The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
William E. Brock, Secretary
Regional Commissioners
for Bureau of Labor Statistics
Janet L. Norwood, Commissioner
Region I—Boston: Anthony J. Ferrara
K en n e dy Federal B uild ing , S uite 1603
B oston, M A 02203
P hone: (617) 565 -2 32 7
C o n n e ctic u t
M aine
M assa ch u setts
N ew H a m pshire
R hode Island
V erm o n t
T h e M o n th ly Lab or R ev iew is published by th e
B ureau of L ab or Statistics of th e U .S . D e p a rtm e n t
of Lab or. C o m m u n ic atio n s on editorial m atters
should b e ad d res sed to th e Editor-in-C hief,
M on th ly L ab or R eview , B ureau of L ab or Statistics,
W a sh in g to n , D C 2 0 2 1 2 . Phone: (2 0 2 ) 5 2 3 -1 3 2 7 .
Region II—New York: Samuel M. Ehrenhalt
1515 B roadw ay, S uite 3400, N ew Y ork, N Y 10036
P hone: (212) 944-3121
N ew Je rse y
N ew Y ork
P uerto R ico
V irg in Islands
BUREAU O F LABOR S TA TIS TIC S
Subscription price per y e a r— $ 1 6 dom estic; $ 2 0 foreign.
S in g le copy $ 4 .7 5 dorrtestic; $ 5 .9 4 foreign.
S ubscription prices and distribution policies for th e
M on th ly Lab or R ev iew (IS S N 0 0 9 8 -1 8 1 8 ) and o th er G o v e rn m e n t
publication s a re se t by th e G o v e rn m e n t Printing O ffice,
an a g e n c y of th e U .S . C ongress. S en d c o rre sp o n d e n ce
on circulation and subscription m atters (including
ad d res s ch a n g es ) to:
S u p e rin te n d e n t of D o cu m e n ts,
G o ve rn m en t Printing O ffice,
W ash in g to n , D C 2 0 4 0 2
M a k e ch e cks p ay ab le to S u p e rin te n d e n t of D o cu m e n ts.
T h e S e c re ta ry of L ab or has d eterm in ed th at th e
publication of this periodical is nec ess ary in the
transaction of th e public business required by
law of this D e p a rtm e n t. S e c o n d -cla ss p o s tag e
paid at W ash in g to n , D C , an d at add ition al m ailing ad d res ses.
Region III—Philadelphia: Alvin I. Margulis
3535 M a rket S tree t
P.O . B ox 13309, P hila d elp h ia , PA 19101
P hone: (215) 596-1154
D elaw are
D istrict o f C o lum b ia
M a rylan d
P enn sylva n ia
V irg in ia
W e st V irg in ia
Region IV—Atlanta: Donald M. Cruse
1371 P ea ch tre e S treet, N .E ., A tla nta, G A 30367
P hone: (404) 347-4418
A la b a m a
F lo rid a
G eo rg ia
K e n tu cky
M ississip p i
N o rth C a ro lin a
S outh C a ro lin a
Te n ne sse e
Region V—Chicago: Lois L. Orr
9th Floor, Federal O ffice B u ild in g , 230 S. D earb o rn S tree t
C h ica go , IL 60604
P hone: (312) 353-1880
Illin ois
Ind ian a
M ich iga n
M in ne so ta
O hio
W isco n sin
Region VI—Dallas: Bryan Richey
F ederal B uild ing , R oom 221
525 G riffin S treet, D allas, TX 75202
P hone: (214) 767-6971
A rkan sa s
L ou isia n a
N ew M exico
O klah o m a
T exas
Regions VII and VIII—Kansas City: Gunnar Engen
911 W a ln u t S treet, K ansas C ity, M O 64106
P hone: (816) 374-2481
VII
Iow a
K ansas
M isso u ri
N e bra ska
VIII
C olorado
M o nta na
N orth D akota
S ou th D akota
U tah
W yo m ing
O cto b er cover:
“ Granite for Monuments (for Future Monuments)“
a 1939 lithograph by Louis Lozowick,
photograph courtesy of the
National Museum of Am erican Art,
W ashington, D.C.
C over design by M elvin B. Moxley.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Regions IX and X—San Francisco: Sam M. Hirabayashi
4 50 G olden G ate A venue, B ox 36017
S an F rancisco, CA 94102
P hone: (415) 556-4678
IX
A m erica n S am oa
A rizo n a
C a lifo rn ia
G uam
H aw aii
N evada
T ru st T e rrito ry o f the P ac ific Islands
X
A la ska
Idaho
O regon
W a sh in g to n
«
f\
1 f ìQ 7
V O L U M E 1 10, N U M B E R 10
NOV 2 0 1987
Felicia Nathan
Henry Low enstern, E ditor-in-C hief
R obert W. Fisher, Executive Editor
3
Analyzing em p lo yers’ costs for w ages, salaries, and benefits
Em ploym ent Cost Index data now provide a breakdow n of hourly costs; benefits
accounted for m ore than one-fourth of private-industry com pensation in M arch 1987
Howard V. Hayghe, Steven E. H augen
12
Profile of husbands in to d a y ’s labor m arket
H istorically, m arried men have had high earnings and low unem ploym ent;
yet their labor force pa rticip a tio n rate is m uch lower to d a y than in the past
W. G ullickson, M.J. H arper
18
M ultifactor productivity in U.S. m anufacturing, 1 9 4 9 -8 3
The num ber of w orkers in o ccu p a tio n s requiring the m ost e ducation and training
is estim ated to have grow n faster than the average for all o c cu p a tio ns
H. A. G oldstein, A. M. C ruze
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
29
State industry and occupational em ploym ent projections
A nalysis of the first State projections using bls o c cu p a tio n a l em ploym ent data
identifies som e causes of errors and offers suggestions for im provem ent
REPORTS
Lewis B. Siegel 39
Nina G upta and others 40
BLS reports on m ass layoffs and plant clo sing s in 1986
Pay-for-knowledge com pensation plans
DEPARTMENTS
2
39
46
47
50
53
Labor m onth in review
Research sum m aries
M ajor agreem ents expiring next m onth
D evelopm ents in industrial relations
Book reviews
C urrent labor statistics
Labor M onth
In Review
INDUSTRY PRODUCTIVITY. The
Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that
productivity, as measured by output per em
ployee hour, increased in 1986 in more than
three-fourths of the 88 industries surveyed.
Manufacturing. Among major manufactur
ing industries, both motor vehicles and steel
registered small productivity gains in 1986.
In motor vehicle manufacturing, productivi
ty grew by 1.8 percent. Although output fell
2.2 percent in 1986, mainly due to a decline
in automobile production, employee hours
fell even more, dropping 4.0 percent. The
productivity increase was the sixth consecu
tive annual gain in this industry. In steel
manufacturing, productivity rose 1.7 per
cent, as output dropped 5.9 percent and em
ployee hours fell 7.6 percent. The industry
continued to retire less efficient plant and
equipment, but encountered reduced demand
from automobile manufacturers and from
capital goods producers, such as the agricul
tural and industrial machinery industries,
and from other markets.
Several important manufacturing indus
tries posted large gains in productivity in
1986: petroleum refining (12.0 percent),
sawmills (11.0 percent), synthetic fibers (9.1
percent), paper (7.1 percent), and major
household appliances (6.7 percent). In
petroleum refining, output rose 5.8 percent
as demand was aided by a sharp drop in the
price of petroleum products, and hours fell
5.6 percent as many less efficient refiner
ies were closed. In synthetic fibers, output
increased 3.1 percent and hours decreased
5.5 percent. Sawmills posted an output gain
of 11.5 percent, resulting in part from in
creased demand from the single family hous
ing market, while hours rose 0.5 percent.
In the paper industry, output gained 5.9 per
cent, as demand was stimulated by favora
ble overall economic conditions, while hours
declined 1.1 percent. The household appli
ance industry had an output gain of 10.7 per
cent, aided by a boost in new home
2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
construction, while hours increased 3.7
percent.
Only a small number of manufacturing in
dustries registered productivity declines in
1986: down 8.7 percent in metal forming
machine tools, 3.9 percent in steel foundries
and nonwool yarn mills, 3.4 percent in oil
field machinery, 1.9 percent in gray iron
foundries, and 0.2 percent in cigarettes.
Mining. Coal mining gained 8.7 percent in
productivity, based on a small output in
crease of 0.6 percent and a more substan
tial change in employee hours, -7.4 percent.
Demand for coal remained fairly stable be
tween 1985 and 1986 while the industry con
tinued to close less efficient mines.
Nonmetallic minerals posted a productivity
advance of 1.0 percent: output dropped 0.6
percent, as declining demand from the
agricultural chemicals market more than off
set a gain from the construction materials
market, and hours fell 1.6 percent. In cop
per mining (recoverable metal), productivity
climbed 22.5 percent as output grew 4.2 per
cent and hours dropped 14.9 percent.
However, productivity in iron mining (us
able ore) decreased 4.9 percent: output fell
19.5 percent, due to a continued decline in
demand from the steel industry, while hours
dropped 15.2 percent.
Transportation and Utilities. Railroads
(revenue traffic) had a large productivity
gain of 11.0 percent: output grew 1.9 per
cent and employee hours declined 8.2 per
cent. In air transportation, productivity
increased 1.2 percent. Air traffic rose sig
nificantly in 1986: output grew 8.8 percent
and employment grew 7.6 percent. Petrole
um pipelines productivity gained 2.8 per
cent, as output rose 1.6 percent and
employee hours fell 1.1 percent. In tele
phone communications, productivity was up
6.0 percent, based on an output gain of 2.2
percent and a drop in employee hours of 3.6
percent. Productivity in electric utilities
grew 1.2 percent, with output increasing 2.2
percent and hours increasing 1.1 percent.
However, gas utilities posted a productivi
ty decline of 2.9 percent; output fell 5.9 per
cent, partly because of a warm winter and
the shift of some customers to cheaper oil
heat. Employee hours declined by 3.1
percent.
Trade and Services. Furniture, home fur
nishings, and equipment stores posted a
7.8-percent productivity gain as output grew
9.3 percent and hours rose 3.8 percent. The
demand for furniture and appliances in
creased, due to the expansion in new and
existing home sales, while home electron
ics also had a good year, fueling the large
output gain. The appliance, radio, and TV
component of this industry recorded an
11-percent gain in productivity. Apparel and
accessory stores had a 7.0 percent gain in
productivity: output rose 9.1 percent, as
sales were good in all types of apparel stores
and all person hours grew 2.0 percent.
Changes in productivity among the compo
nents of this industry ranged from 10.1 per
cent in shoe stores to -0.8 percent in family
clothing stores. The gasoline service station
industry posted a 3.3-percent gain as out
put rose 5.0 percent, helped by lower gaso
line prices, while hours were up 1.6 percent.
Both eating and drinking places and liquor
stores had 3.0-percent productivity in
creases, while new car dealers had a gain
of 1.5 percent and beauty and barber shops,
0.2 percent.
Productivity in retail food stores declined
by 1.3 percent: output increased 1.8 percent,
while hours grew 3.1 percent as the indus
try continued to provide more serviceoriented operations, such as delicatessens,
salad bars, in-store bakeries, pharmacies,
and photo departments. Other industries
with declines in productivity were laundries
and cleaning services (-2.4 percent), drug
stores (-3.3 percent), and hotels and motels
(-4.8 percent).
□
Analyzing employers’ costs
for wages, salaries, and benefits
Employment Cost Index data now provide
a breakdown o f hourly costs incurred;
in March 1987, employee benefits
accounted fo r more than one-fourth
o f compensation in private industry
F elicia N athan
Employee compensation in private industry cost employers
$13.42 per hour worked in March 1987. Straight-time
wages and salaries— 73.2 percent of the costs— averaged
$9.83, while benefit costs— the remaining 26.8 percent—
averaged $3.60.
These costs are based on data from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics Employment Cost Index ( eci) which measures
quarterly changes in employer costs for employee compen
sation. The eci is a fixed-weight Laspeyres index that uses
1980 census employment counts as weights. Data collected
for the eci can be used to derive compensation cost levels at
no additional burden on survey respondents, but current
employment weights are required. The bls Current Employ
ment Statistics survey in combination with the eci sample
provide the current weights.
The eci ’s establishment sample has been recently ex
panded, making it possible to produce estimates of compen
sation cost levels that are sufficiently reliable for analysis
and publication. The Bureau plans to publish compensation
cost estimates from the eci sample annually, using March as
the reference period. The estimates will be available in
midsummer.
Felicia Nathan is an economist in the Division of Employment Cost Trends,
Bureau o f Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
This article presents cost estimates for the components of
compensation for private industry workers,1 by industry di
vision and occupational group. In addition, relative errors
associated with the estimates and costs as a percent of total
compensation are shown. This article also discusses high
lights of the compensation cost estimates, illustrates how the
estimates were calculated, and briefly explains the standard
errors associated with the estimates.
Compensation costs
During the post-World War II era, employee benefits
have become an important part of labor costs and worker
income. Today, slightly more than one-fourth of employee
compensation is in some form of benefit. The largest cate
gory is legally required benefits, which accounts for 8.4
percent of total compensation costs. (See chart 1.) These
legally required benefits include Social Security, workers’
compensation, and unemployment insurance as well as
other less common benefits, such as railroad retirement and
State temporary disability benefits. Employer costs for le
gally required benefits averaged $1.13 per hour worked in
March 1987— nearly a third of all benefit costs.
Lump-sum payments, provided in lieu of wage increases
or to offset wage decreases, are becoming more widespread,
particularly in collective bargaining agreements. Neverthe3
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
Analyzing Employers’ Compensation Costs
Glossary
Following are definitions of the compensation components
covered by the Employment Cost Index.
Wages and salaries:
The hourly straight-time wage rate, or, for workers not paid
on an hourly basis, earnings divided by corresponding
hours. Wages and salaries include production bonuses, in
centive earnings, commission payments, and cost-of-living
adjustments, but exclude supplemental pay.
Benefits:
Paid leave— Paid vacations, paid holidays, paid sick leave,
and other paid leave.
Supplemental pay— premium pay for overtime and work on
weekends and holidays, shift differentials, nonproduction
bonuses, and lump-sum payments.
Insurance benefits— life, health, and sickness and accident
insurance.
Retirement and savings benefits— pension and other retire
ment plans, and savings and thrift plans.
Legally required benefits— Social Security, railroad retire
ment and supplemental retirement, railroad unemployment
insurance, Federal and State unemployment insurance,
workers’ compensation, and other benefits required by law,
such as State temporary disability insurance.
Other benefits— Severance pay, supplemental unemploy
ment plans, and merchandise discounts in department
stores.
utilities ($20.24 per hour worked) and wholesale trade
($15.15), and lowest in service industries ($12.34) and re
tail trade ($7.85). (See chart 2.)
As noted previously, wages and salaries alone make up
the major portion of compensation costs in all industries.
However, the wage and salary proportion of compensation
costs was less in relatively high-paid industries than in other
industries. Wages and salaries made up 68 percent of total
compensation costs for workers in transportation and public
utilities, compared with 74.2 percent in wholesale trade,
75.7 percent in service industries, and 77.3 percent in retail
trade.3
Industries also differ in the cost and relative importance
of the various benefits. Benefit costs are related, in part, to
wages and salaries because the costs for a number of bene
fits (paid leave and Social Security, for example), are tied
to wage rates or earnings. But other factors are also impor
tant in explaining the industry-to-industry differences.
