

1982

Industry division and group
1980
TOTAL ......................................

1981

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July p

Aug.P

90,083

90,166

89,839

89,662

89,451

90,406

91,105

91,322

91,363

91,224

90,996

90,642

90,460

90,459

90,304

PRIVATE SECTOR

74,166

75,081

75,428

75,459

75,307

75,088

74,725

74,596

74,609

74,445

74,231

74,313

74,007

73,949

73,751

GOODS-PRODUCING ..........................

25,658

25,481

25,637

25,583

25,393

25,176

24,908

24,684

24,631

24,450

24,289

24,255

23,994

23,880

23,730

Mining ....................

1,027

1,132

1,180

1,192

1,195

1,202

1,206

1,201

1,203

1,197

1,182

1,152

1,124

1,107

1,099

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

4,346

4,176

4,146

4,124

4,101

4,071

4,026

3,966

3,974

3,934

3,938

3,988

3,940

3,929

3,902

20,285
14,214

20,173
14,021

20,311
14,136

20,267
14,087

20,097
13,915

19,903
13,717

19,676
13,488

19,517
13,431

19,454
13,290

19,319
13,179

19,169
13,042

19,115
13,008

18,930
12,852

18,844
12,798

18,729
12,708

Durable goods
Production workers..................................

12,187
8,442

12,117
8,301

12,228
8,389

12,184
8,345

12,059
8,218

11,901
8,061

11,724
7,885

11,622
7,793

11,575
7,759

11,490
7,685

11,375
7,576

11,332
7,553

11,203
7,443

11,157
7,420

11,027
7,309

Lumber and wood products ............................
Furniture and fixtures......................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ......................
Primary metal industries..................................
Fabricated metal products ..............................

690.5
465.8
6621
1,142.2
1,613.1

668.7
467.3
638.2
1,121.1
1,592.4

671
475
643
1,134
1,610

661
473
638
1,125
1,604

643
469
629
1,104
1,577

628
462
620
1,082
1553

615
457
610
1,053
1,529

607
452
596
1,038
1,515

611
449
596
1,024
1,505

607
446
590
1,007
1,496

615
443
584
976
1,481

617
443
586
945
1,472

615
442
580
926
1,452

618
442
580
913
1,447

618
443
582
891
1,432

Machinery, except electrical............................
Electric and electronic equipment....................
Transportation equipment................................
Instruments and related products ....................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ..........................

2,494.0
2,090.6
1,899.7
711.3
418.0

2,507.0
2,092.2
1,892.6
726.8
410.7

2,532
2,116
1,901
734
412

2,539
2,113
1,884
734
413

2,532
2,101
1,861
731
412

2,511
2,077
1,830
727
411

2,486
2,049
1,791
725
409

2,459
2,055
1,777
720
403

2,446
2,048
1,778
718
400

2,419
2,038
1,774
716
397

2,389
2,034
1,748
713
392

2,377
2,034
1,755
713
390

2,322
2,026
1,745
708
387

2,276
2,021
1,763
708
389

2,247
2,008
1,715
704
387

Nondurable goods ..........................................
Production workers..................................

8,098
5,772

8,056
5,721

8,083
5,747

8,083
5,742

8,038
5,697

8,002
5,656

7,952
5,603

7,895
5,548

7,879
5,531

7,829
5,494

7,794
5,466

7,783
5,455

7,727
5,409

7,687
5,378

7,702
5,399

Food and kindred products..............................
Tobacco manufactures ..................................
Textile mill products........................................
Apparel and other textile products ..................
Paper and allied products ..............................

1,708.0
68.9
847.7
1,263.5
692.8

1,674.3
69.8
822.5
1,244.0
687.8

1,659
70
829
1,253
691

1,658
69
827
1,253
695

1,662
69
814
1,243
685

1,664
69
804
1,235
681

1,661
68
794
1,222
677

1,657
69
780
1,201
674

1,663
68
777
1,201
670

1,658
68
760
1,186
668

1,643
67
773
1,165
664

1,652
67
759
1,165
661

1,637
67
741
1,161
658

1,648
65
741
1,129
659

1,634
66
734
1,161
655

Printing and publishing....................................
Chemicals and allied products ........................
Petroleum and coal products ..........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products . . .
Leather and leather products..........................

1,252.1
1,107.4
197.9
726.8
232.9

1,265.8
1,107.3
215.6
736.1
233.0

1,271
1,107
216
752
235

1,274
1,110
216
746
235

1,276
1,107
215
734
233

1,276
1,103
215
725
230

1,276
1,100
214
716
224

1,275
1,095
210
712
222

1,276
1,093
208
708
215

1,278
1,088
207
703
213

1,274
1,082
206
706
214

1,274
1,079
207
708
211

1,269
1,073
205
704
212

1,266
1,069
205
700
205

1,267
1,071
207
698
209

65,911

65,845

65,782

65,721

Manufacturing ..................
Production workers........................

SERVICE-PRODUCING ........................................

64,748

65,625

65,685

65,780

65,831

65,820

65,734

65,776

65,828

65,854

65,794

Transportation and public utilities ......................

5,146

5,157

5,168

5,181

5,162

5,150

5,128

5,125

5,115

5,100

5,094

5,101

5,078

5,041

5,038

Wholesale and retail trade..................................

20,310

20,551

20,650

20,660

20,654

20,623

20,524

20,630

20,670

20,655

20,584

20,652

20,595

20,613

20,531

5,275

5,359

5,387

5,383

5,380

5,375

5,357

5,346

5,343

5,336

5,323

5,331

5,307

5,298

5,279

15,035

15,192

15,263

15,277

15,274

15,248

15,167

15,284

15,327

15,319

15,261

15,321

15,288

15,315

15,252

Wholesale trade........................................
Retail trade ..........................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate ....................

5,160

5,301

5,319

5,328

5,325

5,324

5,331

5,326

5,326

5,336

5,335

5,342,

5,352

5,358

5,375

Services......................................................

17,890

18,592

18,654

18,707

18,773

18,815

18,834

18,831

18,867

18,904

18,929

18,963

18,988

19,057

19,077

Government......................................................
Federal..........................................................
State and local ..............................................

16,241
2,866
13,375

16,024
2,772
13,253

15,894
2,769
13,125

15,904
2,764
13,140

15,917
2,757
13,160

15,908
2,749
13,159

15,917
2,756
13,161

15,864
2,741
13,123

15,850
2,737
13,113

15,859
2,736
13,123

15,852
2,730
13,122

15,853
2,728
13,125

15,832
2,739
13,093

15,713
2,733
12,980

15,700
2,721
12,979

p=preliminary.

Digitized 66
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

11.

Hours and earnings, by industry division, selected years, 1950-81

[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on nonagricultural payrolls]

Year

Average
weekly
earnings

Average
weekly
hours

Average
hourly
earnings

Average
weekly
earnings

Average
weekly
hours

Average
hourly
earnings

Average
weekly
earnings

Average
hourly
earnings

Average
weekly
earnings

Average
weekly
hours

Average
hourly
earnings

Manufacturing

Construction

Mining

Private sector

Average
weekly
hours

1950 ..................
1955 ..................
I9601 ................
1964 ..................
1965 ..................

$53.13
67.72
80.67
91.33
95.45

39.8
39.6
38.6
38.7
38.8

$1.335
1.71
2.09
2.36
2.46

$67.16
89.54
105.04
117.74
123.52

37.9
40.7
40.4
41.9
42.3

$1.772
2.20
2.60
2.81
2.92

$69.68
90.90
112.67
132.06
138.38

37.4
37.1
36.7
37.2
37.4

$1.863
2.45
3.07
3.55
3.70

$58.32
75.30
89.72
102.97
107.53

40.5
40.7
39.7
40.7
41.2

$1.440
1.85
2.26
2.53
2.61

1966
1967
1968
1969
1970

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

98.82
101.84
107.73
114.61
119.83

38.6
38.0
37.8
37.7
37.1

2.56
2.68
2.85
3.04
3.23

130.24
135.89
142.71
154.80
164.40

42.7
42.6
42.6
43.0
42.7

3.05
3.19
3.35
3.60
3.85

146.26
154.95
164.49
181.54
195.45

37.6
37.7
37.3
37.9
37.3

3.89
4.11
4.41
4.79
5.24

112.19
114.49
122.51
129.51
133.33

41.4
40.6
40.7
40.6
39.8

2.71
2.82
3.01
3.19
3.35

1971
1972
1973
1974
1975

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

127.31
136.90
145.39
154.76
163.53

36.9
37.0
36.9
36.5
36.1

3.45
3.70
3.94
4.24
4.53

172.14
189.14
201.40
219.14
249.31

42.4
42.6
42.4
41.9
41.9

4.06
4.44
4.75
5.23
5.95

211.67
221.19
235.89
249.25
266.08

37.2
36.5
36.8
36.6
36.4

5.69
6.06
6.41
6.81
7.31

142.44
154.71
166.46
176.80
190.79

39.9
40.5
40.7
40.0
39.5

3.57
3.82
4.09
4.42
4.83

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

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

175.45
189.00
203.70
219.91
235.10

36.1
36.0
35.8
35.7
35.3

4.86
5.25
5.69
6.16
6.66

273.90
301.20
332.88
365.07
397.06

42.4
43.4
43.4
43.0
43.3

6.46
6.94
7.67
8.49
9.17

283.73
295.65
318.69
342.99
367.78

36.8
36.5
36.8
37.0
37.0

7.71
8.10
8.66
9.27
9.94

209.32
228.90
249.27
269.34
288.62

40.1
40.3
40.4
40.2
39.7

5.22
5.68
6.17
6.70
7.27

1981 ..................

255.20

35.2

7.25

439.19

43.7

10.05

398.52

36.9

10.80

318.00

39.8

7.99

Trans portation and public
utilities

Finance, insurance, and
real estate

Wholesale and retail trade

Services

405
39.4
38 6
37.9
37.7

$1.100
1.40
1.71
1.97
2.04

$50.52
63.92
75.14
85.79
88.91

37.7
37.6
37.2
37.3
37.2

$1.340
1.70
2.02
2.30
2.39

$70.03
73.60

36.1
35.9

$1.94
2.05

$118.78
125.14

41.1
41.3

$2.89
3.03

$44.55
55 16
66.01
74.66
76.91

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

128.13
130.82
138.85
147.74
155.93

41.2
40.5
40.6
40.7
40.5

3.11
3.23
3.42
3.63
3.85

79.39
82.35
87.00
91.39
96.02

37.1
36.6
36.1
35.7
35.3

2.14
2.25
2.41
2.56
2.72

92.13
95.72
101.75
108.70
112.67

37.3
37.1
37.0
37.1
36.7

2.47
2.58
2.75
2.93
3.07

77.04
80.38
83.97
90.57
96.66

35.5
35.1
34.7
34.7
34.4

2.17
2.29
2.42
2.61
2.81

1971..................
1972 ..................
1973 ..................
1974 ..................
1975 ..................

168.82
187.86
203.31
217.48
233.44

40.1
40.4
40.5
40.2
39.7

4.21
4.65
5.02
5.41
5.88

101.09
106.45
111.76
119.02
126.45

35.1
34.9
34.6
34.2
33.9

2.88
3.05
3.23
3.48
3.73

117.85
122.98
129.20
137.61
148.19

36.6
36.6
36.6
36.5
36.5

3.22
3.36
3.53
3.77
4.06

103.06
110.85
117.29
126.00
134.67

33.9
33.9
33.8
33.6
33.5

3.04
3.27
3.47
3.75
4.02

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

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

256.71
278.90
302.80
325.58
351.25

39.8
39.9
40.0
39.9
39.6

6.45
6.99
7.57
8.16
8.87

133.79
142.52
153.64
164.96
176.46

33.7
33.3
32.9
32.6
32.2

3.97
4.28
4.67
5.06
5.48

155.43
165.26
178.00
190.77
209.60

36.4
36.4
36.4
36.2
36.2

4.27
4.54
4.89
5.27
5.79

143.52
153.45
163.67
175.27
190.71

33.3
33.0
32.8
32.7
32.6

4.31
4.65
4.99
5.36
5.85

1981 ..................

382.18

39.4

9.70

190.95

32.2

5.93

229.05

36.3

6.31

208.97

32.6

6.41

1950
1955
1964 ..................
1965 ..................
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970

1Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959.


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

67

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data

12.

Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted

[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
Annual average

1981

1982

Industry division and group
1980

1981

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July p

Aug.p

PRIVATE SECTOR..............................

35.3

35.2

35.2

35.0

35.1

35.1

35.0

34.4

35.0

34.9

34.9

35.0

34.9

34.9

34.9

MANUFACTURING........................................
Overtime hours ....................................

39.7
2.8

39.8
2.8

39.9
3.0

39.4
2.7

39.5
2.7

39.3
2.5

39.1
2.4

37.6
2.3

39.4
2.4

39.0
2.3

39.0
2.4

39.1
2.3

39.2
2.4

39.3
2.4

39.0
2.4

Durable goods..............................
Overtime hours ..................................

40.1
2.8

40.2
2.8

40.4
3.0

39.7
2.7

40.0
2.6

39.7
2.4

39.5
2.3

38.2
2.2

39.8
2.2

39.5
2.2

39.5
2.2

39.6
2.2

39.7
2.3

39.7
2.2

39.5
2.3

Lumber and wood products..........................
Furniture and fixtures ....................................
Stone, clay, and glass products......................
Primary metal industries ..............................
Fabricated metal products..............................

38.5
38.1
40.8
40.1
40.4

38.7
38.4
40.6
40.5
40.3

38.4
38.4
40.7
40.8
40.4

37.6
37.4
40.3
40.6
39.6

37.8
38.0
40.1
40.0
40.0

37.7
37.6
40.1
39.6
39.7

37.7
37.9
39.7
39.2
39.5

35.0
33.6
38.6
38.3
38.1

37.9
37.7
40.1
39.4
39.7

37.6
37.3
40.0
38.8
39.5

37.6
37.4
40.0
38.5
39.4

38.5
37.5
40.2
38.5
39.5

38.7
37.8
40.4
38.9
39.4

38.4
37.8
40.6
38.9
39.5

38.0
37.6
40.5
39.2
39.2

Machinery, except electrical ..........................
Electric and electronic equipment....................
Transportation equipment ..............................
Instruments and related products..................
Miscellaneous manufacturing..........................

41.0
39.8
40.6
40.5
38.7

40.9
39.9
40.9
40.4
38.8

41.1
40.3
41.2
40.6
38.9

40.3
39.7
40.1
40.4
38.4

40.8
39.8
40.6
40.3
38.9

40.7
39.4
40.4
40.2
39.0

40.4
39.5
39.7
39.9
38.5

39.3
38.3
39.0
39.0
37.3

40.7
39.8
40.5
39.9
38.6

40.2
39.4
40.4
39.9
38.6

40.1
39.3
41.1
39.9
38.5

39.8
39.4
41.1
40.2
38.7

39.6
39.5
41.6
40.2
38.6

39.9
39.8
41.0
40.1
38.7

39.6
39.4
40.9
40.0
38.6

Nondurable goods ........................
Overtime hours ......................................

39.0
2.8

39.1
2.8

39.2
2.9

38.9
2.8

38.9
2.8

38.7
2.7

38.6
2.6

36.8
2.5

38.9
2.6

38.5
2.5

38.4
2.6

38.5
2.5

38.6
2.5

38.7
2.6

38.4
2.6

Food and kindred products ............................
Textile mill products ....................................
Apparel and other textile products..................
Paper and allied products ..............................

39.7
40.1
35.4
42.2

39.7
39.6
35.7
42.5

39.4
39.8
35.9
42.5

39.3
38.8
35.2
43.0

39.5
39.0
35.5
42.4

39.5
38.7
35.5
42.0

39.8
37.8
35.1
41.8

39.1
32.3
31.4
41.3

40.2
38.3
35.5
42.3

39.5
37.6
35.0
41.8

39.4
37.7
34.7
42.1

39.4
37.9
34.8
41.8

39.5
37.8
35.1
42.0

39.9
37.8
35.2
42.1

39.4
37.8
35.1
41.6

Printing and publishing..................................
Chemicals and allied products........................
Petroleum and coal products..........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products . . .
Leather and leather products..........................

37.1
41.5
41.8
40.0
36.7

37.3
41.6
43.2
40.3
36.8

37.3
41.7
42.9
40.5
36.7

37.1
42.2
43.1
39.7
36.2

37.1
41.5
42.2
39.9
36.7

37.1
41.2
42.5
39.6
36.5

37.1
41.3
42.7
39.4
36.1

36.9
41.0
44.3
37.9
34.1

37.4
41.2
43.5
40.0
35.6

37.1
40.7
43.5
39.6
35.8

37.1
40.7
44.0
39.8
35.6

36.8
41.0
44.1
39.9
35.6

37.1
41.0
44.1
40.1
35.7

37.0
40.9
43.3
40.1
35.9

36.7
40.5
44.3
39.6
35.7

WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE ..................

32.2

32.2

32.2

32.1

32.0

32.1

32.0

31.7

32.0

31.9

31.8

32.0

31.9

31.9

32.0

WHOLESALE TRADE..............................

38.5

38.6

38.6

38.5

38.4

38.5

38.4

38.1

38.5

38.4

38.3

38.5

38.6

38.5

38.6

RETAIL TRADE ....................

30.2

30.1

30.1

30.1

29.9

30.0

29.9

29.7

29.9

29.8

29.8

30.0

29.8

29.9

30.0

SERVICES..........................................

32.6

32.6

32.5

32.5

32.6

32.6

32.6

32.5

32.6

32.6

32.7

32.7

32.7

32.6

32.7

Note : The industry divisions of mining; construction; tobacco manufactures (a major
manufacturing group, nondurable goods); transportation and public utilities; and finance, insurance,
and real estate are no longer shown. This is because the seasonal component in these is small

68

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

relative to the trend-cycle, or irregular components, or both, and consequently cannot be precisely
separated,
p=preliminary.

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
13.

Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group

[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
1982

1981

Annual average
Industry division and group

1980

1981

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July2

Aug.p

PRIVATE SECTOR ......................................
Seasonally adjusted ..............................

$6.66

$7.25

n

(’ )

$7.30
7.34

$7.40
7.37

$7.42
7.40

$7.47
7.45

$7.45
7.46

$7.55
7.52

$7.54
7.53

$7.55
7.54

$7.58
7.59

$7.63
7.65

$7.64
7.67

$7.67
7.70

$7.69
7.73

MINING..............................................................

9.17

10.05

10.12

10.27

10.25

10.39

10.41

10.65

10.62

10.62

10.65

10.66

10.82

10.91

10.95

CONSTRUCTION................................................

9.94

10.80

10.92

11.07

11.65

11.18

11.26

11.59

11.32

11.33

11.32

11.46

11.41

11.53

11.61

MANUFACTURING ............................................

7.27

7.99

8.03

8.16

8.16

8.20

8.27

8.42

8.34

8.37

8.42

8.45

8.50

8.55

8.51

Durable goods............................................
Lumber and wood products ....................
Furniture and fixtures..............................
Stone, clay, and glass products ..............
Primary metal industries..........................
Fabricated metal products ......................

7.75
6.55
5.49
7.50
9.77
7.45

8.53
7.00
5.91
8.27
10.81
8.20

8.59
7.13
5.99
8.41
10.99
8.26

8.70
7.16
6.01
8.53
11.22
8.33

8.73
7.10
6.06
8.50
10.97
8.39

8.77
7.16
6.05
8.54
11.10
8.42

8.83
7.16
6.12
8.56
11.08
8.53

8.92
7.38
6.28
8.70
11.23
8.55

8.89
7.27
6.19
8.62
11.20
8.57

8.91
7.28
6.21
8.65
11.15
8.64

8.94
7.24
6.21
8.72
11.24
8.69

9.01
7.41
6.23
8.80
11.23
8.79

9.06
7.59
6.30
8.86
11.31
8.83

9.11
7.63
6.33
8.93
11.38
8.85

9.09
7.61
6.36
8.92
11.45
8.88

Machinery, except electrical....................
Electric and electronic equipment............
Transportation equipment........................
Instruments and related products ............
Miscellaneous manufacturing ..................

8.00
6.94
9.35
6.80
5.46

8.81
7.62
10.39
7.43
5.96

8.84
7.73
10.37
7.55
5.96

8.96
7.75
10.49
7.59
6.05

9.04
7.80
10.74
7.60
6.05

9.08
7.83
10.74
7.68
6.11

9.18
7.90
10.76
7.81
6.19

9.19
7.98
10.79
7.93
6.27

9.20
7.96
10.82
7.94
6.29

9.18
8.01
10.89
8.00
6.32

9.24
8.03
10.89
8.07
6.35

9.26
8.05
11.08
8.16
6.38

9.27
8.09
11.21
8.23
6.41

9.31
8.18
11.26
8.30
6.40

9.34
8.25
11.21
8.36
6.37

Nondurable goods......................................
Food and kindred products......................
Tobacco manufactures............................
Textile mill products................................
Apparel and other textile products ..........
Paper and allied products........................

6.55
6.85
7.74
5.07
4.56
7.84

7.18
7.43
8.88
5.52
4.96
8.60

7.23
7.48
8.70
5.65
4.96
8.67

7.36
7.56
8.76
5.69
5.04
8.95

7.33
7.51
8.67
5.72
5.05
8.82

7.38
7.61
9.04
5.73
5.04
8.89

7.44
7.67
8.96
5.72
5.04
8.96

7.67
7.82
9.21
5.76
5.18
9.06

7.54
7.74
9.56
5.76
5.13
8.99

7.57
7.79
9.72
5.76
5.15
9.03

7.65
7.90
10.05
5.79
5.18
9.11

7.66
7.92
9.93
5.79
5.16
9.14

7.70
7.90
10.35
5.79
5.18
9.28

7.77
7.87
10.32
5.81
5.18
9.40

7.73
7.84
9.42
5.82
5.19
9.40

7.53
8.30
10.10
6.52
4.58

8.18
9.12
11.38
7.16
4.99

8.25
9.19
11.32
7.23
4.97

8.37
9.38
11.55
7.29
5.09

8.40
9.37
11.47
7.30
5.09

8.42
9.42
11.58
7.31
5.11

8.48
9.53
11.59
7.38
5.15

8.58
9.68
11.91
7.51
5.19

8.56
9.68
12.29
7.49
5.22

8.59
9.71
12.32
7.45
5.24

8.59
9.81
12.50
7.52
5.32

8.61
9.83
12.52
7.56
5.32

8.66
9.95
12.53
7.64
5.36

8.72
10.01
12.40
7.67
5.31

8.76
10.01
12.39
7.63
5.38

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES . . .

8.87

9.70

9.87

9.95

9.94

10.05

10.06

10.10

10.13

10.07

10.14

10.17

10.20

10.26

10.41

WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE ....................

5.48

5.93

5.94

6.04

6.01

6.04

6.02

6.17

6.16

6.16

6.18

6.20

6.20

6.20

6.21

8.01

8.06

8.09

Printing and publishing............................
Chemicals and allied products ................
Petroleum and coal products ..................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
Leather and leather products ..................

WHOLESALE TRADE..........................................

6.96

7.57

7.65

7.70

7.73

7.79

7.81

7.94

7.94

7.93

7.97

8.03

RETAIL TRADE..................................................

4.88

5.25

5.25

5.37

5.29

5.32

5.31

5.43

5.42

5.43

5.44

5.47

5.47

5.47

5.47

6.77

6.84

6.86

6.90

FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE . . . .

5.79

6.31

6.38

6.39

6.43

6.52

6.47

6.56

6.62

6.59

6.64

6.77

6.71

SERVICES..........................................................

5.85

6.41

6.41

6.52

6.58

6.67

6.66

6.79

6.79

6.77

6.81

6.85

6.84

' Not available.

14.

p=preliminary.

Hourly Earnings Index, for production workers on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry

[1977 = 100]
Seasonally adjusted

Not seasonally adjusted

Industry

PRIVATE SECTOR (in current dollars)
Mining..................................................
Construction ........................................
Manufacturing ......................................
Transportation and public utilities............
Wholesale and retail trade ....................
Finance, insurance, and real estate........
Services ..............................................
PRIVATE SECTOR (in constant dollars)

Apr.
1982

May
1982

June
1982

July
1982 2

Aug.
1982 2

Percent
change
from:
July 1982
to
Aug. 1982

June
1982

July
1982 2

Aug.
1982»

140.0

147.6

148.5

149.1

6.5

140.5

146.3

147.7

148.1

148.8

149.7

0.6

149.5
133.6
142.9
141.6
139.1
139.7
138.0

159.6
139.1
152.4
147.3
144.9
146.9
146.6

161.6
140.7
153.3
147.7
145.2
148.2
147.6

162.0
141.6
153.4
149.8
145.6
149.8
148.4

8.3
6.0
7.3
5.8
4.7
7.3
7.5

(’ )
132.8
143.5
141.6
139.7
14(5.1
139.2

( ')
138.7
150.8
146.9
143.7
144.9
145.1

'(’ )
139.9
151.8
148.2
145.1
148.0
146.5

(’ )
139.7
152.5
149.1
145.2
147.2
147.3

n
140.5
153.3
148.3
145.4
148.5
148.5

(’ )
140.7
154.0
149.8
146.2
150.3
149.7

n

91.9

92.4

92.3

(2)

<2)

92.5

93.7

93.7

93.1

92.9

(2)

1This series is not seasonally adjusted because the seasonal component is small relative to
the trend-cycle, irregular components, or both, and consequently cannot be separated with
sufficient precision.


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

Aug.
1981

Aug.
1981

Percent
change
from:
Aug. 1981
to
Aug. 1982

.1
.4
1.0
.5
1.2
.8
(2)

2Not available
p = preliminary,

69

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
15.

Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group

[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
Industry division and group

Annual average
1980

1981

1982

1981

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July p

Aug.p

$235.10
( 1)
172.74

$255.20
(’ )
170.13

$259.88
258.37
170.64

$259.74
257.95
168.88

$261.18
259.74
169.49

$262.20
261.50
169.71

$262.24
261.10
169.30

$255.95
258.69
164.70

$262.39
263.55
168.31

$261.99
263.15
168.37

$262.27
264.89
167.80

$265.52
267.75
168.16

$267.40
267.68
167.33

$269.98
268.73
167.90

$271.46
( 1)
168.82

MINING ......................

397.06

439.19

447.30

450.85

456.13

461.32

466.37

456.89

463.03

465.16

454.76

454.12

463.10

465.86

458.81

CONSTRUCTION

367.78

398.52

408.41

396.31

419.62

414.78

417.75

385.95

406.39

419.21

415.44

429.75

427.88

439.29

437.70

MANUFACTURING
Current dollars..........................
Constant (1977) dollars ........

288.62
212.06

318.00
212.00

320.40
210.37

322.32
209.57

323.95
210.22

325.54
210.71

329.97
213.02

312.38
201.02

326.93
209.70

327.27
210.33

325.85
208.48

329.55
208.71

334.05
209.04

333.45
207.37

(’ )
206.40

Durable goods ..
Lumber and wood products . . .
Furniture and'fixtures ..............
Stone, clay, and glass products . .
Primary metal industries . . . .
Fabricated metal products . . . .

310.78
252.18
209.17
306.00
391.78
300.98

342.91
270.90
226.94
335.76
437.81
330.46

345.32
278.07
231.21
344.81
442.90
332.88

346.26
271.36
226.58
346.32
457.78
330.70

350.07
271.22
233.92
344.25
435.51
337.28

351.68
269.93
230.51
345.87
440.67
337.64

356.73
272.80
238.07
343.26
438.77
345.47

336.28
248.71
204.10
325.38
431.23
323.19

352.93
272.63
231.51
337.90
443.52
337.66

352.84
273.73
233.50
344.27
434.85
342.14

350.45
270.05
230.39
347.93
434.99
338.91

355.90
285.29
231.76
355.52
430.11
346.33

360.59
297.53
238.77
361.49
439.96
349.67

357.11
292.99
234.21
362.56
438.13
344.27

357.24
293.75
240.41
363.94
443.12
347.21

328.00
276.21
379.61
275.40
211.30

360.33
304.04
424.95
300.17
231.25

359.79
309.20
421.02
305.02
231.84

361.98
307.68
418.55
306.64
234.14

367.93
311.22
440.34
307.04
237.77

372.28
311.63
438.19
313.34
241.35

381.89
319.16
445.46
317.87
242.03

360.25
304.04
414.34
306.10
229.48

374.44
316.81
437.13
317.60
241.54

370.87
316.40
439.96
320.80
244.58

367.75
313.17
441.05
318.77
242.57

367.62
315.56
455.39
327.22
245.63

367.09
319.56
466.34
330.85
247.43

364.95
319.84
457.16
327.85
244.48

366.13
323.40
452.88
332.73
245.88

255.45
271.95
294.89
203.31
161.42
330.85

280.74
294.97
344.54
218.59
177.07
365.50

284.86
298.45
354.09
225.44
180.05
367.61

287.78
300.89
352.15
221.34
177.41
386.64

286.60
296.65
341.60
225.37
180.79
373.97

288.56
302.88
350.75
224.62
180.43
376.05

291.65
309.87
341.38
220.79
178.92
382.59

277.65
302.63
332.48
179.71
155.40
374.18

291.04
307.28
366.15
219.46
180.58
377.58

289.93
303.81
362.56
217.15
180.77
376.55

291.47
306.52
367.83
215.39
178.19
380.80

294.14
312.05
369.40
219.44
180.08
379.31

297.99
312.05
397.44
220.60
183.89
389.76

299.92
314.80
385.97
216.71
183.37
392.92

298.38
312.82
365.50
220.58
184.25
390.10

279.36
344.45
422.18

305.11
379.39
491.62

309.38
380.47
486.76

313.04
395.84
512.82

312.48
388.86
494.36

314.07
391.87
499.10

321.39
398.35
493.73

312.31
394.94
514.51

317.58
397.85
518.64

318.69
395.20
522.37

316.11
399.27
550.00

315.99
401.06
549.63

319.55
406.96
553.83

321.77
407.41
545.60

324.12
403.40
550.12

260.80
168.09

288.55
183.63

292.09
183.39

289.41
183.24

293.46
186.80

291.67
187.03

295.94
187.46

283.88
172.83

298.85
184.27

295.77
186.54

297.04
187.26

300.13
191.52

306.36
196.71

302.97
190.63

302.15
193.14

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES

351.25

382.18

389.87

390.04

388.65

393.96

395.36

388.85

397.10

392.73

393.43

394.60

399.84

404.24

410.15

WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE

176.46

190.95

194.83

194.49

192.32

192.68

194.45

191.89

194.66

194.66

195.91

197.78

199.02

202.12

203.07

WHOLESALE TRADE . .

267.96

292.20

296.06

296.45

298.38

&0.69

302.25

300.13

303.31

303.72

304.45

308.35

309.19

311.92

313.08

RETAIL TRADE

147.38

158.03

162.23

162.17

157.64

158.54

160.89

157.47

159.35

159.64

161.02

163.01

164.65

167.93

168.48

209.60

229.05

232.23

230.04

232.77

236.02

234.21

237.47

239.64

239.22

240.37

245.75

242.23

245.75

248.98

190.71

208.97

210.89

211.25

213.85

216.78

217.12

219.32

220.68

220.03

221.33

222.63

224.35

227.07

228.39

PRIVATE SECTOR
Current dollars..................
Seasonally adjusted..............
Constant (1977) dollars........

Machinery except electrical . . . .
Electric and electronic equipment........
Transportation equipment ........
Instruments and related products
Miscellaneous manufacturing..........
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 miscellaneous
plastics products............
Leather and leather products ..

..

FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE
SERVICES............
Not available.


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

p = preliminary.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DATA

N a t i o n a l u n e m p l o y m e n t i n s u r a n c e d a t a are compiled
monthly by the Employment and Training Administration of
the U.S. Department of Labor from monthly reports of unem­
ployment insurance activity prepared by State agencies. Rail­
road unemployment insurance data are prepared by the U.S.
Railroad Retirement Board.

ployed. Persons not covered by unemployment insurance (about 10
percent of the labor force) and those who have exhausted or not yet
earned benefit rights are excluded from the scope of the survey. In i­
tial claim s are notices filed by persons in unemployment insurance
programs to indicate they are out of work and wish to begin receiv­
ing compensation. A claimant who continued to be unemployed a
full week is then counted in the insured unemployment figure. The
rate of insured unem ploym ent expresses the number of insured unem­
ployed as a percent of the average insured employment in a
12-month period.

Definitions

An application for benefits is filed by a railroad worker at the be­
ginning of his first period of unemployment in a benefit year; no ap­
plication is required for subsequent periods in the same year. N u m ­
ber of paym ents are payments made in 14-day registration periods.
The average am ount of b en efit paym ent is an average for all com­
pensable periods, not adjusted for recovery of overpayments or set­
tlement of underpayments. However, total b en efits paid have been
adjusted.

Data for all program s represent an unduplicated count of insured
unemployment under State programs, Unemployment Compensation
for Ex-Servicemen, and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees, and the Railroad Insurance Act.
Under both State and Federal unemployment insurance programs
for civilian employees, insured .workers must report the completion of
at least 1 week of unemployment before they are defined as unem­

16.

Unemployment insurance and employment service operations

[All Items except average benefits amounts are in thousands]
1982

1981
Item
July
All programs:
Insured unemployment ........................
State unemployment insurance
program:1
Initial claims2 ......................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume)................................
Rate of insured unemployment ............
Weeks of unemployment
compensated ..................................
Average weekly benefit amount
for total unemployment ....................
Total benefits paid ..............................
Unemployment compensation for exservicemen: 3
Initial claims1 ......................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume)................................
Weeks of unemployment
compensated ..................................
Total benefits paid ..............................
Unemployment compensation for
Federal civilian employees:4
Initial claims........................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume)................................
Weeks of unemployment
compensated ..................................
Total benefits paid ..............................
Railroad unemployment insurance:
Applications ........................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume)................................
Number of payments ..........................
Average amount of benefit
payment..........................................
Total benefits paid ..............................
Employment service:5
New applications and renewals ............
Nonfarm placements............................

Sept.

Aug.

3,012

2,874

Nov.

Oct.

2,680

2,753

3,228

Jan.

3,935

Mar.

Feb.

4,681

4,723

Apr.

4,892

May

June

July1*

4,760

4,388

4,328

4,493

2,114

1,610

1,681

1,996

2,286

3,272

3,328

2,272

2,418

2,347

r 1,989

'2,399

2,654

2,743
3.1

2,656
3.0

2,488
2.9

2,592
3.0

3,061
3.5

3,778
4.3

4,470
5.1

4,376
5.0

4,282
4.9

4,067
4.6

3,729
4.3

3,707
4.3

3,910
4.6

10,486

9,594

9,565

9,424

10,052

14,592

15,962

15,631

18,144

16,156

113,680

'14,637

14,656

$105.94
$103.47
$107.39
$1,061,899 $1,004,864 $1,001,020

$114.83
$116.95
$108.92
$110.52
$112.83
$117.10
$117.51
$118.07
$118.50
$117.27
$997,757 $1,080,810 $1,592,546 $1,764,206 $1,781,830 $2,072,642 $1,848,260 r $1,573,461 '$1,689,079 $1,679,416

22

19

15

11

9

11

8

8

10

9

8

10

10

44

44

34

26

22

19

16

13

11

10

9

8

7

203
$22,785

190
$21,425

153
$17,144

116
$12,952

91
$10,043

93
$10,155

65
$7,098

49
$5,304

48
$5,141

37
$4,029

31
'$3,395

29
'$3,310

25
$2,821

15

17

18

20

16

17

17

12

13

13

11

14

13

25

25

29

32

36

39

40

40

38

33

29

28

29

105
$10,805

102
$9,543

100
$10,495

112
$11,719

127
$13,491

174
$18,891

162
$18,040

154
$17,517

172
$19,677

147
$16,821

'120
'$13,526

'123
'$13,907

120
$12,445

41

13

15

21

13

19

22

11

9

5

5

36

68

28
32

29
63

34
74

40
86

44
83

54
117

75
153

67
140

65
154

57
130

44
95

44
93

55
100

$199.63
$11,541

$202.53
$7,071

$207.98
15,046

$197.26
15,994

$207.08
$16,377

$212.33
$25,292

$213.39
$30,544

$214.07
$28,011

$215.71
$33,853

$209.48
$26,262

$200.75
$19,110

$199.15
$18,574

$202.54
$17,998

16,502
3,509

11nitial claims and State insured unemployment include data under the program for Puerto Rican
sugarcane workers.
2 Excludes transition claims under State programs.
3 Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with other programs.
4 Excludes data on claims and pauments made jointly with State programs.


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

Dec.

4,081
731

7,439
1,232

10,965
1,902

5 Cumulative total for fiscal year (October 1-September 30). Data computed quarterly,
N ote : pata for Puert0 Rico an(j the V
jrgin|S|an(js included. Dashes indicate data not available.
r=revised.
p=preliminary.

71

PRICE DATA

P r i c e d a t a are gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
from retail and primary markets in the United States. Price
indexes are given in relation to a base period (1967 = 100,
unless otherwise noted).

Definitions
The C onsum er P rice In d ex is a monthly statistical measure of the
average change in prices in a fixed market basket of goods and ser­
vices. Effective with the January 1978 index, the Bureau of Labor Sta­
tistics began publishing CPI’s for two groups of the population. One
index, a new CPI for All Urban Consumers, covers 80 percent of the
total noninstitutional population; and the other index, a revised CPI
for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, covers about half the
new index population. The All Urban Consumers index includes, in
addition to wage earners and clerical workers, professional, manageri­
al, and technical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the
unemployed, retirees, and others not in the labor force.
The CPI is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, fuel, drugs,
transportation fares, doctor’s and dentist’s fees, and other goods and
services that people buy for day-to-day living. The quantity and quali­
ty of these items is kept essentially unchanged between major revi­
sions so that only price changes will be measured. Prices are collected
from over 18,000 tenants, 24,000 retail establishments, and 18,000
housing units for property taxes in 85 urban areas across the country.
All taxes directly associated with the purchase and use of items are
included in the index. Because the CPI’s are based on the expendi­
tures of two population groups in 1972—73, they may not accurately
reflect the experience of individual families and single persons with
different buying habits.
Though the CPI is often called the “Cost-of-Living Index,” it meas­
ures only price change, which is just one of several important factors
affecting living costs. Area indexes do not measure differences in the
level of prices among cities. They only measure the average change in
prices for each area since the base period.
P rod ucer P rice In d ex es measure average changes in prices received
in primary markets of the United States by producers of commodities
in all stages of processing. The sample used for calculating these in­
dexes contains about 2,800 commodities and about 10,000 quotations
per month selected to represent the movement of prices of all com­
modities produced in the manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, fishing,
mining, gas and electricity, and public utilities sectors. The universe
includes all commodities produced or imported for sale in commercial
transactions in primary markets in the United States.
Producer Price Indexes can be organized by stage of processing or
by commodity. The stage of processing structure organizes products
by degree of fabrication (that is, finished goods, intermediate or
semifinished goods, and crude materials). The commodity structure
organizes products by similarity of end-use or material composition.
To the extent possible, prices used in calculating Producer Price In­
dexes apply to the first significant commercial transaction in the Unit­
ed States, from the production or central marketing point. Price data
are generally collected monthly, primarily by mail questionnaire.

Digitized72
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Most prices are obtained directly from producing companies on a vol­
untary and confidential basis. Prices generally are reported for the
Tuesday of the week containing the 13th day of the month.
In calculating Producer Price Indexes, price changes for the vari­
ous commodities are averaged together with implicit quantity weights
representing their importance in the total net selling value of all com­
modities as of 1972. The detailed data are aggregated to obtain in­
dexes for stage of processing groupings, commodity groupings, dura­
bility of product groupings, and a number of special composite
groupings.
P rice in d exes for the output of se lected S IC industries measure av­
erage price changes in commodities produced by particular industries,
as defined in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual 1972
(Washington, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 1972). These
indexes are derived from several price series, combined to match the
economic activity of the specified industry and weighted by the value
of shipments in the industry. They use data from comprehensive in­
dustrial censuses conducted by the U.S. B u re au of the C en su s a n d the
U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Notes on the data
Beginning with the May 1978 issue of the Review, regional CPI’s
cross classified by population size, were introduced. These indexes will
enable users in local areas for which an index is not published to get a
better approximation of the CPI for their area by using the appropri­
ate population size class measure for their region. The cross-classified
indexes will be published bimonthly. (See table 19.)
For further details about the new and the revised indexes and a
comparison of various aspects of these indexes with the old unrevised
CPI, see Facts About the Revised Consumer Price Index, a pamphlet in
the Consumer Price Index Revision 1978 series. See also The
Consumer Price Index: Concepts and Content Over the Years, Report
517, revised edition (Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 1978).
For interarea comparisons of living costs at three hypothetical stand­
ards of living, see the family budget data published in the Handbook
o f Labor Statistics, 1977, Bulletin 1966 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1977), tables 122-133. Additional data and analysis on price changes
are provided in the CPI Detailed Report and Producer Prices and Price
Indexes, both monthly publications of the Bureau.
As of January 1976, the Wholesale Price Index (as it was then
called) incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 1972 val­
ues of shipments. From January 1967 through December 1975, 1963
values of shipments were used as weights.
For a discussion of the general method of computing consumer,
producer, and industry price indexes, see BLS Handbook o f Methods
fo r Surveys and Studies, Bulletin 1910 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1976), chapters 13-15. See also John F. Early, “Improving the meas­
urement of producer price change,” Monthly Labor Review, April
1978, pp. 7-15. For industry prices, see also Bennett R. Moss, “In­
dustry and Sector Price Indexes,” Monthly Labor Review, August
1965, pp. 974-82.

17.

Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, annual averages and changes, 1967-31

[1967 = 100]
Food and
beverages

All Items
Year
Index

Percent
change

Index

Apparel and
upkeep

Housing

Percent
change

Index

Percent
change

Index

Transportation

Percent
change

Index

Percent
change

Index

Percent
change

Other goods
and services

Entertainment

Medical care

Index

Percent
change

Index

Percent
change

1967
1968
1969
1970

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

100.0
104.2
109.8
116.3

4.2
5.4
5.9

100.0
103.6
108.8
114.7

3.6
5.0
5.4

100.0
104.0
110.4
118.2

4.0
6.2
7.1

100.0
105.4
111.5
116.1

5.4
5.8
4.1

100.0
103.2
107.2
112.7

3.2
3.9
5.1

100.0
106.1
113.4
120.6

6.1
6.9
6.3

100.0
105.7
111.0
116.7

5.7
5.0
5.1

100.0
105.2
110.4
116.8

5.2
4.9
5.8

1971
1972
1973
1974
1975

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

121.3
125.3
133.1
147.7
161.2

4.3
3.3
6.2
11.0
9.1

118.3
123.2
139.5
158.7
172.1

3.1
4.1
13.2
13.8
8.4

123.4
128.1
133.7
148.8
164.5

4.4
3.8
4.4
11.3
10.6

119.8
122.3
126.8
136.2
142.3

3.2
2.1
3.7
7.4
4.5

118.6
119.9
123.8
137.7
150.6

5.2
1.1
3.3
11.2
9.4

128.4
132.5
137.7
150.5
168.6

6.5
3.2
3.9
9.3
12.0

122.9
126.5
130.0
139.8
152.2

5.3
2.9
2.8
7.5
8.9

122.4
127.5
132.5
142.0
153.9

4.8
4.2
3.9
7.2
8.4

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

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

170.5
181.5
195.3
217.7
247.0

5.8
6.5
7.6
11.5
13.5

177.4
188.0
206.2
228.7
248.7

3.1
6.0
9.7
10.9
8.7

174.6
186.5
202.6
227.5
263.2

6.1
6.8
8.6
12.3
15.7

147.6
154.2
159.5
166.4
177.4

3.7
4.5
3.4
4.3
6.6

165.5
177.2
185.8
212.8
250.5

9.9
7.1
4.9
14.5
17.7

184.7
202.4
219.4
240.1
267.2

9.5
9.6
8.4
9.4
11.3

159.8
167.7
176.2
187.6
203.7

5.0
4.9
5.1
6.5
8.5

162.7
172.2
183.2
196.3
213.6

5.7
5.8
6.4
7.2
8.8

1981 ..................

272.3

10.2

267.8

7.7

293.2

11.4

186.6

5.2

281.3

12.3

295.1

10.4

219.0

7.5

233.3

9.2

18. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers and revised CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers,
U.S. city average— general summary and groups, subgroups, and selected items
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)

All Urban Consumers
General summary

1982

1981

1982

1981
July

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

July

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

All items......................................................................................

274.4

283.4

283.1

284.3

287.1

290.6

292.2

274.6

282.9

282.5

283.7

286.5

290.1

291.8

Food and beverages ....................................................................
Housing........................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep......................................................................
Transportation ..............................................................................
Medical care ................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................
Other goods and services..............................................................

268.9
297.0
184.7
282.6
2956
221.1
234.4

275.8
307.3
188.0
288.0
316.2
231.2
250.3

275.6
306.7
191.1
285.1
318.8
232.8
252.2

276.5
309.4
191.9
282.9
321.7
233.9
253.8

278.1
313.8
191.5
285.6
323.8
234.4
255.0

280.2
317.5
190.8
292.8
326.4
235.6
255.8

280.8
319.2
189.7
296.1
330.0
236.6
257.2

269.4
297.0
185.5
283.9
295.4
218.7
232.4

276.0
306.7
187.3
289.6
314.9
228.1
247.1

275.9
306.2
190.5
286.6
317.4
229.5
249.3

276.8
309.2
191.2
284.3
320.2
230.5
250.9

278.4
313.7
190.6
287.1
322.3
231.1
252.4

280.5
317.5
189.6
294.5
324.8
232.3
253.1

281.2
319.3
188.7
297.9
328.1
233.5
254.5

Commodities................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ....................................
Nondurables less food and beverages..................................
Durables............................................................................

255.0
244.7
262.9
229.6

259.5
248.1
265.3
233.7

258.8
247.1
263.4
233.5

258.9
247.0
259.7
235.8

261.5
249.8
261.0
239.8

265.1
254.0
266.3
243.2

266.5
255.7
268.2
244.7

255.7
245.5
266.0
228.4

259.9
248.6
267.5
232.5

259.1
247.5
265.3
232.4

259.2
247.2
261.3
234.8

261.7
250.1
262.6
238.9

265.4
254.5
268.2
242.3

266.9
256.3
270.3
243.9

Services ......................................................................................
Rent, residential..................................................................
Household services less rent ..............................................
Transportation services........................................................
Medical care services..........................................................
Other services....................................................................

308.8
207.8
374.8
275.0
319.2
237.6

325.3
218.6
393.7
287.6
342.4
253.0

325.5
219.6
392.5
288.8
345.1
254.0

328.4
220.1
397.3
290.3
348.0
255.3

331.8
221.8
403.0
291.3
350.2
255.9

334.9
222.6
407.7
294.7
353.0
257.0

337.0
224.8
409.4
297.2
357.3
258.0

309.6
207.4
379.4
273.8
318.5
236.8

325.5
218.1
397.7
286.7
340.6
251.3

325.8
219.1
396.6
287.9
343.0
252.4

329.1
219.6
402.3
289.2
345.8
253.8

332.4
221.3
408.2
290.0
348.0
254.4

335.7
222.1
413.3
293.2
350.7
255.5

337.9
224.3
415.3
295.7
354.7
256.6

All items less food ........................................................................
All items less mortgage Interest costs ............................................
Commodities less food..................................................................
Nondurables less food ..................................................................
Nondurables less food and apparel................................................
Nondurables ................................................................................
Services less rent ........................................................................
Services less medical ca re ............................................................
Domestically produced farm foods ................................................
Selected beef cuts........................................................................
Energy ........................................................................................
All items less energy ....................................................................
All items less food and energy ............................................
Commodities less food and energy....................................
Energy commodities ........................................................
Services less energy........................................................

272.7
259.3
242.6
257.5
297.8
267.1
328.1
305.4
259.5
275.3
415.7
263.5
259.0
219.4
451.3
304.9

282.1
267.1
246.0
260.1
300.5
271.7
345.7
321.1
265.1
271.7
413.0
273.4
269.5
224.5
440.1
321.9

281.7
267.2
245.2
258.4
296.6
270.7
345.7
321.1
263.8
272.0
406.1
273.6
269.8
225.3
424.5
321.5

282.9
267.9
245.0
255.0
291.4
269.3
349.1
324.0
264.5
275.1
395.7
275.7
272.2
227.2
406.6
324.5

286.0
270.3
247.8
256.2
293.4
270.7
352.8
327.5
267.1
281.6
402.1
278.3
274.9
229.9
410.2
327.2

289.7
273.6
251.9
261.2
301.0
274.4
356.5
330.7
270.3
289.1
418.6
280.7
277.3
232.1
430.8
329.9

291.5
275.1
253.5
263.0
304.3
275.7
358.5
332.5
270.7
287.4
424.5
282.0
278.7
233.1
438.2
331.8

273.1
260.0
243.5
260.4
299.8
268.7
329.3
306.3
259.0
277.9
418.9
262.7
258.1
218.7
451.9
305.7

281.7
267.2
246.6
262.2
302.0
272.8
346.3
321.6
264.0
273.1
415.4
272.1
268.0
223.6
440.7
322.2

281.3
267.3
245.6
260.2
297.8
271.6
346.4
321.6
262.7
273.3
407.9
272.3
268.3
224.5
425.0
321.8

282.5
267.9
245.3
256.6
292.3
270.1
350.2
324.9
263.5
276.4
396.9
274.5
270.9
226.4
406.9
325.2

285.6
270.3
248.1
257.8
294.4
271.5
353.8
328.3
266.0
283.1
403.1
277.0
273.6
229.1
410.5
327.9

289.4
273.7
252.4
263.0
302.4
275.4
357.7
331.7
269.2
290.6
420.4
279.4
276.0
231.3
431.6
330.6

291.4
275.3
254.1
265.0
305.8
276.8
359.9
333.6
269.7
288.8
426.5
280.8
277.6
232.4
439.0
332.6

Purchasing power of the consumer dollar, 1967 - $1 ....................

$0,364

$0,353

$0,353

$0,352

$0,348

$0,344

$0,342

$0,364

$0,353

$0,354

$0,352

$0,349

$0,345

$0,343

Special Indexes:


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

73

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
18.

Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary

1981
July

Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)

1982
Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

1981
May

June

July

July

1982
Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

FOOD AND BEVERAGES ........................

268.9

275.8

275.6

276.5

278.1

280.2

280.8

269.4

276.0

275.9

276.8

278.4

280.5

281.2

Food................................................................

276.2

283.3

283.0

283.9

285.5

287.8

288.5

276.6

283.4

283.1

284.1

285.7

288.0

288.6

Food at home......................................
Cereals and bakery products ..................................
Cereals and cereal products (12/77 = 100) ....................
Flour and prepared flour mixes (12/77 = 100)....................
Cereal (12/77 = 100)..............................................
Rice, pasta, and cornmeal (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Bakery products (12/77 = 100)............................
White bread ..........................................
Other breads (12/77 = 100)....................................
Fresh biscuits, rolls, and muffins (12/77 = 1 0 0 )..................
Fresh cakes and cupcakes (12/77 = 100)......................
Cookies (12/77 = 100)..........................................
Crackers, bread, and cracker products (12/77 = 100) ........
Fresh sweetrolls, coffeecake, and donuts (12/77 = 100) . . .
Frozen and refrigerated bakery products
and fresh pies, tarts, and turnovers (12/77 = 100) ..........

271.6
272.4
149.0
139.5
153.4
151.2
142.5
236.4
140.6
142.4
142.7
143.0
131.6
143.9

278.0
280.9
154.0
139.1
164.8
152.4
146.8
243.8
143.7
146.4
147.0
149.2
135.4
147.0

277.1
281.3
153.9
139.2
165.2
151.2
147.1
242.3
145.1
148.4
148.0
149.4
135.3
146.3

277.9
281.7
153.6
139.7
165.4
149.6
147.5
242.8
145.2
147.6
148.4
150.2
137.3
146.8

279.8
283.3
154.5
141.8
165.7
150.2
148.3
243.8
146.3
149.7
149.0
150.5
139.6
147.3

282.6
283.6
154.5
142.1
166.1
149.4
148.6
242.4
145.6
149.9
149.2
150.7
140.9
148.9

282.8
284.3
154.8
143.5
166.3
148.9
149.0
246.1
145.1
148.9
148.9
150.0
141.8
148.5

271.1
271.5
150.6
141.9
154.8
153.2
141.4
233.9
142.9
141.7
141.4
142.6
131.2
142.8

277.0
279.8
155.0
139.6
166.8
153.6
145.7
240.0
145.5
142.8
145.8
150.1
136.8
149.3

276.2
280.0
154.8
139.6
167.2
152.4
146.0
238.3
147.0
144.6
146.4
150.2
136.5
148.7

277.0
280.4
154.6
140.1
167.4
150.8
146.3
238.8
147.1
143.8
146.8
151.2
138.7
149.3

278.8
282.0
155.4
142.1
167.8
151.5
147.2
240.0
148.2
146.0
147.4
151.4
141.0
149.9

281.6
282.3
155.5
142.5
168.2
150.6
147.4
238.3
147.5
146.2
147.5
151.5
142.3
151.5

281.9
283.0
155.8
144.0
168.5
150.0
147.8
241.9
147.0
145.4
147.2
150.9
143.2
151.1

147.2

151.5

153.5

153.4

153.6

156.3

156.2

140.9

144.8

146.8

146.5

146.7

149.4

149.2

Meats, poultry, fish, and egg s..................................
Meats, poultry, and fish ....................................
Meats ............................................
Beef and veal ............................
Ground beef other than canned........................
Chuck roast....................................
Round roast........................................
Round steak ..................................
Sirloin steak....................................
Other beef and veal (12/77 = 100) . . .
Pork................................
Bacor ........................................
Chops ..........................................
Flam other than canned (12/77 = 100)........
Sausage ......................................
Canned ham ..................................
Other pork (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Other meats ..............................
Frankfurters..........................
Bologna, liverwurst, and salami (12/77 = 1 0 0 ) ............
Other lunchmeats (12/77 = 100). . .
Lamb and organ meats (12/77 = 10 0 )......................
Poultry..................................
Fresh whole chicken....................
Fresh and frozen chicken parts (12/77 = 100) .
Other poultry (12/77 = 100) ..................
Fish and seafood ....................
Canned fish and seafood (12/77 = 100)..............
Fresh and frozen fish and seafood (12/77 = 100)
Eggs ......................................................................................

254.1
260.7
259.6
274.5
264.5
283.5
245.6
258.9
284.3
163.5
231.5
228.1
221.8
102.0
289.7
233.0
133.6
258.4
251.8
145.9
129.1
147.6
204.8
206.9
133.0
130.0
356.9
140.6
133.1
174.2

256.8
261.2
260.2
271.5
265.0
285.8
245.3
256.1
257.1
161.4
238.9
245.6
222.1
107.0
300.0
246.1
133.8
258.1
258.0
146.1
131.7
137.7
195.7
196.3
128.9
123.2
373.8
140.9
143.2
205.1

256.9
262.1
261.2
271.7
265.8
284.3
243.0
258.8
260.6
161.5
239.5
249.6
216.3
109.2
305.8
247.6
132.6
262.4
260.5
149.2
133.7
141.0
194.7
195.1
127.5
123.9
376.3
141.0
144.7
195.2

258.3
264.2
263.6
274.8
266.9
285.4
244.9
262.8
271.1
163.7
241.6
255.9
223.4
105.4
305.7
245.6
135.2
262.8
259.5
150.2
133.2
142.6
193.3
194.1
127.6
121.3
382.0
141.5
147.9
186.9

261.0
268.2
269.7
281.1
269.4
287.2
252.4
269.2
282.3
169.0
249.9
267.7
230.0
111.1
313.3
249.9
138.9
264.0
262.7
150.7
134.3
141.2
196.0
196.8
128.3
124.3
366.3
139.8
139.4
172.3

266.0
274.3
277.2
288.2
274.6
295.4
257.0
278.8
294.1
173.3
259.5
280.7
241.2
112.6
326.3
253.2
145.4
268.5
268.8
154.6
135.5
143.1
197.5
199.1
129.3
124.6
365.2
139.9
138.6
162.5

268.5
276.2
278.8
286.7
272.5
296.2
251.8
271.2
295.6
173.3
265.4
283.9
248.9
115.3
331.9
255.3
150.3
272.0
274.2
156.5
137.3
143.9
199.6
201.2
129.4
127.3
370.2
140.5
141.3
173.6

254.1
260.5
259.7
276.5
267.9
295.5
249.8
257.0
285.6
162.4
232.6
230.5
222.4
100.4
293.4
234.4
134.5
255.6
251.9
144.6
126.5
148.9
203.1
202.9
133.3
129.3
353.5
139.0
131.9
175.0

256.4
260.7
259.7
272.2
266.3
295.0
248.9
254.4
257.8
159.7
238.5
249.3
220.2
104.7
301.0
249.9
133.1
257.4
257.1
146.2
129.7
141.0
193.8
194.4
127.1
122.6
373.2
140.4
143.2
206.1

256.4
261.5
260.6
272.3
266.9
293.1
245.9
256.4
262.2
159.8
238.9
253.3
214.7
106.5
306.6
251.2
131.7
261.7
260.0
149.4
131.7
144.2
192.8
192.8
125.9
123.3
375.5
140.5
144.6
196.3

257.8
263.6
262.8
275.3
267.9
294.1
247.9
260.8
272.4
162.1
241.0
259.7
221.7
102.8
306.3
248.9
134.5
261.8
258.4
150.3
131.2
145.6
191.5
192.0
125.9
120.8
381.4
140.8
148.0
187.9

260.7
267.7
269.0
281.9
270.7
296.2
255.9
267.8
283.8
167.5
249.2
271.9
228.2
108.3
314.2
253.2
138.2
263.2
261.8
150.7
132.3
144.4
194.1
194.7
126.5
123.9
365.0
139.2
138.9
173.4

265.8
273.9
276.5
289.0
275.9
304.9
260.1
277.2
295.5
171.9
258.9
285.3
239.6
109.6
327.2
256.4
144.7
267.8
268.3
154.6
133.4
146.5
195.8
197.0
127.5
124.3
364.2
139.4
138.3
163.4

268.3
275.8
278.2
287.4
273.9
305.3
254.7
269.4
298.0
171.7
264.9
288.7
247.3
112.4
332.9
258.7
149.5
271.3
273.4
156.6
135.1
147.3
197.8
198.8
127.9
126.9
368.7
139.9
140.8
174.7

Dairy products..................................
Fresh milk and cream (12/77 = 100) ___
Fresh whole m ilk................
Other fresh milk and cream (12/77 = 100)
Processed dairy products (12/77 = 100) ..
Butter......................................
Cheese (12/77 = 100) ............
Ice cream and related products (12/77 = 100)
Other dairy products (12/77 = 100) . . . .