To illustrate the effects of some other factors, consider
paid leave. This benefit is typically paid at the employee’s
wage or salary rate, but its cost is influenced by the amount
and type of leave granted. Differences among industries in
the amount of paid leave reflect variation in paid leave
plans, in employees’ length of service with the company,
and in the mix of full- and part-time workers.
The following tabulation compares average wage and
salary rates and paid leave costs per hour worked in selected
industries, March 1987:
Paid leave
As a percent
Wages
of wages and
and
salaries
salaries Cost
less, they still account for a very small part of total com
pensation. These payments are included in the supplemental
pay category, which averaged less than 3 percent of em
ployer compensation costs.
Wages and salaries plus benefits that are paid in cash to
the employee (paid leave and supplemental pay) accounted
for 82.5 percent of total compensation costs per hour
worked. The remaining 17.5 percent of employer costs was
made up of noncash benefits purchased for the employee.
These noncash benefits include insurance, pensions and sav
ings, legally required and other benefits, such as supple
mental unemployment plans and merchandise discounts in
department stores.
By industry division. Hourly employer compensation
costs were, on average, higher in goods-producing indus
tries ($15.86) than in service-producing industries
($12.41).2 However, within the service-producing sector,
there was substantial variation in compensation costs.
Among the service-producing industries for which data were
published, costs were highest in transportation and public
Digitized for 4FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Private industry ................... . ..
G oods-producing.............
Manufacturing .............
Service-producing ...........
Transportation and
public utilities ........
Wholesale tr a d e ...........
Retail trade .................
S e rv ic e .........................
$ 9.83
$0.93
9.5
11.12
10.77
9.29
1.09
1.21
.87
9.8
11.2
9.4
13.77
11.24
6.07
9.34
1.75
1.05
.37
.91
12.7
9.3
6.1
9.7
Also, there is a striking variation among industries in
employer costs for providing employees with insurance
(life, health, and sickness and accident)— a benefit domi
nated by health insurance with costs usually not tied to
wages and salaries. This variation reflects differences in the
types and extent of insurance benefits provided, as well as
differences in employee contributions to insurance, and the
proportion of workers covered. Even though an employer’s
health insurance costs for a plan are about the same regard
less of the employee’s pay level, there is a positive relation
ship across industries between the costs of insurance and the
wage and salary rate.
This relationship is illustrated in the following tabulation
which shows average wage and salary rates and employer
insurance costs per hour worked in selected industries,
March 1987:
Private industry ................. ...........
Transportation and
public utilities ...........
Wholesale tr a d e .............
Manufacturing ...............
Service ............................
Retail trade ...................
..........
...........
...........
...........
...........
Wages and
salaries
Insurance
cost
$ 9.83
$0.72
13.77
11.24
10.77
9.34
6.07
1.32
.80
1.06
.53
.35
By occupational group. Employer compensation costs
also varied substantially by occupational group, being
highest for managers and lowest for service workers.4 (See
chart 2.) Compensation costs per hour worked averaged
more for white-collar workers ($15.56) than for blue-collar
workers ($13.43), with wages and salaries accounting for
the difference. Wages and salaries for white-collar workers
($11.61) were 24 percent higher than for blue-collar work
ers ($9.38). Benefit costs were about the same for both
($3.95 and $4.05, respectively). Compensation costs for
service workers averaged $6.43 per hour worked, less than
half that for white-collar or blue-collar workers. As a pro
portion of total compensation, benefit costs for service
workers (22.8 percent) were less than those for either whitecollar workers (25.4 percent) or blue-collar workers (30.2
percent). Insurance costs per hour worked for service work
ers (27 cents) were about a third of those for white-collar
workers (77 cents) and blue-collar workers (87 cents).
Differences among occupational categories in employer
costs for some benefits are related to the work performed.
The following tabulation shows costs per hour worked for
selected benefits, by occupation, March 1987:
White-collar Blue-collar Service
Workers’ compensation .. . . .
State unemployment . . . .
Premium pay ...................
Shift pay .........................
$0.11
.11
.08
.03
$0.39
.15
.34
.06
$0.16
.10
.04
.02
The costs of workers’ compensation, State unemployment
insurance, premium pay, and shift differentials were higher
for blue-collar workers than for either white-collar or serv
ice workers. On average, occupational injury and unem
ployment rates are higher for blue-collar workers, exerting
an upward influence on unemployment insurance and work
ers’ compensation rates for these workers. Shift work and
overtime tend to be a more integral part of blue-collar work,
so naturally, shift differentials and premium pay are pro
vided more frequently to blue-collar occupations. (These
Chart 1. R elative im portance of com ponents of em ployer costs for com pensation
in private industry, M arch 1987
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
[In percent]
Other benefits
0.1
Supplemental
Pay
Pensions and
savings
Insurance
Paid leave
Legally required
benefits
5
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
Analyzing Employers’ Compensation Costs
factors are also industry related— the higher costs reflecting
the concentration of blue-collar workers in goods-producing
industries.)
Chart 2. E m ployer costs for com pensation
in private industry by selected industries
and occupations, M arch 1987
Dollars per hour w orked
0
5
10
15
Total private
Wages and
Salaries
Industries
Goods producing
Manufacturing
Service producing
Transportation,
public utilities
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Services
Occupations
White collar
Professional, technical
Managers,
administrators
Clerical
Blue collar
Craft
Machine operators,
assemblers, inspectors
Transportation,
material moving
Laborers, handlers,
cleaners
Service
6
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Benefits
20
25
By occupation within industries. The wide variation in
average compensation costs by industry and occupation per
sisted even when averages were examined by occupation
within industries. For example, within each industry, com
pensation costs for the highest paid occupations were more
than double those for the lowest paid.
The dispersion of compensation costs by occupation is
illustrated in table 1, which categorizes average costs per
hour worked into six ranges— under $5 per hour worked;
$5—$9.99; $10—$14.99; $15-$19.99; $20-$24.99; and $25
or more. (The ranges are used because average compensa
tion costs at this level of detail are not reliable for publica
tion.) There was an overlap of occupational pay among
industries with substantially different overall compensation
costs. For example, the ranges for managers and profession
als in service industries and retail trade— industries with
relatively low overall compensation costs— equaled or ex
ceeded the ranges for most occupational groups in manufac
turing— an industry with relatively high overall compensa
tion costs. This overlap demonstrates that analysis based
on overall industry averages is insufficient for determining
the impact on pay resulting from employment shifts occur
ring in the work force. The effect depends on which jobs are
growing within each industry and which are declining.
How compensation costs are calculated
At least two approaches can be taken in measuring an
employer’s costs for employee compensation. One approach
focuses on past expenditures— that is, the actual money an
employer spent on compensation during a specified time,
usually a past year. The other approach focuses on current
costs— annual costs based on the current price of benefits
under current plan provisions. The Bureau’s previous meas
ure of compensation cost levels, the Employer Expenditures
for Employee Compensation survey, used the past expendi
tures approach.5 Because the eci measures change from one
time to another, it uses the current cost approach.
To estimate the total compensation cost per hour worked,
the eci (1) identifies the benefits provided, (2) deter
mines, from current cost information (current price and cur
rent plan provisions), the cost per hour worked for each
benefit, then (3) sums the costs for the benefits with the
straight-time wage or salary rate. The following examples
illustrate how current costs are determined for specific ben
efit plans, and how they differ from costs based on past
expenditures.
Example 1. For a given year, each employee in a company
receives 10 paid holidays (five in each half of the year), and
receives 8 hours of straight-time pay for each holiday. The
hourly wage is $10 during the first half of the year, and
increases to $11 on July 1. All employees work 2,000 hours
a year.
The annualized current cost in this example is the rate at
which each holiday is paid (8 hours of straight-time pay)
times the number of holidays provided under current plan
provisions. This annualized current cost is then divided by
the annual hours worked to yield the current cost per hour
worked. The formula for deriving the current cost is:
Example 2. A health insurance plan is provided all em
ployees. The monthly premium for each employee is $120
for the first 6 months of a given year, and increases to $140
for the last 6 months. Each employee works 2,000 hours per
year.
The formula for deriving the current cost is:
(number of holidays) X (hours of pay) X
(hourly wage rate) = annualized current cost;
annualized current cost -j- work hours per year
current cost per hour worked
(12 months) x (monthly premium)
annualized current cost;
=
annualized current cost -r- work hours per year
current cost per hour worked
Thus, in this example, the current cost at any time during
the first half of the year is:
10 x 8 x $10
=
$800;
$800 -7- 2,000 work hours
=
=
$880;
$880 - 2,000
=
$.44
12 X $120
$1,440
=
$.72
=
$1,680;
$1,680 -r 2,000
=
$.84
The expenditure per hour worked, in contrast, is the total
premium paid over the year divided by hours worked— in
formation that would not be available until the year ended:
(6 months x $120) + (6 months X $140)
$1,560 -T- 2,000
=
Another factor that would affect current costs and past
expenditures differently in this example is a change in the
number of holidays per year. For example, the current cost
would reflect the higher cost of an added holiday at the point
the new holiday becomes effective. In contrast, the annual
expenditure would reflect a mix of the costs before and af
ter the change becomes effective.
Table 1.
$1,440;
The current cost at any time during the second half, with
the new premium rate, is:
(5 holidays x 8 hours of pay x $10 hourly wage) +
(5 holidays x 8 hours of pay x $11 hourly wage)
= $840;
$840 -T- 2,000 annual hours worked
$.42 per hour worked
=
2,000
12 x $140
The expenditure per hour worked, in contrast, is all
holiday pay during the year divided by the number of hours
worked— information that would not be available until the
year ended:
=
In this example, the current cost at any time during the
first half of the year is the annual premium divided by the
annual hours worked:
$.40
At any time during the second half of the year (after the
wage increase occurs), the current cost is;
10 x 8 x $11
=
=
=
$1,560;
$.78
Other factors that would cause differences between cur
rent costs and past expenditures are the number of annual
hours the employee works, changes in eligibility require
ments affecting the employee, or the introduction or elimi
nation of a plan.6
Employment weights. The eci uses fixed employment
weights from the 1980 census so that compensation cost
changes can be measured, free from the influence of em-
C om p ensation cost ranges, by occupational groups w ithin industries, M arch 1987
T ra n s p o rta tio n ,
p u b lic u tilitie s
F in a n c e ,
In s u r a n c e ,
re a l e s ta te
C o n s tru c tio n
M a n u fa c tu rin g
W h o le s a le
tra d e
S e rv ic e s
R e ta il
tra d e
Executive, managerial, adm inistrative.............................................
Professional specialty, te c h n ic a l......................................................
Precision production, craft, and re p a ir.............................................
Transportation and material moving ...............................................
$25 or more
25 or more
20-24.99
15-19.99
$25 or more
20-24.99
10-14.99
5-9.99
$25 or more
20-24.99
15-19.99
10-14.99
$25 or more
20-24.99
15-19.99
15-19.99
$20-$24.99
20-24.99
15-19.99
10-14.99
$20-$24.99
15-19.99
10-14.99
5-9.99
$15—$19.99
15-19.99
10-14.99
10-14.99
Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors ..........................
Administrative support, including c le ric a l........................................
Handlers, cleaners, helpers, laborers .............................................
Service .................................................................................................
20-24.99
15-19.99
15-19.99
20-24.99
10-14.99
10-14.99
5-9.99
5-9.99
10-14.99
10-14.99
10-14.99
10-14.99
10-14.99
10-14.99
10-14.99
10-14.99
10-14.99
10-14.99
5-9.99
5-9.99
5-9.99
10-14.99
5-9.99
5-9.99
5-9.99
5-9.99
5-9.99
Under $5
O c c u p a tio n a l
g ro u p
Note: Ranges are based on compensation costs per hour worked. Ranges are used because average compensation costs at this level of detail are not reliable for publication.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
7
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
Analyzing Employers’ Compensation Costs
Table 2. Em ployer costs fo r em ployee com pensation per hour w orked, relative erro rs ,1 and costs as a percent of total com
pensation, by m ajor industry and occupational categories, M arch 1987
C o m p e n s a tio n
com ponent
P riv a te
in d u s try
w o rk e rs
Goodsp r o d u c in g
in d u s trie s
M a n u fa c
tu r in g
in d u s trie s
S e rv ic e p ro d u c in g
in d u s trie s
N onm anu
fa c tu r in g
in d u s trie s
Cost
R e la tiv e
e rro r
Cost
R e la tiv e
e rro r
Cost
R e la tiv e
e rro r
Cost
R e la tiv e
e rro r
Total compensation ...................
$13.42
1.1
$15.86
1.5
$12.41
1.4
$15.51
1.3
W h ite -c o lla r
B lu e -c o lla r
R e la tiv e
e rro r
S e rv ic e
Cost
R e la tiv e
e rro r
Cost
R e la tiv e
e rro r
Cost
$12.80
1.3
$15.56
1.6
$13.43
1.3
$6.43
Cost
R e la tiv e
e rro r
1.6
Wages and salaries ..............
9.83
1.2
11.12
1.3
9.29
1.6
10.77
1.2
9.55
1.5
11.61
1.8
9.38
1.1
4.96
1.6
Total b e n e fits ..........................
3.60
1.1
4.74
2.0
3.12
1.3
4.73
1.7
3.26
1.2
3.95
1.4
4.05
1.9
1.47
2.4
Paid le a v e ............................
Vacation ..........................
Holiday ............................
S ic k ....................................
Other .................................
.93
.46
.31
.12
.03
1.5
1.8
1.3
2.5
5.1
1.09
.55
.40
.10
.03
2.2
2.3
2.4
4.4
6.9
.87
.43
.28
.12
.04
2.0
2.5
1.7
3.0
6.5
1.21
.61
.45
.11
.04
2.2
2.2
2.1
5.0
7.6
.85
.42
.27
.12
.03
1.9
2.4
1.6
2.9
6.2
1.20
.58
.39
.17
.05
1.9
2.5
1.8
2.4
4.4
.82
.43
.30
.06
.03
2.0
2.4
2.1
3.3
11.3
.30
.15
.09
.04
.02
3.9
3.4
3.8
9.8
15.7
Supplemental p a y ..............
Premium p a y ...................
Nonproduction bonuses .
Shift pay ..........................
.32
.16
.12
.04
2.6
3.1
6.1
4.6
.53
.33
.13
.07
3.6
3.8
11.9
5.7
.23
.09
.11
.02
3.6
4.5
6.8
6.5
.52
.34
.10
.08
4.0
3.9
14.7
5.7
.25
.11
.12
.02
3.3
4.1
7.2
6.4
.28
.08
.18
.03
4.7
4.1
7.4
7.4
.47
.34
.07
.06
3.5
3.8
8.3
5.5
.08
.04
.02
.02
6.4
9.7
14.1
9.4
Insurance ............................
.72
1.3
1.02
2.6
.60
1.6
1.06
2.4
.62
1.6
.77
1.6
.87
2.5
.27
5.7
Pensions and savings . . . .