244.2
134.9
220.7
134.9
142.5
245.8
140.7
147.6
136.6

246.5
135.5
221.5
135.8
144.8
248.9
142.8
150.0
140.0

246.5
135.3
221.7
135.1
144.9
250.1
143.3
149.5
139.5

247.5
135.9
222.2
136.2
145.6
250.1
143.7
150.9
139.9

247.0
135.7
222.0
135.7
145.2
251.1
144.0
148.7
139.7

246.3
135.2
221.3
135.4
144.9
250.9
143.2
149.6
138.7

247.5
135.6
221.6
136.2
145.9
251.1
144.2
150.4
141.3

243.9
134.4
219.9
134.5
143.1
247.7
141.3
148.0
137.2

245.8
134.9
220.5
135.5
145.1
251.4
143.1
149.1
140.8

245.9
134.8
220.8
134.6
145.3
252.7
143.6
148.9
140.3

246.8
135.3
221.3
135.7
145.9
252.7
144.0
150.2
140.8

246.3
135.1
221.1
135.2
145.5
253.7
144.3
147.9
140.4

245.7
134.7
220.4
134.9
145.2
253.4
143.6
148.7
139.4

246.8
135.1
220.7
135.7
146.2
253.7
144.5
149.6
142.0

Fruits and vegetables ..................
Fresh fruits and vegetables..........
Fresh fruits ........................
Apples..............................
Bananas ..........................
Oranges ..........................
Other fresh fruits (12/77 = 100)
Fresh vegetables................
Potatoes ..........................
Lettuce ............................
Tomatoes ............................
Other fresh vegetables (12/77 = 100) .

284.4
294.0
292.1
251.9
240.6
327.8
160.4
295.9
414.9
261.3
194.0
154.5

301.5
319.6
291.2
279.5
251.0
313.1
154.5
346.2
297.4
408.9
288.5
199.1

293.1
302.1
297.8
288.7
263.0
316.3
157.2
306.1
301.0
270.9
258.1
185.0

294.0
304.1
306.7
287.5
268.5
330.8
163.4
301.8
306.1
355.2
220.5
166.3

297.9
311.7
318.8
299.8
261.6
362.1
168.2
305.1
320.3
291.6
226.5
179.3

305.6
325.9
340.8
321.4
267.9
406.8
177.1
311.9
344.9
269.1
275.6
177.5

299.7
313.8
332.4
331.8
245.4
438.2
161.6
296.4
370.9
254.5
270.2
155.6

281.7
290.2
285.5
253.1
233.8
307.0
158.9
294.4
404.2
259.2
195.5
155.8

297.4
313.4
280.1
279.9
247.9
281.1
149.0
343.5
291.5
408.0
293.2
197.2

289.1
296.1
287.3
288.5
261.1
285.9
151.8
304.2
294.8
271.3
261.8
184.0

290.3
298.9
295.5
287.8
266.1
300.2
157.6
302.0
300.8
358.6
224.9
166.7

293.6
305.1
306.9
300.1
259.3
328.3
162.4
303.7
313.6
293.5
230.6
178.6

301.0
318.6
327.0
321.9
265.5
367.5
170.3
311.1
339.7
270.0
279.9
177.0

295.3
307.1
320.5
333.3
243.6
399.9
156.1
295.0
366.0
253.0
274.9
154.8

276.4
143.1
144.0
146.8
138.4
134.6
133.2

284.2
147.9
147.8
151.5
144.3
137.7
141.7

285.8
149.0
149.2
152.4
145.3
138.2
142.0

285.5
148.2
147.1
151.5
145.6
138.6
144.0

285.4
148.3
145.7
152.2
146.4
138.5
143.9

285.9
148.0
144.4
151.7
147.0
139.3
145.6

286.3
148.5
143.5
152.2
148.8
139.7
146.7

274.6
142.8
142.9
146.1
139.1
133.6
134.1

282.0
147.4
146.6
150.3
144.8
136.6
143.1

283.7
148.6
148.2
151.4
145.9
137.2
143.4

283.3
147.7
146.1
150.4
146.2
137.5
145.3

283.3
147.9
144.6
151.0
147.0
137.4
145.2

283.9
147.6
143.4
150.7
147.6
138.2
146.9

284.8
148.1
142.6
151.0
149.4
138.6
148.0

Processed fruits and vegetables ..
Processed fruits (12/77 = 100)
Frozen fruit and fruit juices (12/77 = 100) ..
Fruit juices other than frozen (12/77 = 100)
Canned and dried fruits (12/77 = 100)
Processed vegetables (12/77 = 100)..............
Frozen vegetables (12/77 = 100) . . .

Digitized74
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

18.

Continued— Consumer Price Index — U.S. city average

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)

All Urban Consumers
General summary

1982

1981

1982

1981
July

July

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

141.1
135.2
332.6
366.8
150.4
161.4
148.9
260.7
261.2
156.5
129.1
424.8
305.9
143.1
365.1
344.3
140.0
267.8
136.3
147.3
153.2
153.3
150.6
148.3
144.5

141.0
135.4
332.2
369.5
150.5
164.6
149.8
259.3
258.4
154.9
129.2
422.8
302.9
143.3
364.3
344.9
139.2
268.0
136.9
146.7
152.7
152.7
151.4
149.3
144.6

134.8
132.8
324.2
362.8
147.3
166.6
141.8
269.0
256.6
179.4
129.4
411.3
290.8
138.3
346.6
334.9
134.0
257.9
134.5
142.3
150.0
141.4
144.4
141.0
139.8

138.3
132.6
331.5
364.1
149.8
161.3
145.1
260.6
256.1
156.3
130.2
425.0
302.0
141.7
359.9
342.5
138.6
266.9
137.9
145.6
155.2
150.3
148.4
147.1
144.5

138.8
133.3
332.6
365.4
150.1
162.4
145.5
259.7
256.1
154.4
130.0
426.6
303.8
141.4
362.2
343.4
139.1
268.1
137.8
146.5
155.4
152.2
149.9
147.9
144.5

137.9
133.5
332.6
365.2
150.8
161.1
145.3
260.4
259.1
155.6
129.5
426.0
302.4
141.5
365.0
343.0
138.9
268.3
137.8
146.7
155.0
152.7
150.4
147.7
144.6

138.5
133.2
333.5
365.6
149.9
161.8
147.0
260.6
259.3
154.2
130.2
427.3
303.6
142.3
364.3
343.9
139.1
269.3
137.7
147.3
155.6
151.9
151.9
148.7
144.9

138.8
133.8
333.5
366.9
150.5
162.8
146.9
260.7
260.8
154.9
129.7
426.6
303.3
141.2
360.1
343.8
140.2
269.5
138.3
146.8
155.2
152.4
152.4
148.5
145.8

138.6
134.1
333.1
369.7
150.6
166.1
147.9
259.3
258.0
153.1
129.7
424.4
300.4
141.1
359.3
344.4
139.5
269.8
138.9
146.0
154.8
152.1
153.2
149.5
145.9

304.8
148.2
147.1
148.5

305.9
148.9
147.4
149.2

307.6
149.6
148.1
150.5

295.2
143.6
143.0
142.7

304.2
148.2
146.8
147.6

305.4
148.6
147.3
148.7

306.7
149.1
147.9
149.3

307.8
149.8
148.8
149.2

309.0
150.5
149.1
149.9

310.7
151.2
149.8
151.1

207.4

208.0

208.4

209.2

202.8

207.6

208.8

209.5

210.1

210.4

211.3

134.6
210.5
147.2
236.4
118.2
138.4

135.0
210.3
148.2
236.9
119.0
139.1

135.0
210.6
148.3
235.3
119.7
140.3

135.5
211.4
148.9
236.5
119.6
140.8

131.9
202.4
144.7
236.9
115.9
134.0

134.6
206.5
147.7
241.6
117.8
139.1

135.4
208.3
147.8
243.3
118.0
139.7

136.0
209.6
148.0
244.4
118.0
139.9

136.2
209.4
149.0
244.9
118.9
140.6

136.3
209.6
149.1
242.7
119.6
141.6

136.9
210.5
149.8
245.0
119.6
142.1

June

June

July

July

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

Canned and packaged soup (12/77=100)............................
Frozen prepared foods (12/77=100)....................................
Snacks (12/77-100)..........................................................
Seasonings, olives, pickles, and relish (12/77-100)..............
Other condiments (12/77=100) ..........................................
Miscellaneous prepared foods (12/77 -100) ........................
Other canned and packaged prepared foods (12/77=100) . . .

136.0
134.6
323.3
360.0
145.9
164.6
142.9
269.0
255.9
181.0
129.4
410.3
294.7
139.6
351.4
334.3
134.2
256.3
133.2
143.7
147.5
142.0
142.3
140.7
139.0

140.7
134.1
330.7
364.2
150.0
160.0
146.9
260.5
256.7
157.8
129.8
423.4
304.6
143.8
364.4
342.8
138.4
265.3
135.9
146.2
153.4
151.3
146.9
147.0
143.0

141.2
134.8
331.7
365.5
150.3
161.0
147.4
259.6
256.7
156.1
129.5
424.8
306.6
143.4
366.6
343.6
138.9
266.5
135.6
147.0
153.4
153.2
148.2
147.7
143.2

140.5
135.0
331.6
365.3
150.9
159.9
147.2
260.4
259.6
157.3
129.0
424.1
304.9
143.4
369.6
343.4
138.7
266.6
135.7
147.2
152.9
153.6
148.7
147.6
143.3

140.7
134.6
332.6
365.7
150.0
160.5
148.9
260.6
259.7
156.0
129.6
425.6
306.1
144.3
369.3
344.3
138.9
267.5
135.7
147.8
153.5
152.8
150.2
148.5
143.5

Food away from home............................................................................
Lunch (12/77-100) ........................................................................
Dinner (12/77-100) ........................................................................
Other meals and snacks (12/77=100)..............................................

292.4
142.6
141.3
141.6

301.2
146.6
145.2
146.9

302.4
147.0
145.7
147.9

303.6
147.5
146.3
148.6

Alcoholic beverages ............................................................................

200.5

205.6

206.6

Alcoholic beverages at home (12/77-100)..............................................
Beer and a le ....................................................................................
Whiskey ..........................................................................................
Other alcoholic beverages (12/77=100)............................................
Alcoholic beverages away from home (12/77-100)..................................

130.1
201.8
143.7
227.5
116.3
134.1

133.3
207.4
146.8
234.2
117.8
137.6

134.0
209.2
147.0
235.3
118.1
138.2

HOUSING..............................................................................................

297.0

307.3

306.7

309.4

313.8

317.5

319.2

297.0

306.7

306.2

309.2

313.7

317.5

319.3

327.6

331.4

336.7

340.9

342.8

320.2

330.3

328.5

332.8

338.3

342.6

344.6

FOOD AND BEVERAGES

Continued

Food - Continued
Food at home — Continued
Fruits and vegetables — Continued
Cut corn and canned beans except lima (12/77=100) . . . .
Other canned and dried vegetables (12/77-100)..............
Other foods at home........................................................................
Sugar and sweets......................................................................
Candy and chewing gum (12/77-100) ................................
Sugar and artificial sweeteners (12/77-100)........................
Other sweets (12/77=100) ................................................
Fats and oils (12/77 -100) ........................................................
Nondairy substitutes and peanut butter (12/77=100) ............
Other fats, oils, and salad dressings (12/77-100) ................
Cola drinks, excluding diet c o la ............................................
Carbonated drinks, including diet cola (12/77=100)..............
Freeze dried and instant coffee............................................
Other noncarbonated drinks (12/77=100)............................

Shelter..................................................................................................

318.5

329.5

Rent, residential......................................................................................

207.8

218.6

219.6

220.1

221.8

222.6

224.8

207.4

218.1

219.1

219.6

221.3

222.1

224.3

323.7
346.6
144.9

323.6
346.6
144.4

327.3
352.2
145.5

330.0
356.5
145.6

293.3
316.3
133.7

315.6
333.0
143.6

318.9
337.9
144.3

322.8
343.9
144.7

322.6
344.0
143.8

326.3
349.4
144.8

329.4
354.2
144.8

Other rental costs ..................................................................................
Lodging while out of town..................................................................
Tenants'insurance (12/77-100) ......................................................

293.6
318.3
133.3

316.9
335.9
143.5

320.1
340.9
144.1

Homeownership......................................................................................
Home purchase................................................................................
Financing, taxes, and insurance ........................................................
Property insurance ....................................................................
Property taxes ..........................................................................
Contracted mortgage interest c o s t..............................................
Mortgage interest rates........................................................
Maintenance and repairs ..................................................................
Maintenance and repair services ................................................
Maintenance and repair commodities ..........................................
Paint and wallpaper, supplies, tools, and
equipment (12/77 -100) ..................................................
Lumber, awnings, glass, and masonry (12/77-100)..............
Plumbing, electrical, heating, and cooling
supplies (12/77-100)......................................................
Miscellaneous supplies and equipment (12/77 -100) ............

358.0
271.4
480.0
387.1
201.4
630.1
229.4
319.3
349.0
249.3

368.7
270.4
507.2
393.7
215.1
666.1
243.9
328.2
359.4
254.6

365.7
269.2
500.9
394.1
216.6
655.5
240.7
327.2
357.8
255.0

370.6
272.3
508.4
393.6
217.2
667.1
242.1
331.6
363.6
256.2

377.4
279.3
516.2
396.7
218.3
678.5
240.2
334.5
367.0
257.8

382.8
285.6
521.8
400.6
218.8
686.7
238.3
336.1
369.1
258.3

384.5
287.7
524.3
401.5
219.3
690.4
237.3
334.7
366.9
258.7

361.2
271.2
486.9
388.3
203.2
632.6
230.3
316.2
350.5
242.4

370.8
268.3
513.2
396.0
217.2
666.6
245.4
324.6
360.1
248.2

367.9
267.1
507.0
396.5
218.5
656.4
242.3
323.7
358.6
248.6

373.6
270.5
516.0
396.0
219.1
670.2
244.4
328.3
365.0
249.7

380.5
278.1
523.8
399.2
220.2
681.4
242.1
330.9
368.0
251.3

386.0
284.4
529.7
402.7
220.7
690.0
240.2
332.4
370.0
252.1

388.0
286.8
532.4
403.7
221.1
694.0
239.2
331.5
368.1
252.9

146.7
125.0

150.9
124.6

151.8
123.9

153.1
124.5

154.2
124.5

153.3
124.7

153.4
125.0

138.2
123.0

143.7
121.7

144.7
121.2

145.8
121.9

147.0
121.9

146.0
122.1

146.5
1225

132.7
129.2

133.8
134.8

133.4
135.1

133.4
135.6

135.1
136.3

136.2
138.4

137.1
138.3

130.1
132.5

133.4
136.9

133.1
137.1

133.1
137.4

134.9
138.2

136.0
140.6

136.6
140.5

Fuel and other utilities..........................................................................

325.1

337.1

339.3

339.2

345.4

352.2

354.7

326.4

337.9

340.2

340.3

346.5

353.6

356.2

427.6
683.1
713.8
170.0
368.7
306.8
450.8

430.5
664.0
692.3
168.0
375.9
313.3
458.6

428.2
641.3
666.2
166.4
377.8
312.8
465.3

438.0
644.6
670.6
165.7
r 389.0
314.9
r 494.6

448.4
656.6
684.8
165.6
r 398.9
327.5
r 497.2

452.0
659.9
688.6
166.0
402.1
330.5
500.2

417.0
681.1
713.8
165.4
356.7
306.2
415.8

426.8
686.0
716.3
171.4
367.3
305.5
448.7

429.9
666.7
694.4
169.5
374.8
312.3
456.6

427.8
644.0
668.4
167.9
376.8
311.8
463.6

437.4
647.7
673.3
167.1
r 387.8
314.4
r 490.8

448.3
659.7
687.5
166.9
r 398.2
327.7
r 493.8

451.9
662.9
691.1
167.4
401.5
330.8
496.9

Fuels ....................................................................................................
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas............................................................
Fuel o il......................................................................................
Other fuels (6/78 - 100) ..........................................................
Gas (piped) and electricity ................................................................
Electricity..................................................................................
Utility (piped) gas ......................................................................


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

417.2
677.9
711.0
164.0
357.6
306.2
418.6

75

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
18.

Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary

Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)

1982

1981

1982

July

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

July

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Other utilities and public services............................
Telephone services ..................................................
Local charges (12/77 = 100) ........................................
Interstate toll calls (12/77 = 100) ............................
Intrastate toll calls (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Water and sewerage maintenance ..................................

180.8
147.2
116.7
109.1
101.5
294.0

193.9
157.9
125.3
116.6
109.1
313.3

195.0
158.5
125.6
117.7
109.0
316.9

197.7
160.8
127.9
119.9
108.9
320.7

198.9
161.6
128.9
120.0
109.3
323.5

200.4
163.2
131.2
119.6
109.8
324.9

201.4
163.8
131.9
119.7
110.0
327.7

181.3
147.5
116.9
109.6
101.3
295.8

194.3
158.0
125.4
116.7
108.8
315.7

195.4
158.6
125.7
117.8
108.7
•319.7

198.2
161.0
128.1
120.2
108.7
323.6

199.5
161.9
129.2
120.4
109.0
326.7

201.1
163.5
131.6
120.1
109.4
328.0

202.1
164.2
132.3
120.1
109.6
330.8

Household furnishings and operations..................

222.4

230.2

231.6

232.6

233.4

233.7

234.1

219.1

226.7

228.0

229.1

230.0

230.4

230.9

Housefurnishings ......................................
Textile housefurnishings ........................................................
Household linens (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Curtains, drapes, slipcovers, and sewing materials (12/77 = 100) .
Furniture and bedding......................................................
Bedroom furniture (12/77 = 100)..............................................
Sofas (12/77 = 100)......................................................
Living room chairs and tables (12/77 = 100) ..............................
Other furniture (12/77 = 100) ....................................................
Appliances Including TV and sound equipment ....................................
Television and sound equipment (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Television..........................................................................
Sound equipment (12/77 = 100)..........................................
Household appliances ................................................................
Refrigerators and home freezers ..........................................
Laundry equipment (12/77 = 100)........................................
Other household appliances (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Stoves, dishwashers, vacuums, and sewing
machines (12/77 = 100) ..............................................
Office machines, small electric appliances,
and air conditioners (12/77 = 100)................................
Other household equipment (12/77 = 100)........................................
Floor and window coverings, infants’, laundry,
cleaning, and outdoor equipment (12/77 = 100) ......................
Clocks, lamps, and decor items (12/77 = 100)............................
Tableware, serving pieces, and nonelectric
kitchenware (12/77 = 100) ....................................................
Lawn equipment, power tools, and other hardware (12/77 = 100) .

186.0
202.9
123.3
129.8
206.0
135.0
117.6
117.9
136.2
147.1
108.8
105.6
112.7
174.2
174.2
128.1
119.6

191.4
216.0
131.0
138.5
209.4
140.5
116.4
118.6
138.1
149.9
109.2
104.5
114.5
179.7
182.6
133.5
121.6

192.7
217.7
134.7
136.7
212.1
140.8
118.0
121.6
140.5
150.1
109.1
104.7
114.0
180.3
183.7
133.3
122.2

193.8
218.7
135.8
136.9
214.7
142.3
119.3
123.2
142.3
150.6
108.7
104.2
113.7
182.1
184.8
136.4
122.9

194.7
220.9
135.4
140.1
215.1
144.5
119.1
122.8
141.6
151.4
108.8
104.3
113.9
183.6
186.2
136.6
124.3

194.7
220.2
134.6
140.1
214.4
143.0
117.5
123.2
142.3
151.4
108.6
104.4
113.5
183.8
187.7
136.7
123.9

194.7
218.6
131.9
140.8
214.2
144.8
117.7
121.9
140.9
151.6
108.7
104.0
114.0
184.2
187.4
137.3
124.4

184.1
206.2
126.0
131.5
202.3
130.7
116.2
119.5
132.9
146.3
107.7
104.5
111.4
173.6
178.1
128.3
117.1

189.3
218.5
132.1
141.0
205.5
137.1
116.5
118.8
133.4
149.6
108.4
103.3
113.8
179.9
187.9
133.8
119.7

190.4
219.9
135.6
138.7
208.2
137.2
118.2
121.8
135.8
149.7
108.2
103.5
113.2
180.4
189.3
133.5
120.0

191.7
221.4
137.0
139.1
211.0
138.9
119.6
123.3
137.9
150.3
107.7
103.0
112.8
182.3
190.6
136.6
120.7

192.5
223.9
136.8
142.8
211.3
140.7
119.4
122.9
137.0
151.1
107.9
103.0
113.0
183.8
191.8
136.8
122.3

192.6
223.3
135.9
143.0
210.9
139.7
118.2
123.3
137.7
151.2
107.7
103.1
112.7
184.2
193.2
136.9
122.3

192.7
221.1
133.3
143.2
210.5
141.2
118.1
122.0
136.3
151.5
107.8
102.7
113.2
184.8
192.9
137.5
123.0

119.2

121.0

121.9

122.3

123.7

123.1

123.3

117.1

118.9

119.3

119.7

121.4

121.6

122.2

120.1
131.2

122.4
136.7

122.5
137.3

123.5
137.8

124.9
138.3

124.8
139.0

125.6
139.6

117.1
129.8

120.5
134.7

120.7
135.3

121.8
135.6

123.3
136.0

123.0
136.9

123.9
137.5

132.4
125.0

139.1
129.8

140.9
129.0

140.3
130.2

141.4
131.4

142.3
132.2

142.7
132.3

127.1
122.9

131.0
126.0

133.3
125.4

132.9
126.5

133.9
127.4

134.9
128.2

135.4
128.3

139.5
122.7

143.3
130.3

143.1
132.1

145.0
130.8

144.4
132.1

145.6
131.9

145.9
133.2

136.4
126.7

139.5
135.5

139.0
137.3

140.6
136.0

139.8
137.4

141.4
137.1

141.9
138.5

Housekeeping supplies ............................................................................
Soaps and detergents ......................................................................
Other laundry and cleaning products (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Cleansing and toilet tissue, paper towels and napkins (12/77 = 100) ..
Stationery, stationery supplies, and gift wrap (12/77 = 100)................
Miscellaneous household products (12/77 = 100) ..............................
Lawn and garden supplies (12/77 = 100)..........................................

271.5
266.5
134.8
138.8
126.6
140.5
138.8

282.4
278.0
141.0
145.7
130.4
146.9
141.8

284.2
279.5
142.1
145.7
130.7
147.5
144.7

284.9
280.0
142.7
146.4
131.4
147.5
144.7

285.5
278.8
143.3
146.0
132.0
149.3
144.8

286.5
280.8
143.8
146.5
132.5
150.2
144.0

288.4
281.4
145.3
147.7
134.3
150.3
145.3

267.9
263.1
133.6
139.0
127.9
136.6
131.7

278.8
274.4
139.8
145.6
133.4
141.8
134.1

280.4
275.7
140.9
145.4
133.8
142.4
136.7

281.2
276.3
141.6
146.2
134.6
142.4
136.8

281.8
275.2
142.3
145.6
135.3
144.1
136.6

283.1
277.0
142.7
146.1
136.0
144.9
136.7

285.0
277.6
144.2
147.4
137.8
145.1
138.1

Housekeeping services............................................................................
Postage............................................................................................
Moving, storage, freight, household laundry, and
drycleaning services (12/77 = 100)................................................
Appliance and furniture repair (12/77 = 100)......................................

295.3
308.0

308.1
337.5

309.9
337.5

310.4
337.5

311.3
337.5

311.7
337.5

312.5
337.5

293.4
308.1

306.8
337.5

308.2
337.5

309.2
337.5

310.2
337.5

310.9
337.5

311.6
337.5

143.1
127.8

149.4
134.2

150.8
135.0

152.1
135.6

153.1
136.6

154.2
137.0

155.3
137.5

142.8
126.4

149.1
132.8

150.6
133.5

152.2
134.1

153.3
135.1

154.5
135.5

155.4
136.0

APPAREL AND UPKEEP............................................

184.7

188.0

191.1

191.9

191.5

190.8

189.7

185.5

187.3

190.5

191.2

190.6

189.6

188.7

Apparel commodities......................................................................

175.1

177.6

180.8

181.4

180.9

180.0

178.6

176.6

177.4

180.8

181.3

180.5

179.4

178.2

171.2
175.6
110.3
102.5
96.7
129.6
115.5
106.5
115.1
107.0
124.5
117.7
153.5
101.2
153.9
162.2
95.1
120.0
78.6
106.5
100.0
106.1

173.4
179.3
113.0
104.8
95.8
134.7
119.3
108.6
116.0
105.9
128.2
119.1
154.7
102.9
156.4
152.8
96.3
126.2
87.0
102.7
92.6
103.4

176.8
181.7
114.5
107.2
98.1
136.8
119.9
108.6
117.8
109.4
128.7
120.1
160.3
106.8
162.0
163.1
100.3
127.1
92.7
105.6
98.2
104.6

177.4
183.1
115.5
107.6
99.1
138.2
121.3
109.7
118.3
111.2
130.3
119.0
160.9
107.1
163.4
166.6
100.1
127.4
89.4
c 106.7
98.8
105.4

176.7
183.8
115.9
108.1
99.9
138.7
121.2
110.3
118.8
111.5
131.2
119.6
159.1
105.7
158.3
162.0
101.2
128.1
83.4
106.3
96.9
105.9

175.6
183.1
115.4
107.3
99.5
138.0
121.5
109.7
118.5
110.7
131.9
119.4
157.3
104.4
156.4
160.1
100.2
127.9
78.6
105.8
95.1
106.0

174.0
182.4
114.9
105.5
98.2
138.7
121.6
109.5
118.6
109.0
132.1
120.7
154.6
102.1
154.9
152.8
96.7
127.7
77.6
106.3
98.8
103.6

172.8
176.9
111.6
97.4
100.8
124.8
118.8
113.2
113.6
107.6
120.6
115.6
157.9
104.5
159.0
154.1
99.1
120.1
100.6
106.9
98.9
108.9

173.0
179.4
113.5
98.2
97.2
131.1
121.8
114.1
114.3
106.3
124.2
116.7
157.1
104.8
163.1
140.9
96.8
126.0
105.6
103.1
91.5
106.0

176.6
181.6
114.7
100.4
99.7
133.1
122.3
114.2
116.1
109.7
124.7
117.8
163.0
109.0
173.1
148.1
101.2
126.9
114.1
106.0
97.2
106.9

177.1
182.9
115.7
101.1
100.7
134.5
123.4
115.1
116.5
111.5
126.0
116.8
163.4
109.1
172.9
151.1
101.0
127.3
111.0
106.9
97.6
107.6

176.0
183.7
116.2
101.4
101.5
135.3
123.1
115.6
117.1
112.0
127.2
117.3
160.8
107.1
165.7
147.1
101.9
127.9
100.6
106.2
95.0
108,0

174.7
183.2
115.8
100.6
101.1
134.7
123.8
115.2
116.9
111.5
128.0
117.1
158.4
105.4
162.9
145.4
101.0
127.6
92.7
105.2
92.4
107.7

173.4
182.6
115.4
99.2
99.8
135.3
123.6
115.0
116.9
109.7
128.2
118.3
156.2
103.5
161.8
138.4
97.6
127.4
93.1
105.4
96.0
104.1

117.6

118.0

119.6

122.0

122.4

122.9

123.8

116.3

117.0

118.7

121.0

121.5

121.9

122.7

HOUSING — Continued
Fuel and other utilities — Continued

Apparel commodities less footwear....................................................
Men’s and boys’ ..............................................................................
Men’s (12/77 = 100) ................................................................
Suits, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 100) ......................
Coats and jackets (12/77 = 100) ........................................
Furnishings and special clothing (12/77 = 100) ....................
Shirts (12/77 = 100) ..........................................................
Dungarees, jeans, and trousers (12/77 = 100)......................
Boys' (12/77 = 100)..................................................................
Coats, jackets, sweaters, and shirts (12/77 = 100) ..............
Furnishings (12/77 = 100) ..................................................
Suits, trousers, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 100)..........
Women’s and girls’ ............................................................................
Women’s (12/77 = 100) ............................................................
Coats and jackets................................................................
Dresses ..............................................................................
Separates and sportswear (12/77 = 100) ............................
Underwear, nightwear, and hosiery (12/77 = 100) ................
Suits (12/77 = 100)............................................................
Girls’ (12/77 = 100) ..................................................................
Coats, jackets, dresses, and suits (12/77 = 100) ..................
Separates and sportswear (12/77 = 100) ............................
Underwear, nightwear, hosiery, and
accessories (12/77 = 100) ..............................................

Digitized76
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

18.

Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)

All Urban Consumers
General summary

1981

1982

1982

1981

July

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

July

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Apparel commodities less footwear— Continued
Infants' and toddlers’ ......................................................................
Other apparel commodities ............................................................
Sewing materials and notions (12/77 = 100) ............................
Jewelry and luggage (12/77 = 100) ........................................

259.8
212.4
115.3
146.6

262.2
214.3
117.6
147.4

264.7
212.7
118.1
145.7

267.0
210.8
118.5
143.8

269.0
209.7
119.3
142.5

268.7
209.9
119.2
142.8

268.8
209.7
120.0
142.2

272.9
204.8
113.6
141.0

271.4
202.8
115.9
138.1

275.4
201.6
116.5
136.7

278.2
199.5
116.9
134.5

279.3
198.8
117.7
133.5

278.2
198.9
117.6
133.6

277.8
198.7
118.5
133.1

Footwear..............................................................................................
Men's (12/77 = 100) ....................................................................
Boys' and girls' (12/77 = 100) ......................................................
Women's (12/77 = 100)................................................................

199.0
128.0
130.1
118.7

202.8
130.7
129.5
122.7

204.9
132.5
129.2
124.7

205.6
132.3
130.4
125.1

206.5
132.4
131.5
125.8

206.6
132.1
132.1
125.8

206.4
132.3
131.7
125.6

199.2
129.5
128.7
117.8

203.3
132.6
132.3
119.0

205.2
134.5
132.1
120.8

206.1
134.4
133.6
121.1

206.9
134.5
134.6
121.6

206.7
134.1
134.8
121.6

206.7
134.3
134.4
121.5

Apparel services ................................................................................

258.9

269.4

271.3

273.4

274.7

275.3

276.6

256.3

267.2

269.0

271.0

272.3

273.0

274.3

Laundry and drycleaning other than coin operated (12/77 = 100)............
Other apparel services (12/77 = 100) ..................................................

153.8
136.7

161.4
139.8

162.4
141.1

163.5
142.5

164.4
142.9

164.8
143.1

165.4
144.1

153.1
135.1

159.9
140.3

160.9
141.5

162.0
142.7

162.8
143.1

163.3
143.4

163.8
144.6

APPAREL AND UPKEEP

Continued

Apparel commodities — Continued

TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................

282.6

288.0

285.1

282.9

285.6

292.8

296.1

283.9

289.6

286.6

284.3

287.1

294.5

297.9

Private................................................................................................

279.6

284.5

281.3

278.8

281.5

288.9

292.3

281.6

286.9

283.7

281.2

284.0

291.6

295.1

195.9
285.2
c 367.9
312.8
153.3

197.3
291.4
371.7
314.4
154.0

197.9
298.2
393.8
316.8
154.7

198.5
302.4
401.6
318.7
156.0

153.7
144.0
148.6
258.2
c 217.3
149.2
139.2
193.7
136.6
271.6
270.2
186.7
133.7
173.8
123.0
130.4
156.4

154.9
144.4
149.6
258.8
219.4
148.4
140.9
196.0
138.4
271.8
271.3
185.9
133.7
173.8
127.9
128.3
156.2

155.7
146.2
150.3
261.8
220.0
149.0
141.2
196.4
138.6
275.5
273.5
191.2
133.8
173.9
127.9
128.3
156.3

156.1
147.3
151.2
264.0
218.8
150.3
140.1
195.5
136.8
278.5
274.9
192.6
138.4
183.2
133.1
129.9
158.7

New cars ............................................................................................
Used c a rs ............................................................................................
Gasoline ..............................................................................................
Automobile maintenance and repair........................................................
Body work (12/77 = 100)..............................................................
Automobile drive train, brake, and miscellaneous
mechanical repair (12/77 = 100) ................................................
Maintenance and servicing (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Power plant repair (12/77 = 100) ..................................................
Other private transportation ..................................................................
Other private transportation commodities ........................................
Motor oil, coolant, and other products (12/77 = 100) ................
Automobile parts and equipment (12/77 = 100)........................
Tires................................................................................
Other parts and equipment (12/77 = 100) ........................
Other private transportation services................................................
Automobile insurance ..............................................................
Automobile finance charges (12/77 = 100) ..............................
Automobile rental, registration, and other fees (12/77 = 100) . . .
State registration ..............................................................
Drivers’ licenses (12/77 = 100) ........................................
Vehicle inspection (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Other vehicle-related fees (12/77 = 100) ..........................

192.5
260.3
412.9
293.5
144.1

195.5
279.7
399.1
307.7
153.7

194.4
280.9
383.9
310.2
154.5

196.0
285.1
366.7
311.9
155.0

197.5
291.4
370.4
313.6
155.7

198.1
298.2
392.3
316.0
156.3

198.6
302.4
400.3
318.0
157.5

192.9
260.3
414.0
293.4
143.3

195.3
279.7
400.6
308.4
152.1

194.2
280.9
385.4
311.1
152.7

139.9
137.4
139.9
242.9
208.8
144.8
133.6
185.6
131.7
254.3
259.8
180.9
118.0
147.9
105.9
128.6
136.6

146.5
142.7
147.3
253.4
214.8
149.3
137.4
191.3
134.6
266.1
268.1
188.9
128.9
167.1
121.7
129.3
144.8

148.7
143.9
148.0
254.5
215.6
150.2
137.9
191.7
135.7
267.2
269.8
188.9
129.7
168.5
122.9
129.3
145.3

149.5
144.5
149.1
255.1
214.9
150.7
137.2
190.1
136.2
268.2
270.4
187.2
133.3
174.2
123.0
129.0
149.5

150.8
145.0
150.1
255.7
216.9
149.9
138.8
192.3
138.0
268.4
271.6
186.3
133.3
174.2
127.7
126.7
149.2

151.6
146.8
150.8
258.7
217.5
150.7
139.2
192.8
138.3
272.2
274.0
192.0
133.3
174.3
127.7
126.7
149.3

151.9
147.9
151.7
260.8
216.3
151.5
138.2
191.8
136.6
275.1
275.4
193.6
137.4
183.6
132.8
128.5
151.0

141.4
137.3
139.1
246.0
210.8
143.4
135.2
188.4
132.2
257.7
259.6
179.9
118.4
147.9
105.6
129.3
143.1

150.2
142.3
146.8
256.8
217.3
147.8
139.4
195.1
134.9
269.8
268.0
188.3
129.5
166.5
121.7
130.6
152.4

152.8
143.4
147.5
257.8
218.2
148.7
139.9
195.5
135.9
270.8
269.6
188.2
130.1
167.8
123.0
130.6
152.5

Public..................................................................................................

323.1

336.8

336.7

339.3

342.1

345.6

347.2

317.7

331.0

331.0

333.3

335.1

337.9

339.8

Airline fare............................................................................................
Intercity bus fare ..................................................................................
Intracity mass transit ............................................................................
Taxi fare ..............................................................................................
Intercity train fare..................................................................................

367.3
343.5
290.7
287.1
304.6

379.3
365.7
306.7
296.7
314.0

379.0
365.6
306.6
297.2
314.1

382.7
367.0
308.1
297.6
332.1

388.9
366.0
308.3
297.6
337.9

396.0
363.7
309.2
298.0
338.2

397.4
368.3
311.0
299.3
338.4

365.6
343.6
291.0
295.7
304.9

376.3
367.4
305.8
306.1
314.5

376.3
367.0
305.7
306.6
314.5

379.8
368.7
307.2
307.3
332.1

385.2
367.5
307.1
307.2
337.9

392.4
365.4
307.9
307.6
338.2

393.2
370.6
310.3
308.7
338.4

MEDICAL CARE ..................................................................................

295.6

316.2

318.8

321.7

323.8

326.4

330.0

295.4

314.9

317.4

320.2

322.3

324.8

328.1

Medical care commodities..................................................................

187.7

197.7

200.0

202.4

204.1

205.6

206.5

189.2

198.3

200.6

203.0

204.8

206.3

207.1

Prescription drugs ................................................................................
Anti-infective drugs (12/77 = 100)..................................................
Tranquilizers and sedatives (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Circulatories and diuretics (12/77 = 100)........................................
Hormones, diabetic drugs, biologicals, and
prescription medical supplies (12/77 = 100) ................................
Pain and symptom control drugs (12/77 = 100) ..............................
Supplements, cough and cold preparations, and
respiratory agents (12/77 = 100)................................................

173.7
133.9
138.4
126.5

183.7
138.4
146.8
134.0

186.1
139.3
148.6
135.7

188.8
140.9
152.0
136.7

190.4
142.5
153.8
137.0

191.8
143.3
154.9
138.4

193.4
144.2
156.1
139.3

175.0
135.8
137.6
127.9

184.7
140.4
146.5
134.0

187.0
141.1
148.3
135.6

189.7
142.5
151.8
136.6

191.4
144.1
153.8
136.8

192.7
145.1
154.7
138.2

194.4
146.0
155.8
139.1

158.1
139.1

168.4
148.8

170.8
150.8

173.3
153.1

175.4
153.7

177.2
154.6

179.6
155.4

158.2
141.8

169.7
150.3

172.0
152.3

174.6
154.6

176.9
155.2

178.6
156.0

181.1
157.1

131.8

139.9

142.7

144.7

145.9

146.3

147.9

132.5

139.9

142.7

144.8

146.0

146.4

148.1

Nonprescription drugs and medical supplies (12/77 = 100) ....................
Eyeglasses (12/77 = 100) ............................................................
Internal and respiratory over-the-counter drugs ................................
Nonprescription medical equipment and supplies (12/77 = 100)........

134.5
125.8
213.1
129.9

141.1
128.9
225.1
137.1

142.5
129.5
228.1
138.1

143.9
130.1
231.1
138.9

145.1
130.9
233.4
139.5

146.3
131.6
235.2
141.1

146.4
131.6
234.9
142.2

135.8
125.0
215.4
132.2

141.6
127.6
226.4
137.7

143.2
128.1
229.6
138.8

144.6
128.7
232.5
139.7

145.9
129.7
235.0
140.4

147.1
130.4
236.8
142.0

147.1
130.4
236.2
143.2

Medical care services ........................................................................

319.2

342.4

345.1

348.0

350.2

353.0

357.3

318.5

340.6

343.0

345.8

348.0

350.7

354.7

Professional services ............................................................................
Physicians’ services........................................................................
Dental services..............................................................................
Other professional services (12/77 = 100)......................................

280.4
300.7
266.5
136.8

294.2
318.8
276.8
141.5

295.8
320.3
278.6
142.4

•297.8
322.2
281.1
142.5

299.2
324.0
282.1
143.4

301.2
326.4
283.9
143.8

302.8
328.7
284.8
144.8

280.8
304.7
264.6
132.7

294.3
321.7
274.9
138.5

295.9
323.2
276.6
139.4

c297 9
325.2
279.2
139.4

299.3
327.0
280.3
140.2

301.3
329.4
282.1
140.7

302.9
331.6
282.9
141.5

Other medical care services..................................................................
Hospital and other medical services (12/77 = 100)..........................
Hospital room..........................................................................
Other hospital and medical care services (12/77 - 100)............

366.1
151.7
478.0
150.4

400.8
167.1
533.8
163.8

404.7
168.5
538.5
165.2

408.7
169.8
542.2
166.4

411.9
170.6
543.8
167.6

415.7
171.6
546.8
168.5

423.2
174.7
557.8
171.2

364.6
150.3
472.2
149.4

398.0
165.7
527.0
163.0

401.6
166.9
531.0
164.2

405.4
168.3
535.2
165.5

408.5
169.1
536.7
166.6

412.1
170.0
539.4
167.5

419.4
172.9
549.7
170.0


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

77

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
18.

Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average

[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary

1981

Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)

1982

1981

1982

July

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May.

June

July

July

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

ENTERTAINMENT..........................................

221.1

231.2

232.8

233.9

234.4

235.6

236.6

218.7

228.1

229.5

230.5

231.1

232.3

233.5

Entertainment commodities ..................................

225.5

234.3

236.6

238.0

238.8

239.6

241.1

221.1

228.9

230.8

232.0

232.8

233.8

235.5

Reading materials (12/77 = 100 ) ..................
Newspapers ................................
Magazines, periodicals, and books (12/77 = 100) ............

136.0
265.0
137.3

144.1
273.1
149.9

146.1
276.4
152.4

146.8
280.1
151.6

148.5
281.6
154.4

149.4
283.9
155.0

150.4
285.9
156.1

135.9
265.0
137.4

143.3
272.8
149.7

145.3
276.0
152.2

146.1
279.7
151.4

147.7
281.2
154.2

148.6
283.4
154.8

149.7
285.6
156.0

Sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 100)..................
Sport vehicles (12/77 = 100)................................
Indoor and warm weather sport equipment (12/77 = 100) ........
Bicycles ........................................
Other sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 100) ........................

127.0
129.9
117.7
191.0
122.7

131.5
133.9
119.6
197.3
127.0

132.3
135.4
119.9
197.6
125.6

132.9
136.1
120.4
198.9
126.3

132.8
135.4
121.0
199.4
127.6

132.7
135.7
119.6
197.6
127.9

132.8
135.4
120.3
198.3
129.4

120.6
118.5
117.0
192.1
122.9

123.9
121.9
117.7
198.9
127.4

124.3
122.5
118.1
198.9
126.0

124.7
122.8
118.6
200.2
126.5

124.9
122.6
119.2
200.7
127.9

125.3
123.9
117.1
198.8
128.3

125.7
124.1
118.0
199.4
129.8

Toys, hobbies, and other entertainment (12/77 = 100)..............
Toys, hobbies, and music equipment (12/77 = 100)..............
Photographic supplies and equipment (12/77 = 100)........................
Pet supplies and expenses (12/77 = 100) ....................

129.3
127.9
125.7
134.5

133.2
131.7
126.9
140.6

134.5
133.4
128.3
140.8

135.4
134.1
129.8
141.9

135.5
134.8
130.0
141.0

136.1
135.9
130.3
140.6

137.3
137.2
130.8
142.0

128.5
125.3
127.0
135.1

132.3
128.6
127.9
141.6

133.5
130.2
129.5
141.7

134.3
130.7
131.0
142.7

134.4
131.4
131.2
141.8

134.9
132.4
131.5
141.5

136.1
133.7
131.9
143.0

Entertainment services..................

215.2

227.1

227.8

228.5

228.7

230.5

230.8

215.8

227.8

228.4

229.2

229.2

230.9

231.3

Fees for participant sports (12/77 = 100) ............................
Admissions (12/77 = 10 0 )................................
Other entertainment services (12/77 = 100 ) ..................

131.6
125.9
121.7

140.9
131.6
125.0

141.9
131.2
125.1

142.0
132.2
125.2

141.6
133.0
125.7

142.5
133.5
127.9

141.8
135.5
127.8

131.6
125.7
123.2

142.5
130.6
125.9

143.5
130.3
125.9

143.7
131.2
125.9

142.9
132.1
126.4

143.8
132.6
128.7

143.0
134.6
128.8

OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES......................

234.4

250.3

252.2

253.8

255.0

255.8

257.2

232.4

247.1

249.3

250.9

252.4

253.1

254.5

Tobacco products ....................................

219.3

230.7

234.1

235.1

237.4

237.8

239.2

218.4

229.8

233.2

234.0

236.6

237.0

238.3

Cigarettes ........................................
Other tobacco products and smoking accessories (12/77 = 100)

221.6
132.5

233.6
136.8

237.3
138.1

238.0
139.9

240.4
141.0

240.7
141.8

242.2
142.1

220.7
133.4

232.7
136.9

236.3
138.2

236.9
140.1

239.6
141.1

239.9
142.0

241.3
142.2

Personal care..................................

233.4

242.3

243.7

245.9

246.5

247.8

249.4

231.2

240.4

241.8

244.1

244.7

246.0

247.5

Toilet goods and personal care appliances......................
Products for the hair, hairpieces, and wigs (12/77 = 100)
Dental and shaving products (12/77 = 100) ..............
Cosmetics, bath and nail preparations, manicure
and eye makeup implements (12/77 = 100) ................
Other toilet goods and small personal care appliances (12/77 = 100)

228.7
133.9
139.0

238.5
138.4
145.6

240.6
140.8
148.0

243.8
142.9
149.0

244.5
142.1
150.1

246.3
143.2
150.5

247.7
145.0
150.9

228.4
131.7
137.1

239.2
137.8
144.2

241.5
140.0
146.6

244.7
142.3
147.6

245.4
141.7
148.6

247.0
142.6
148.9

248.6
144.2
149.5

127.7
133.0

135.0
137.0

135.1
137.4

136.5
140.3

137.6
140.5

139.6
140.8

139.9
141.8

128.3
135.9

135.8
140.2

136.1
140.7

137.5
143.5

138.5
144.0

140.1
144.4

140.5
145.4

Personal care services ........................
Beauty parlor services for women....................
Haircuts and other barber shop services for men (12/77 = 100)

238.4
240.5
132.7

246.5
247.7
138.4

247.3
248.9
138.4

248.7
250.7
138.8

249.2
251.3
138.9

250.1
252.3
139.4

251.8
254.4
139.8

234.4
235.1
131.8

241.8
241.3
137.2

242.6
242.5
137.2

244.0
244.3
137.6

244.4
245.0
137.7

245.4
245.9
138.2

246.9
247.9
138.5

Personal and educational expenses............

259.2

289.2

290.4

291.9

292.8

293.3

294.5

260.1

290.2

291.7

293.5

294.6

295.2

296.4

Schoolbooks and supplies............................
Personal and educational services....................
Tuition and other school fees ..............
College tuition (12/77 = 100) ............
Elementary and high school tuition (12/77 = 100)............
Personal expenses (12/77 = 100) . . .

231.3
265.8
133.5
133.0
135.3
147.9

262.9
295.8
150.6
150.1
152.2
156.1

263.3
297.1
151.1
150.7
152.2
157.4

263.8
298.7
151.4
151.0
152.2
160.9

264.2
299.8
151.4
151.0
152.2
163.6

264.6
300.3
151.5
151.2
152.2
164.5

264.8
301.7
152.0
151.8
152.2
166.0

235.2
266.4
133.7
132.9
135.4
146.6

267.1
296.3
150.9
149.8
152.9
155.3

267.5
298.0
151.7
150.9
152.9
156.7

268.0
300.0
152.0
151.3
152.9
160.5

268.4
301.4
152.0
151.3
152.9
163.6

268.8
302.0
152.1
151.4
152.9
164.6

269.0
303.4
152.5
152.0
152.9
166.1

407.1
402.7
286.5
332.3

393.9
424.8
299.1
344.0

379.3
420.9
302.7
344.0

362.6
426.3
305.1
347.5

366.1
431.5
r311.0
349.8

387.3
436.5
'316.6
351.2

395.0
439.1
318.7
350.3

408.0
402.4
285.6
332.8

395.3
423.5
297.7
344.2

380.6
419.9
301.5
344.0

363.7
425.9
304.0
348.2

367.2
430.9
'309.8
350.4

388.6
436.0
'315.6
351.8

396.2
438.8
317.8
351.0

Special indexes:
Gasoline, motor oil, coolant, and other products ..........
Insurance and finance............................
Utilities and public transportation ..................
Housekeeping and home maintenance services ........
1Not available.
r = revised.

Digitized78
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

c = corrected,

19. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Cross classification of region and population size class by expenditure
category and commodity and service group
[December 1977 = 100]
Size class A
(1.25 million or more)
Category and group

Size class B
(385,000^1.250 million)

1982
Feb.

Apr.

Size class C
(75,000-385,000)

1982
June

Feb.

Apr.

Size class D
(75,000 or less)

1982
June

Feb.

1982

Apr.

June

Feb.

Apr.

June

Northeast
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ............................................................................................................
Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Housing ......................................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ....................................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................................
Medical care................................................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................

144.2
143.3
146.0
117.0
156.5
145.1
133.3
136.9

143.6
143.7
144.5
119.1
153.7
146.4
135.5
139.0

147.7
145.9
151.6
118.6
157.2
147.5
136.5
139.8

150.7
142.7
155.7
120.5
164.2
147.0
132.4
140.6

150.0
142.2
155.3
122.5
160.0
148.9
136.2
141.1

155.5
144.1
165.2
122.8
164.6
150.2
137.5
142.1

158.1
145.7
172.5
123.1
161.6
148.7
136.1
142.9

158.6
147.4
173.3
127.4
158.6
150.4
135.8
145.3

163.5
148.8
182.1
128.3
162.2
152.7
136.4
146.7

151.4
140.4
159.5
119.9
161.7
144.8
137.6
140.6

151.9
140.4
160.5
125.1
158.1
151.5
139.0
142.9

156.9
142.9
169.3
123.4
161.2
155.4
141.1
144.0

COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities......................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..........................................................
Services ............................................................................................................

142.1
141.4
146.9

140.8
139.0
147.4

144.6
143.8
151.8

147.9
150.5
155.1

146.6
148.7
155.4

151.5
155.1
161.9

150.1
152.2
171.0

149.6
150.6
173.4

153.8
156.2
179.1

147.6
151.0
157.3

146.5
149.4
160.4

150.6
154.3
166.8

North Central region
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ............................................................................................................
Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Housing ......................................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ....................................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................................
Medical care................................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................

153.6
141.6
164.9
112.7
161.1
148.4
137.1
138.8

155.2
141.9
168.8
114.8
158.7
150.9
137.0
140.3

159.6
144.1
175.1
114.0
165.1
153.0
137.1
141.4

151.9
140.8
159.9
121.1
159.7
150.8
126.4
145.1

155.1
141.7
167.2
122.7
156.9
152.8
130.3
146.5

155.3
142.8
163.3
123.0
163.2
155.2
129.5
152.5

149.1
143.1
152.7
121.8
161.0
150.3
136.1
137.3

151.2
143.1
157.2
125.8
158.4
153.8
138.1
139.0

155.2
145.0
162.1
124.7
165.7
155.6
139.2
141.2

151.0
144.7
155.5
119.5
160.3
154.5
132.5
144.6

153.3
146.2
160.7
123.5
157.2
157.0
130.9
146.4

156.4
148.7
164.0
120.5
163.1
158.3
131.5
148.3

COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities......................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..........................................................
Services ............................................................................................................

145.2
146.9
166.1

145.4
147.0
169.8

149.4
151.9
174.8

145.4
147.3
162.6

146.4
148.3
169.3

148.5
150.9
166.2

143.5
143.6
158.4

144.3
144.8
162.4

148.8
150.5
165.6

142.1
141.0
165.0

143.7
142.6
168.7

147.9
147.6
169.8

South
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ............................................................................................................
Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Housing ......................................................................................................
Appare' and upkeep ....................................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................................
Medical care................................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................

152.6
144.2
160.2
122.6
161.5
145.9
129.3
141.2

152.9
145.0
161.1
125.6
157.5
149.5
130.1
142.8

156.3
146.7
165.2
124.9
163.4
152.8
132.0
144.1

157.2
144.8
168.3
121.1
162.8
150.5
140.0
140.7

155.7
144.9
165.2
124.3
159.7
152.3
141.2
142.4

158.4
146.9
167.2
123.6
167.0
154.5
143.1
143.3

154.0
144.1
162.7
117.0
160.7
155.4
140.4
142.0

152.3
144.0
159.1
120.2
157.1
160.1
141.1
143.7

157.6
146.0
167.0
118.6
165.1
162.5
142.7
144.5

152.3
146.1
158.8
105.7
159.9
162.5
140.4
147.9

153.5
145.9
161.5
111.1
155.8
165.1
145.7
150.2

156.5
147.7
164.6
109.4
163.3
166.6
145.2
150.4

COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities......................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..........................................................
Services ............................................................................................................

146.8
148.0
160.7

146.3
146.9
162.1

149.1
150.1
166.5

148.4
149.9
170.4

147.6
148.8
167.8

150.9
152.6
169.8

146.0
146.8
166.3

144.3
144.5
164.5

149.2
150.6
170.6

145.0
144.6
163.3

146.0
146.0
164.8

149.7
150.5
166.8

West
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All 'terns ............................................................................................................
Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Housing ......................................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ....................................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................................
Medical care................................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................

157.9
143.9
167.2
121.7
164.2
157.8
135.1
144.5

158.5
144.5
168.1
120.6
162.9
160.7
137.7
147.5

160.8
146.4
170.1
120.0
167.7
164.4
138.5
147.0

157.1
147.9
164.9
126.4
163.6
153.7
135.5
145.3

157.0
147.6
164.8
126.6
161.7
156.0
136.8
148.9

158.6
148.9
165.6
125.2
165.9
159.5
139.4
149,1

150.2
143.4
154.4
118.8
160.9
154.8
130.4
137.1

151.1
143.5
156.3
119.7
158.3
157.3
133.9
139.5

149.7
145.1
150.3
122.3
163.5
159.6
134.2
139.9

153.3
148.1
153.9
131.9
164.5
157.9
147.8
147.6

157.9
148.5
163.5
140.4
160.5
162.4
148.9
149.8

159.9
149.9
165.5
140.5
162.8
166.2
150.6
153.3

COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities......................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..........................................................
Services ............................................................................................................

146.0
146.9
173.7

145.5
145.9
175.9

147.8
148.4
178.1

148.4
148.6
169.1

148.1
148.3
169.3

149.5
149.7
171.1

145.2
145.9
157.3

146.4
147.5
157.9

147.5
148.5
152.8

147.5
147.3
161.8

148.9
149.1
171.2

151.3
152.0
172.5


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

79

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
20.

Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average, and selected areas

[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
Area'

1981

Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)

1982

1982

July

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

U.S. city average2

274.4

283.4

283.1

284.3

287.1

290.6

292.2

Anchorage, Alaska (10/67=100)
Atlanta, Ga.................................
Baltimore, Md.............................
Boston, Mass.............................
Buffalo, N.Y................................

246.1

260.0
279.8

272.5
266.3

281.9
269.8
259.9

Chicago, lll.-Northwestern Ind.
Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky.-Ind.........
Cleveland, O hio..................
Dallas-Ft. Worth, Tex............
Denver-Boulder, Colo............

272.7
273.3

Detroit, Mich...........................................
Honolulu, Hawaii ..................................
Houston, Tex..........................................
Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas ......................
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Anaheim, Calif.

283.1

Miami, Fla. (11/77=100) ..........
Milwaukee, Wis...........................
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.-Wis. .
New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J.
Northeast, Pa. (Scranton)..........

146.1
285.6

274.9

276.4
284.9

294.2

262.5
266.0

Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J.
Pittsburgh, Pa...........
Portland, Oreg.-Wash.
St. Louis, Mo.-lll. . . .
San Diego, Calif.........

280.8
269.4
305.4

San Francisco-Oakland, Calif.
Seattle-Everett, Wash...........
Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va. . . .

282.3
267.1

267.8

283.6
272.5

280.2
286.5
297.2

309.2
277.8
262.2
304.1
276.0
285.6

278.2

286.6
155.1
289.3

306.0
269.0

275.5
278.6

267.4
267.2
274.7

301.7
268.2

275.1
275.3

287.1

270.9
270.2
275.1

298.8

Statistical Area, as defined for the 1970 Census of Population, except that the Standard Consolidated

80 FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

285.9

289.1
269.5
313.9
281.6
290.1

304.1
276.7

279.7
285.1

282.1
285.7
329.2

293.4
278.8

273.7
266.5

293.1
293.3

271.7
276.3

319.9

299.9

292.4

278.9

289.3

276.3

155.1
296.5

147.3
291.2

277.3
275.1

262.3
269.0

275.4

July

281.1

268.5

292.5
290.2
334.8

279.2
269.2
300.5

296.6
281.3

277.8
271.4

280.0

275.1

275.1
280.0

265.9
268.4
274.3

291.5

280.3
264.7
302.1
272.1
290.5

282.7

326.3
286.0
269.5
310.9
280.1
293.9

157.0
296.0
301.2
266.5

274.5
276.7

292.7
295.9

297.0
300.5
319.5

156.4
292.5
305.3
267.8

287.0
278.7
264.1

287.0
291.2

285.7
292.7
315.0

274.8
263.2
300.3
274.1
289.4

282.9
283.7
272.0

256.4
276.5
287.2

285.0
289.8

304.6
301.2
278.4

May

282.9
282.2
269.8

258.0

297,8
304.8

155.7
292.9

286.7
280.7
319.0
295.8

291.8

313.4
283.7
263.8
304.9
274.0
286.8

Apr.