P e n sio n s ..........................
Savings and thrift ............
.48
.42
.06
2.2
2.3
5.6
.64
.56
.08
4.5
4.9
6.3
.41
.36
.05
3.0
3.3
8.6
.58
.49
.09
3.5
3.6
7.0
.45
.40
.05
2.8
3.0
8.1
.57
.48
.10
2.8
3.3
4.9
.50
.47
.03
4.0
4.2
6.7
.12
.11
(2)
8.4
7.9
(2)
Federal unem ploym ent..
State unemployment . . .
Workers' compensation .
1.13
.75
.03
.12
.21
.9
.8
.9
1.8
2.4
1.43
.88
.03
.18
.32
1.9
1.3
1.3
2.9
4.6
1.01
.69
.03
.10
.16
.9
.9
1.1
2.1
2.5
1.31
.87
.03
.17
.23
1.5
1.2
1.6
3.3
4.6
1.08
.71
.03
.10
.20
1.0
.9
1.0
2.1
2.5
1.12
.85
.03
.11
.11
1.1
1.1
1.5
2.1
3.3
1.37
.75
.03
.15
.39
1.6
1.2
.9
2.6
3.2
.69
.39
.03
.10
.16
1.8
1.7
1.4
4.2
3.8
Other benefits4 ...................
.02
6.8
.04
9.5
(2)
(2)
.04
9.2
(2)
(2)
.02
7.7
.03
8.9
(2)
(2)
P e r c e n t o f to ta l c o m p e n s a tio n
Total compensation ...................
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Wages and salaries ..............
73.2
70.1
74.8
69.5
74.6
74.6
69.8
77.2
Total b e n e fits ..........................
26.8
29.9
25.2
30.5
25.4
25.4
30.2
22.8
Paid leave: ..........................
Vacation ..........................
Holiday ............................
S ic k ....................................
Other .................................
6.9
3.5
2.3
.9
.3
6.8
3.5
2.5
.6
.2
7.0
3.4
2.2
1.0
.3
7.8
4.0
2.9
.7
.2
6.6
3.3
2.1
.9
.3
7.7
3.8
2.5
1.1
.3
6.1
3.2
2.2
.5
.2
4.7
2.4
1.4
.7
.2
Supplemental p a y :..............
Premium p a y ...................
Nonproduction bonuses .
Shift pay ..........................
2.4
1.2
.9
.3
3.3
2.1
.8
.4
1.8
.7
.9
.2
3.4
2.2
.7
.5
2.0
.8
1.0
.2
1.8
.5
1.1
.2
3.5
2.5
.5
.5
1.3
.7
.3
.3
Insurance:............................
5.4
6.4
4.8
6.8
4.8
4.9
6.4
4.2
Pensions and savin gs:. . . .
P e n sio n s ..........................
Savings and th r ift............
3.6
3.1
.5
4.1
3.5
.5
3.3
2.9
.4
3.8
3.2
.6
3.5
3.1
.4
3.7
3.1
.6
3.7
3.5
.2
1.9
1.7
.2
Legally required3 .................
Social S e c u rity.................
Federal unem ploym ent..
State unemployment . . .
Workers’ compensation .
8.4
5.6
.2
.9
1.6
9.0
5.6
.2
1.1
2.0
8.1
5.6
.3
.8
1.3
8.5
5.6
.2
1.1
1.5
8.4
5.6
.2
.8
1.6
7.2
5.5
.2
.7
.7
10.2
5.6
.2
1.1
2.9
10.7
6.1
.5
1.5
2.5
Other benefits4 ...................
.1
.2
.1
.3
.1
.1
.2
.1
'The relative error is the standard error expressed as a percent of the cost. We can be 95 percent
confident the interval around the cost estimate bounded by two times plus and minus the relative error
contains the “true” cost.
2 Cost is $0.01 or less.
3 Includes railroad retirement, railroad unemployment, railroad supplemental unemployment, and
ployment shifts among occupations and industries. Com
pensation cost levels, however, should reflect the current
industry and occupational mix each year they are published.
Thus, to estimate current cost levels for the aggregate series,
8
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
other legally required benefits, in addition to those shown separately.
4 Includes severance pay, supplemental unemployment benefits, and merchandise discounts in
department stores.
No te :
Because of rounding, components may not sum to totals.
it is necessary to have employment data that refer to the
current mix.
Such data are obtained by apportioning industry employ
ment from the Bureau’s Current Employment Statistics pro-
Table 3. Em ployer costs for em ployee com pensation per hour w orked, relative erro rs ,1 and costs as a percent of total
com pensation, selected m ajor industry groups, March 1987
S e r v ic e -p r o d u c in g in d u s trie s
G o o d s -p r o d u c in g in d u s trie s
C o m p e n s a tio n
com ponent
P riv a te
in d u s try
T o ta l2
M a n u fa c tu rin g
T r a n s p o r ta tio n
a n d p u b lic u tilitie s
T o ta l3
W h o le s a le
tra d e
R e ta il tr a d e
S e rv ic e
Cost
R e la tiv e
e rro r
Cost
R e la tiv e
e rro r
Cost
R e la tiv e
e rro r
Cost
R e la tiv e
e rro r
Cost
R e la tiv e
e rro r
Cost
R e la tiv e
erro r
Cost
R e la tiv e
e rro r
Cost
R e la tiv e
e rro r
Total compensation .
$13.42
1.1
$15.86
1.5
$15.51
1.3
$12.41
1.4
$20.24
2.6
$15.15
2.8
$7.85
2.2
$12.34
2.0
Wages and
sa la rie s ..............
9.83
1.2
11.12
1.3
10.77
1.2
9.29
1.6
13.77
2.3
11.24
2.8
6.07
2.0
9.34
2.0
3.60
.93
1.1
1.5
4.74
1.09
2.0
2.2
4.73
1.21
1.7
2.2
3.12
.87
1.3
2.0
6.47
1.75
3.8
3.9
3.91
1.05
3.4
5.0
1.78
.37
3.4
5.3
3.00
.91
2.3
4.1
.32
.72
2.6
1.3
.53
1.02
3.6
2.6
.52
1.06
4.0
2.4
.23
.60
3.6
1.6
.51
1.32
13.3
3.6
.35
.80
6.1
3.4
.15
.35
5.7
5.8
.19
.53
5.3
2.9
.48
1.13
.02
2.2
.9
6.8
.64
1.43
.04
4.5
1.9
9.5
.58
1.31
.04
3.5
1.5
9.2
.41
1.01
(5)
3.0
.9
(5)
1.17
1.70
.03
6.9
2.3
23.9
.49
1.21
(5)
7.9
1.9
(5)
.14
.74
.02
8.8
2.0
12.6
.37
1.00
(5)
5.8
1.6
(5)
Total benefits . . . .
Paid le a v e ..........
Supplemental
pay .................
Insurance ..........
Pensions and
savings ..........
Legally required
Other benefits4 .
P ercent o f total com p en sa tio n
Total compensation .
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Wages and salaries
73.2
70.1
69.5
74.8
68.0
74.2
77.3
75.7
Total benefits . . . .
Paid le a v e .........
Supplemental
p a y .................
Insurance .........
Pensions and
savings ..........
Legally required
Other benefits^* .
26.8
6.9
29.9
6.8
30.5
7.8
25.2
7.0
32.0
8.6
25.8
6.9
22.7
4.8
24.3
7.4
2.4
5.4
3.3
6.4
3.4
6.8
1.8
4.8
2.5
6.5
2.3
5.3
1.9
4.5
1.5
4.3
3.6
8.4
.1
4.1
9.0
.2
3.8
8.5
.3
3.3
8.1
.1
5.8
8.4
.1
3.3
8.0
.1
1.8
9.5
.2
3.0
8.1
0
1 The relative error is the standard error expressed as a percent of the cost. We can be 95
percent confident the interval around the cost estimate bounded by two times plus and minus the
relative error contains the True” cost.
2 Includes mining and construction, in addition to manufacturing.
3 Includes finance, insurance, and real estate, in addition to the industries shown separately.
gram, using occupational employment by industry from the
eci sample. Industry employment estimates from the Cur
rent Employment Statistics program are published monthly,
and are adjusted each year to a universe of all nonfarm
establishments from March of the previous year.
The March 1987 Current Employment Statistics data used
to calculate the compensation costs were total employment
estimates for 2-digit major industry groups (such as primary
metal manufacturing or food stores), as defined by the U.S.
Office of Management and Budget’s Standard Industrial
Classification system. The employment data from these 2digit groups were distributed to major occupational groups
(such as executives, administrators, and managers or ma
chine operators, assemblers, and inspectors), using the rela
tive importance of the groups as estimated from the eci
sample.7
It is important to emphasize that because weights for the
eci remain fixed while weights for cost levels change as
employment shifts occur, year-to-year changes in the cost
level estimates will differ from changes in the eci. Employ
ment shifts among industries and occupations with different
wage and benefit levels do not affect the ECI, but they do
affect cost levels. Thus, for example, if there is a shift in
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4 Includes severance pay, supplemental unemployment insurance, and merchandise dis
counts in department stores.
5 Cost is $0.01 or less.
N o te : Because of rounding, com ponents m ay not sum to totals.
employment toward relatively high wage industries or occu
pations, the change in the cost levels will exceed the change
in the eci.8
Standard errors. As is the case for all sample surveys,
compensation cost level estimates from the eci will differ
from the “true” values because data were collected from a
sample rather than from all units within the eci’s private
industry coverage.9 To determine the precision of the cost
levels, a standard error was calculated for each estimate
using a balanced repeated replication method with 64
pseudo replicates.10
The standard error defines a range (confidence interval)
around the cost estimate. The approximate 95-percent con
fidence interval is the estimate plus and minus twice the stand
ard error. For example, the 95-percent confidence interval
for a cost estimate of $10 with a standard error of 10 cents
would be $9.80 to $10.20.
If repeated samples are taken from the population, each
sample will have an estimate and confidence interval.
Ninety-five percent of those confidence intervals will in
clude the “true” cost. That is, we can be 95 percent confi9
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
Analyzing Employers’ Compensation Costs
Table 4. E m ployer costs fo r em ployee com pensation per hour w orked, relative e rro rs ,1 and costs as a percent of total com
pensation, selected m ajor occupational groups, M arch 1987
W h ite -c o lla r w o rk e rs
P riv a te
in d u s try
C o m p e n s a tio n
com ponent
Total compensation
Wages and
s a la rie s .........
Total benefits ..
Paid leave . . .
Supplemental
p a y ............
Insurance . . .
Pensions and
savings . . .
Legally
required . . .
Other
benefits3 ..
T o ta l2
P ro fe s
s io n a l
s p e c ia lty ,
te c h n ic a l
B lu e -c o lla r w o rk e rs
E x e c u tiv e ,
a d m in is
tra tiv e ,
m a n a g e ria l
A d m in is
tra tiv e
s u p p o rt,
in c lu d in g
c le ric a l
P re c is io n
p ro d u c
tio n ,
c ra ft,
re p a ir
T o ta l
M a c h in e
o p e ra to rs ,
assem
b le rs ,
in s p e c to rs
T ra n s p o r
ta tio n ,
m a te ria l
m o v in g
H a n d le rs ,
e q u ip m e n t
c le a n e rs ,
h e lp e rs ,
la b o r e rs
S e rv ic e
w o rk e rs
Cost
R e la tiv e
e rro r
Cost
R e la tiv e
e rro r
Cost
R e la tiv e
e rro r
Cost
R e la tiv e
e rro r
Cost
R e la tiv e
e rro r
Cost
R e la tiv e
e rro r
Cost
R e la tiv e
e rro r
Cost
R e la tiv e
e rro r
Cost
R e la tiv e
e rro r
Cost
R e la tiv e
e rro r
Cost
R e la tiv e
erro r
$13.42
1.1
$15.56
1.6
$19.81
2.5
$23.81
2.7
$10.94
1.5
$13.43
1.3
$16.85
1.8
$12.44
1.8
$13,83
2.4
$9.81
3.0
$6.43
1.6
17.86
3.0
7.91
1.4
9.38
1.1
11.92
1.6
8.44
1.6
9.65
2.2
6.93
2.7
4.96
1.6
5.95
1.99
2.4
2.8
3.04
.85
1.9
2.8
4.05
.82
1.9
2.0
4.93
.98
2.5
2.3
4.00
.89
2.5
3.0
4.17
.85
3.2
5.1
2.89
.51
4.0
5.2
1.47
.30
2.4
3.9
9.83
1.2
11.61
1.8
14.66
2.5
3.60
.93
1.1
1.5
3.95
1.20
1.4
1.9
5.15
1.66
2.7
3.6
.32
.72
2.6
1.3
.28
.77
4.7
1.6
.32
.92
6.1
3.1
.54 10.5
.98 2.8
.20
.72
3.9
2.0
.47
.87
3.5
2.5
.57
.99
4.4
3.6
.55
.93
5.2
3.4
.39
.84
6.9
4.2
.29
.63
6.3
5.4
.08
.27
6.4
5.7
4.0
.69
6.1
.42
4.9
.50
7.3
.36
8.5
.12
8.4
1.67
2.3
1.17
1.9
1.58
3.4
1.08
3.1
.69
1.8
.04 13.4
.04
9.8
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4|
(4)
(4)
.48
2.2
.57
2.8
.85
6.1
.88
4.5
.42
4.2
.50
1.13
.9
1.12
1.1
1.40
2.0
1.55
1.4
.85
1.4
1.37
1.6
.02
6.8
.02
7.7
(4)
(4)
.02 11.8
(4)
(4)
.03
8.9
P e rc e n t o f to ta l c o m p e n s a tio n
Total compensation
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Wages and
s a la rie s .........
73.2
74.6
74.0
75.0
72.3
69.8
70.8
67.9
69.8
70.6
77.2
26.8
6.9
25.4
7.7
26.0
8.4
25.0
8.4
27.7
7.7
30.2
6.1
29.2
5.8
32.1
7.1
30.2
6.1
29.4
5.2
22.8
4.7
2.4
5.4
1.8
4.9
1.6
4.6
2.3
4.1
1.8
6.5
3.5
6.4
3.4
5.9
4.4
7.5
2.8
6.1
3.0
6.5
1.3
4.2
3.6
3.7
4.3
3.7
3.8
3.7
4.1
3.3
3.6
3.7
1.9
8.4
.1
7.2
.1
7.0
.1
6.5
.1
7.8
.1
10.2
.2
9.9
.2
9.4
.3
11.5
.1
11.0
.1
10.7
.1
Total benefits ..
Paid leave . . .
Supplemental
p a y ............
Insurance . . .
Pensions
and savings
Legally
required . . .
Other benefits3
1 The relative error is the standard error expressed as a percent of the cost. We can be 95
percent confident the Interval around the cost estimate bounded by two times plus and two times
minus the relative error contains the “true" cost.
2 Includes salesworkers, in addition to occupations shown separately.
dent that the interval derived for each cost estimate from the
eci sample includes the “true” cost.