282.7
286.1
279.2

265.8
287.7
288.7

Feb.

263.6
291.1

258.3

285.9
293.6

272.2

263.8
280.2

July

269.4
272.1
274.7

289.3

156.9
299.6
303.8
275.3

279.1
285.9

276.1
277.3
280.9

283.9
279.3
313.9

279.7
284.5
323.3

290.6
289.2
329.4

289.6
283.8

297.1
283.3

292.9
286.3

294.9

Area is used for New York and Chicago.
2 Average of 85 cities,

21.

Producer Price indexes, by stage of processing

[1967 = 100]
Commodity grouping

Annual
average
1981

1982

1981
Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.1

May

June

July

Aug.

FINISHED GOODS
Finished goods....................................................................

269.8

271.5

271.5

274.3

274.7

275.4

277.9

277.9

277.3

r 277.3

277.7

279.9

281.7

282.4

Finished consumer goods..............................................
Finished consumer foods............................................
Crude....................................................................
Processed ............................................................
Nondurable goods less foods ....................................
Durable goods ..........................................................
Consumer nondurable goods less food and energy . . . .
Capital equipment ........................................................

271.3
253.6
263.8
250.6
319.6
218.6
208.8
264.3

273.0
256.3
256.9
254.2
322.1
218.3
210.4
265.8

273.1
256.2
253.5
254.4
324.2
215.8
211.8
265.3

275.1
254.0
253.8
252.0
324.3
224.5
212.6
271.5

275.2
252.7
260.0
249.9
325.4
224.7
213.6
273.0

275.8
252.9
273.9
249.0
326.3
225.4
213.9
274.1

278.3
256.4
280.6
252.1
329.3
226.2
217.4
276.2

278.6
258.2
282.5
254.0
330.3
224.0
219.6
275.0

277.7
257.1
263.3
254.5
328.8
223.9
220.5
275.8

r 277.3
r 260.0
'266.6
'257.3
'325.7
'224.1
'222.3
'277.2

277.6
262.3
259.4
260.4
324.1
224.7
222.9
278.3

280.0
263.4
254.3
262.0
328.1
226.2
222.9
279.6

282.0
260.7
240.6
260.4
334.7
227.0
223.3
280.9

282.7
259.8
238.6
259.6
336.7
227.7
224.0
281.4

Intermediate materials, supplies, and components..................

306.0

310.1

309.7

309.4

309.0

309.4

311.0

311.1

310.6

'309.9

309.8

310.0

311.4

311.0

Materials and components for manufacturing..................
Materials for food manufacturing ................................
Materials for nondurable manufacturing ......................
Materials for durable manufacturing............................
Components for manufacturing ..................................

286.1
260.4
285.8
312.1
259.3

289.8
261.0
291.0
316.0
261.8

290.2
254.6
291.2
317.1
263.8

290.2
250.9
290.9
316.7
265.1

289.5
246.8
289.4
314.9
266.9

289.3
245.6
288.8
314.0
267.8

290.4
250.7
289.0
313.6
269.8

290.9
252.8
289.3
313.1
270.9

290.4
252.0
288.8
310.9
271.8

'290.6
'254.4
'287.6
'311.0
'272.6

291.5
260.0
288.1
310.6
273.8

290.0
260.9
285.8
307.3
273.9

289.6
260.0
283.6
308.2
274.2

289.1
258.3
282.9
307.2
274.6

Materials and components for construction ....................

287.6

290.7

290.0

290.1

290.2

291.1

292.0

293.0

293.3

'294.0

293.4

294.2

294.0

293.3

Processed fuels and lubricants ......................................
Manufacturing Industries ............................................
Nonmanufacturing Industries ......................................

595.4
498.6
680.8

607.8
508.3
695.6

601.4
500.5
690.5

596.9
497.5
684.7

595.1
496.4
682.2

598.1
499.0
685.6

604.4
505.9
691.3

596.8
497.8
684.2

593.0
496.1
678.3

'579.9
'487.5
'661.1

569.9
482.3
646.7

581.2
492.0
659.3

601.6
508.4
683.4

603.8
511.0
685.2

Containers....................................................................

276.1

280.3

280.6

280.9

280.6

280.2

282.5

285.5

286.3

'287.0

287.1

286.7

286.4

285.6

273.5
267.3
277.0
211.1
290.7

272.9
267.1
276.2
203.7
291.3

INTERMEDIATE MATERIALS

263.8
253.1
269.6
230.4
276.4

266.1
256.0
271.6
229.1
279.3

266.1
256.8
271.1
221.3
280.7

266.6
258.2
271.2
215.9
282.3

267.2
259.2
271.6
212.0
283.7

268.3
261.0
272.4
214.6
284.1

269.8
262.6
273.8
214.8
285.7

270.4
263.3
274.4
212.0
287.3

270.6
264.5
274.1
208.1
287.9

'272.1
'265.3
276.0
'213.1
'288.9

273.6
267.2
277.2
214.2
290.2

273.6
267.3
277.1
213.1
290.4

Crude materials for further processing..................................

329.0

333.0

327.4

319.9

313.9

311.5

318.4

321.6

320.0

'322.6

328.1

325.7

323.4

320.5

Foodstuffs and feedstuffs..............................................

257.4

261.8

253.4

245.7

238.3

233.7

242.6

248.3

247.9

'254.4

262.3

259.8

255.5

250.7

467.9

470.0

471.1

Supplies ......................................................................
Manufacturing Industries ............................................
Nonmanufacturing Industries ......................................
Feeds ....................................................................
Other supplies........................................................
CRUDE MATERIALS

Nonfood materials ........................................................

482.3

485.3

486.0

479.2

476.3

478.6

481.5

479.3

475.2

'469.9

470.4

Nonfood materials except fuel ....................................
Manufacturing Industries..........................................
Construction ..........................................................

413.7
429.4
261.8

413.9
429.6
263.1

410.2
425.4
263.6

404.1
418.6
264.7

397.8
411.7
264.8

396.2
409.8
265.2

399.5
413.2
267.6

394.8
407.5
270.5

387.1
398.4
273.2

'378.8
389.0
'273.3

376.6
386.4
274.0

370.0
378.9
273.7

369.1
378.4
270.4

369.6
378.9
270.7

Manufacturing industries..........................................
Nonmanufacturing Industries....................................

751.2
864.9
674.0

766.7
883.0
687.8

788.7
911.4
704.8

779.0
898.4
697.8

792.5
915.8
708.2

813.0
942.5
724.0

812.9
940.3
725.6

824.5
954.4
735.4

839.7
974.7
746.6

'851.2
'989.1
'755.8

866.1
1,008.2
767.4

885.2
1,033.6
781.7

903.1
1,056.0
796.0

906.9
1,060.9
798.9

Finished goods excluding foods............................................
Finished consumer goods excluding foods......................
Finished consumer goods less energy............................

273.3
276.5
233.6

274.6
277.7
235.0

274.7
277.9
234.9

279.1
281.6
237.2

280.0
282.4
237.2

280.9
283.2
237.6

283.0
285.2
240.5

282.4
284.9
241.3

281.9
284.0
241.3

'281.1
'282.3
'243.0

280.9
281.6
244.1

283.4
284.6
244.9

286.7
288.7
244.5

287.9
290.1
244.7

Intermediate materials less foods and feeds..........................
Intermediate materials less energy ................................

310.1
285.2

314.5
288.5

314.6
288:7

314.6
288.8

314.5
288.5

314.9
288.7

316.4
289.9

316.4
290.7

316.0
290.5

'315.1
'291.0

314.6
291.7

314.8
290.9

316.4
290.6

316.3
290.0

Intermediate foods and feeds ..............................................

250.3

250.2

243.5

239.3

235.2

235.2

238.8

239.4

237.7

'240.9

245.0

245.3

244.1

240.6

Crude materials less agricultural products ............................
Crude materials less energy..........................................

545.6
254.0

549.1
258.0

551.4
250.4

543.4
243.2

540.7
235.8

543.5
231.6

546.1
239.1

543.9
243.4

538.4
242.8

'531.6
'247.3

531.7
252.5

529.4
248.6

531.8
245.0

532.2
241.5

SPECIAL GROUPINGS

1Data for April 1982 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections
by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.


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

r=revised.

81

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
22.

Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
Annual
average
1981

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov,

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.'

May

June

July

Aug.

All commodities ......................................
All commodities (1957-59 = 100)................

293.4
311.3

296.4
314.5

295.7
313.7

296.1
314.2

295.5
313.5

295.8
313.8

298.3
316.5

298.6
316.8

298.0
316.2

'298.0
'316.2

298.6
316.8

299.4
317.7

300.6
318.9

300.4
318.7

Farm products and processed foods and feeds..........
Industrial commodities ............................

251.5
304.1

254.2
307.2

250.3
307.4

246.0
309.0

242.5
309.3

241.0
310.0

246.0
311.8

248.4
311.6

247.5
311.0

'251.6
309.9

255.6
309.5

255.3
310.7

252.5
313.0

250.1
313.4

Hay, hayseeds, and oilseeds ....................................
Other farm products ................................

254.9
267.3
248.4
248.0
201.2
242.0
287.4
187.1
274.1
273.8

257.9
258.1
242.7
262.0
210.3
232.5
285.0
180.7
284.3
263.9

251.1
252.8
227.0
257.3
196.7
206.5
287.3
193.2
267.2
268.9

243.1
248.8
227.6
244.5
185.7
211.7
294.3
193.8
230.4
263.3

237.4
254.0
226.5
231.1
175.0
198.5
288.2
209.7
221.1
273.1

234.6
280.5
213.6
225.0
171.4
188.4
286.7
195.5
218.8
280.2

242.2
289.2
225.2
236.8
186.8
198.2
287.6
187.0
218.4
280.1

247.1
290.1
223.2
251.2
197.3
193.5
285.8
200.6
217.6
273.7

244.7
257.3
220.9
255.6
197.7
199.5
282.5
204.0
213.7
273.0

250.6
'267.6
226.0
267.6
186.2
207.4
280.3
192.1
222.8
274.2

256.1
270.7
228.2
282.9
192.7
214.1
278.8
164.3
224.3
273.9

252.7
263.8
225.7
277.5
207.2
203.1
278.9
159.3
219.3
271.8

246.5
238.4
212.8
270.3
212.5
220.8
279.0
171.7
220.0
265.5

242.0
237.7
197.2
268.4
189.3
207.5
278.8
171.7
218.1
274.4

02
02-1
02-2
02-3
02-4
02-5
02-6
02-7
02-8
02-9

Processed foods and feeds............................
Cereal and bakery products..............................
Meats, poultry, and fish ............................
Dairy products............................................
Processed fruits and vegetables..................
Sugar and confectionery ........................................
Beverages and beverage materials..............................
Fats and o ils ................................
Miscellaneous processed foods ........
Prepared animal feeds................................

248.7
255.5
246.2
245.6
261.2
275.9
248.0
227.4
250.1
230.2

251.2
257.7
254.4
245.3
267.3
267.3
249.4
229.5
252.1
228.9

248.9
258.5
253.3
245.5
270.0
246.8
249.1
224.3
253.0
222.9

246.6
256.9
246.6
246.8
271.7
246.7
250.0
223.4
249.9
218.1

244.3
256.5
240.0
246.9
270.5
244.1
251.4
221.5
250.1
214.7

243.6
255.1
236.1
247.2
271.8
247.6
251.9
219.1
250.1
217.2

247.1
256.6
243.7
247.7
273.2
256.8
253.9
216.6
251.0
217.4

248.1
253.3
247.9
248.0
276.3
257.2
255.1
216.8
250.9
214.9

248.1
253.3
250.0
248.0
275.9
255.0
256.4
213.7
249.5
211.4

'251.1
'253.5
'258.2
248.4
'275.2
'256.0
256.6
'218.1
'249.6
'216.3

254.4
253.9
267.1
248.5
273.4
265.8
256.7
222.2
248.0
217.4

255.8
253.3
271.1
248.7
275.4
269.5
256.5
222.0
248.6
216.4

254.8
253.6
266.1
248.8
275.9
276.1
256.7
221.4
248.0
214.6

253.6
253.2
262.3
249.0
274.9
286.0
257.3
216.0
245.9
207.9

03
03-1
03-2
03-3
03-4
03-81
03-82

Textile products and apparel..........................
Synthetic fibers (12/75 = 100)................
Processed yarns and threads (12/75 = 1 0 0 )............
Gray fabrics (12/75 = 100)................
Finished fabrics (12/75 = 100) ..
Apparel..............................
Textile housefurnishlngs..............................

199.7
156.3
138.0
146.8
125.2
186.0
226.7

202.4
161.2
142.0
149.0
126.8
187.8
228.8

202.9
161.0
142.3
149.1
126.8
188.0
232.2

204.0
162.7
144.4
148.0
126.7
189.9
233.0

203.6
161.6
140.3
147.4
126.5
190.8
233.4

203.4
161.5
139.6
147.2
125.6
191.0
233.6

205.0
162.9
139.2
148.2
126.8
192.7
237.6

205.6
163.2
140.7
147.3
127.1
193.2
240.8

205.0
161.3
140.5
146.6
125.6
193.4
241.4

'205.4
'163.0
140.4
'146.3
'125.4
'194.1
'241.8

205.1
164.3
141.0
145.5
125.4
192.7
246.4

204.5
163.8
139.4
145.8
124.0
193.0
244.4

204.1
162.4
139.2
144.8
123.8
193.1
243.0

203.9
163.1
135.9
144.5
124.4
193.5
240.7

04
04-2
04-3
04-4

Hides, skins, leather, and related products
Leather....................................
Footwear ............................
Other leather and related products..........

260.9
319.8
240.9
241.8

261.3
313.7
242.5
245.1

261.7
313.2
242.9
245.0

260.0
313.7
239.6
245.0

259.8
311.3
239.8
245.4

260.7
312.3
240.1
245.4

261.8
319.0
238.9
247.5

261.6
317.7
238.6
248.1

260.6
313.3
239.8
248.1

'263.4
'310.6
'244.8
'248.1

263.4
309.5
242.5
253.2

262.7
306.7
243.8
250.5

261.3
307.4
241.7
252.0

263.2
304.7
247.3
249.9

05
05-1
05-2
05-3
05-4
05-61
05-7

Fuels and related products and power . .
Coal............................
Coke ..............................
Gas fuels2 ................................
Electric power............................
Crude petroleum3 ..........................
Petroleum products, refined4 ............

694.5
497.2
456.4
939.4
367.2
803.5
805.9

704.3
507.0
469.7
949.3
385.8
796.8
813.4

703.5
510.2
469.7
976.6
383.8
796.8
806.1

698.1
510.8
469.7
965.6
378.4
788.2
802.3

698.1
512.7
469.7
983.0
378.3
785.9
798.3

702.5
515.2
469.7
1,003.7
384.2
787.2
798.6

705.1
525.3
469.7
987.9
392.8
787.2
801.9

697.8
529.9
469.7
987.6
392.9
770.3
789.7

689.7
529.6
467.5
990.5
403.7
744.8
770.6

'670.6
'532.6
'467.5
'992.7
'406.3
'717.9
'733.5

06
06-1
06-21
06-22
06-3
06-4
06-5
06-6
06-7

Chemicals and allied products..............
Industrial chemicals 5 ........................
Prepared paint........................
Paint materials ..................
Drugs and pharmaceuticals ..................
Fats and oils, inedible ..........
Agricultural chemicals and chemical products . . .
Plastic resins and materials ..............
Other chemicals and allied products................

287.6
363.3
249.8
300.1
193.5
295.6
285.0
289.2
254.2

293.3
371.5
250.7
308.5
195.0
305.6
293.4
297.5
257.3

293.3
371.8
250.7
308.0
197.8
285.6
292.6
296.8
257.4

292.4
367.9
250.7
308.1
198.5
277.7
293.1
299.5
256.9

292.0
363.7
254.5
308.3
198.2
282.5
295.7
293.2
259.9

291.8
362.8
256.4
305.8
198.9
280.4
294.9
294.2
260.0

292.9
362.9
258.9
306.6
202.2
272.8
296.8
286.1
263.8

293.6
362.2
258.9
306.4
204.4
274.2
298.0
287.3
264.9

294.6
361.4
258.9
306.8
205.9
290.1
297.1
285.5
268.5

'294.3
'357.8
'258.9
'306.7
'208.9
282.6
'295.8
'286.0
'270.0

296.2
358.1
265.1
306.2
209.4
288.4
294.9
285.4
275.9

293.5
352.9
265.1
304.2
209.6
287.5
294.0
281.9
273.0

291.6
349.7
265.1
304.3
209.9
278.2
291.5
280.6
270.7

291.6
349.7
265.1
302.3
211.1
254.2
290.6
282 4
271.8

07
07-1
07-11
07-12
07-13
07-2

Rubber and plastic products ................
Rubber and rubber products..................
Crude rubber ..................
Tires and tubes..........................
Miscellaneous rubber products............
Plastic products (6/78 = 100) ................

232.6
256.2
281.8
250.6
251.4
128.5

234.1
256.9
284.7
249.9
253.1
129.8

235.7
260.3
283.1
256.5
253.9
129.9

237.3
262.9
279.8
257.1
261.1
130.3

238.0
264.4
279.0
255.9
266.7
130.3

238.3
264.6
280.8
255.4
267.2
130.6

237.3
262.5
281.8
253.6
263.8
130.5

239.3
266.0
282.1
256.7
268.8
131.0

240.8
266.7
283.5
253.7
274.3
132.3

'241.1
'266.6
'283.3
'253.4
'274.7
' 132.6

242.9
271.2
283.6
255.0
284.6
132.3

243.3
271.5
282.4
255.3
285.4
132.6

243.1
271.6
280.2
255.6
286.1
132.3

243.6
272.5
278.6
257.9
286.0
132.3

08
08-1
08-2
08-3
08-4

Lumber and wood products..............
Lumber....................
Millwork ..........................
Plywood ..................
Other wood products................................

292.8
325.1
273.4
245.7
239.1

294.5
329.9
272.3
245.6
239.8

289.3
320.2
271.4
240.8
240.5

284.3
311.7
271.3
234.3
239.9

282.1
306.6
271.8
233.5
239.3

285.4
309.9
273.7
239.7
239.4

285.5
310.0
277.1
237.4
238.2

285.2
308.1
278.6
235.1
238.7

285.3
308.2
276.5
236.5
238.6

'286.5
'312.4
'276.6
'234.0
237.7

283.9
309.2
275.8
230.6
237.3

288.7
315.2
280.1
238.9
237.1

288.3
319.2
281.8
232.4
236.0

284.4
312.7
280.2
229.3
235.8

Code

01
01-1
01-2
01-3
01-4
01-5
01-6
01-7
01-8
01-9

Commodity group and subgroup

FARM PRODUCTS AND PROCESSED FOODS
AND FEEDS
Farm products ........................................................
Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables ................................
Grains........................................................
Livestock ......................................................
Live poultry....................................................
Plant and animal fibers......................................
Fluid milk ....................................

Eggs................................................................................

1981

1982

INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES

See footnotes at end of table.

Digitized 82
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

661.9
677.4
701.8
705.7
534.4
534.1
538.6
539.1
462.7
468.2
463.9
460.0
1,003.4 1,029.7 1,055.4 1,073.7
405.5
406.6
416.9
415.3
718.2
718.5
718.7
718.7
712.7
738.5
777.1
781.8

22.

Continued — Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings

[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
Commodity group and subgroup

Code

Annual
average
1981

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.1

May

June

July

Aug.

1982

1981

INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES-Continued
09
09-1
09-11
09-12
09-13
09-14
09-15
09-2

Pulp, paper, and allied products....................................................
Pulp, paper, and products, excluding building paper and board . . .
Woodpulp................................................................................
Wastopaper ............................................................................
Paper ......................................................................................
Paperboard..............................................................................
Converted paper and paperboard products................................
Building paper and board..........................................................

273.8
270.8
397.1
175.7
279.8
258.1
258.8
231.7

275.9
273.7
394.2
182.1
282.1
260.6
262.4
234.2

277.8
274.8
394.2
178.5
285.9
261.6
262.8
234.2

279.2
275.7
402.3
165.1
287.8
261.7
263.2
233.3

280.4
275.8
413.7
144.5
287.4
261.6
263.1
232.1

281.0
275.6
413.7
143.4
287.2
260.0
263.2
230.3

285.5
276.1
410.3
135.2
289.2
259.7
263.9
233.8

286.3
276.8
410.3
128.8
289.8
261.4
264.7
231.4

287.4
276.6
411.6
129.2
289.6
261.1
264.5
239.6

r 288.5
'275.3
'389.9
128.1
'289.4
261.2
'264.3
'236.3

289.1
275.4
398.2
121.5
288.8
258.8
264.7
239.5

289.3
274.6
390.3
115.2
288.2
255.9
265.0
239.4

288.9
272.9
370.5
115.6
287.0
255.0
264.6
239.2

289.1
272.6
369.2
116.0
286.1
255.5
264.4
243.8

10
10-1
10-17
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-7
10-8

Metals and metal products ..........................................................
Iron and steel ..........................................................................
Steel mill products....................................................................
Nonferrous metals....................................................................
Metal containers ......................................................................
Hardware................................................................................
Plumbing fixtures and brass fittings............................................
Heating equipment....................................................................
Fabricated structural metal products..........................................
Miscellaneous metal products....................................................

300.4
333.8
337.6
285.8
315.6
263.2
267.5
224.2
295.5
270.5

304.1
339.9
344.9
287.3
318.7
265.3
271.2
227.9
299.3
272.9

304.9
339.8
345.3
289.4
318.8
267.8
271.6
228.5
300.0
273.7

3053
341.3
348.7
2854
318.2
269.5
272.9
229.0
302.6
276.1

304.2
340.0
348.6
281.1
318.1
271.5
273.1
228.8
303.2
278.0

303.3
339.9
348.9
277.1
316.8
272.0
274.0
229.9
303.0
278.3

304.7
343.1
350.6
274.4
324.3
274.1
274.6
233.4
303.4
281.2

304.2
342.9
350.3
273.6
326.2
274.8
276.4
233.1
304.0
278.7

302.9
342.5
350.5
267.2
327.2
278.2
279.1
235.4
304.5
279.0

'303.1
'342.8
352.2
266.1
'330.0
'278.5
280.3
'236.0
'305.2
'279.7

303.4
341.2
352.1
263.5
330.1
276.7
281.0
237.3
304.8
290.0

300.1
338.3
349.9
253.7
330.2
277.9
282.5
238.6
305.2
289.5

300.2
337.4
349.1
256.1
329.9
278.9
283.0
239.1
303.8
288.8

300.2
337.4
348.7
256.1
328.8
280.3
274.7
238.6
304.4
288.9

11
11-1
11-2
11-3
11-4
11-6
11-7
11-9

Machinery and equipment ............................................................
Agricultural machinery and equipment........................................
Construction machinery and equipment......................................
Metalworking machinery and equipment ....................................
General purpose machinery and equipment................................
Special industry machinery and equipment ................................
Electrical machinery and equipment ..........................................
Miscellaneous machinery..........................................................

263.3
288.3
320.8
301.3
288.7
307.9
220.2
252.6

266.2
290.3
325.0
303.5
292.3
310.3
222.8
256.0

268.1
292.8
326.5
305.3
293.9
312.8
224.2
258.5

269.3
295.5
328.3
306.6
295.1
314.6
225.3
259.0

270.4
300.8
329.6
307.9
296.2
315.0
226.0
259.8

272.0
302.8
332.0
312.9
297.9
316.4
227.0
260.4

274.1
303.1
337.0
315.9
300.0
320.4
228.7
261.4

275.4
304.6
337.9
317.2
301.3
320.7
229.5
264.0

276.2
306.4
339.2
317.8
302.0
321.3
230.3
264.9

'277.6
'306.8
'341.5
'319.6
'303.4
'322.9
'231.7
'266.1

278.1
307.0
343.4
320.3
303.3
324.1
231.7
267.2

278.4
308.8
343.7
320.8
303.1
324.7
231.9
268.0

279.4
310.2
346.1
321.9
304.4
327.1
232.0
268.9

279.7
311.4
346.4
322.4
304.5
326.9
232.0
270.3

12
12-1
12=2
12-3
12-4
12-5
12-6

Furniture and household durables ................................................
Household furniture..................................................................
Commercial furniture................................................................
Floor coverings ........................................................................
Household appliances ..............................................................
Home electronic equipment ......................................................
Other household durable goods ................................................

198.5
219.7
257.5
178.7
187.3
89.2
281.0

199.6
220.7
259.1
181.9
189.1
87.6
280.9

201.0
222.2
261.6
181.7
190.1
87.8
285.8

201.3
222.8
262.1
180.9
190.8
88.1
285.8

202.1
225.1
263.3
182.3
190.9
88.0
285.3

202.9
226.6
263.9
181.4
191.3
89.6
286.2

203.5
227.5
266.7
180.3
193.4
89.3
283.4

204.6
227.4
271.2
180.6
195.3
89.6
283.7

205.5
227.6
273.6
180.6
197.3
89.1
285.0

'206.0
'229.7
'274.2
'181.1
'197.8
'87.9
'285.9

206.1
230.9
275.5
180.5
197.8
88.1
283.1

206.6
231.1
276.2
180.7
198.5
88.2
284.6

206.8
230.9
277.8
180.1
199.3
88.2
283.6

207.4
231.4
278.0
179.4
200.1
88.0
287.4

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, excluding refractories ..........................
Refractories ............................................................................
Asphalt roofing ........................................................................
Gypsum products ....................................................................
Glass containers ......................................................................
Other nonmetallic minerals........................................................

309.5
212.6
296.3
291.2
249.8
302.4
407.5
256.2
328.7
463.8

314.1
218.3
298.0
293.4
250.9
307.1
420.9
255.3
335.5
475.3

313.2
218.3
298.5
292.9
255.3
307.1
401.6
252.9
335.5
474.3

313.3
218.5
298.4
293.3
256.2
307.8
402.9
252.4
335.5
473.3

313.7
218.5
298.5
293.4
256.5
308.9
410.2
251.3
335.5
473.5

313.5
216.1
298.7
293.6
257.5
311.3
405.6
249.7
335.5
474.7

315.6
216.2
306.2
295.5
257.5
316.8
401.3
250.4
335.4
474.7

319.0
216.2
308.4
295.9
257.7
335.1
400.4
255.0
352.2
478.7

319.9
216.2
309.8
296.3
257.7
337.4
394.4
260.7
356.0
479.6

'320.2
216.2
'309.5
'297.7
'258.1
338.7
'386.7
'263.2
'358.1
'479.1

319.1
216.2
310.7
297.1
258.1
340.4
384.0
259.4
357.4
472.1

318.7
216.2
310.9
297.9
258.4
340.9
388.8
256.4
357.4
465.2

320.3
226.1
310.6
298.2
258.8
340.9
392.3
255.8
357.4
466.4

320.4
226.1
311.7
298.3
258.8
341.2
392.5
253.9
357.3
466.2

14
14-1
14-4

Transportation equipment (12/68 - 100)......................................
Motor vehicles and equipment ..................................................
Railroad equipment ..................................................................

235.4
237.6
336.1

235.9
238.4
338.7

231.8
232.8
338.7

244.5
247.8
338.7

246.3
248.9
341.3

246.8
249.5
340.1

248.6
250.8
345.8

245.2
246.8
345.8

245.2
246.8
346.3

'245.8
'247.2
'343.5

247.2
248.7
349.6

249.6
251.5
349.6

250.4
252.5
349.3

251.2
253.3
354.7

15
15-1
15-2
15-3
15-4
15-5
15-9

Miscellaneous products................................................................
Toys, sporting goods, small arms, ammunition............................
Tobacco products ....................................................................
Notions....................................................................................
Photographic equipment and supplies........................................
Mobile homes (12/74 - 100)....................................................
Other miscellaneous products ..................................................

265.7
211.9
268.3
259.8
210.0
156.8
347.4

262.6
212.7268.8
267.7
207.1
158.3
334.6

267.0
213.6
274.5
267.8
208.7
158.7
345.5

268.5
213.0
278.2
269.7
208.9
159.1
348.5

269.5
212.7
278.2
269.7
209.0
159.3
344.8

267.6
213.3
278.2
269.7
209.1
159.3
344.6

268.3
218.4
278.2
270.3
209.9
159.5
342.2

273.5
220.1
306.6
270.4
210.5
159.6
341.1

272.7
220.7
306.6
271.5
212.1
161.9
334.5

'273.2
'221.0
'306.7
'271.5
'214.2
'162.2
'334.1

272.3
222.7
306.7
280.3
210.9
162.1
330.8

271.6
222.9
306.7
280.3
210.8
162.5
328.0

273.8
222.9
311.3
280.3
210.6
162.5
333.1

272.4
224.4
311.3
280.3
210.6
162.5
326.5

1 Data for April 1982 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by
respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
2 Prices for natural gas are lagged 1 month.
3 Includes only domestic production.


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

4 Most prices for refined petroleum products are lagged 1 month,
5 Some prices for industrial chemicals are lagged 1 month.
r=revised.

83

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
23.

Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings

[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
Annual
C o m m odity grouping

All com m odities — le s s fa rm p ro d u c ts

1981

1982

averag e

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

All fo o d s
P ro c e s s e d f o o d s ..............................................................

Industrial commodities less fu e ls...................................
Selected textile mill products (Dec. 1975 = 100 )..........
Hosiery........................................................................
Underwear and nightwear.............................................
Chemicals and allied products, including synthetic rubber
and fibers and yarns..................................................

1981

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

295.7
251.8
252.1
263.7
135.8
134.3
203.4

298.7
253.7
255.0
266.1
137.2
135.3
204.7

298.5
251.7
252.8
266.4
138.1
135.5
204.7

299.5
249.1
250.0
268.7
138.2
136.5
204.7

299.4
247.4
247.6
269.0
138.4
136.5
205.7

300.0
247.6
246.5
269.4
137.9
136.7
206.3

302.0
251.6
250.5
271.1
139.3
136.9
213.9

Mar.

A p r .1

M ay

June

July

Aug.

301.9
253.2
251.9
271.5
139.7
136.9
215.6

301.4
251.6
252.1
271.7
139.0
137.5
215.9

300.9
'254.7
'255.1
'272.3
'139.0
'138.0
'215.9

301.1
257.9
259.0
272.8
138.9
138.5
216.3

302.3
259.0
260.9
272.5
138.1
138.5
217.8

304.1
356.8
259.8
272.7
137.5
138.5
218.0

304.3
255.9
258.9
272.7
137.6
138.5
218.1

278.4

284.0

284.4

283.8

283.2

283.1

284.3

285.1

285.6

'285.6

287.3

2848

283.0

283.4

Pharmaceutical preparations.........................................
Lumber and wood products, excluding millwork ............
Steel mill products, including fabricated wire products . . .
Finished steel mill products, excluding fabricated wire
products....................................................................
Finished steel mill products, including fabricated wire
products....................................................................

186.9
303.0
337.6

188.4
306.2
344.9

191.6
298.0
345.3

192.8
290.1
348.7

192.5
286.4
348.6

193.3
290.7
348.9

196.8
289.9
350.6

199.3
287.9
350.3

201.1
288.5
350.5

'204.5
'290.5
352.2

205.3
287.2
352.1

205.3
294.0
349.9

205.7
294.6
348.7

207.2
289.2
348.4

336.2

343.3

343.7

347.4

347.2

347.5

349.3

348.9

349.2

351.0

350.9

348.6

347.7

347.3

3362

343.3

343.7

347.4

347.2

347.5

349.3

348.9

349.2

351.0

350.9

348.6

347.4

347.0

Special metals and metal products ...............................
Fabricated metal products ...........................................
Copper and copper products .......................................
Machinery and motive products.....................................
Machinery and equipment, except electrical..................

279.4
280.0
203.8
256.7
288.5

281.9
283.1
206.2
258,6
291.7

280.1
283.9
205.1
257.7
293.8

286.7
286.0
201.9
264.3
295.0

286.8
287.0
198.9
265.8
296.4

286.6
287.1
195.4
266.9
298.4

287.9
289.4
194.5
268.9
300.7

286.0
289.0
194.1
268.1
302.3

285.3
289.9
190.8
268,5
303.1

'285.6
'290.8
'191.6
'269.6
'304.6

286.4
294.3
191.6
270.5
305.2

285.8
294.6
180.0
271.8
305.7

286.3
294.0
179.5
272.8
307.2

286.6
293.9
180.1
273.3
307.7

Agricultural machinery, including tractors.......................
Metalworking machinery................................................
Numerically controlled machine tools (Dec. 1971 = 100)
Total tractors................................................................
Agricultural machinery and equipment less parts ..........

297.3
329.7
239.3
324.7
289.8

298.2
331.4
241.8
327.8
291.1

301.6
333.9
241.8
330.7
294.0

305.7
336.7
241.8
338.3
297.6

312.5
338.3
242.2
342.2
303.5

314.7
341.2
242.0
342.3
305.8

315.1
343.8
240.1
346.9
306.5

316.0
344.9
239.8
346.9
307.4

318.4
346.4
239.9
349.1
309.7

'319.0
348.8
'239.9
'352.4
'310.3

318.2
349.4
240.3
352.4
309.6

319.8
350.3
240.3
353.2
311.0

320.5
352.7
239.6
354.2
311.8

321.5
353.2
239.6
354.8
312.5

Farm and garden tractors less parts .............................
Agricultural machinery, excluding tractors less parts . . . .
Industrial valves............................................................
Industrial fittings............................................................
Construction materials .................................................

300.1
295.2
315.9
302.1
283.0

301.4
295.8
319.8
303.0
285.5

305.5
298.7
322.7
304.3
284.4

313.0
299.9
322.4
304.1
284.6

319.6
303.5
323.4
304.1
284.1

319.7
310.9
325.3
304.1
285.2

319.7
311.6
328.6
304.1
286.6

319.7
313.2
330.2
304.1
286.9

323.5
314.6
330.5
304.1
287.5

'323.5
'315.6
'331.1
'309.1
'288.2

322.9
314.7
327.9
309.1
287.9

324.3
316.5
327.2
309.1
289.1

324.2
317.7
329.2
310.2
289.0

324.8
319.0
329.2
310.2
288.2

' Data for April 1982 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections
by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.

24.

r=revised,

Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product

[1967=100]
Annual
C o m m odity gro uping

1981

1982

averag e
1981

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

A p r .1

May

Total durable goods ......................................................
Total nondurable goods..................................................

269.8
312.4

271.9
316.2

271.8
315.0

275.0
312.8

275.4
311.4

276.0
311.4

277.6
314.7

277.4
315.4

277.4
314.2

278.1
'313.6

278.4
314.5

Total manufactures........................................................
Durable.................................................................
Nondurable ............................................................

286.0
269.7
303.6

288.6
271.7
306.9

288.3
271.7
306.3

289.8
275.1
305.5

289.7
275.8
304.5

289.9
276.5
304.3

291.9
278.0
306.8

292.0
277.8
307.2

291.4
277.8
305.9

'291.1
'278.7
'304.1

Total raw or slightly processed goods ..............................
Durable.................................................................
Nondurable ............................................................

330.7
271.2
334.0

335.8
275.9
339.1

332.7
270.4
336.3

326.4
263.7
330.0

323.3
253.4
327.4

323.6
247.8
328.2

328.9
253.8
333.4

330.6
253.7
335.2

329.7
250.1
334.5

'331.9
'245.3
'337.2

1Data for April 1982 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections
by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.

25.

June

July

Aug.

278.4
316.0

279.1
317.7

279.1
317.3

291.3
279.1
304.1

292.4
279.4
306.2

293.9
280.1
308.6

293.9
280.1
308.6

334.9
239.4
340.8

333.6
225.2
340.6

333.3
225.0
340.2

331.8
225.7
338.6

r=revised,

Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries

[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
1972
SIC

Annual
Industry description

co d e

1981

1982

averag e
1981

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

A p r.1

May

June

July

Aug.

167.6
346.0
493.7
898.6
277.4
138.7

168.1
365.4
503.4
900.3
278.2
137.1

168.1
364.5
506.0
913.6
279.2
137.1

168.1
354.1
506.2
900.8
279.7
143.4

171.3
354.1
507.8
907.5
279.8
143.4

171.3
343.7
510.3
921.7
280.7
143.4

171.3
347.9
520.9
919.7
287.4
149.6

171.3
313.7
525.8
913.9
289.9
149.6

171.3
325.0
524.9
905.4
293.1
149.6

171.3
327.0
'527.9
'893.3
'292.6
151.7

177.1
308.3
529.4
902.0
294.4
151.7

177.1
307.5
529.8
915.1
295.2
151.7

177.1
306.2
533.5
925.3
295.3
151.7

177.1
287.5
534.7
926.7
296.5
151.7

243.1
241.4
192.0
274.8

250.9
254.0
201.2
273.7

252.7
253.9
188.8
275.0

244.1
252.2
175.5
279.2

237.0
248.9
172.8
279.5

234.1
247.0
166.7
275.0

237.6
245.6
(2)
275.0

244.4
251.0
<2)
276.4

247.3
248.6
(2)
276.8

'254.0
'253.0
(2)
275.3

264.3
265.9
(2)
274.9

265.7
273.7
(2)
274.9

258.4
272.2
(2)
275.0

253.0
275.4
(2)
276.3

MINING

1011
1092
1211
1311
1442
1455

Iron ores (12/75 = 100).............................................
Mercury ores (12/75 - 100).......................................
Bituminous coal and lignite .........................................
Crude petroleum and natural gas..................................
Construction sand and gravel .....................................
Kaolin and ball clay (6/76 = 100) ................................

2011
2013
2016
2021

Meatpacking plants....................................................
Sausages and other prepared meats............................
Poultry dressing plants ...............................................
Creamery butter........................................................

M AN U FA CTU R IN G

See footnotes at end of table.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
84
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

25.

Continued — Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
Annual

1972
SIC
code

1982

1981

Industry description
1981

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.1

May

June

July

Aug.

2022
2024
2033
2034
2041
2044
2048
2061
2063
2067

MANUFACTURING Continued
Cheese, natural and processed (12/72 = 100)..............
Ice cream and frozen desserts (12/72 - 100) ..............
Canned fruits and vegetables........................................
Dehydrated food products (12/73 = 100)......................
Flour mills (12/71 =100) ............................................
Rice milling..................................................................
Prepared foods, n.e.c. (12/75 - 100)............................
Raw cane sugar ..........................................................
Beet sugar ..................................................................
Chewing gum ..............................................................

215.7
211.9
248.5
177.6
196.0
277.2
124.5
273.5
314.3
309.8

214.5
212.7
252.9
178.7
191.0
284.3
124.8
254.6
287.5
303.2

215.0
212.7
254.3
183.4
195.3
268.2
119.6
212.3
270.7
303.2

215.4
212.5
257.0
182.1
191.1
247.3
117.3
219.9
250.3
303.2

215.9
212.5
256.4
181.4
191.5
235.4
116.4
224.3
230.4
303.2

218.4
212.7
258.9
182.1
189.2
215.1
116.0
230.8
250.5
303.2

218.6
212.8
260.8
184.0
191.5
205.9
116.0
247.6
266.4
303.3

217.9
212.8
262.6
181.8
187.5
192.2
115.9
245.1
272.2
303.3

216.7
210.9
262.4
181.5
187.3
183.5
114.6
233.0
272.2
303.3

r 216.5
214.2
'262.3
181.5
192.5
177.9
115.4
242.9
r 269.7
303.4

217.1
214.2
262.3
178.5
188.4
183.0
116.7
269.2
280.2
303.4

217.9
214.2
264.6
178.5
189.1
180.3
115.7
286.7
280.2
303.4

218.6
213.6
265.5
180.4
185.5
177.6
115.4
311.5
290.5
303.3

218.8
213.6
263.2
180.0
180.2
183.0
113.3
318.1
297.4
304.7

2074
2075
2077
2083
2085
2091
2092
2095
2098
2111

Cottonseed oil m ills......................................................
Soybean oil m ills..........................................................
Animal and marine fats and oils ....................................
Malt ............................................................................
Distilled liquor, except brandy (12/75 - 100) ................
Canned and cured seafoods (12/73 = 100) ..................
Fresh or frozen packaged fish ......................................
Roasted coffee (12/72 - 100)......................................
Macaroni and spaghetti ................................................
Cigarettes....................................................................

199.0
245.8
288.0
282.5
134.7
187.8
369.1
238.1
252.0
277.7

206.0
245.8
294.1
286.1
135.5
188.4
347.1
235.7
259.5
278.3

182.3
234.2
281.2
275.4
135.5
188.8
353.5
237.3
259.5
284.2

172.0
229.7
274.0
275.4
135.5
188.2
356.9
238.2
259.5
288.4

167.2
221.2
272.3
275.4
137.9
188.3
360.8
239.2
259.5
288.4

182.4
221.9
266.6
275.4
137.9
188.5
369.5
240.4
259.5
288.4

184.9
223.1
260.4
267.1
140.1
187.2
396.8
245.1
259.5
288.4

170.5
220.4
262.6
267.1
137.9
187.0
389.2
247.7
259.5
319.7

158.1
216.6
271.8
267.1
140.2
187.7
419.1
248.8
259.5
319.7

r 164.7
r 225.8
273.3
259.1
140.2
188.2
'432.2
'250.6
259.5
'319.8

167.9
232.0
271.5
259.8
139.8
188.0
427.5
247.9
259.5
319.8

170.2
226.4
272.3
259.8
139.8
188.4
442.8
247.6
259.5
319.8

174.6
224.1
264.3
259.8
139.8
187.8
418.9
247.0
259.5
324.9

173.1
205.5
242.4
259.8
140.4
184.3
426.2
246.4
259.5
324.9

2121
2131
2211
2221
2251
2254
2257
2261
2262

Cigars ........................................................................
Chewing and smoking tobacco......................................
Weaving mills, cotton (12/72 - 100) ............................
Weaving mills, synthetic (12/77 = 100) ........................
Women’s hosiery, except socks (12/75 - 100)..............
Knit underwear mills ....................................................
Circular knit fabric mills (6/76 - 100)............................
Finishing plants, cotton (6/76 - 100) ............................
Finishing plants, synthetics, silk (6/76 - 100) ................

170.0
320.7
232.7
136.7
113.5
210.2
110.9
144.9
126.5

169.7
321.3
237.4
139.3
115.0
210.8
112.0
146.2
127.8

174.5
325.3
236.0
139.5
115.0
210.9
111.9
145.4
129.0

174.5
326.1
233.2
139.4
115.2
210.9
112.0
144.9
129.1

174.5
326.1
229.8
139.8
115.1
212.8
112.4
143.5
129.1

174.5
326.1
227.6
139.5
115.2
213.0
111.8
141.4
128.6

174.5
326.1
227.3
139.8
115.6
225.2
112.4
140.5
129.4

178.6
349.4
227.1
139.7
115.6
225.2
113.2
140.3
129.9

178.6
349.4
226.4
140.0
116.1
225.9
110.7
140.8
128.5

'179.6
349.4
'226.3
139.2
'116.2
226.0
110.2
141.6
'128.5

176.6
353.6
227.7
138.9
117.0
226.0
109.7
141.4
128.2

176.6
353.6
226.0
138.0
117.0
228.7
108.2
141.3
127.2

176.6
358.3
222.0
137.5
117.0
230.8
108.6
140.2
126.7

176.6
358.3
221.7
137.1
117.0
231.1
108.7
139.8
128.7

2272
2281
2282
2284
2298
2311
2321
2322
2323
2327

Tufted carpets and rugs................................................
Yarn mills, except wool (12/71 - 100) ..........................
Throwing and winding mills (6/76 = 100) ......................
Thread mills (6/76 - 100)............................................
Cordage and twine (12/77 - 100)................................
Men’s and boys’ suits and coats....................................
Men’s and boys’ shirts and nightwear ............................
Men’s and boys’ underwear..................................
Men’s and boys’ neckwear (12/75 - 100) ....................
Men’s and boys’ separate trousers................................

154.2
221.7
139.3
151.4
134.8
224.0
209.5
230.6
114.6
186.2

157.4
225.4
146.8
151.1
134.3
226.2
210.6
230.8
113.9
186.4

157.3
223.8
148.0
154.8
139.3
226.5
211.5
230.8
113.9
186.4

155.7
222.4
154.5
157.0
139.3
227.4
212.4
230.8
113.9
186.8

157.0
219.9
145.6
157.0
139.3
228.4
212.6
233.0
113.9
186.9

156.7
217.2
146.0
156.8
140.7
230.5
213.4
233.0
113.9
187.1

155.5
216.3
145.7
156.8
141.0
233.7
173.4
246.9
115.3
188.4

155.7
215.7
150.3
156.8
141.0
233.6
215.9
246.9
117.3
188.4

155.7
215.4
150.0
156.8
141.0
233.8
216.9
247.4
117.3
188.4

156.1
'214.4
'151.0
156.7
141.0
'234.4
217.3
247.4
117.3
'194.1

156.4
214.9
152.6
156.6
141.0
234.6
173.6
247.4
117.3
194.9

156.9
214.0
149.3
156.5
141.0
235.3
215.7
251.2
121.3
195.0

156.1
213.7
149.0
156.5
141.0
237.2
216.0
251.2
121.3
195.6

155.4
213.2
140.4
158.0
141.0
239.8
216.1
251.2
121.3
195.6

2328
2331
2335
2341
2342
2361
2381
2394
2396
2421

Men’s and boys’ work clothing ......................................
Women's and misses’ blouses and waists (6/78 = 100) .
Women's and misses’ dresses (12/77 - 100)................
Women’s and children’s underwear (12/72 = 100) ........
Brassieres and allied garments (12/75 = 100) ..............
Children’s dresses and blouses (12/77 = 100)..............
Fabric dress and work gloves........................................
Canvas and related products (12/77 = 100)..................
Automotive and apparel trimmings (12/77 = 100)..........
Sawmills and planing mills (12/71 = 100)......................

248.6
120.6
121.3
169.7
136.7
120.9
289.3
132.0
131.0
228.2

251.1
121.2
124.3
170.6
138.8
121.7
289.2
133.1
131.0
231.2

251.2
121.3
123.5
170.6
138.8
121.7
289.2
134.6
131.0
225.2

253.1
126.4
123.4
170.6
138.8
122.0
289.2
137.6
131.0
219.5

253.2
126.7
124.1
171.6
138.9
122.5
289.2
137.6
131.0
216.5

253.3
126.7
122.7
171.6
140.1
123.2
289.2
139.7
131.0
218.6

252.5
126.5
123.0
174.7
145.1
123.2
293.8
144.9
131.0
218.0

254.2
126.5
123.0
174.8
148.8
123.2
297.4
144.9
131.0
216.9

254.9
126.5
123.1
175.0
148.8
123.2
295.5
147.2
131.0
216.9

'255.2
'126.5
122.9
'175.0
'148.8
'122.2
295.5
'145.7
131.0
'218.8

253.7
123.7
122.9
177.2
148.5
121.0
295.5
146.5
131.0
216.8

254.1
123.7
123.1
179.4
148.5
121.0
294.5
143.8
131.0
219.7

252.9
123.6
123.7
179.4
148.4
119.4
294.5
143.8
131.0
221.6

253.1
123.8
123.6
179.4
148.4
120.3
288.2
143.8
131.0
217.5

2436
2439
2448
2451
2492
2511
2512
2515
2521
2611

Softwood veneer and plywood (12/75 - 100)................
Structural wood members, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100) ............
Wood pallets and skids (12/75 = 100)..........................
Mobile homes (12/74 - 100)........................................
Particleboard (12/75 = 100) ........................................
Wood household furniture (12/71 =100) ......................
Upholstered household furniture (12/71 = 100)..............
Mattresses and bedsprings............................................
Wood office furniture ....................................................
Pulp mills (12/73 = 100)..............................................

142.0
156.6
152.5
156.9
173.6
197.4
174.0
192.3
254.2
252.4

139.6
156.9
152.9
158.3
173.6
199.2
175.1
194.6
254.7
251.3

135.4
156.6
152.8
158.7
170.5
200.1
175.3
195.2
257.1
251.3

129.3
154.8
152.0
159.2
168.0
201.0
175.6
195.2
257.1
255.0

129.0
154.2
150.4
159.3
166.9
202.0
179.5
197.5
257.0
262.5

134.5
153.2
149.9
160.3
170.3
202.8
182.1
198.0
257.6
262.5

132.5
153.9
149.8
160.4
172.6
203.6
184.4
204.4
261.9
258.6

130.5
153.5
149.0
160.5
170.7
204.3
179.3
205.6
270.7
258.6

131.8
152.6
148.2
162.7
177.7
205.1
179.3
205.6
270.8
260.7

'129.1
'153.4
'145.9
'163.0
'178.2
'207.4
'181.8
'205.7
'270.8
'253.6

126.0
151.5
144.6
163.1
176.7
207.3
185.1
210.3
271.9
254.8

133.3
152.9
144.2
163.4
176.9
207.6
185.1
210.3
271.9
246.5

129.6
154.5
144.1
163.4
175.4
208.1
184.1
210.1
272.0
238.5

126.7
155.1
143.8
163.4
174.5
208.0
185.5
210.4
272.4
237.2

2621
2631
2647
2654
2655
2812
2821
2822
2824
2873

Paper mills, except building (12/74 - 100)....................
Paperboard mills (12/74 = 100) ..................................
Sanitary paper products................................................
Sanitary food containers ..............................................
Fiber cans, drums, and similar products (12/75 = 100) ..
Alkalies and chlorine (12/73 = 100)..............................
Plastics materials and resins (6/76 = 100)....................
Synthetic rubber ..........................................................
Organic fiber, noncellulosic............................................
Nitrogenous fertilizers (12/75 = 100)............................

156.2
151.7
343.4
244.8
163.0
305.9
150.8
293.3
155.6
142.8

157.4
152.4
344.3
252.9
163.2
310.4
155.6
299.4
160.3
143.9

158.8
153.7
344.3
253.2
163.2
316.0
156.0
299.3
160.6
142.1

159.8
153.6
344.0
253.4
167.6
317.7
156.3
301.0
164.2
142.9

159.7
153.5
344.1
253.3
167.6
317.0
153.7
301.4
162.5
144.2

159.6
152.7
344.6
253.3
170.0
324.8
154.3
302.7
161.9
142.9

162.0
152.5
344.6
254.0
176.4
329.4
150.7
303.9
161.8
142.4

162.0
153.4
344.6
256.9
176.5
335.2
152.6
306.1
162.9
142.6

162.0
153.0
344.5
260.0
176.5
335.6
151.0
306.7
161.6
142.2

'161.3
'152.8
'344.5
'259.9
176.5
'322.0
'152.6
306.6
'162.5
'141.7

160.5
151.5
344.7
261.4
176.7
338.2
151.9
307.1
161.7
141.1

160.8
150.0
347.3
261.4
176.7
338.2
150.7
303.8
161.3
139.5

160.7
149.1
346.4
261.4
176.7
324.4
150.2
301.8
160.5
136.1

159.9
149.4
349.2
261.4
177.5
325.8
150.8
299.9
159.5
136.0

2874
2875
2892
2911
2951
2952
3011

Phosphatic fertilizers ....................................................
Fertilizers, mixing only ..................................................
Explosives ..................................................................
Petroleum refining (6/76 - 100) ..................................
Paving mixtures and blocks (12/75 - 100)....................
Asphalt felts and coatings (12/75 = 100)......................
Tires and inner tubes (12/73 - 100) ............................

254.1
270.7
311.9
294.4
194.3
176.9
215.8

260.0
273.0
319.8
297.5
196.3
182.3
215.5

259.4
¿72.0
316.5
295.8
196.0
174.3
220.6

259.4
273.8
318.7
294.6
196.3
174.9
221.0

258.5
273.7
316.5
293.3
196.4
178.1
220.1

259.0
270.5
315.6
293.1
196.0
176.1
221.2

261.0
274.3
314.9
293.0
197.0
174.2
222.0

263.5
276.8
317.6
289.1
198.0
173.8
222.4

261.6
278.4
320.5
281.7
198.1
171.2
220.3

'258.2
'278.7
'327.2
'267.4
197.1
'168.1
'216.7

256.2
278.5
321.4
259.2
196.6
167.7
221.2

257.6
278.8
319.6
267.7
195.1
169.8
221.5

256.6
278.6
318.4
281.4
194.8
171.3
221.7

248.7
277.9
324.8
283.7
194.4
171.1
226.2


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

85

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
25.

Continued— Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries

[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
1972
SIC
code

Industry description

Annua
average
1981

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.1

May

June

July

Aug.

1981

1982

3021
3031
3079
3111
3143
3144
3171
3211
3221

Rubber and plastic footwear (12/71 = 1 0 0 ) ..................
Reclaimed rubber (12/73 =100) ................
Miscellaneous plastic products (6/78 = 100) . . . .
Leather tanning and finishing (12/77 = 100)........
Men's footwear, except athletic (12/75 = 100) . . . ,
Women's footwear, except athletic........................
Women’s handbags and purses (12/75 = 100) . . . .
Flat glass (12/71 =100) ........................
Glass containers....................................

184.4
194.1
128.9
150.7
169.3
217.1
155.5
175.3
328.6

185.4
200.3
130.2
148.5
171.4
217.8
158.4
180.0
335.4

185.3
200.3
130.3
148.3
170.9
218.2
158.4
180.0
335.4

185.0
200.3
130.8
148.2
170.5
212.5
158.4
180.1
335.4

185.0
200.3
130.8
146.8
170.6
212.7
158.4
180.1
335.4

185.2
200.3
131.0
147.5
171.3
212.4
158.4
177.4
335.4

186.1
200.3
131.1
150.8
173.1
208.5
158.4
177.5
335.3

188.4
200.4
131.6
149.3
172.2
209.8
158.4
177.5
352.1

189.1
207.2
132.8
147.9
173.5
210.3
158.4
177.5
355.8

189.0
r 209.2
r 133.2
r 146.8
174.9
'217.0
158.4
177.5
'358.0

186.7
207.2
132.7
147.3
175.1
213.4
158.4
177.5
357.3

187.0
208.4
132.9
146.9
175.2
215.2
158.4
177.5
357.3

187.0
207.7
132.6
147.5
171.6
216.3
158.5
187.7
357.3

186.8
207.4
132.7
146.5
175.5
220.6
157.8
187.7
357.2

3241
3251
3253
3255
3259
3261
3262
3263
3269
3271

Cement, hydraulic......................................
Brick and structural clay tile ........................................
Ceramic wall and floor tile (12/75 = 100) ................
Clay refractories....................................
Structural clay products, n.e.c..................................
Vitreous plumbing fixtures ................................
Vitreous china food utensils............................
Fine earthenware food utensils....................
Pottery products, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100) . . . .
Concrete block and brick..........................

329.6
296.5
133.4
310.2
222.6
254.9
335.0
309.1
160.1
270.4

331.6
298.9
132.1
312.3
223.9
259.6
336.6
309.6
160.7
274.0

332.0
299.9
140.4
312.5
227.5
259.0
336.8
313.8
161.8
274.2

330.3
299.9
140.4
313.9
231.7
259.0
336.8
313.8
161.8
274.3

330.3
300.5
140.4
315.2
231.7
259.3
344.7
315.0
163.7
274.2

330.3
300.5
140.4
319.9
236.6
260.1
344.7
315.0
163.7
275.1

339.6
298.9
140.4
329.6
225.6
261.1
347.7
315.1
164.3
274.9

341.5
299.4
140.4
354.4
226.0
260.6
347.7
315.1
164.3
276.4

341.5
299.4
140.4
355.6
225.9
260.8
347.3
315.0
164.2
276.4

'341.1
'303.4
'140.6
'355.2
'215.9
'261.8
'346.5
'314.9
'164.0
'276.5

338.6
'305.8
138.0
357.2
216.4
265.4
345.2
314.1
163.6
276.6

338.7
306.4
138.0
357.1
216.5
265.5
349.8
314.8
164.8
277.0

337.8
307.2
138.0
357.2
216.4
264.2
349.8
314.8
164.7
277.1

336.0
307.2
138.0
357.7
216.5
263.9
349.8
314.8
164.7
277.4

3273
3274
3275
3291
3297
3312
3313
3316
3317
3321

Ready-mixed concrete..................................
Lime (12/75 = 100) ..............................
Gypsum products ..............................
Abrasive products (12/71 = 100) ............................
Nonclay refractories (12/74 = 100)..................
Blast furnaces and steel mills ....................
Electrometallurgical products (12/75 = 100) . . . .
Cold finishing of steel shapes..................
Steel pipes and tubes ..................................
Gray iron foundries (12/68 = 100)............

298.7
172.5
256.9
232.9
185.3
342.8
121.8
316.2
341.5
299.7

300.0
173.9
258.9
235.1
189.7
350.0
121.5
325.7
350.6
299.9

299.2
173.7
252.9
237.3
189.7
350.3
121.4
326.2
350.5
302.0

299.5
173.7
251.5
237.6
189.7
353.1
125.4
326.4
362.0
303.3

299.4
173.5
252.5
241.0
190.2
353.0
125.4
326.4
362.3
305.2

299.6
173.8
250.6
241.0
190.3
353.3
125.3
326.7
363.0
306.1

301.9
178.8
250.9
241.3
191.2
354.7
125.3
327.0
363.7
307.9

301.9
183.7
253.9
248.3
198.3
354.4
123.4
327.0
364.1
310.0

302.5
185.7
260.5
249.8
200.4
354.4
120.3
327.0
365.8
311.5

'303.9
'186.3
'262.5
'250.2
'202.3
356.1
120.3
'327.1
'365.9
'311.9

303.9
188.1
258.8
251.2
203.2
355.9
120.3
327.8
365.8
311.4

304.7
188.4
256.2
252.1
203.9
353.6
120.4
325.6
365.7
311.6

305.4
188.1
256.5
252.0
203.8
3529
120.4
325.2
364.0
311.3

304.8
188.3
254.3
252.3
203.8
352.8
121.4
325.6
361.6
311.3

3333
3334
3351
3353
3354
3355
3411
3425
3431
3465

Primary zin c ....................................
Primary aluminum........................
Copper rolling and drawing ......................................
Aluminum sheet, plate, and foil (12/75 = 100) ............
Aluminum extruded products (12/75 = 100)................
Aluminum rolling, drawing, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100) . . .
Metal cans................................
Fland saws and saw blades (12/72 = 100) ..
Metal sanitary ware..............................
Automotive stampings (12/75 = 100) ..............