The standard error can also be expressed as a percent of
the estimate, that is, as the relative error. The relative error
is shown with each cost estimate in table 2 (page 8), table 3
(page 9), and table 4 (page 10). Table 2 shows, for example,
1 For some individual benefits, the cost is not published. Individual
benefits with costs less than 1 cent per hour worked, such as severance pay
and supplemental unemployment benefits, are not provided, and life,
health, and sickness and accident insurance are reported as one cost. The
reason for combining insurance is that a large proportion of respondents
(approximately 25 percent) report the cost of these benefits together.
2 Goods-producing industries include mining, construction, and manu
facturing. Service-producing industries include transportation, public utili
ties, trade, finance, insurance, real estate, and services.
3 The wage rates presented in this article differ from the earnings pub
lished in the Bureau’s Average Hourly Earnings series. The Average
Hourly Earnings series excludes executive, managerial, and administrative
employees in all industries and all white-collar employees in goods-
10FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
3 Includes severance pay, supplemental unemployment benefits, and merchandise discounts
In department stores.
4 Cost is $0.01 or less.
Note: Because of rounding, components may not sum to totals.
that total compensation for private industry workers aver
aged $13.42 per hour worked with a relative error of 1.1
percent. That is, the approximate 95-percent confidence
interval is $13.42 plus and minus 2.2 percent (2 times 1.1
percent), or $13.12 to $13.72. At the 95-percent confidence
level, this range contains the “true” cost.
producing industries, while the eci sample includes all occupational groups
in all industries. Also, the Average Hourly Earnings series measures gross
earnings, derived by dividing gross payroll by payroll hours, whereas
wages and salaries from the eci are straight-time wages or, for workers not
paid on an hourly basis, earnings divided by corresponding hours, exclud
ing supplemental pay. (Both the Average Hourly Earnings series and wages
and salaries from the eci exclude nonproduction bonuses and lump-sum
payments.)
4
Service workers are found in a variety of industries and perform a
variety of duties, such as food, health, cleaning, and guard services. Serv
ice industries, in contrast, consist of establishments which employ workers
from all occupational groups and have the function of providing services
for individuals and businesses and other agencies.
5 The Employer Expenditures for Employee Compensation ( eeec ) sur
vey was discontinued in 1977. While differing from the ECi in that it
measured expenditures rather than current costs, the eeec survey had other
characteristics similar to those of the eci. It covered virtually the same
benefits and reported the costs on a work-hour basis. The scope of the eeec
survey was also similar to that of the eci in that it covered the private
nonfarm work force.
6 For a more complete description of how ECI benefit costs are calcu
lated, see b l s Handbook o f Methods , Bulletin 2134, Volume I (Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 1982), pp. 78-87.
7 The major occupational group employment counts from the eci are, on
average, 2 to 3 years old. However, comparisons of cost level estimates
showed that differences of a few years in the age of occupation data within
industries have a negligible impact on the estimates.
Some potential bias (systematic error) may affect the cost estimates
because of the age of the eci sample. (Industry samples are replaced on a
4-year cycle.) To evaluate the extent of potential bias, a detailed analysis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
was conducted comparing compensation costs and other data between
4-year-old and current industry samples. Because the current samples had
no bias resulting from age, the differences in cost levels between the old
and new samples would reflect bias in the older samples. In most cases, no
significant probability of bias was found. In those instances when the
hypothesis that the bias equaled zero could not be rejected, the magnitude
and nature of the bias was not such that it raised any concern about the
series recommended for publication.
8 By comparing year-to-year changes in compensation cost levels with
year-to-year changes in the eci, it will be possible to gain insights into the
effect of employment shifts on compensation cost levels. Thus, for exam
ple, if the change in the cost levels is greater than that in the index, then
the shift has been toward the relatively high-paying industries or occupa
tions or both.
9 The “true” value is also subject to nonsampling error.
10 Kirk M. Wolter, Introduction to Variance Estimation (New York,
Springer-Verlag, 1985).
Research fellowships
The American Statistical Association and the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
under a grant from the National Science Foundation, are sponsoring a
Senior Research Fellow and Associate Program for 1988-89. The terms of
appointment range from 1 semester to 1 year and are part or full time.
Research will be conducted at bls in Washington, DC.
Fellowship applicants should have a recognized research record and
considerable expertise in their area of proposed research. Senior Research
Fellows will be selected by a review board consisting of representatives of
a s a , b l s , the American Economic Association, the Committee on National
Statistics, and the Social Science Research Council. Associates will assist
the Fellows on their projects. Associate applicants should have a Ph.D in
an appropriate field or have made significant progress toward the degree (at
least 2 years of graduate study). Substantial computer experience will, in
most cases, be required of Associates. Associates will be selected by the
Senior Research Fellows with the approval of the review board.
The program is coordinated by the bls Office of Research and Evalua
tion. Current research being conducted by this office includes index num
ber theory and measurement, price measurement, cost-of-living and
demand studies, survey response error, workers’ compensation, compen
sating wage differentials, productivity analysis, relationship of union mem
bership to employment variability, model-based seasonal adjustment, pre
diction properties of index estimators, measures of central location based
on censored data, upper and lower probability inferences for outliers, and
variance estimation.
For further information, contact Dr. Cathryn Dippo or Dr. Marilyn
Manser, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Research and Evaluation,
Room 2126, 441 G Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20212; (202) 5231874 or (202) 523-1347.
11
A profile of husbands
in today’s labor market
Historically, high earnings and
low unemployment have typified
the labor market experience o f married men,
yet, their labor force participation rate
is much lower today than in the past
H ow ard
V.
H ayghe
and
S teven
E.
H augen
By most measures, married men have always epitomized
labor market success. At any time, the vast majority are in
the labor force working full-time, and their earnings are
generally much higher than those of other major labor force
groups. Furthermore, their unemployment rate is usually
well below the national average. Despite husbands’ relative
labor market advantages, the proportion who are labor force
participants has been falling for several decades.
Relatively little attention has been focused on husbands’
labor force characteristics in recent years, partly because
they have been overshadowed by the dramatic labor market
developments among women, especially wives. To restore
some balance to the analysis of family labor force data, this
article discusses the 1987 labor force experience of married
men (excluding those not living with their wives) and re
views the long-term downward trend in their labor force
participation. The information is based largely on data col
lected each March in the Current Population Survey ( c p s ) . 1
Labor force: husbands versus other men
Three out of five men are husbands. Because they are
such a large proportion of all men, aggregate labor force
statistics for men usually reflect husbands’ experience.
However, the labor force characteristics of married men are
different from those of other men. (See table 1.) For examHoward V. Hayghe and Steven E. Haugen are economists in the Division
o f Labor Force Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
12
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
pie, in most age groups, husbands are more likely to be in
the labor force. Among men 35 to 44 years old, for instance,
husbands’ labor force participation rate (96 percent in
March 1987) is well above the rate for never-married men
(84 percent) and slightly above that for other ever-married
men (91 percent).
To a certain extent, education helps explain these differ
ences. For instance, as shown in the following tabulation,
husbands in almost all age groups are more likely to have
completed high school than their single or other evermarried counterparts and, in most cases, the more years of
school completed, the more likely an individual is to be in
the labor force.
Percent completed high school
Age
Husbands
Single
Other ever-married
78
87
87
85
86
82
67
80
84
45 to 54 ..........................
79
55 to 64 ............................ 69
65 and over ................ 54
68
54
44
73
53
40
20 to 24 ..........................
25 to 34 ..........................
35 to 44 ..........................
However, whatever their age group or educational level,
husbands are almost invariably more likely to be in the labor
force than men in other marital-status categories. This sug
gests that factors other than education are significant in
explaining these labor force participation differences. In
deed, the results of earlier research into the determinants of
Table 1.
E m ploym ent status of m en by m arital status and age, M arch 1987
[Numbers in thousands, not seasonally adjusted]
E m p lo y m e n t a n d m a rita l s ta tu s
T o ta l, 16 y e a r s a n d o v e r
16 to 2 4 y e a r s
2 5 to 3 4 y e a r s
3 5 to 4 4 y e a r s
4 5 to 5 4 y e a r s
5 5 to 6 4 y e a r s
6 5 ye a rs and o v e r
C iv ilia n n o n in s titu tio n a l p o p u la tio n :
Husbands ..................................................
Never m arried...........................................
Other marital status ...............................
50,757
24,898
10,268
1,602
14,565
339
11,401
6,914
2,169
12,013
1,644
2,537
8,876
658
1,521
8,289
591
1,327
8,573
527
2,375
39,826
17,847
6,968
1,527
9,498
297
11,076
6,048
2,014
11,552
1,376
2,311
8,318
472
1,309
5,849
331
772
1,504
86
263
78.5
71.7
67.9
95.3
65.2
87.6
97.1
88.0
92.9
96.2
83.7
91.1
93.7
71.7
86.1
70.6
56.0
58.2
17.5
16.3
11.1
4.5
12.9
9.2
7.4
15.5
13.1
5.0
10.4
10.0
4.1
9.4
9.2
4.5
9.7
8.9
4.0
5.1
7.6
3.1
2.3
4.9
C iv ilia n la b o r fo rc e :
Husbands ..................................................
Never m a rrie d ...........................................
Other marital status ...............................
L a b o r fo r c e p a r tic ip a tio n rate:
Husbands ..................................................
Never m a rrie d ...........................................
Other marital status ...............................
U n e m p lo y m e n t rate:
Husbands ..................................................
Never m a rrie d ...........................................
Other marital status ...............................
labor force participation among men ages 25 to 54 showed
that even after controlling for variables such as education,
experience, other household income, and so forth, a differ
ence between the participation rates of husbands and other
men remained.2 This, at least, lends tacit support to the
popular notion that the relatively high labor force participa
tion of husbands may be partially motivated by the need to
contribute to the economic well-being of their families and
by their notions of their family role. (Alternatively, it has
also been suggested that the personality characteristics nec
essary for marital success are also important prerequisites in
the decision to participate in the labor market.)3
Not only are husbands more likely to be labor market
participants than other men, but they also tend to be more
economically successful. Regardless of age, husbands’ un
employment rates are much lower than the rates for other
men. For example, focusing again on the 35-44 age cohort,
the unemployment rate for husbands (4.1 percent) was less
than half the rates of the other two marital-status groups
(table 1).
The comparative economic success of husbands is also
evidenced by the fact that employed husbands are more
highly concentrated in the higher paying occupational cate
gories. About half of all husbands work in three broad
groups: precision production, craft, and repair (21 percent);
executive, administrative, and managerial (16 percent); and
the professional specialties (13 percent). For other men, the
corresponding proportions were 18, 9, and 9 percent. This
concentration shows up in their earnings; in 1986, about 46
percent of husbands who were full-time wage and salary
workers had weekly earning of $500 or more, compared
with 25 percent for other men. While these two characteris
tics of husbands’ labor market experience are also related to
the factors discussed earlier, such as their higher levels of
educational attainment, it should also be noted that hus
bands are older, on average, than other men, and hence
likely to be further along in their careers.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Family situations
Husbands with children under 18 typically have both
higher labor force participation rates and higher unemploy
ment rates than do those without children. (See table 2.)
Again, part of the disparity in labor force participation may
be associated with the added financial responsibilities that
go along with parenthood. To a large degree, however,
these differences reflect age-specific labor force patterns in
general. Fathers are, on average, younger than husbands
without children, and both unemployment and labor force
participation generally peak early in the life cycle, and then
decline with age. (Unemployment rates decline as persons
accumulate work experience and settle into a career, while
labor force participation rates usually remain high until
health problems limit the ability to work or until retirement.)
The same age factor may also explain the higher labor force
participation and unemployment rates of fathers with chil
dren under age 6, when compared with fathers with schoolage children— the former are younger.
About 56 percent of all husbands have wives in the labor
force. The proportion is lowest for husbands who are not in
the labor force (most of whom are older than 60) and highest
for those who are employed. Not surprisingly, wives’ em
ployment status appears to be related to that of their hus
bands. About 63 percent of employed husbands have wives
who are employed, compared with 56 percent of unem
ployed husbands. The reasons behind this difference are not
entirely clear, but the economic conditions that exist in local
job markets are likely to have similar effects on the employ
ment status of both spouses.
To a limited extent, for couples in which each spouse is
employed, both the husband and wife work in similar occu
pational categories, a factor which has an important influ
ence on family earnings. Table 3 shows that professional
specialty and managerial workers tend to be married to other
professionals or managers. In contrast, it is far less common
to find male precision production workers married to
13
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
A Labor Market Profile o f Husbands
women professionals or managers; instead, their wives are
more likely to be clerical, service, operative, or sales work
ers. The economic result of these marriages was investi
gated in a study of the 1983 earnings of married couples,
which showed that mean (average) earnings of couples in
which the husband was a professional and the wife a man
ager were about $50,290.4 However, for cases in which the
husband was a professional and the wife a service worker,
mean earnings were about $30,740. The lowest mean oc
curred for those couples with both spouses employed in
farming, forestry, or fishing occupations. Generally speak
ing, earnings were highest (more than $40,000) for families
in which both spouses were in managerial or professional
specialty occupations.
Black and Hispanic husbands
As can be seen in table 4, the labor force participation
rates of white and black husbands are lower than those of
their Hispanic counterparts. This is mainly because His
panic husbands are, on average, younger than either black
or white husbands; the median age of Hispanic husbands in
1987 was 39, compared with 44 for black and 45 for white
husbands.
Also reflecting their relative youthfulness, Hispanic hus
bands experience higher rates of unemployment (7.7 percent
in March 1987) than do either black (6.9 percent) or white
(4.3 percent) husbands. The most prominent feature under
lying the black-Hispanic difference is that the unemploy
ment rate for young (16 to 24 years old) black husbands is
nearly twice that of their Hispanic counterparts. Thus, even
though the unemployment rate for blacks drops far more
sharply with age than for Hispanics (or whites), the decline
does not completely offset the effect of the very high jobless
rate of young blacks on the overall rate for the group:
Table 2.
Unemployment rates of husbands
Age
WhiteBlack
16 to 24 ................................ 8.2
25 to 34 ................................ 4.9
35 to 44 ................................ 3.9
45 to 54 ...............................
4.4
55 and over ....................... 3.5
Hispanic
13.6
6.4
7.2
6.0
8.0
8.0
7.7
7.3
7.8
7.7
Besides having higher unemployment rates than whites,
black and Hispanic husbands are also concentrated in occu
pational categories that are typified by relatively low wages.
About half the employed black and 40 percent of Hispanic
husbands are either in service jobs or work as operators,
fabricators, or laborers. In contrast, slightly fewer than onefourth of white husbands are in such jobs.
The occupational distribution of husbands was only part
of the reason 1986 median income for white married couples
($33,630) was higher than for either black couples
($26,780) or Hispanic couples ($23,790). Another reason is
that white husbands are more likely to work all year at
full-time jobs and less likely to experience unemployment
than blacks and Hispanics. Wives’ earnings, however, have
an equalizing influence on family income. Thus, while fam
ily income of whites was 47 percent greater than that of
blacks and 86 percent greater than that of Hispanics when
only the husbands worked during the year, the gap narrowed
considerably— to 19 percent between white and black
families, and to 30 percent between white and Hispanic
families— when the wives were also earners.