326.3
333.1
212.3
175.8
180.1
159.1
305.1
201.4
265.5
146.0

353.8
334.4
212.9
177.4
181.3
157.2
306.7
204.2
269.7
146.4

355.9
333.6
214.1
178.0
181.2
157.7
306.8
204.6
270.2
146.9

337.0
333.5
212.3
179.9
181.3
163.0
307.0
204.8
270.3
147.4

337.5
332.5
209.2
180.2
181.4
166.2
306.0
205.0
271.6
149.7

315.7
332.8
207.1
180.8
181.1
166.1
304.9
206.0
271.8
149.1

308.6
324.1
204.8
181.8
180.8
166.1
310.8
211.6
271.3
150.1

311.2
320.2
203.9
181.7
180.8
166.5
314.0
214.8
272.8
144.7

292.0
320.8
198.4
181.2
180.5
166.3
313.6
214.9
275.1
144.2

'273.4
'312.4
'196.4
'179.9
'180.2
162.9
'318.6
'215.3
275.8
'144.3

259.9
313.8
197.5
178.7
180.2
163.0
320.4
220.8
275.7
153.0

259.7
308.4
189.8
178.0
180.1
165.4
319.3
220.9
276.0
153.0

266.4
305.7
189.2
178.2
179.5
164.7
318.6
221.0
276.1
153.0

277.0
308.0
190.1
177.1
178.9
164.5
318.0
221.2
276.9
153.3

3482
3493
3494
3498
3519
3531
3532
3533
3534
3542

Small arms ammunition (12/75 = 100) ............
Steel springs, except wire ....................
Valves and pipe fittings (12/71 = 1 0 0 )............
Fabricated pipe and fittings ........................
Internal combustion engines, n.e.c.......................
Construction machinery (12/76 = 100) ........
Mining machinery (12/72 = 100)....................
Oilfield machinery and equipment............
Elevators and moving stairways......................
Machine tools, metal forming types (12/71 =100)

159.0
245.9
248.9
361.3
311.9
156.8
282.5
395.8
253.9
306.9

159.9
248.9
251.0
370.0
314.2
159.5
285.3
406.5
252.8
309.5

159.9
252.4
252.7
375.1
322.1
160.1
286.9
411.3
254.6
312.0

159.9
253.9
252.9
377.7
323.2
161.0
288.5
415.6
257.0
311.7

159.9
254.1
253.5
378.6
326.4
161.6
290.8
418.2
260.7
312.3

163.9
256.1
255.7
379.3
325.4
159.7
292.9
420.3
265.6
319.3

167.5
255.8
257.7
378.6
329.4
162.5
295.5
427.2
264.3
319.7

167.5
257.4
258.9
377.7
332.0
162.4
297.8
429.2
269.8
322.8

167.5
256.4
259.1
379.8
332.6
163.3
300.9
435.8
271.6
324.5

'166.3
'254.3
'260.3
385.5
'334.2
'164.3
'302.4
'439.3
'271.8
'325.2

171.9
255.3
259.2
385.4
337.0
165.2
302.7
435.8
271.6
325.6

175.9
255.2
259.0
385.4
337.7
165.3
303.5
437.8
273.5
326.5

175.9
253.1
260.1
383.8
339.6
166.5
304.0
438.4
275.5
333.6

175.9
253.5
260.1
385.6
343.8
166.7
303.4
439.6
275.5
333.6

3546
3552
3553
3576
3592
3612
3623
3631
3632
3633

Power driven hand tools (12/76 = 100)
Textile machinery (12/69 = 100) . .
Woodworking machinery (12/72 = 100) . . . .
Scales and balances, excluding laboratory ..
Carburetors, pistons, rings, valves (6/76 = 100)
Transformers ..............................
Welding apparatus, electric (12/72 = 100)..............
Household cooking equipment (12/75 = 100)........
Household refrigerators, freezers (6/76 = 100)
Household laundry equipment (12/73 = 100) .. .

147.3
243.5
225.0
226.2
178.0
209.9
227.5
141.2
132.8
174.3

148.4
245.4
225.4
226.6
181.3
212.8
229.6
141.5
135.5
174.6

148.6
248.2
228.9
226.1
182.1
214.5
231.6
141.6
136.4
177.2

149.5
248.0
228.9
226.2
185.4
217.3
232.5
141.6
137.8
177.0

149.5
247.9
229.1
226.3
187.2
222.0
233.2
141.9
137.9
178.4

150.0
249.9
229.1
226.5
187.3
222.0
235.8
142.6
137.9
178.8

153.3
252.3
233.7
228.3
185.3
220.5
236.8
146.0
140.1
180.1

153.2
253.5
232.9
228.8
189.6
222.2
236.9
146.8
141.1
180.5

153.9
255.0
233.4
229.8
190.4
222.4
232.3
147.2
142.3
186.2

'154.7
256.2
'234.7
229.6
'192.8
'223.3
'237.6
146.2
142.5
186.9

156.1
256.5
234.7
229.5
195.2
224.7
232.9
146.8
143.2
188.6

156.4
258.1
234.4
230.6
195.7
224.8
233.1
146 9
144.3
189.0

157.4
259.8
230.0
231.9
196.6
224.7
236.9
148 2
145.5
189.1

157 5
258 9
2306
231.9
197.2
226 0
237.5
1504
145.9
189.7

3635
3636
3641
3644
3646
3648
3671
3674
3675
3676

Household vacuum cleaners ..................
Sewing machines (12/75 = 100)................
Electric lamps............................
Noncurrent-carrying wiring devices (12/72 = 100)
Commercial lighting fixtures (12/75 = 100)
Lighting equipment, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100) . . .
Electron tubes receiving type ................
Semiconductors and related devices ........
Electronic capacitors (12/75 = 100) . . . .
Electronic resistors (12/75 = 100) . . .

159.1
146.8
277.3
249.6
154.8
155.9
309.7
'90.9
170.3
141.4

158.8
153.8
280.0
253.8
155.5
161.3
327.5
89.2
178.8
142.5

158.8
153.8
283.1
258.5
157.6
161.7
327.5
91.4
172.4
142.7

161.3
156.0
285.9
258.7
158.9
162.0
327.5
91.6
171.5
142.7

161.0
156.0
284.8
262.1
159.3
162.4
327.8
92.0
168.1
143.0

160.8
156.0
281.3
262.1
159.2
163.1
342.2
91.7
166.6
142.8

165.6
156.0
282.1
257.9
159.2
162.8
374.1
90.9
167.4
143.7

165.2
155.8
286.1
259.0
161.1
167.8
374.2
90.2
169.7
144.0

165.7 '165.4
155.8 '154.3
283.6 '296.6
258.1 '260.0
162.4 '163.5
168.8 '170.9
374.4 '374.5
90.0
'89.5
168.4 '167.6
143.4 '144.4

158.3
153.7
294.5
263.0
167.5
170.4
375.0
89.6
166.6
145.2

158.4
153.7
293.9
261.1
167.2
170.9
375.1
89.7
1668
144.9

158.4
153.7
291.9
260.7
166.5
171.1
376.0
90.8
166.7
144.4

159.4
153.0
291.9
260.3
165.9
171.2
376 0
90 5
166.2
144.6

3678
3692
3711
3942
3944
3955
3995
3996

Electronic connectors (12/75 = 100) . . .
Primary batteries, dry and w e t..................
Motor vehicles and car bodies (12/75 = 100)..
Dolls (12/75 = 100)..................
Games, toys, and children’s vehicles ..............
Carbon paper and inked ribbons (12/75 = 100) . . . .
Burial caskets (6/76 = 100) ................................
Hard surface floor coverings (12/75 = 100)

154.9
182.2
150.3
131.3
221.3
138.5
139.5
151.8

155.8
182.7
150.1
130.9
222.0
140.6
140.6
153.6

156.5
182.7
143.4
130.9
222.2
140.6
143.4
153.7

156.8
182.7
158.6
130.9
222.2
140.2
143.4
153.7

155.8
182.7
158.7
1309
222.6
140.2
143.4
153.7

155.8
182.7
159.1
130.9
223.9
140.3
142.7
153.7

155.9
182.0
159.8
135.5
228.4
140.3
142.7
155.1

156.2
184.3
155.0
136.6
232.5
140.3
143.8
155.2

156.7
190.5
154.9
136.6
234.1
140.3
145.3
156.1

158.1
194.9
156.7
136.5
231.7
140.5
149.3
156.3

158.3
195.8
159.6
136.5
231.7
140.6
149.3
154.3

157.6
196.3
159.7
136.5
231.8
140.5
150.8
155.0

160 9
196 3
160.3
136.5
231 8
140.5
150.8
155.7

.

1Data for April 1982 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by
respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.

Digitized 86
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

2 Not available,
r=revised.

'156.4
'195.5
'154.9
'136.8
'234.1
140.3
145.3
156.1

PRODUCTIVITY DATA

P roductivity data are compiled by the Bureau of Labor

Statistics from establishment data and from estimates of com­
pensation and output supplied by the U.S. Department of
Commerce and the Federal Reserve Board.
Definitions
O utput is the constant dollar gross domestic product produced in a
given period. Indexes of output per hour of labor input, or labor pro­
ductivity, measure the value of goods and services produced per hour
of labor. C om pensation per hour includes wages and salaries of em­
ployees plus employers’ contributions for social insurance and private
benefit plans. The data also include an estimate of wages, salaries, and
supplementary payments for the self-employed, except for nonfinancial corporations, in which there are no self-employed. R eal com ­
pensation per hour is compensation per hour adjusted by the
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
U n it labor co st measures the labor compensation cost required to
produce one unit of output and is derived by dividing compensation
by output. U n it nonlabor paym ents include profits, depreciation, in­
terest, and indirect taxes per unit of output. They are computed by
subtracting compensation of all persons from the current dollar gross
domestic product and dividing by output. In these tables, unit
nonlabor co sts contain all the components of unit nonlabor payments
except unit profits. U n it profits include corporate profits and invento­
ry valuation adjustments per unit of output.

The im plicit price d eflator is derived by dividing the current dollar
estimate of gross product by the constant dollar estimate, making the
deflator, in effect, a price index for gross product of the sector reported.

26.

The use of the term “man hours” to identify the labor component
of productivity and costs, in tables 26 through 29, has been discontin­
ued. H ou rs of all persons is now used to describe the labor input of
payroll workers, self-employed persons, and unpaid family workers.
O utput per all-em p loyee hour is now used to describe labor productiv­
ity in nonfinancial corporations where there are no self-employed.

Notes on the data
In the business sector and the nonfarm business sector, the basis
for the output measure employed in the computation of output per
hour is Gross Domestic Product rather than Gross National Product.
Computation of hours includes estimates of nonfarm and farm propri­
etor hours.
Output data are supplied by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S.
Department of Commerce, and the Federal Reserve Board. Quarterly
manufacturing output indexes are adjusted by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics to annual estimates of output (gross product originating)
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Compensation and hours data
are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
Beginning with the September 1982 issue of the Review, all of the
productivity and cost measures contained in these tables are based on
revised output and compensation measures released by the Bureau of
Economic Analysis in July as part of the regular revision cycle of the
National Income and Product Accounts. Measures of labor input
have been revised to reflect results of the 1980 census, and seasonal
factors have been recomputed for use in the preparation of quarterly
measures. The word “private” is no longer being used as part of the
series title of one of the two business sector measures prepared by
BLS; no change has been made in the definition or content of the
measures as a result of this change.

Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years, 1950-81

[1977=100]

Item
Business sector:
Output per hour of all persons .
Compensation per hour ............
Real compensation per hour
Unit labor c o st..........................
Unit norilabor payments ............
Implicit price deflator ..............
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons .
Compensation per hour ..........
Real compensation per hour . . .
Unit labor co s t........................
Unit nonlabor payments ..........
Implicit price deflator ..............
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees
Compensation per hour ..........
Real compensation per hour . . .
Unit labor c o s t........................
Unit nonlabor payments ..........
Implicit price deflator ..............
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons .
Compensation per hour ..........
Real compensation per hour . . .
Unit labor c o st........................
Unit nonlabor payments ..........
Implicit price deflator ..............
1Not available.


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

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

50.4
20.0
50.5
39.7
43.4
41.0

58.3
26.4
59.6
45.2
47.6
46.0

65.2
33.9
69.5
52.0
50.6
51.6

78.3
41.7
80.1
53.3
57.6
54.7

86.2
58.2
90.8
67.5
63.2
66.0

r 92.5
78.0
95.9
r84.4
r78.5
'82.4

r 94.5
85.5
96.3
r90.5
'90.4
r90.5

97.6
92.9
98.9
95.1
94.0
94.7

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.6
108.6
100.9
108.0
106.7
107.5

99.6
119.1
99.4
119.5
112.8
117.2

98.9
13114
96.7
132.9
119.3
128.3

100.7
144.1
96.0
143.1
135.2
r 140.4

56.3
21.8
55.0
38.8
42.7
40.1

62.8
28.3
64.0
45.0
47.8
46.0

68.3
35.7
73.0
52.2
50.4
51.6

80.5
42.8
82.2
53.2
58.0
54.8

86.8
58.7
91.5
67.6
63.7
66.3

r 92.9
78.5
96.4
r 84.5
r75.8
r 81.6

r94.7
86.0
96.8
r90.8
r 88.5
r90.0

97.8
93.0
99.0
95.1
93.5
94.6

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.6
108.6
100.9
108.0
105.3
107.1

99.3
118.8
99.2
119.6
110.3
116.5

98.5
130.9
96.3
133.0
119.1
128.3

99.9
143.6
95.7
143.8
134.8
140.8

( ')
(’ )

(’ )

(’ )
(')
(')
( ')
(’ )
( 1)

66.6
36.2
74.2
54.4
54.6
54.5

80.2
43.0
82.5
53.5
60.8
56.1

85.7
58.3
90.9
68.0
63.1
66.3

91.7
77.6
95.4
84.7
75.6
81.6

94.8
85.5
96.2
90.2
90.8
90.4

97.8
92.5
98.5
94.6
95.0
94.7

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.0
108.6
100.8
107.5
104.2
106.4

101.2
119.2
99.5
117.8
106.9
114.1

100.8
131.6
96.8
130.5
117.7
126.1

102.7
144.4
96.2
140.6
134.8
138.6

49.4
21.5
54.0
43.4
54.3
46.6

56.4
28.8
65.1
51.0
58.5
53.2

60.0
36.7
75.1
61.1
61.1
61.1

74.5
42.8
82.3
57.5
69.3
61.0

79.1
57.6
89.8
72.7
65.0
70.5

90.8
76.3
93.8
84.1
69.3
79.8

93.4
85.4
96.2
91.5
87.3
90.3

97.5
92.3
98.3
94.6
93.7
94.4

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.9
108.3
100.6
107.4
102.5
106.0

101.5
118.9
99.2
117.1
99.9
112.0

101.7
132.8
97.7
130.6
97.1
120.8

104.5
146.4
97.5
140.0
108.8
130.8

(’)
(’ )
( 1)

r = revised.

87

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Productivity
27.

Annual changes in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1971-81

Business sector:
Output per hour of all persons......................
Compensation per h o u r................................
Real compensation per hour....................
Unit labor cost..................................
Unit nonlabor payments............................
Implicit price deflator ..................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost......................
Unit nonlabor payments....................
Implicit price deflator ............................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees........................
Compensation per hour ......................
Real compensation per hour................
Unit labor cost..........................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per ho u r................................
Real compensation per hour....................
Unit labor cost......................
Unit nonlabor payments................
Implicit price deflator ......................

1971

1972

1973

1974

3.6
6.6
2.2
2.9
7.6
4.4

3.5
6.5
3.1
2.9
4.5
3.4

-'2 .6
8.0
1.6
'5.3
'5.9
r5.5

3.3
6.6
2.2
3.2
7.4
4.5

3.7
6.7
3.3
2.9
3.2
3.0

4.8
6.5
2.1
1.6
7.4
3.5
6.1
6.1
1.8
0.0
11.2
3.1

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1950-81

1960-81

' -2.4
9.4
-1.4
r 12.1
r4.4
'9.5

2.2
9.6
0.5
7.3
15.1
9.8

r 3.3
8.6
2.6
'5.1
r4.0
r4.7

2.4
7.7
1.2
5.1
6.4
5.6

0.6
8.6
0.9
8.0
6.7
7.5

-0.9
9.7
-1.4
10.7
5.7
9.0

-0.7
10.4
-2.8
11.2
5.8
9.4

1.8
9.6
-0.7
7.7
13.3
9.5

r2.5
6.2
'2.4
3.6
'3.5
'3.6

2.1
r7.3
r 1.8
5.0
r4.7
4.9

r2.4
7.6
1.3
'5.0
r 1.3
r3.8

' -2.5
9.4
-1.4
'12.2
r5.9
r 10.2

'2.0
9.6
0.4
7.5
r 16.7
r 10.3

r 3.2
8.1
2.2
r4.7
'5.7
'5.0

2.2
7.5
1.0
5.2
6.9
5.7

0.6
8.6
0.9
8.0
5.3
7.1

-1.3
9.3
-1.7
10.7
4.7
8.8

-0.9
10.2
-2.9
11.2
8.0
10.2

1.4
9.7
-0.7
8.1
13.1
9.7

'2.2
5.9
r2.1
r3.6
r3.5
3.6

r 1.9
7.0
1.5
5.0
r4.6
4.9

3.0
5.8
2.5
2.8
2.7
2.8

2.6
7.7
1.4
4.9
1.5
3.8

-3.4
9.7
-1.1
13.6
7.1
11.4

3.4
10.1
0.9
6.5
20.1
10.9

3.2
8.2
2.3
4.9
4.6
4.8

2.3
8.1
1.6
5.7
5.3
5.6

1.0
8.6
0.8
7.5
4.2
6.4

0.2
9.8
-1.3
9.6
2.6
7.2

-0.3
10.4
-2.8
10.7
10.1
10.5

1.8
9.7
-0.6
7.8
14.6
10.0

( 1)
O

C)

2.0
6.9
1.4
4.8
4.0
4.5

5.0
5.4
2.0
0.3
0.8
0.5

5.4
7.2
0.9
1.7
-3.3
0.3

-2.4
10.6
-0.3
13.3
-1.8
9.0

2.9
11.9
2.5
8.8
25.9
13.1

4.4
8.0
2.1
3.4
7.4
4.6

2.5
8.3
1.8
5.7
6.7
6.0

0.9
8.3
0.6
7.4
2.5
6.0

0.7
9.7
-1.4
9.0
-2.6
5.7

0.2
11.8
-1.6
11.6
-2.7
7.8

2.8
10.2
-0.2
7.2
12.0
8.4

2.6
5.8
2.0
3.1
'2.1
2.8

1Not available.

28.

Annual rate
of change

Year

Item

C)
(M

(’ )

r2.7
6.9
1.4
4.1
r2.7
r3.7

r = revised.

Quarterly indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted

[1977=100]

Item

Business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per ho u r................
Real compensation per hour............................
Unit labor cost....................
Unit nonlabor payments........................
Implicit price deflator..............................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons............................
Compensation per hour ........................
Real compensation per hour......................
Unit labor cost..................
Unit nonlabor payments......................
Implicit price deflator....................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees..........
Compensation per hour ......................
Real compensation per hour..............
Total unit costs......................
Unit labor cost ..........................
Unit nonlabor costs............
Unit profits ................................
Implicit price deflator ..............................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ........................
Compensation per ho u r..................
Real compensation per hour................
Unit labor cost..........................
1Not available.
r = revised.

88

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

Annual
average

Quarterly indexes
1979

1980

1980

1981

IV

1

98.9
131.4
96.7
132.9
119.3
128.3

100.7
144.1
96.0
143.1
135.2
140.4

99.1
123.0
97.8
124.1
113.2
120.4

99.3
126.7
97.0
127.6
116.0
123.7

98.5
130.9
96.3
133.0
119.1
128.3

99.9
143.6
95.7
143.8
134.8
140.8

98.8
122.7
97.6
124.1
111.3
119.8

100.8
131.6
96.8
131.0
130.5
132.5
87.9
126.1

102.7
144.4
962
143.4
140.6
151.4
101.6
138.6

101.7
132.8
97.7
130.6

104.5
146.4
97.5
140.0

II

1981

1982

III

IV

1

II

III

IV

I

98.2
130.0
96.4
r 132.3
116.2
126.9

98.9
133.1
96.9
134.7
120.6
129.9

99.3
136.1
96.2
137.0
124.6
132.8

100.7
140.0
96.2
139.0
131.8
136.5

100.7
142.5
96.4
141.5
133.4
138.8

101.0
145.6
95.7
144.2
137.4
141.9

100.2
148.2
95.6
147.9
138.3
144.6

100.0
150.9
96.5
150.9
136.4
146 0

r 100.3
153.4
97.1
r 153.0
'137.3
r 147 7

98.7
126.2
96.6
127.8
115.2
123.6

97.6
129.3
96.0
132.5
116.7
127.2

98.4
132.6
96.5
134.7
120.3
129.9

99.2
135.7
95.9
136.8
124.4
132.7

100.4
139.5
96.0
139.0
131.5
136.5

100.0
142.0
96.0
141.9
132.8
138.9

100.0
145.1
95.4
145.1
136.7
142.3

99.1
147.7
95.3
149.0
138.4
145.5

99.2
150.4
96.3
151.6
136.7
146 6

r 99 3
r 152 6
966
r 153 7
'137.4
r 14ÌL2

100.6
123.1
97.9
121.4
122.4
118.7
84.1
117.1

100.8
126.8
97.0
125.0
125.8
122.7
91.1
121.1

99.8
130.0
96.4
130.4
130.2
131.0
81.9
124.8

101.1
133.4
97.1
132.9
131.9
135.7
87.8
127.7

101.7
136.3
96.3
135.8
134.1
140.7
90.5
130.6

102.8
140.4
96.5
138.3
136.5
143.4
104.7
134.5

102.7
142.7
96.5
141.7
138.9
149.6
98.8
136.8

102.8
145.7
95.8
144.7
141.7
153.1
105.2
140.2

102.2
148.6
95.9
149.1
145.4
159.6
97.6
143.2

102.3
151.7
97.1
151.8
148.3
161.8
86.1
144.3

p 102 9
p 154 1
p97 5
p 154 0
p 149 7
p 166.2
p82 4
p 145.8

101.9
122.6
97.4
120.3

102.6
127.1
97.3
123.9

100.4
130.9
97.1
130.3

100.3
135.2
98.5
134.9

103.6
138.4
97.8
133.6

105.2
142.6
98.0
135.5

105.0
144.9
97.9
138.0

105.0
147.3
96.8
140.3

102.8
150.7
97.2
146.6

1021
154 7
99.0
151.5

r 102 2
r 157 6
99 7
'154.3

p _ preliminary,

II

29. Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices,
seasonally adjusted at annual rate
[1977 = 100]
Quarterly percent change at annual rate
Item

Business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ....................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Unit labor costs ..........................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..............................
Implicit price deflator ..................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ....................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Unit labor costs ..........................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..............................
Implicit price deflator ..................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees ................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Total unit costs ..........................................
Unit labor costs ......................................
Unit nonlabor costs..................................
Unit profits..................................................
Implicit price deflator ..................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ....................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Unit labor costs ..........................................
1Not available.


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

IV 1980
to
I 1981

I 1981
to
II 1981

Percent change from same quarter a year ago

II 1981
to
III 1981

III 1981
to
IV 1981

IV 1981
to
I 1982

11982
to
II 1982

11980
to
I 1981

II 1980
to
II 1981

III 1980
to
III 1981

IV 1980
to
IV 1981

1 1981
to
11982

1.1
9.0
-2.6
7.8
12.5
9.3

-2.9
7.4
-0.4
10.6
2.9
8.0

-1.0
7.3
3.9
8.4
-5.4
3.8

'1.2
'6.9
r2.2
r5.6
'2.7
r4.7

1.4
10.5
-0.7
8.9
13.7
10.4

2.5
9.7
-0.1
6.9
14.8
9.4

2.2
9.4
-1.3
7.1
13.9
9.2

0.9
8.9
-0.6
7.9
11.0
8.9

-0.7
7.8
0.3
8.6
3.5
6.9

' -0.4
'7.6
'0.7
'8.1
'3.0
'6.4

II 1981
to
II 1982

5.6
11.7
0.2
5.7
25.0
11.6

0.0
7.5
0.5
7.5
4.9
6.6

4.9
11.8
0.4
6.6
24.9
12.1

-1.3
7.1
0.1
8.6
4.0
7.1

-0.3
9.0
-2.6
9.3
12.1
10.2

-3.5
7.3
-0.5
11.2
5.1
9.2

0.6
7.7
4.3
7.1
-4.6
3.3

r0.5
r6.0
r 1.4
r5.5
r2.0
r4.4

1.7
10.6
-0.6
8.8
14.1
10.4

2.5
9.8
0.0
7.1
13.8
9.2

1.6
9.4
-1.2
7.7
13.6
9.6

-0.1
8.8
-0.6
8.9
11.2
9.6

-1.1
7.8
0.3
9.0
4.0
7.4

' -0.7
7.5
'0.6
'8.3
'3.5
'6.7

4.7
12.4
0.9
7.5
7.4
8.0
79.5
12.3

-0.4
6.9
-0.1
10.2
7.3
18.5
-20.8
7.1

0.3
8.5
-3.0
8.6
8.2
9.8
28.4
10.2

-2.3
8.3
0.5
12.8
10.9
17.8
-25.9
8.9

0.5
8.6
5.2
7.4
8.1
5.7
-39.4
3.0

p2.3
»6.4
p 1.7
p6.0
p4.0
»11.4
p -16.0
p4.4

2.1
10.7
-0.5
10.6
8.5
16.9
14.9
11.0

2.9
9.8
0.1
8.7
6.7
14.2
20.7
9.6

1.7
9.2
-1.4
8.9
7.5
12.9
19.7
9.7

0.6
9.0
-0.5
9.8
8.4
13.4
7.9
9.6

-0.5
8.1
0.6
9.7
8.6
12.8
-17.8
7.3

»2.3
p6.4
p 1.7
p8.7
»7.8
»11.1
»-16.6
»4.4

6.3
12.7
1.2
6.0

-0.7
6.6
-0.4
7.3

-0.1
6.8
-4.6
6.8

-8.2
9.6
1.6
19.4

'- 2 .4
11.1
7.6
r 13.9

'0.2
'7.8
'3.1
'7.7

2.6
12.2
0.8
9.3

4.5
10.7
0.9
5.9

4.7
8.9
-1.7
4.0

-0.8
8.9
-0.6
9.8

'- 2 .9
8.5
1.0
'11.7

'- 2 .7
8.8
1.8
'11.8

.

r = revised.

89

WAGE AND COMPENSATION DATA

are reported to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics by a sample of 2,000 private non­
farm establishments and 750 State and local government units
selected to represent total employment in those sectors. On
average, each reporting unit provides wage and compensation
information on five well-specified occupations.
DATA FO R TH E e m p l o y m e n t c o s t i n d e x

Data on negotiated wage and benefit changes are obtained
from contracts on file at the Bureau, direct contact with the
parties, and secondary sources.
Definitions
The E m ploym ent C o st In d ex (ECI) is a quarterly measure of the
average change in the cost of employing labor. The rate of total com­
pensation, which comprises wages, salaries, and employer costs for
employee benefits, is collected for workers performing specified tasks.
Employment in each occupation is held constant over time for all se­
ries produced in the ECI, except those by region, bargaining status,
and area. As a consequence, only changes in compensation are meas­
ured. Industry and occupational employment data from the 1970 Cen­
sus of Population are used in deriving constant weights for the ECI.
While holding total industry and occupational employment fixed, in
the estimation of indexes by region, bargaining status, and area, the
employment in those measures is allowed to vary over time in accord
with changes in the sample. The rate of change (in percent) is avail­
able for wages and salaries, as well as for total compensation. Data
are collected for the pay period including the 12th day of the survey
months of March, June, September, and December. The statistics are
neither annualized nor adjusted for seasonal influence.
W ages and sa la ries consist of earnings before payroll deductions,
excluding premium pay for overtime, work on weekends and holidays,
and shift differentials. Production bonuses, incentive earnings, com­
missions, and cost-of-living adjustments are included; nonproduction
bonuses are included with other supplemental pay items in the bene­
fits category; and payments-in-kind, free room and board, and tips are
excluded. Benefits include supplemental pay, insurance, retirement and
savings plans, and hours-related and legally required benefits.
D a ta on n egotiated w age changes apply to private nonfarm industry
collective bargaining agreements covering 1,000 workers or more.
Data on compensation changes apply only to those agreements cover­
ing 5,000 workers or more. First-year wage or compensation changes
refer to average negotiated changes for workers covered by settle­
ments reached in the period and implemented within the first 12
months after the effective date of the agreement. Changes over the life

Digitized for
90 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

of the agreement refer to all adjustments specified in the contract,
expressed as an average annual rate. These measures exclude wage
changes that may occur under cost-of-living adjustment clauses, that
are triggered by movements in the Consumer Price Index. Wage-rate
changes are expressed as a percent of straight-time hourly earnings;
compensation changes are expressed as a percent of total wages and
benefits.
E ffective w age adjustm ents reflect all negotiated changes imple­
mented in the reference period, regardless of the settlement date. They
include changes from settlements reached during the period, changes
deferred from contracts negotiated in an earlier period, and cost-ofliving adjustments. The data also reflect contracts providing for no
wage adjustment in the period. Effective adjustments and each of
their components are prorated over all workers in bargaining units
with at least 1,000 workers.