Decline in participation
Labor force participation among men has declined sub
stantially over the past several decades. This trend is proba
bly less well-known to the public at large than the dramatic
E m ploym ent status of husbands by presence and age of own children and em ploym ent status of w ives, M arch 1987
[Numbers in thousands, not seasonally adjusted]
C iv ilia n la b o r fo rc e
C h a r a c te r is tic
C iv ilia n
n o n in s titu tio n a l
p o p u la tio n
T o ta l
L a b o r fo rc e
p a tic ip a tio n
ra te
U n e m p lo y e d
E m p lo y e d
T o ta l
U n e m p lo y m e n t
ra te
N o t in th e
la b o r fo r c e
P re s e n c e a n d a g e o f o w n c h ild r e n 1
With no own children under 1 8 ............................................................................
With own children under 18 .................................................................................
With children 6 to 17 years, none yo u n g e r....................................................
With children under 6 years ............................................................................
26,694
24,063
12,438
11,625
16,826
23,000
11,777
11,223
63.0
95.6
94.7
96.5
16,081
21,943
11,240
10,703
746
1,058
537
520
50,757
28,310
55.4
27,076
1,234
4.4
22,447
39,829
25,993
65.3
24,870
1,123
4.3
13,836
78.5
91.8
38,024
24,820
65.3
23,865
955
3.8
13,204
1,804
1,172
65.0
1,005
168
14.3
632
4.4
4.6
4.6
4.6
9,865
1,063
660
402
4.5
4.5
10,928
2,317
21.2
2,206
111
4.8
8,611
E m p lo y m e n t s ta tu s o f w iv e s
Civilian noninstitutional population .....................................................................
Civilian labor force ............................................................................................
Labor force participation rate ..............................................................................
E m ployed.............................................................................................................
U nem ployed........................................................................................................
Unemployment r a t e ........................................................................................
Not in the labor force ........................................................................................
1Children are defined as “own" children of householder and include sons, daughters, stepchildren,
and adopted children. Not included are nieces, nephews, grandchildren, and other related children,
and unrelated children.
14
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
—
91.9
91.0
—
61.6
—
4.0
15.0
—
4.6
Table 3.
O ccupation of em ployed husbands with em ployed w ives by occupation of w ives, March 1987
[Not seasonally adjusted]
O c c u p a tio n o f w iv e s (In p e rc e n t)
O c c u p a tio n o f h u s b a n d s
Num ber
(th o u s a n d )
Employed husbands with employed wives, total
P e rc e n t
E x e c u tiv e ,
a d m in is tra tiv e ,
a n d m a n a g e ria l
P ro fe s s io n a l
s p e c ia lty
T e c h n ic ia n s
a n d re la te d
s u p p o rt
S a le s
A d m in is tra tiv e
s u p p o rt,
in c lu d in g
c le ric a l
S e rv ic e
P re c is io n
p r o d u c tio n ,
c ra ft, a n d
re p a ir
O p e r a to rs ,
fa b ric a to rs ,
and
la b o r e rs
F a rm in g ,
fo re s try ,
and
fis h in g
24,128
100.0
10.9
17.5
3.4
11.4
31.5
13.8
2.1
8.2
1.3
Executive, administrative, and managerial . . .
Professional sp e c ia lty ........................................
Technicians and related s u p p o rt.....................
Sales .....................................................................
Administrative support, including c le ric a l___
4,099
3,405
620
3,003
1,326
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
18.5
13.1
8.1
13.1
8.7
22.0
41.5
20.5
16.4
16.6
3.6
3.8
7.9
2.5
3.7
11.9
7.5
8.2
19.6
11.2
31.3
25.1
35.5
33.8
36.9
7.6
5.4
11.1
9.8
13.6
1.6
1.3
2.2
.9
1.9
2.6
1.9
5.5
3.5
7.4
.6
.4
1.0
.3
.2
S e rvice ..................................................................
Precision production, craft, and r e p a ir ............
Operators, fabricators, and laborers ..............
Farming, forestry, and fishing ..........................
1,732
4,812
4,278
852
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
8.2
8.4
5.7
7.7
10.5
9.3
7.6
12.1
3.6
3.7
2.8
2.5
9.5
11.3
10.4
7.7
29.5
34.9
31.4
24.6
29.7
16.6
19.6
16.4
1.9
3.7
2.5
2.1
6.7
11.4
19.0
8.3
.2
.9
1.0
18.5
participation increase exhibited by women over the same
period, despite the extensive coverage it has been given in
economic literature. While the magnitude and pattern of the
participation decline varies little when cross-classified by
marital status, it is still useful to review the trend for hus
bands specifically, because they account for the majority of
all men.
The participation rate of husbands fell from 91 percent in
1955 to 79 percent in the 1985-87 period. As was the case
for all men, this decline did not proceed at an even pace;
rather, there were three distinct phases. Up until the late
1960’s, the participation rate drifted slowly downward, with
some leveling-off towards the end of the period. But, begin
ning about 1970, the rate began to fall much more rapidly,
dropping nearly 5 percentage points in 7 years. Subse
quently, the pace of the decline moderated substantially. In
fact, the recent figures indicate that the rate has plateaued,
at least temporarily. The variation in the trend during the
three distinct stages of this period is shown in chart 1.
The long-term decline in the labor force participation rate
of husbands, while fairly pervasive by age, was largely
driven by older husbands (age 55 and older). The rate for
those 65 and older fell roughly 27 percentage points over the
1955-85 period. The decline for 55- to 64-year-olds was
nearly as dramatic— 18 points. For both of these cohorts,
there has been little definitive movement in their participa
tion rates since 1985.
The long-term decline among the younger age groups was
not nearly as extensive. Among 45- to 54-year-old hus
bands, the rate fell about 4 percentage points from the mid1950’s to the mid-1970’s, but since then, it has remained
essentially unchanged. This pattern of little change in partic
ipation since the mid-1970’s held for ages 25-34 and 35-44
as well, although both groups posted declines of 1 to 2
points over the preceding period. Although the marked ac
celeration in the decline during the early to mid-1970’s was
most apparent for older husbands, it was also evident in the
trend for their younger counterparts (table 5).
Reasons fo r the decline.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
pation decline focus on older men and suggest that increases
in the level and availability of nonemployment income (such
as Social Security retirement benefits, private pensions, and
disability benefits) over the past several decades have sim
ply allowed men to retire at earlier ages.5 For example, there
have been several amendments to the Social Security Act of
1935 which expanded both the coverage and level of Social
Security retirement benefits. In fact, the substantial real
increases in these payments which occurred during the early
to mid-1970’s are frequently cited as one reason for the
distinct acceleration in the rate of the decline in labor force
activity among older men during the same period.6
Private pension plans are another major source of retire
ment income, and such plans became available to an everwidening share of the American work force throughout the
period. The percentage of all private sector workers covered
by pensions grew from 24 percent in 1950 to 49 percent in
1979. In addition, these plans have become increasingly
liberal in their provisions for earlier retirement. Evidence
indicates that more workers are taking advantage of these
options to leave the labor force at younger ages.7
Some research indicates that increases in Social Security
disability payments have also been an inducement for earlier
exit from the labor force. These payments are generally
contingent upon the determination that an individual’s
health condition is sufficiently debilitating so as to severely
Table 4. E m ploym ent status of husbands by race and
Hispanic origin, March 1987
[Numbers in thousands, not seasonally adjusted]
E m p lo y m e n t s ta tu s
W h ite
B la c k
H is p a n ic o rig in
Civilian noninstitutional population . .
Civilian labor force ..........................
45,797
35,964
3,610
2,757
3,096
2,679
Labor force participation rate ............
E m plo ye d ..........................................
U nem ployed......................................
Unemployment r a te .....................
Not in the labor force .....................
78.5
34,420
1,544
4.3
9,834
76.4
2,567
190
6.9
853
86.5
2,474
205
7.7
417
Note: Detail for race and Hispanic-orlgin 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.
Most analyses of men’s partici
15
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
Table 5.
October 1987 •
A Labor Market Profile o f Husbands
Labor force participation rates of husbands by age, in M arch of selected years, 1 9 5 5 -8 7
[Not seasonally adjusted]
5 5 to 6 4 y e a r s
Year
T o ta l, 16 y e a r s a n d o v e r
16 to 2 4 y e a r s
2 5 to 3 4 y e a r s
3 5 to 4 4 y e a r s
4 5 to 5 4 y e a r s
6 5 y e a r s a n d o ld e r
T o ta l
5 5 to 59
6 0 a n d 61
6 2 to 64
1955 ............................
1960 ............................
1965 ............................
90.7
88.8
87.5
94.9
97.4
96.3
98.8
98.6
98.6
98.8
98.4
98.3
97.4
96.6
96.8
88.8
88.2
87.2
(1)
0)
ID
ID
(1)
(1)
ID
0)
(1)
44.2
37.5
31.6
1970 ............................
1975 ............................
1980 ............................
86.6
82.9
80.9
94.4
95.4
96.9
98.3
97.4
97.5
98.1
97.2
97.0
96.1
93.9
93.5
85.8
79.0
75.5
90.8
86.7
84.3
85.3
79.5
74.7
74.8
63.3
57.8
30.4
23.9
20.4
1985 ............................
1986 ............................
1987 ............................
78.6
78.4
95.5
95.7
95.4
97.4
96.6
96.2
96.2
92.6
70.4
49.0
17.5
70.0
82.0
82.1
83.4
71.1
93.1
93.7
68.4
47.8
69.1
48.9
17.5
17.5
78.5
97.3
97.1
70.6
1 Not available.
hinder the ability to work. Therefore, it is not surprising that
older persons are heavily represented among recipients. It
has been suggested that the marked increase in the amount
of disability benefit payments during the mid-1960’s to mid1970’s (which also parallels the observed increase in the rate
of participation decline), together with liberalized criteria
for determining eligibility and increased public awareness of
the program, encouraged many more older workers with
poor health to retire earlier than would have been likely
otherwise.8
Unlike the case for the older men, the causes behind the
declining labor force participation among prime working-
age husbands during the mid-1950’s to mid-1970’s are more
difficult to isolate. There are fewer sources of nonemploy
ment income available to younger men. Moreover, of those
that are available, few meet the financial needs of young
families. For instance, it has been shown that although the
increased availability of Social Security disability payments
is probably still a factor in the participation decline of those
below age 45, the effect tends to be rather small.9
One explanation for the decline that has been suggested
(but, when scrutinized, does not appear convincing) is that
it might be related to the dramatic increase in wives’ labor
force participation over the period. Between 1955 and 1975,
C h a rt 1. Labor fo rc e p a rtic ip atio n ra te s of husbands, s e le c te d
years, M arch 1 9 5 5 - 8 7
16
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the participation rate for husbands ages 25-34 declined by
about U percentage points, while that for their wives soared
by more than 20 points. While it seems reasonable to as
sume that the increase in labor force activity among wives,
in conjunction with the trend towards smaller families, may
have facilitated nonparticipation among their husbands, this
explanation is weakened considerably by the observation
that single men in the same age cohort also exhibited a
decline in participation over the period.
E v e n t h o u g h h u s b a n d s are less likely to be working or
looking for work today than was the case 30 years ago, as
a group they continue to be among the most successful labor
market participants. Unlike the situation that existed during
the 1950’s, however, husbands no longer constitute the ma
jority of the labor force. Then, husbands comprised a little
more than half of all labor force participants and changes in
aggregate labor force measures largely reflected their expe
rience. Today, they account for only about a third of the
labor force, and thus, their influence over the movements of
aggregate labor force statistics has greatly diminished.
This dramatic change stems only partly from husbands’
falling labor force participation rates. It also reflects the
dramatic rise in wives’ participation and the increase in the
numbers of divorced, separated, and never-married persons
that has resulted from changes in marital patterns. Indeed,
Bureau of Labor Statistics’ projections through the year
2000 show that the number of women in the labor force is
expected to grow much more rapidly than the number of
men, implying that husbands’ share of the labor force will
shrink further.10 Thus, in view of such growing heterogene
ity, it will become increasingly necessary to examine eco
nomic events in terms of each of the various groups, rather
than rely on aggregate measures of economic change to
assess the well-being of the population.
FOOTNOTES
1 This article is derived primarily from information collected in the
March Current Population Survey (cps ). The cps is the monthly household
survey (presently including 59,500 households) conducted for the Bureau
o f Labor Statistics by the Bureau of the Census. Information obtained from
this survey relates to the employment status of the noninstitutional popula
tion 16 years old and over.
Because it is a sample survey, estimates derived from the cps may differ
from the actual counts that could be obtained from a complete census.
Therefore, small estimates or small differences between them should be
interpreted with caution. For a more detailed explanation, see the Explana
tory Note in Families at Work: The Jobs and the Pay, Bulletin 2209
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1984), pp. 30-34.
2 See William G. Bowen and T. Aldrich Finegan, The Economics of
n j , Princeton University Press,
1969), pp. 39-7 4 .
Labor Force Participation (Princeton,
3 See Bowen and Finegan, The Economics, pp. 4 0 -4 9 , for a discussion
o f these points and their relationship to labor force participation decisions.
4 “Earnings in 1983 of Married-Couple Families by Characteristics of
Husbands and W ives,” Current Population Reports, Series P -6 0 , No. 153
(Bureau of Census, 1986), table 2A, p. 12.
5 While few studies have addressed the decline in participation rates for
husbands, a large number have looked at the reasons for the decline among
all men, usually focusing on either the younger or older groups. Because
married men account for the majority of the men in these groups (ranging
from about three-fifths for ages 25 to 34 to four-fifths for ages 55 and over),
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
it seems reasonable to assume that explanations for the overall decline
among all men also apply to husbands— especially to those in the older age
groups.
For an overall discussion of the labor force participation decline among
men and a comprehensive bibliography on the subject, see the following
Monthly Labor Review articles: Robert W. Bednarzik and Deborah P.
Klein, “Labor force trends: a synthesis and analysis,” October 1977, pp.
3-12; Richard M. Devens, “Labor force trends: a bibliography,” October
1977, pp. 12-15; and Philip L. Rones, “Older men— the choice between
work and retirement,” November 1978, pp. 3 -1 0 .
6 See, for example, Michael D. Hurd and Michael J. Boskin, “The effect
of Social Security on Retirement in the Early 1970’s ,” The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, November 1984, pp. 767-90.
7 See “Retirement before age 65 is a growing trend in the private sector,”
(Washington, U.S. General Accounting Office, July 1985).
Also, see Donald Bell and William Marclay, “Trends in retirement eligibil
ity and pension benefits, 1974-83,” Monthly Labor Review, April 1987,
pp. 18-25, for a review of recent pension plan developments.
hrd —85—81
8 See Martynas A. Yeas, “Recent Trends in Health Near the Age of
Retirement: New Findings from the Health Interview Survey,” Social Secu
rity Bulletin, February 1987, pp. 10-11, for a discussion of these points.
9 See Frederic B. Siskind, “Labor force participation of men 2 5 -5 4 , by
race,” Monthly Labor Review, July 1975, pp. 4 0 -4 2 .
10 See Howard N Fullerton Jr., “Labor force projections: 1986 to 2000,”
Monthly Labor Review, September 1987, pp. 19-29.
17
Multifactor productivity in
U.S. manufacturing, 1949-83
New, more comprehensive measures
o f multifactor productivity
permit the analysis o f numerous issues,
including developments at the detailed industry level
and the importance o f factor substitution
in labor productivity growth
W
il l ia m
G u l l ic k s o n
and
M ic h a e l
J.
H arper
The strong labor productivity advance exhibited by the U.S.
economy over the 25 years following World War II gave
way to sluggish growth beginning in the early 1970’s. The
manufacturing sector, which accounts for about 20 percent
of gross national product, has experienced a similar pattern.
Prior to about 1973, the rapid productivity growth in manu
facturing contributed to swift increases in the U.S. standard
of living, and also to a favorable international balance of
payments. After 1973, and particularly during the late
1970’s, manufacturing productivity growth fell short of its
earlier performance.
In this article, the Bureau of Labor Statistics introduces a
new set of multifactor productivity measures designed to
strengthen the statistical basis with which labor productiv
ity, and production technology in general, can be analyzed.
These new measures of multifactor productivity, available
for 20 manufacturing industries, are defined as output per
unit of combined capital, labor, energy, materials, and busi
ness service inputs (collectively identified by the acronym
k l e m s ). They expand the b l s manufacturing multifactor
productivity measurement program in two important ways:
First, they enhance the level of industry detail so that growth
can be localized, rather than seen in the aggregate; and
William Gullickson and Michael J. Harper are economists in the Division
of Productivity Research, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Steve Rosenthal and
Phyllis Otto of the division developed much of the data for this article.
18
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
second, they consider intermediates—raw materials and busi
ness service inputs—explicitly, so that economies in those
inputs can be assessed along with those in labor and capital.
Changes over time in these new multifactor measures
reflect many influences, including variations in output (es
pecially in the short term, during which most inputs are
partially fixed), the utilization of capacity, changes in the
characteristics and efforts of the work force, changes in
managerial skill, and technological developments. Meas
ures of multifactor productivity have a specific relationship
to measures of labor productivity: Labor productivity
growth can be seen as deriving from (1) growth in multifac
tor productivity and (2) changes in the ratios of labor to
other inputs, or labor intensity ratios. These input ratios can
change for several reasons, most notably in response to
relative price change, even in the absence of multifactor
productivity growth. Because changes in multifactor pro
ductivity and in the intensity of use of the various factors
have occurred at different rates throughout the postwar pe
riod, the impact of these forces on labor productivity growth
has varied also.
In the first section of this article, the methods and sources
underlying the new multifactor measures, and their relation
to other b l s productivity indexes, are discussed. The next
section deals with input, output, and multifactor productiv
ity growth, in the aggregate and by industry. Last, the
effects of multifactor productivity growth and changes in
factor intensity on labor productivity growth are explored,
particularly with regard to attributing the productivity slow
down to those sources.
Comparison with other productivity measures
The new multifactor measures differ in one important
way from the capital-labor multifactor measures for aggre
gate sectors (business, nonfarm business, and total manu
facturing) which have been published by the b l s for several
years.1 For the capital-labor measures, multifactor produc
tivity is defined as real gross product originating in a sector
per unit of combined labor and capital inputs— with no
explicit consideration of intermediate inputs.2 The reason
for this approach is that, for the largest aggregates, most
intermediate transactions are between establishments within
the sector and therefore cancel out in the computation of
output leaving the sector; because intermediate purchases
from outside the sector are a small proportion of total pur
chases by the large aggregates, all intermediates can safely
be ignored in the calculation of productivity.
For industries, intermediate goods are not alway obtained
from suppliers within the industry, and for this reason
should not be ignored. For the measures presented in this
article, therefore, output is defined as the real value of
production (rather than value added) sold to purchasers out
side the industry; industry output computed this way is re
ferred to as sectoral output. Inputs are defined to include all
intermediate purchases from outside the industry. Thus, the
entire production process can be analyzed, including devel
opments in intermediate inputs to the greatest extent possi
ble, without double-counting.3 The new 2-digit measures
closely resemble a set of measures prepared previously by
b l s for the steel and auto industries, which also reflect
sectoral output per unit of combined capital, labor, energy,
and other intermediate inputs.4
The b l s now publishes several different multifactor meas
ures in addition to labor productivity and cost measures. No
single productivity ratio can be regarded as best for all
purposes. Because data users have a variety of analytical
interests, it is the policy of b l s to make available a family
of measures, together with detailed discussion of the as
sumptions and component data series used to compute them.
For example, b l s now publishes three productivity series for
total manufacturing: the quarterly labor productivity series,
which uses a gross-product-originating measure; the annual
capital-labor multifactor series, also based on gross product
originating; and the new sectoral output and multifactor
input measures. The three exhibit the following compound
annual productivity growth rates over the postwar period:
Period
1949-83 .............
1949-73 ........
1973-83 ........
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Labor
productivity
2.5
2.8
1.8
Capital-labor
KLEMS
multifactor
multifactor
productivity productivity
1.7
2.1
.7
1.1
1.5
.3
The estimates underlying the three different measures are
as follows: (1) labor productivity— gross product originat
ing (numerator) and labor hours (denominator); (2) capitallabor multifactor productivity— gross product originating
(numerator) and combined inputs of capital and labor (de
nominator); and (3) k l e m s sectoral multifactor productiv
ity— sectoral output (numerator) and combined inputs of
capital, labor, energy, materials, and purchased business
services (denominator).
The difference between labor productivity (gross product
originating per hour) and capital-labor multifactor produc
tivity (gross product originating per unit of combined capital
and labor inputs) reflects changes in the capital-labor ratio.5
In effect, therefore, multifactor analysis based on gross
product originating and capital and labor inputs allows the
resolution of labor productivity change into two compo
nents: change in the multifactor measure, which reflects
changes in output in excess of changes in capital and labor
inputs combined, and a contribution from changes in the
capital-labor ratio, which represents change in the relative
intensity of use of the two factors, including the effects of
substitution of capital for labor.
The difference between the multifactor measures based
on gross product originating and the sectoral output meas
ures is due to the inclusion of intermediates in both the
numerator and denominator of the new sectoral measure.6
For manufacturing measures based on gross product origi
nating, output is, in effect, calculated by subtracting real
intermediate input (materials used in the production process
and purchased services) from the real value of production
(output). The denominator for these measures, consisting of
capital and labor inputs, also excludes intermediates. Be
cause neither exclusion is made for the new sectoral meas
ures, the difference between the two productivity measures
can be said to derive from the fact that, in the gross-productoriginating measures, the same quantity— intermediates—
is subtracted from both numerator and denominator. Be
cause of this, change over time in sectoral output-based
measures is smaller in absolute terms, the relationship de
pending on the share of intermediates in sectoral output.
Which of the multifactor estimates should be used depends
on the subject being examined, as each measures something
different. For some purposes, it is preferable to study the
relationships between output and specific inputs rather
than the summary multifactor ratios, and b l s therefore
makes available the component series used to construct both
the gross-product-originating and the sectoral multifactor
measures.
Measurement framework and data
As with the major sector measures that include only labor
and capital inputs, productivity growth in this study is de
fined as the difference between output growth and the
growth of a composite of inputs, in this case a weighted
combination of capital, labor, energy, materials, and busi19
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
Multifactor Productivity in Manufacturing, 1949-83
ness services. Growth in the input composite is calculated as
a weighted average of changes in individual inputs, where
the weights are based on current factor shares. The general
framework underlying the new measures draws on the mi
croeconomic theory of the firm and the notion of a produc
tion function to support the use of output elasticities for
input factor weights.7 The weights used for input aggrega
tion are approximated with factor cost shares which sum to
1 in each period. This multifactor productivity measurement
work also draws on recent developments in index number
theory,8 which show that Tomqvist weighting— that is, ag
gregation using weights based on current costs—
minimizes restrictive assumptions about the structure of
production.
The new sectoral measures are based on indexes of real
quantity and cost measures of sectoral output and capital,
labor, energy, materials, and service inputs. Measures of
capital and labor for the new 2-digit Standard Industrial
Classification manufacturing measures employ the same
general data sources and procedures used for major sector
labor productivity and multifactor productivity measures.
As these sources have been discussed previously,9 they are
reviewed only briefly here.
Labor is measured as the paid hours of all persons en
gaged in a sector. The sources for employment and average
weekly hours data are the b l s Current Employment Statis
tics survey and the Current Population Survey. The b l s
currently is developing measures of hours at work for incor
poration into future measures.10
Capital input is defined as the flow of services from
physical assets, which include equipment, structures, inven
tories, and land. Service flows are assumed proportional to
stocks. For depreciable assets (equipment and structures),
stocks are measured using the perpetual inventory method.
The b l s method relates the services of older assets to those
of new ones by assuming that efficiency of assets is a func
tion of age, such that efficiency declines gradually early in
an asset’s life and more quickly later on.
Stocks of assets for 2-digit industries, as for the aggregate
sectors, are combined using weights based on implicit rental
price estimates— that is, estimates of the prices that various
types of capital would bring on a rental market. The capital
rental price formula consists essentially of the rate of return
on assets plus the rate of depreciation minus capital gains,
all in nominal terms.11 Capital gains, usually computed as
the annual change in the deflator for new investment from
the National Accounts, was calculated as a 3-year moving
average because of the volatility of that series. Because the
rental price formula is derived under an assumption of per
fect foresight, the use of a 3-year, moving-average estimate
for capital gains is consistent with the view that producers
anticipate price movements generally rather than annually.12
Chart 1. Indexes of output, input, and m ultifactor productivity,
manufacturing industries, 1 9 4 9 -8 3
[1949 = 100]
[1949 = 100]
300
250
200
150
100
1949
1954
1959
1964
1969
1974
1979
N O T E : S h a d e d a r e a s in d ic a t e r e c e s s i o n a r y p e r io d s , as d e s ig n a t e d b y
t h e N a tio n a l B u r e a u o f E c o n o m ic R e s e a r c h .
20
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1983
Table 1. S elected m easures of output and m ultifactor pro
ductivity change and the post-1973 produ ctivity slow dow n
in total m anufacturing, 1 9 4 9 -8 3
[Percent change at compound annual rate]
P e rio d s
M u ltifa c to r
p ro d u c tiv ity
O u tp u t
Change
E a rly
1949-73
1953-73
1949-73
1953-73
L a te
1973-83
1973-83
1973-79
1973-81
Change
S lo w d o w n
E a rly
L a te
(1 )
(2 )
4.2
3.5
4.2
3.5
0.6
0.6
1.8
1.0
(2 )-(1 )
-3 .6
-2 .9
-2 .4
-2.5
E a rly
L a te
(4 )
(5 )
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.4
0.3
0.3
-0 .4
-0.1
S lo w d o w n
(5 )-(4 )
-1.2
-1.1
-1 .9
-1 .5
industries over the postwar period, and there are two impor
tant aspects of this development to consider. The first, of
course, is that a sizable and growing input should not be
ignored in productivity measurement if aggregate inputs are
not to be underestimated and productivity mismeasured.
The other is the possibility of substitution between capital or
labor and services purchased from outside. Examples of the
latter are the substitution of leased equipment for owned
capital and purchases of accounting, legal, and technical
services in place of those services formerly provided by a
firm’s own employees.21
Results
“Sectoral” output is based on the deflated value of pro
duction, less that portion which is consumed in the same
industry.13 This treatment is consistent with a production
function that represents the industry as if it were a single
process.14 Real production equals the deflated value of ship
ments and miscellaneous receipts plus inventory change.15
Federal excise taxes are added so that production will be
shown at market value.
Intrasector transactions are removed from all output and
material input series used in this study, using transactions
data contained in the various input-output tables for the
economy prepared by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of
the U.S. Department of Commerce.16 It should be noted that
the intrasector transaction for total manufacturing is greater
than the sum of intrasector transactions for 2-digit indus
tries. For each 2-digit industry, intrasector transactions are
those between establishments in the same industry; for total
manufacturing, the intrasector transaction consists of all
shipments between domestic manufacturers, regardless of
industry.
Energy input is contructed using data on price and quan
tity from the Commerce Department’s Census of Manufac
tures and Annual Survey of Manufactures, together with
appropriate b l s Producer Price Indexes used as price defla
tors. Data on the quantity and cost of fuels purchased for use
as heat or power are collected in the Census of Manufactures
and the Annual Survey of Manufacturing.17 Data for the
separate energy categories are then Tornqvist-aggregated.18
Nonenergy materials input represents all commodity in
puts exclusive of fuel (electricity, fuel oil, coal, natural gas,
and other miscellaneous fuels) but inclusive of fuel-type
inputs used as raw materials in a manufacturing process,
such as crude petroleum used by the refining industry. In
addition to raw and processed materials, these measures
include all incidental commodity inputs such as office sup
plies, vehicle parts bought for maintenance, and small tools,
if these are allowable as current costs for computing busi
ness taxes.19
Directly collected data on purchased business services are
relatively scant, and for that reason they have heretofore
been ignored in studies of this type.20 There is ample evi
dence of an increased use of purchased business services by
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The dramatic slowdown in productivity growth in the
early 1970’s found in previous studies by the b l s and other
researchers22 is also apparent in the 2-digit manufacturing
industry indexes of multifactor productivity. (See chart 1.)
Because one purpose of developing these new measures is
to provide data on the slowdown for manufacturing indus
tries, the following analysis examines the pre-1973 and
post-1973 periods in detail.
Subperiod analysis. The choice of the starting date of the
pre-1973 period and the closing date of the post-1973 period
has an important effect on an analysis of the slowdown. One
alternative is to choose the periods 1949-73 and 1973-83,
so as to cover all years in the existing data set. Another is
to choose years that are business cycle peaks, such as 1953,
1979, or 1981, for the initial and terminal years of the two
Table 2. M ultifactor productivity grow th and the post1973 slow dow n in m anufacturing industries, selected
periods, 1 9 4 9 -8 3
[Percent change at compound annual rate]
Change
S lo w d o w n
In d u s try
1 9 4 9 -8 3
1 9 4 9 -7 3
1 9 7 3 -8 3
(1 )
(2 )
(3 )
(3 ) - (2)
Total manufacturing ..............
1.1
1.5
0.3
-1 .2
Food and kindred products . . . .
Tobacco m anufactures..............
Textile mill p ro d u c ts ...................
Apparel and related products ..
Lumber and wood products . . .
0.7
0.2
1.7
1.0
1.3
0.8
1.0
1.7
1.0
2.0
0.5
-1 .7
1.7
0.9
-0 .5
-0 .3
-2 .7
0.0
-0.1
-2 .5
Furniture and fix tu re s .................
Paper and allied p ro d u cts.........
Printing and pub lish ing ..............
Chemicals and allied products .
Petroleum products ...................
0.7
0.9
0.3
1.5
0.4
0.8
1.2
0.6
2.3
0.9
0.4
0.2
-0 .3
-0 .4
-0 .9
-0 .4
-1 .0
-0 .9
-2 .7
-1 .8
0.7
0.4
1.0
0.5
0.1
0.2
-0 .9
-0 .3
0.5
-0 .5
0.4
1.0
0.2
0.5
-0 .7
-2.1
0.0
-1 .7
-2 .3
-0 .5
1.2
1.1
1.4
0.3
1.9
1.0
1.9
1.3
2.0
0.3
0.1
-1 .0
1.5
0.6
1.9
1.3
0.7
-1 .0
- 1 .2
-2 .3
Rubber and miscellaneous
p la s tics......................................