Notes on the data
The Employment Cost Index data series began in the fourth quar­
ter of 1975, with the quarterly percent change in wages and salaries in
the private nonfarm sector. Data on employer costs for employee bene­
fits were included in 1980, to produce a measure of the percent
change in employers’ cost for employees’ total compensation. State
and local government units were added to the ECI coverage in 1981,
providing a measure of total compensation change in the civilian non­
farm economy.
Data for the broad white-collar, blue-collar, and service worker
groups, and the manufacturing, nonmanufacturing, and service indus­
try groups are presented in the ECI. Additional occupation and in­
dustry detail are provided for the wages and salaries component of
total compensation in the private nonfarm sector. For State and local
government units, additional industry detail is shown for both total
compensation and its wages and salaries component.
Historical indexes (June 1981 = 100) of the quarterly rates of chang­
es presented in the ECI are also available.
For a more detailed discussion of the ECI, see chapter 25, “The
Employment Cost Index,” of the BLS Handbook of Methods (Bulletin
1910), and the Monthly Labor Review articles: “Employment Cost In­
dex: a measure of change in the ‘price of labor,”’ July 1975; “How
benefits will be incorporated into the Employment Cost Index,” Janu­
ary 1978; and “The Employment Cost Index: recent trends and ex­
pansion,” May 1982.
Additional data for the ECI and other measures of wage and com­
pensation changes appear in Current Wage Developments, a monthly
periodical of the Bureau.

30.

Employment Cost Index

[June 1981 =100]
Percent change
1980

1981

1982

3 months
ended

Series
June

Civilian nonfarm workers'..................................
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers ..........................
Blue-collar workers..............................................
Service workers ........................
Workers, by industry division
Manufacturing......................................
Nonmanufacturing..................................
Services..............................................
Public administration2 ..............................
Private nonfarm workers ............................
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers ............................................
Blue-collar workers................................
Service workers ....................................
Workers, by Industry division
Manufacturing........................................
Nonmanufacturing..................................

Dec.

-

-

—
—

—
—

—

March

June

Sept.

Dec.

-

-

100.0

102.6

—
—

—
—

100.0
100.0
100.0

102.7
102.3
102.8

—

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

_

—

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

—
—
—

March

June

104.5

106.3

107.5

1.1

7.5

104.9
104.1
104.2

106.5
105.7
107.2

107.7
107.1
108.3

1.1
1.3
1.0

8.3

102.1
102.8
104.4
104.3

104.0
104.8
107.1
106.0

106.0
106.4
108.2
108.1

107.2
107.7
109.2
109.1

1.1
1.2
.9
.9

77
9.2
9.1

June 1982

90.7

92.8

94.7

98.1

100.0

102.0

104.0

105.8

107.2

1.3

7.2

90.8
90.5
90.8

92.6
93.0
92.7

94.5
94.9
94.3

98.3
97.8
99.3

100.0
100.0
100.0

101.8
102.2
101.9

104.0
104.0
103.1

105.8
105.6
106.7

107.2
107.0
107.9

1.3
1.3
1.1

70

90.5
90.8

92.6
92.9

94.7
94.7

98.0
98.2

100.0
100.0

102.1
102.0

104.0
103.9

106.0
105.7

107.2
107.1

1.1
1.3

7.1

-

-

-

-

100.0

105.3

107.4

108.8

109.3

.5

9.3

—

—

_

—

—

~

100.0
100.0

105.7
104.2

107.8
105.9

109.1
108.2

109.5
108.9

.4
.6

8.9

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

105.8
106.0
106.3
105.0
104.3

107.9
107.9
108.3
107.8
106.0

109.0
108.9
109.3
109.5
108.1

109.4
109.1
109.5
110.3
109.1

.4
.2
.2
.7
.9

94
91
95
10 3
9.1

State and local government workers ....................
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers ................................................
Blue-collar workers..........................................
Workers, by industry division
Services......................................................
Schoo s ..............................................
Elementary and secondary......................................
Hospitals and other services3 ......................................
Public administration2 ..............................................

'Excludes household and Federal workers.
"Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.


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

Sept.

12 months
ended

—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

L2
7.9

includes, for example, library, social, and health services.
Note: Dashes indicate data not available.

91

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Wage and Compensation Data

31.

Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group

[June 1981 =100]
Percent change
1980

1981

Series

3 months
ended

June

Sept.

Dec.

March

June

Sept.

Dec.

March

June

Civilian nonfarm workers'................................................

12 months
ended

June 1982

-

-

-

-

100.0

102.5

104.4

106.3

107.3

0.9

7.3

Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers ......................................................
Blue-collar workers ........................................................
Service workers ............................................................

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—

—
—

-

-

100.0
100.0
100.0

102.6
102.4
102.5

104.7
104.0
103.6

106.7
105.5
106.8

107.6
106.7
107.9

.8
1.1
1.0

7.6
6.7
7.9

Workers, by industry division
Manufacturing................................................
Nonmanufacturing....................................................
Services....................................................................
Public administration2 ................................................

—
—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

—

—

-

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

102.1
102.7
104.4
103.8

104.0
104.5
106.6
105.5

105.9
106.5
108.6
107.5

107.0
107.5
109.5
108.4

1.0
.9
.8
.8

7.0
7.5
9.5
8.4

Private nonfarm workers
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers ..................................................
Professional and technical workers..........................
Managers and administrators..................................
Salesworkers ........................................................
Clerical workers ....................................................
Blue-collar workers ....................................................
Craft and kindred workers ......................................
Operatives, except transport ..................................
Transport equipment operatives ..............................
Nonfarm laborers ..................................................
Service workers ........................................................
Workers, by industry division
Manufacturing............................................................
Durables................................................................
Nondurables..........................................................
Nonmanufacturing......................................................
Construction ..........................................................
Transportation and public utilities ............................
Wholesale and retail trade......................................
Wholesale trade ................................................
Retail trade........................................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate..........................
Services................................................................

91.5

93.5

95.4

980

100.0

102.0

103.8

105.9

107.1

1.1

7.1

91.4
908
92.0
90.7
91.9
91.6
91.4
91.5
92.2
91.8
91.9

93.3
93.2
93.5
92.2
93.8
93.8
94.0
93.6
93.5
93.9
93.4

95.2
95.3
94.7
94.8
95.7
95.7
96.1
95.5
95.3
95.7
94.8

98.1
98.2
98.6
96.2
98.6
97.7
97.8
97.8
96.8
97.5
99.2

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.8
103.3
101.6
98.0
102.7
102.3
102.9
102.1
101.0
101.5
101.8

103.9
105.5
102.8
101.9
104.2
103.9
104.3
104.1
102.7
103.3
102.7

106.2
108.0
105.8
102.2
107.0
105.4
106.2
105.4
103.2
104.1
106.7

107.3
109.4
107.2
101.8
108.3
106.6
107.6
106.6
104.1
105.1
107.9

1.0
1.3
1.3
-.4
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.1
.9
1.0
1.1

7.3
9.4
7.2
1.8
8.3
6.6
7.6
6.6
4.1
5.1
7.9

91.8
91.2
92.7
91.3
91.9
90.2
92.2
92.1
92.2
89.4
91.9

93.6
93.5
93.8
93.4
94.5
93.1
93.6
93.0
93.8
91.2
94.2

95.7
95.7
95.7
95.2
95.9
95.6
95.1
95.9
94.8
93.1
95.7

97.9
97.9
97.8
98.1
97.6
97.7
98.2
98.5
98.1
95.7
99.6

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

102.1
102.1
102.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
101.3
102.0
101.0
98.3
103.6

104.0
104.5
103.1
103.8
104.3
103.6
102.3
103.4
101.9
102.3
105.8

105.9
106.3
105.3
105.9
105.9
105.7
103.9
106.3
103.0
103.7
108.8

107.0
107.4
106.3
107.1
107.3
106.9
105.8
108.9
104.5
102.4
110.0

1.0
1.0
.9
1.1
1.3
1.1
1.8
2.4
1.5
-1.3
1.1

7.0
7.4
6.3
7.1
7.3
6.9
5.8
8.9
4.5
2.4
10.0

State and local government workers ..............................
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers ..................................................
Blue-collar workers....................................................
Workers, by industry division
Services....................................................................
Schools ................................................................
Elementary and secondary..................................
Hospitals and other services3 ..................................
Public administration2 ................................................

'Excludes household and Federal workers.
Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.

92

1982


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

—

—

_

_

100.0

105.0

107.0

108.2

108.7

.5

8.7

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—

100.0
100.0

105.4
103.9

107.5
105.5

108.5
107.5

108.9
107.9

.4
.4

8.9
7.9

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—
—

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

105.5
105.7
106.0
104.6
103.3

107.6
107.7
107.9
107.3
105.5

108.4
108.3
108.7
108.8
107.5

108.8
108.5
108.8
109.5
108.4

.4
.2
.1
.6
.8

8.8
8.5
8.8
9.5
8.4

_

_

_

3 Includes, for example, library, social, and health services.
N ote : Dashes indicate data not available.

32.

Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and area size

[June 1981 = 100]
Percent change
1980

1982

1981

3 months
ended

Series

12 months
ended

June

Sept.

Dec.

March

June

Sept.

Dec.

March

June

June 1982

Union ................................................................................
Manufacturing ................................................................
Nonmanufacturing ..........................................................

89.7
—

92.4
—

—

—

94.7
—
—

97.6
—
—

100.0
100.0
100.0

102.5
102.3
102.7

104.8
104.6
105.0

106.5
106.3
106.8

108.4
108.0
108.7

1.8
1.6
1.8

8.4
8.0
8.7

Nonunion............................................................................
Manufacturing .................... . . . t-....................................
Nonmanufacturing ..........................................................

91.1
—
—

92.8
—
—

94.6
—
—

98.4
—
—

100.0
100.0
100.0

101.7
101.8
101.7

103.5
103.5
103.5

105.3
105.7
105.2

106.5
106.6
106.4

1.1
.9
1.1

6.5
6.6
6.4

90.6
90.3

92.8
91.9

94.7
94.2

98.1
98.1

100.0
100.0

102.1
101.8

104.1
105.2

105.7
106.2

107.2
107.0

1.4
.8

7.2
7.0

Workers, by bargaining status1
Union ................................................................................
Manufacturing ................................................................
Nonmanufacturing ..........................................................

90.8
91.3
90.4

93.5
93.8
93.1

95.8
96.1
95.5

97.4
97.7
97.1

100.0
100.0
100.0

102.7
102.6
102.8

105.0
104.7
105.2

106.5
105.9
107.0

108.1
107.3
108.8

1.5
1.3
1.7

8.1
7.3
8.8

Nonunion............................................................................
Manufacturing ................................................................
Nonmanufacturing ..........................................................

91.8
92.3
91.5

93.4
93.4
93.4

95.1
95.4
95.0

98.2
97.9
98.3

100.0
100.0
100.0

101.6
101.7
101.6

103.2
103.3
103.2

105.6
105.9
105.5

106.5
106.7
106.4

.9
.8
.9

6.5
6.7
6.4

Workers, by region1
Northeast ..........................................................................
South ................................................................................
North Central......................................................................
West..................................................................................

92.5
91.4
91.6
90.4

94.2
93.2
93.3
93.5

96.0
94.9
95.3
95.3

98.3
98.0
98.1
97.9

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.7
101.9
101.6
103.2

104.4
102.8
103.3
105.1

106.1
105.7
104.7
107.9

106.7
107.4
106.1
108.6

.6
1.6
1.3
.6

6.7
7.4
6.1
8.6

Workers, by area size1
Metropolitan areas..............................................................
Other areas........................................................................

91.4
91.5

93.5
92.9

95.4
95.1

97.9
98.3

100.0
100.0

102.1
101.8

104.0
103.1

105.9
106.0

107.1
106.8

1.1
.8

7.1
6.8

COMPENSATION
Workers, by bargaining status1

Workers, by area size1
Metropolitan areas..............................................................
Other areas........................................................................
WAGES AND SALARIES

1The indexes are calculated differently from those for the occupation and industry groups. For a detailed description of the index calculation, see BLS Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 1910.


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

93

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW October 1982 • Current Labor Statistics: Wage and Compensation Data
33.

Wage and compensation change, major collective bargaining settlements, 1977 to date

[In percent]
Quarterly average
Measure

1980

1981

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

II

III

IV

1

9.6
6.2

8.3
6.3

9.0
6.6

10.4
7.1

10.2
8.3

10.2
7.4

11.4
7.2

8.5
6.1

First year of contract..................
Annual rate over life of contract ..

7.8
5.8

7.6
6.4

7.4
6.0

9.5
7.1

9.8
7.9

9.1
7.3

10.5
7.4

Manufacturing:
First year of contract..................
Annual rate over life of contract ..

8.4
5.5

8.3
6.6

6.9
5.4

7.4
5.4

7.2
6.1

6.7
5.1

Nonmanufacturing (excluding
construction):
First year of contract..................
Annual rate over life of contract ..

8.0
5.9

8.0
6.5

7.6
6.2

9.5
6.6

9.8
7.3

Construction:
First year of contract..................
Annual rate over life of contract ..

6.3
6.3

6.5
6.2

8.8
8.3

13.6
11.5

13.5
11.3

1982 p

II

III

IV

I

II

7.7
7.2

11.6
10.8

10.5
8.1

11.0
5.8

1.9
1.2

2.1
1.6

8.3
6.5

7.1
6.2

11.8
9.7

10.8
8.7

9.0
5.7

3.0
2.8

2.9
2.7

8.4
5.6

7.8
5.8

6.4
5.5

8.2
6.7

9.0
7.5

6.6
5.4

2.5
2.7

1.3
1.2

10.3
8.5

9.5
5.9

8.2
6.8

8.0
7.3

11.8
9.1

8.6
7.2

9.6
5.6

2.6
2.1

6.5
5.7

12.2
10.4

15.4
13.0

14.3
12.0

11.4
10.3

12.9
11.1

16.4
12.4

11.4
11.7

9.1
8.9

5.8
6.0

Total compensation changes covering
5,000 workers or more, all
industries:
First year of contract..................
Annual rate over life of contract ..
Wage rate changes covering at least
1,000 workers, all industries:

p=preliminary.

34.

Effective wage adjustments in collective bargaining units covering 1,000 workers or more, 1977 to date
Year

Year and quarter
1980

Measure
1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982 p

1981
II

III

IV

I

II

III

IV

I

II

Average percent adjustment (Including no change):
All industries....................................................
Manufacturing..............................................
Nonmanufacturing........................................

8.0
8.4
7.6

8.2
8.6
7.9

9.1
9.6
8.8

9.9
10.2
9.7

9.5
9.4
9.5

3.3
3.4
3.2

3.5
2.9
4.0

1.3
1.7
1.1

1.7
2.3
1.2

3.2
2.4
3.8

3.3
3.1
3.4

1.5
1.9
1.1

1.0
.9
1.0

1.9
.9
2.6

From settlements reached in period ..................
Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period
From cost-of-living clauses................................

3.0
3.2
1.7

2.0
3.7
2.4

3.0
3.0
3.1

3.6
3.5
2.8

2.5
3.8
3.2

1.0
1.4
.8

1.7
1.2
.7

.5
.3
.6

.4
.5
.7

1.1
1.4
.7

.5
1.5
1.2

.4
.4
.6

.2
.6
.3

.3
1.3
.2

Total number of workers receiving wage change (In
thousands)' ....................................................

—

—

—

—

8,648

—

—

—

3,855

4,701

4,364

3,225

2,955

3,359

—

—

—

—

2,270

—

—

—

579

909

540

604

199

407

—
—

—
—

—
—

—

—

—

—
—

—

—

6,267
4,593

—

888
2,639

2,055
2,669

3,023
2,934

882
2,179

1,038
1,960

1,629
1,496

—

145

_

_

—

4,937

4,092

4,428

5,568

5,767

5,364

From settlements reached
in period......................................................
Deferred from settlements
reached in earlier period ..............................
From cost-of-llving clauses................................
Number of workers receiving no adjustments (in
thousands) ......................................................

1The total number of workers who received adjustments does not equal the sum of workers that
received each type of adjustment, because some workers received more than one type of adjustment
during the period.

Digitized94for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

p=preliminary,

WORK STOPPAGE DATA

Estimates of days idle as a percent of estimated working
time measures only the impact of larger strikes (1,000 workers
or more). Formerly, these estimates measured the impact of
strikes involving 6 workers or more; that is, the impact of vir­
tually a ll strikes. Due to budget stringencies, collection of
data on strikes involving 6 workers or more was discontinued
with the December 1981 data.

W ork
S t o p p a g e s include all known strikes or lockouts in­
volving 1,000 workers or more and lasting a full shift or long­
er. Data are based largely on newspaper accounts and cover all
workers idle one shift or more in establishments directly in­
volved in a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or sec­
ondary effect on other establishments whose employees are idle
owing to material or service shortages.

35.

Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more, 1947 to date
Number of stoppages
Month and year

Beginning in
month or year

Days idle

Workers involved

In effect
during month
or year

Beginning in
month or year
(in thousands)

In effect
during month
(in thousands)

Number
(in thousands)

Percent of
estimated
working time

1947 ........................................................................................
1948
1949 .........................................................................................
1950 ..

270
245
262
424

1,629
1,435
2,537
1,698

25,720
26,127
43,420
30,390

.22
.38
.26

1951
1952
1953
1954
1955

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

415
470
437
265
363

1,462
2,746
1,623
1,075
2,055

15,070
48,820
18,130
16,630
21,180

.12
.38
.14
.13
.16

1956 ........................................................................................
1957 ........................................................................................
....................................................
1958
..
.
1959
1960

287
279
332
245
222

1,370
887
1,587
1,381
896

26,840
10,340
17,900
60,850
13,260

.20
.07
.13
.43
.09

1961
1962
1963
1964
1965

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

195
211
181
246
268

1,031
793
512
1,183
999

10,140
11,760
10,020
16,220
15,140

.07
.08
.07
.11
.10

1966
........................................................................
1967 .
1968 ........................................................................................
1969
1970 ........................................................................................

321
381
392
412
381

1,300
2,192
1,855
1,576
2,468

16,000
31,320
35,567
29,397
52,761

.10
.18
.20
.16
.29

1971
1972
1973
1974
1975

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

298
250
317
424
235

2,516
975
1,400
1,796
965

35,538
16,764
16,260
31,809
17,563

.19
.09
.08
.16
.09

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

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

231
298
219
235
187

1,519
1,212
1,006
1,021
795

23,962
21,258
23,774
20,409
20,844

.12
.10
.11
.09
.09

1981 .........................................................................................

145

729

16,908

.07

1981:

January..................................................................
February ................................................................
March ....................................................................
April ......................................................................
May ......................................................................
June ......................................................................
July........................................................................
August....................................................................

6
7
16
17
18
30
23
9

12
10
20
27
27
43
38
17

12.0
10.7
201.6
48.0
85.1
200.1
80.1
36.2

29.6
20.9
207.8
223.5
259.0
415.1
125.4
86.6

257.9
118.5
861.8
4,085.2
4,454.0
2,618.3
1,575.5
1,017.9

.01
.01
.04
.20
.24
.13
.08
.05

1982“

January..................................................................
February ................................................................
March ....................................................................
April ......................................................................
May ......................................................................
June ......................................................................
July........................................................................
August....................................................................

2
2
3
9
14
17
11
14

4
6
8
16
21
25
22
23

6.1
2.5
8.3
35.7
43.7
41.4
37.3
40.2

11.4
13.9
21.3
55.3
60.3
64.5
63.2
59.1

199.9
236.9
352.2
480.3
636.1
894.0
851.9
779.0

.01
.01
.02
.02
.03
.04
.04
.04

p=preliminary.


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

95

Published by BLS in August
SALES PUBLICATIONS
BLS Bulletins

Microfiche

Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Firms, 1981. Bulletin
2140, 47 pp., $4.75 (GPO Stock No. 029-001-02711-7). The
third in an annual series, this survey o f employee benefit provi­
sions provides representative data for 21.5 million full-time
employees in a cross-section o f the Nation’s private industries in
1981. It was designed to furnish the Office o f Personnel
Management with information on benefits o f private sector
employees in order to compare them with benefits of Federal
workers.

Employment and Unemployment in States and Local Areas:
1978, BLS/LA US/AR -82/04.
1979, BLS/LA US/AR -82/03.
Provides benchmarked monthly estimates o f the labor force,
employment, and unemployment for States, labor market areas,
counties, and county equivalents. Part of a subscription
series,“ Local Area Unemployment Statistics,” available month­
ly: Domestic—$50 a year; Foreign—-$62.50 a year.
FREE PUBLICATIONS

Area Wage Survey Bulletins
BLS Reports

These bulletins cover office, professional, technical, maintenance,
custodial, and material movement occupations in major
metropolitan areas. The annual series o f 70 is available by
subscription for $90 per year. Individual area bulletins are also
available separately.

Employment in Perspective: Minority Workers, Second Quarter
1982, Report 672. 3 pp. Focuses on some of the available labor
force data for black and Hispanic youth by school enrollment
status and educational attainment.

Billings, Montana, Metropolitan Area, July 1982. Bulletin
3015-26, 25 pp., $3.50 (GPO Stock No. 029-001-90146-1).

Area Wage Survey Summaries

Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina, Metropolitan Area, June
1982. Bulletin 3015-23, 39 pp., $4.50 (GPO Stock No.
029-001-90142-9).
New York, New York-New Jersey, Metropolitan Area, May 1982.
Bulletin 3015-24, 43 p p ., $4.50 (GPO Stock N o.
029-001-90143-7).
Poughkeepsie-Kingston-Newburgh, New York Area, May 1982.
Bulletin 3015-27, 26 p p ., $3.50 (GPO Stock N o.
029-001-90147-1).
Poughkeepsie, New York, Metropolitan Area, May 1982. Bulletin
3015-22, 23 pp., $3.25 (GPO Stock No. 029-001-90141-1).
Richmond, Virginia, Metropolitan Area, June 1982. Bulletin
3015-25, 29 pp., $3.75 (GPO Stock No. 029-001-90144-5).

Asheville, N .C ., May 1982. 6 pp.
Charlotte-Gastonia, N.C ., June 1982. 3 pp.
Columbus, Miss., June 1982. 3 pp.
Fort Wayne, Ind., June 1982. 6 pp.
Gadsden and Anniston, Ala., July 1982. 6 pp.
Grand Island-Hastings, Nebr., July 1982. 3 pp.
Goldsboro, N .C ., July 1982. 6 pp.
Montana, July 1982. 3 pp.
Nashville-Davidson, Tenn., June 1982. 3 pp.
Oxnard-Simi Valley-Ventura, Calif., June 1982. 3 pp.
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc, Calif., June 1982. 3 pp.
Selma, Ala., July 1982. 6 pp.
Tampa-St. Petersburg, Fla., July 1982. 3 pp.
Waco and Killeen-Temple, Tex., July 1982. 6 pp.
West Virginia, July 1982. 3 pp.

Periodicals
CPI Detailed Report, June. Comprehensive report on price
movements for the month, questions and answers on upcoming
changes in the measurement o f homeownership costs, statistical
tables, charts, and technical notes. 109 pp., $3.50 ($20 per year).

BLS Summaries
Occupational Earnings and Wage Trends in Metropolitan Areas,
1982. Summary 82-9 (No. 1 of 3), 10 pp.

benefit changes and collective bargaining settlements in June

Wage Differences Among Metropolitan Areas, 1981. Summary
82-8, 3 pp.

and a special report on the Employment Cost Index for March
o f 1982. 66 pp., $2.50 ($14 per year).

To order:

Current Wage Developments, July. Includes employee wage and

Employment and Earnings, August. Covers employment and
unemployment developments in July, plus regular statistical
tables on national, State, and area employment, unemployment,
hours, and earnings. 124 pp., $3.75 ($31 per year).
Producer Prices and Price Indexes, June. Includes a comprehen­
sive report on price movements for the month, information on
the sample revision for steel mill products, plus regular charts,
text, tables, and technical notes. I l l pp., $3.25 ($20 per year).

Sales p u blication s —Order from BLS regional offices (see inside

front cover), or the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Govern­
ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20212. Order by title and
GPO Stock number. Subscriptions available on ly from the
Superintendent o f Documents. Orders can be charged to a deposit
account number or checks can be made payable to the Superintend­
ent o f Documents. Visa and MasterCard are also accepted. Include
card number and expiration date.
M ailgram service —Available from the National Technical Infor­

Mailgram Service
Consumer price index data summary by mailgram within 24 hours
o f the CPI release. Provides unadjusted and seasonally adjusted
U.S. City Average data for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) and
for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W).
(NTISUB/158). $125 in contiguous United States.


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

mation Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
Free p u blication s —Available from the Bureau o f Labor Statistics,

U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20212 or from any
BLS regional office. R eq u est region al o ffic e p u b lic a tio n s fro m the
issu in g o ffic e . Free publications are available while supplies last.

Now Available!
Latest Edition of the
• 101 new tables
and a section on
recent trends
presenting social
and economic
data in table and
chart form.

This updated
edition of the
Statistical Abstract
presents both curVent and historical
data on the social,
economic, and
governmental
characteristics of
the United States
and contains:

• Introduction of
1980 Census data.
• An appendix
on “Statistical
Methodology and
Reliability” provid­
ing users with
information on how
the data were col­
lected and meas­
ures of their
reliability

Over 1600 tables
and graphic charts
based on data from
over 300 govern­
ment and private
agencies
A Guide to
Sources listing
over 1,000 statis­
tical publications,,
by subject area,
for further
reference

• A subject index
spanning 41
pages

102d Edition

• 1,047 pages
$ 16(cloth)
$ 11 (paper)

Use the GPO Order Form
in this announcement.
(please detach along th is d o tte d line)

ORDER FORM

Send o rd e r fo rm to S u p e rin te n d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts , U .S . G o v e rn m e n t P rin tin g O ffic e , W a s h in g to n , D .C . 2 0 4 0 2 .

Make check o r m o ney o rd e r payable to :
S U P E R IN T E N D E N T O F D O C U M E N T S

Credit Card Orders Only

Total charges $______

Statistical A bstract of the U nited States, 1981
pa per $11

GPO S to c k No. 0 0 3 -0 2 4 -0 3 6 1 9 -3

c lo th $16

GPO S to c k N o. 0 0 3 -0 2 4 -0 3 6 2 0 -7

Fill in the boxes below.

M aster Card

Credit
Card No.

and

OR

VISA
accepted.

Expiration Date
Month/Year

□ check,
Enclosed is $
□ money order, or charge to my
Deposit Account No.

For Office Use Only

] —O
ILI
Q_

Order No..

Quantity

C om p any o r Personal Name

Enclosed
To be mailed
Subscriptions

>

F-

ac

O

A d d itio n a l a d d re s s /A tte n tio n line

I

I

I

I J_L

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

M

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

[

I

I

I

I

Street address

oc
CL
LU

</>

M

I

City

I

LI

State

! I !
_L U

< for
Digitized
Country)
LU (or FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
I
I
I of
I St. Louis
Federal ReserveI Bank

I

I

!

I

I

!

I

I

i

ì

I I

I

I

11

I

I

M
I

I

I

I

I

I I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Z IP Code

I

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Postage
Foreign handling
MMOB.............................
OPNR .............................
UPNS
Discount
Refund

Charges

U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Washington D.C. 20212

Postage and Fees Paid
U.S. Department of Labor
Lab-441

Official Business
Penalty for private use, $300
RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED


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

SECOND CLASS MAIL

ftLK
v. là S u ü f c Ü O ô k
i
L lb k A R Y
FliO Ré SLR VE ÖANk ÜE ST L O U IS
HU ÖÜX
S Al i M T L Ü Ü i ô
NO
M iö
ôö
ô
HO
bU