Leather and leather products ..
Stone, clay, and glass
p ro d u cts....................................
Primary metal in du strie s............
Fabricated metal products ___
Machinery, except electrical . . .
Electrical and electronic
equipment ...............................
Transportation equ ip m en t.........
Instruments and related
p ro d u cts....................................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ..
21
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
Multifactor Productivity in Manufacturing, 1949-83
Table 3. C hanges in output and input quantities and in
output/input ratios in total m anufacturing, selected
periods, 1 9 4 9 -8 3
[Percent change at compound annual rate]
O u tp u t
P e rio d
1 9 4 9 -83 ............
1949-73 . . . .
1973-83 . . . .
(Q )
A g g re g a te
In p u t
3.1
4.2
0.6
2.0
2.7
0.3
C a p ita l
Labor
E n e rg y
(K )
(L)
(E)
M a te r ia ls
(M )
0.8
1.5
-1 .0
3.3
5.1
-0 .8
2.2
3.1
0.2
3.8
3.9
3.6
(S)
4.6
5.4
2.6
O u tp u t/in p u t ra tio s
KLEMS
m ultifactor
productivity
Q /K
1.1
1.5
0.3
-0 .6
0.3
-2 .9
1949-83 ............
1949-73 .........
1973-83 .........
S e rv ic e s
Q /L
2.4
2.7
1.6
Q /E
Q /M
Q /S
-0 .2
-0 .8
1.4
0.9
1.1
0.4
-1 .4
-1 .2
-1 .9
periods to minimize the cyclical impact on the productivity
movements.23
Table 1 shows the effects on the computed slowdown in
total manufacturing of adopting different initial and terminal
dates for the pre-1973 (“early”) and post-1973 (“late”) peri
ods. If the terminal years 1949 and 1983 are used— that is,
if the entire data set is used— the slowdown in output growth
is 3.6 percent annually and in multifactor productivity,
about 1.2 percent. If the cyclical peak years of 1953 and
1981 are chosen, the slowdown in output is about 1 percent
age point less and the slowdown in multifactor productivity
about a third of a percentage point greater. The following
analysis is based on data for the whole period 1949-83 for
two reasons: First, the choice of initial and terminal dates for
the “early” and “late” periods does not change the magni
tude of the productivity slowdown greatly; and second,
using officially designated peak years is somewhat arbitrary
for industry analysis because peak years for many industries
do not coincide with the peaks for the whole economy.24
Table 4.
The differential growth o f inputs. Multifactor productivity
growth varies substantially across industries, both in terms
of total postwar growth and the degree of slowdown after
1973. (See table 2.) At the high end of the growth spectrum
for the period 1949-83 are electrical and electronic equip
ment (averaging 1.9 percent per year), textile mill products
(1.7 percent), chemicals and allied products (1.5 percent),
and instruments and related products (1.5 percent). Primary
metal industries had an average multifactor productivity de
cline of half a percent per year and tobacco manufactures,
an average annual rise of 0.2 percent.
Although there is substantial variation, most manufactur
ing industries have exhibited some degree of slowdown in
multifactor productivity growth since 1973. Although other
b l s productivity series for which more recent data are avail
able show some recovery in the last few years, multifactor
productivity growth rates by industry and for total manufac
turing demonstrate a pervasive decline after 1973. In total
manufacturing, the growth rate dropped from 1.5 to 0.3
percent per year (table 2); among the 20 industries, growth
slowed by some degree in all but three— textile mill prod
ucts, machinery except electrical, and electrical and elec
tronic equipment. In apparel and related products, the de
cline was insignificant. In all of the other industries, growth
slowed substantially, by at least 0.3 percentage points.
Trends in output and inputs have systematic relationships
to the differences in multifactor productivity growth rates
among industries. For example, industries with the fastest
growing productivity also tend to show rapidly rising output
levels (an exception is textile mill products); those with slow
productivity growth (primary metals, tobacco manufac
tures, and leather products) also showed the slowest output
growth rates. This association is borne out by formal testing.
The rank correlation coefficient for the growth rates of mul-
C hanges in output and input quantities and in m ultifactor productivity, 20 m anufacturing industries, 1 9 4 9 -8 3
[Percent change at compound annual rate]
In d u s try
O u tp u t
A g g re g a te
in p u t
C a p ita l
Labor
E n e rg y
M a te r ia ls
S e rv ic e s
KLEMS
m u ltifa c to r
p r o d u c tiv ity
Total m anufacturing................................................................
3.1
2 .0
3.8
0 .8
3.3
2.2
4.6
1.1
Food and kindred p ro d u cts...........................................................
Tobacco m anufactures..................................................................
Textile mill p ro d u c ts .......................................................................
Apparel and related products .......................................................
Lumber and wood products .........................................................
2.4
0.7
3.0
2.2
2.5
1.7
0.6
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.8
1.5
0.9
3.4
2.9
-0 .5
-1 .4
-1 .2
0.0
-0 .4
2.6
4.0
1.7
3.6
3.0
2.1
-0 .4
3.5
1.8
2.2
3.6
1.9
3.3
2.3
2.5
0.7
0.2
1.7
1.0
1.3
Furniture and fix tu re s .....................................................................
Paper and allied p ro d u cts..............................................................
Printing and pub lish ing ..................................................................
Chemicals and allied products ....................................................
Petroleum products .......................................................................
3.1
3.8
3.4
5.0
2.7
2.3
2.9
3.1
3.5
2.3
3.4
3.9
4.0
4.1
3.4
1.1
1.1
1.6
1.5
-0 .2
3.6
3.3
5.1
3.9
2.3
2.9
3.8
4.4
4.5
2.6
4.4
5.3
5.0
5.7
3.9
0.7
0.9
0.3
1.5
0.4
Rubber and miscellaneous p la s tics.............................................
Leather and leather products ......................................................
Stone, clay, and glass ..................................................................
Primary metal in du strie s................................................................
Fabricated metal products ...........................................................
5.1
-0 .2
2.4
0.4
2.6
4.3
-0 .6
1.9
0.9
2.2
5.3
0.9
3.4
3.2
4.1
2.9
-1 .8
0.4
-0 .6
1.2
5.6
0.6
1.5
1.0
4.0
4.9
0.2
2.9
1.2
2.4
5.6
1.1
3.8
2.8
4.5
0.7
0.4
0.5
-0 .5
0.4
Machinery, except electrical .........................................................
Electrical and electronic e quipm ent.............................................
Transportation e quipm ent..............................................................
Instruments and related products ...............................................
Miscellaneous manufacturing .......................................................
4.2
5.8
3.4
6.2
2.4
3.0
3.9
2.4
4.6
1.8
4.8
6.6
4.5
5.6
3.4
1.6
2.6
1.2
2.8
0.0
3.3
5.4
3.4
6.2
1.5
3.7
4.1
2.7
6.1
2.6
5.8
6.4
5.3
7.4
4.8
1.2
1.9
1.0
1.5
0.6
22
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tifactor productivity and of output for the period 1949-83 is
positive and significant.25
The growth rates of the various inputs for total manufac
turing provide important insights into several postwar devel
opments. (See table 3.) First, laborsaving changes were
made throughout the period; the annual growth rates of labor
input in both the early and late periods were 1.2 to 1.4
percentage points lower than the growth rates of all inputs
taken together. Second, the use of fuels is sensitive to price
changes; in the early period, when fuel prices were rising
relatively more slowly than other input prices, their use
relative to other inputs rose substantially; later, economies
in the use of fuels were instituted in response to dramatic
fuel price increases.26 Third, there was no significant reduc
tion in the use of capital services, which rose 3.9 percent per
year in the early period compared with 3.6 percent over the
1973-83 decade. Finally, the growth in the use of business
services has been rapid throughout the postwar years; this is
an especially significant finding in view of the possibility
that purchased services are being substituted for primary
inputs, that is, labor and capital employed directly.
Similar patterns emerge among industries, as table 4 indi
cates. First, the greatest economies have been evident in
labor— in every industry, the growth rate of labor input has
been slower than that of any other input. Second, for all
industries, the growth rate of business services has been
faster than that of all inputs together, and in 12 of the 20
industries, services are the fastest growing input. Third, for
most industries (19 of 20), production is increasingly capital
intensive, by the criterion of growth relative to that of all
inputs together. These shifts in resource use, and the possi
ble connection with labor use and productivity, will be dis
cussed further in the next section.
The factor intensity connection
As described previously, the basic multifactor equation
relating output and factor inputs can be reorganized to relate
labor productivity to multifactor productivity and changes in
the ratios of each nonlabor input to labor.27 Using this de
composition, change in labor productivity is seen to have
two fundamental sources: (1) the growth of the multifactor
productivity residual, which includes the effects of advances
in production technology and efficiency and the growth of
worker and managerial skills, among other things, and (2)
changing intensity of labor use, which includes the effects
of relative input price change.28 The intensity terms are
defined as changes in nonlabor input/labor ratios, multiplied
by the shares (in the value of production) paid for each
nonlabor factor.
The decomposition of labor productivity change into mul
tifactor productivity growth and changes in labor intensity is
shown in table 5 for total manufacturing and for constituent
industries. For total manufacturing, labor productivity grew
at more than double the rate of multifactor productivity (2.4
percent versus 1.1 percent per year). Thus, over half—
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
about 55 percent— of the growth of labor productivity is
attributable to changes in nonlabor/labor ratios which re
flect, most notably, substitution of nonlabor factors for
labor.29
The use of labor has in fact declined relative to each of the
other four inputs over the entire study period, as evidenced
by the positive contribution estimates for each nonlabor
factor. It should be noted especially that the substitution
effects for capital and business services are large— over the
postwar period, about 0.8 of the 1.3 annual percentagepoint difference between labor and multifactor productivity
growth can be accounted for by the rapid growth of capital
and business service inputs relative to labor. Thus, about 65
percent of the difference between labor and multifactor pro
ductivity growth is accounted for by two inputs, which
averaged only 27 percent of costs through the postwar pe
riod (table 6).
Conversely, relatively little of the difference for manufac
turing as a whole is accounted for by materials and fuels
inputs: The remaining 35 percent of the difference between
multifactor and labor productivity growth is accounted for
by these two inputs, which averaged about 28 percent of all
costs.
The relative strength of multifactor productivity increases
and nonlabor-for-labor substitution as forces underlying
labor productivity growth varies somewhat from industry to
industry, but for about half of the 2-digit industries, multi
factor productivity accounts for 35 to 45 percent of the
postwar labor productivity growth rate. For two indus
tries— tobacco manufactures and primary metal indus
tries— labor productivity growth was achieved mainly by
intensifying the use of other, nonlabor inputs. At the other
extreme, in electrical and electronic equipment, 60 percent
of labor productivity growth was accounted for by multifac
tor productivity change.
The evidence in table 5 concerning the influence of
change in factor intensity on labor productivity can be sum
marized by noting that over the postwar period, in all indus
tries except one—electrical and electronic equipment—
shifts between nonlabor and labor inputs are a stronger force
in labor productivity growth than is multifactor productiv
ity. In electrical and electronic equipment, a 3.1-percentper-year increase in labor productivity resulted from 1.9percent annual growth in multifactor productivity and a
contribution from shifts between nonlabor and labor inputs
totaling 1.2 percentage points. For all other industries, the
summed contribution of substitution effects exceeded that of
multifactor productivity growth, in some cases by a wide
margin: In six cases, the contribution of shifts out of labor
was at least triple the contribution of multifactor productiv
ity growth; in an additional two, the shift contribution was
at least double that of multifactor productivity.
Substitution effects and the labor productivity slow
down. For total manufacturing, labor productivity growth
23
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
Multifactor Productivity in Manufacturing, 1949-83
Table 5. A ttribution of labor produ ctivity grow th to m ultifactor productivity grow th and substitution effects, total
m anufacturing and 20 m anufacturing industries, 1 9 4 9 -8 3
[Percent changes at compound annual rate]
C o n tr ib u tio n s o f—
C o n tr ib u tio n s o f—
P e rio d
O u tp u t
per
hour
S u b s titu tio n e ffe c ts
KLEMS
m u ltifa c to r
p r o d u c tiv ity
P e rio d
Sum
of
e ffe c ts
C a p ita l/
la b o r
E n erg y/
la b o r
M a te r ia ls /
la b o r
S e r v ic e s /
la b o r
O u tp u t
per
hour
2.36
2.67
1.62
1.11
1.46
0.28
-1 .0 5
-1 .1 8
1.25
1.21
1.34
0.54
0.47
0.69
0.05
0.07
0.01
0.36
0.38
0.30
0.29
0.27
0.33
0.13
0.22
-0 .0 6
-0 .0 8
0.06
1949-83 ..............
1949-73 (a) . . .
1973-83 (b) . . .
Change
(b-a) .........
2.29
4.74
-1 .3 2
-6 .0 6
2.86
2.75
3.10
0.69
0.78
0.47
0.35
-0.31
2.14
2.60
1.05
0.18
0.98
-1 .7 3
-1 .5 5
-2.71
2.17
1.97
2.63
0.27
0.25
0.32
0.03
0.04
0.01
1.66
1.51
2.03
0.18
0.15
0.24
0.66
0.07
-0 .0 3
0.52
0.09
1949-83 ..............
1949-73 (a) . . .
1973-83 (b) . . .
Change
(b-a) .........
0.39
0.46
0.23
0.04
0.07
-0 .0 2
1.90
3.06
-0 .8 3
0.18
0.16
0.23
-1 .8 7
-4 .1 9
-0 .2 3
-0 .0 9
-3 .8 9
0.07
0.72
0.99
0.07
1.38
1.74
0.52
0.29
0.31
0.24
0.05
0.04
0.07
0.90
1.22
0.14
0.12
0.14
0.07
-2 .1 4
-0 .9 2
-1 .2 2
-0 .0 7
0.03
-1 .0 8
-0 .0 7
L e a th e r a n d le a th e r p ro d u c ts (s ic 3 1 )
1.96
1.62
2.78
1.49
1.14
2.36
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.29
0.28
0.31
0.16
0.18
0.12
1.16
1.22
0.02
0.03
-0 .0 6
1949-83 ..............
1949-73 (a) . . .
1973-83 (b) . . .
Change
(b-a) ..........
1.65
1.79
1.31
0.40
0.47
0.22
1.25
1.32
1.09
0.22
0.17
0.35
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.78
0.98
0.32
0.22
0.14
0.41
-0 .4 8
-0 .2 5
-0 .2 3
0.18
-0 .0 2
-0 .6 6
0.27
S to n e , c la y , a n d g la s s p ro d u c ts (s ic 3 2 )
4.23
4.24
4.21
1.71
1.73
1.67
2.52
2.51
2.54
0.24
0.21
0.31
0.07
0.07
0.06
1.97
2.01
1.88
0.19
0.17
0.23
-0 .0 3
-0 .0 6
0.03
0.10
-0.01
-0 .1 3
0.00
2.23
1.91
2.99
1.02
1.05
0.94
1.08
-0.11
1949-83 ..............
1949-73 (a) . . .
1973-83 (b) . . .
Change
(b-a) .........
1.99
2.62
0.50
0.51
1.00
-0 .6 6
-2 .1 2
-1 .6 6
1.21
0.86
2.05
0.21
0.20
0.24
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.85
0.52
1.62
0.12
0.11
0.15
1.19
0.04
0.00
1.10
0.04
1949-83 ..............
1949-73 (a) . . .
1973-83 (b) . . .
Change
(b-a) ..........
1.06
1.80
-0 .6 9
-0 .4 6
0.24
-2 .1 2
-2 .4 9
-2 .3 6
2.92
3.68
1.11
1.26
2.00
-0 .4 8
1.66
1.68
1.59
0.56
0.53
0.63
0.07
0.11
-0 .0 4
0.87
0.89
0.84
0.13
0.11
0.15
-2 .5 7
-2 .4 8
-0 .0 9
0.10
-0 .1 5
-0 .0 5
0.04
1.98
2.10
1.69
0.72
0.84
0.43
-0.41
-0.41
1949-83 ..............
1949-73 (a) . . .
1973-83 (b) . . .
Change
(b-a) .........
2.67
2.84
2.26
0.90
1.20
0.18
-0 .5 8
-1 .0 2
-0 .4 6
0.39
-0 .1 2
-0 .7 2
0.02
1.52
1.56
1.43
0.57
0.50
0.74
0.07
0.08
0.04
0.74
0.81
0.56
0.15
0.16
0.13
-0 .1 3
0.24
-0 .0 4
-0 .2 5
-0 .0 3
0.26
0.18
0.45
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.60
0.76
0.22
0.16
0.14
0.21
-0 .7 6
-0 .5 4
-0 .2 2
0.27
-0 .0 2
-0 .5 4
0.07
M a c h in e ry , e x c e p t e le c tr ic a l (s ic 3 5 )
1.26
1.26
1.26
0.16
0.14
0.22
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.85
0.92
0.69
0.21
0.17
0.33
0.00
0.08
-0 .0 3
-0 .2 3
0.16
1949-83 ..............
1949-73 (a) . . .
1973-83 (b) . . .
Change
(b-a) ..........
2.57
2.36
3.07
1.16
1.07
1.39
1.41
1.29
1.68
0.39
0.23
0.79
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.77
0.83
0.65
0.20
0.19
0.20
0.71
0.32
0.39
0.56
-0.01
-0 .1 8
0.01
E le c tric a l a n d e le c tr o n ic e q u ip m e n t (s ic 3 6 )
1.77
1.64
2.08
0.46
0.35
0.71
0.88
0.10
0.03
1.02
0.96
1.15
0.19
0.20
0.18
0.44
0.36
-0 .0 7
0.19
-0 .0 2
1949-83 ..............
1949-73 (a) . . .
1973-83 (b) . . .
Change
(b-a) ..........
3.11
2.92
3.56
1.90
1.88
1.97
0.64
0.09
1.21
1.04
1.59
0.41
0.34
0.57
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.50
0.43
0.66
0.25
0.22
0.31
0.55
0.23
-0 .0 2
0.23
0.09
T ra n s p o r ta tio n e q u ip m e n t (s ic 3 7 )
1.80
2.33
0.55
0.31
0.57
-0 .3 2
1.49
1.76
0.87
0.30
0.36
0.17
0.03
0.04
-0.01
0.79
0.92
0.46
0.37
0.42
0.25
-1 .7 8
-0 .8 9
-0 .8 9
-0 .1 9
-0 .0 5
-0 .4 6
-0 .1 7
1949-83 ..............
1949-73 (a) . . .
1973-83 (b) . . .
Change
(b-a) ..........
2.18
2.89
0.50
1.03
1.33
0.30
1.15
1.56
0.20
0.35
0.47
0.07
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.62
0.88
-0.01
0.17
0.17
0.17
-2 .3 9
-1 .0 3
-1 .3 6
-0 .4 0
-0 .0 2
-0 .8 9
0.00
3.32
3.74
2.32
1.52
1.87
0.68
1.80
1.87
1.64
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.02
0.03
0.00
1.08
1.13
0.93
0.28
0.27
0.30
-1 .4 2
-1 .1 9
-0 .2 3
0.00
-0 .0 3
-0 .2 0
0.03
In s tr u m e n ts a n d r e la te d p ro d u c ts (s ic 3 8 )
3.45
4.60
0.75
1.51
2.33
-0 .4 3
1.94
2.27
1.18
0.55
0.47
0.74
0.08
0.17
. -0 .1 3
0.88
1.11
0.32
0.39
0.44
0.25
-3 .8 5
-2 .7 6
-1 .0 9
0.27
-0 .3 0
-0 .7 9
-0 .1 9
Digitized for 24
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
0.20
0.19
0.21
1.06
1.12
0.90
C h e m ic a ls a n d a llie d p r o d u c ts (s ic 2 8 )
1949-83 ..............
1949-73 (a) .. .
1973-83 (b) . . .
Change
(b-a) ..........
0.79
1.01
0.29
0.36
0.52
-0 .0 2
P rin tin g a n d p u b lis h in g (s ic 2 7 )
1949-83 ..............
1949-73 (a) . . .
1973-83 (b) . . .
Change
(b-a) ..........
0.06
0.09
-0 .0 3
1.42
1.64
0.88
P a p e r a n d a llie d p r o d u c ts (s ic 2 6 )
1949-83 ..............
1949-73 (a) . . .
1973-83 (b) . . .
Change
(b-a) .........
0.43
0.31
0.70
F a b ric a te d m e ta l p ro d u c ts (s ic 3 4 )
F u rn itu r e a n d fix tu r e s (s ic 2 5 )
1949-83 ..............
1949-73 (a) . . .
1973-83 (b) . . .
Change
(b-a) ..........
1.48
1.62
1.16
P rim a ry m e ta l in d u s tr ie s (s ic 3 3 )
L u m b e r a n d w o o d p ro d u c ts (s ic 2 4 )
1949-83 ..............
1949-73 (a) . . .
1973-83 (b) . . .
Change
(b-a) .........
S e r v ic e s /
la b o r
2.53
3.80
-0 .3 9
A p p a r e l a n d o th e r te x tile p r o d u c ts (s ic 2 3 )
1949-83 ..............
1949-73 (a) . . .
1973-83 (b) . . .
Change
(b-a) ..........
M a te r ia ls /
la b o r
2.10
2.73
0.59
T e x tile m ill p ro d u c ts (s ic 2 2 )
1949-83 ..............
1949-73 (a) .. .
1973-83 (b) . . .
Change
(b-a) ..........
E n erg y/
la b o r
0.39
0.94
-0 .9 3
T o b a c c o m a n u fa c tu r e s (s ic 2 1 )
1949-83 ..............
1949-73 (a) . . .
1973-83 (b) . . .
Change
(b-a) .........
C a p ita l/
la b o r
R u b b e r a n d m is c e lla n e o u s p la s tic s p ro d u c ts (s ic 3 0 )
F o o d a n d k in d r e d p ro d u c ts (s ic 2 0 )
1949-83 ..............
1949-73 (a) . . .
1973-83 (b) . . .
Change
(b-a) .........
Sum
of
e ffe c ts
P e tro le u m a n d c o a l p r o d u c ts (s ic 2 9 )
T o ta l m a n u fa c tu rin g
1949-83 ..............
1949-73 (a) . . .
1973-83 (b) . . .
Change
(b-a) ..........
S u b s titu tio n e ffe c ts
KLEMS
m u ltifa c to r
p ro d u c tiv ity
1949-83 ..............
1949-73 (a) . . .
1973-83 (b) . . .
Change
(b-a) .........
Table 5— C ontinued. A ttribution of labor productivity
grow th to m ultifactor productivity grow th and substitution
effects, total m anufacturing and 20 m anufacturing indus
tries, 1 9 4 9 -8 3
C o n tr ib u tio n s o f—
O u tp u t
per
hour
P e rio d
S u b s titu tio n e ffe c ts
KLEMS
m u ltifa c to r
p ro d u c tiv ity
Sum
C a p ita l/ E n e r g y / M a te r ia ls / S e r v ic e s /
of
la b o r
la b o r
la b o r
la b o r
e ffe c ts
M is c e lla n e o u s m a n u fa c tu r in g (s ic 3 9 )
1949-83 ............
1949-73 (a) ..
1973-83 (b) ..
Change
(b-a) . . . .
2.45
3.40
0.19
0.59
1.25
-0 .9 8
1.86
2.15
1.17
0.38
0.37
0.41
0.04
0.06
-0.01
1.09
1.31
0.57
0.32
0.37
0.20
-3.21
-2 .2 3
-0 .9 8
0.04
-0 .0 7
-0 .7 4
-0 .1 7
ing 15 industries, the contribution of substitution effects
either increased after 1973 or was of less importance in the
slowdown than was multifactor productivity. In only five
cases (printing and publishing, petroleum refining, rubber
and miscellaneous plastics, leather products, and transporta
tion equipment) was a cessation of shift from labor to non
labor factors as important as, or more important than, de
clining growth in multifactor productivity in explaining the
slowdown in labor productivity. Hence, in most industries,
as in total manufacturing, the post-1973 slowdown was not
due mainly to a cessation of the shift from labor to nonlabor
inputs.
Conclusions
declined from 2.7 percent per year before 1973 to 1.6 per
cent after 1973 (a decrease of about 40 percent). The data
for total manufacturing show at a glance that multifactor
productivity and substitution components bear uneven re
sponsibility for this slowdown. The shift from labor to non
labor factors has proven to be a powerful source of labor
productivity growth, even more powerful than multifactor
productivity change, and there has been no cessation of
these shifts in recent years. The tendency for production to
become increasingly intensive in nonlabor factors, evident
in the early postwar period, is still operating. The summed
contribution of changes in nonlabor factor/labor ratios in the
early years was 1.2 percentage points, and in the later pe
riod, 1.3 percentage points. Thus, the slowdown in manu
facturing labor productivity must be seen as coming from
the factors underlying change in multifactor productivity—
that is, factors such as technological advance and changes in
the characteristics of the work force, rather than a diminu
tion of the tendency of businesses to make laborsaving
changes.
The industry data largely conform to this overall judg
ment. First, it is notable that there are labor productivity
slowdowns of some degree in 15 of the 20 industries, excep
tions being food and kindred products, textile mill products,
apparel and related products, machinery except electrical,
and electrical and electronic equipment. In 10 of the remain
Table 6. Factor sh ares1 for total m anufacturing, selected
years, 1 9 4 9 -8 3
Year
1949-832 ....................................
1949 ...........................................
1955 ...........................................
1960 ...........................................
1965 ...........................................
1970
1975
1980
1983
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
Labor
E nergy
M a te r ia ls
19.3
20.9
21.3
19.9
23.2
44.8
41.7
44.1
46.2
45.3
2.4
2.0
1.9
2.1
2.0
25.5
30.2
26.5
25.0
21.8
7.8
5.2
6.2
6.7
7.6
18.6
17.4
13.6
16.2
48.8
43.1
42.8
42.8
2.1
3.0
3.7
4.4
21.5
27.4
30.6
26.2
9.1
9.1
9.3
10.4
1 Factor cost as a percentage of the value of production.
2 Mean of shares over all years 1949-83.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
P u rc h a s e d
s e rv ic e s
C a p ita l
Underlying the new measures of multifactor productivity
change is an important new set of detailed and conceptually
matched time-series data permitting the analysis of numer
ous issues. This article has begun the task of analyzing these
data, and several conclusions have been reached:
• These measures confirm that a slowdown occurred in
multifactor productivity growth in total manufacturing
after 1973, and show that a slowdown also occurred in
most manufacturing industries.
• The slowdown was not due to a reduction in the growth
rate of capital services inputs.
• The industries with the fastest growth in multifactor pro
ductivity tend to have had rapid output growth.
• The use of purchased business services rose rapidly
throughout the postwar period.
• The use of fuels was sensitive to change in the price of
fuels. Before 1973, fuel prices rose slowly and fuel use
rose rapidly in total manufacturing. After 1973, fuel
prices rose rapidly and use declined slightly.
Change in labor productivity can be decomposed into two
fundamental sources: the growth in multifactor productivity
and the effects of changes in the ratios of nonlabor to labor
inputs:
• Over the entire period 1949-83, labor productivity
growth was due mainly to changes in the ratios of non
labor to labor inputs, for total manufacturing and for most
industries. For about half of the 2-digit industries, multi
factor productivity accounted for 35 to 45 percent of the
labor productivity growth rate. In most others, it ac
counted for less than 35 percent.
• For total manufacturing, the post-1973 slowdown in labor
productivity was due entirely to factors resulting in a
slowdown in multifactor productivity growth, and not at
all to a decrease in the contribution of increasing nonlabor/labor input ratios.
• Similarly, for most industries, the slowdown in labor
productivity growth was not due primarily to a decrease
in the contribution of nonlabor/labor ratios.
25
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
Multifactor Productivity in Manufacturing, 1949-83
--------- FOOTNOTES---------1 These measures are described in Trends in Multifactor Productivity,
1948-81, Bulletin 2178 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1983). For the most
recent data, see Multifactor Productivity Measures, 1985, usdl 86-402
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1986), or table 43 in the Current Labor Statis
tics section o f the Monthly Labor Review.
2 Gross product originating, taken from the National Income and Product
Accounts, is the attribution of gross domestic product to industries or
sectors o f origin. Gross product originating in current dollars is compiled
by summing income components— wages and salaries, capital consump
tion allowance, profits, and so forth— and therefore corresponds in concept
to value added. However, it differs somewhat from value added estimates
published by the Bureau o f the Census, which include business services.
3 At the industry level, a production function which is descriptive of the
entire production process o f that industry is generally assumed. This ap
proaches an ideal, described by Paul A. Samuelson, “Parable and Realism
in Capital Theory: The Surrogate Production Function,” Review of Eco
nomic Studies, June 1962, pp. 193-206. In this ideal, there is a separate
production function describing each process. Studies using these expanded
production functions include Ernst R. Bemdt and David O. Wood, “Tech
nology, Prices, and the Derived Demand for Energy,” Review of Econom
ics and Statistics, August 1975, pp. 376-84; and Frank M. Gollop and
Dale W. Jorgenson, “ U.S. Productivity Growth by Industry 1947-73,” in
John W. Kendrick and Beatrice N. Vaccara, eds., New Developments in
Productivity Measurement and Analysis (Chicago, University of Chicago
Press, 1980), pp. 17-136.
4 These measures are presented in Mark K. Sherwood, “Multifactor
productivity in the steel and motor vehicles industries,” Monthly Labor
Review, August 1987, pp. 22-31.
5 The relationship between labor productivity and multifactor productiv
ity is derived by assuming a value added (N) production function:
L
Sl L
where the notation XIX represents the growth rates of the respective vari
ables. The weights, sK and sL are output elasticities with respect to inputs.
Under constant returns to scale and under the assumption that inputs are
paid their marginal products, these elasticities correspond to factor shares
in the value of output and sK + sL = 1. An index, A , is then computed by
designating the value of a base year to be 1.00 and by “chaining,” that is,
determining successive index values by multiplying by the growth rate of
A/A. The relationship between labor productivity and multifactor produc
tivity is then given by:
N _ L_ A
/K _ L \
N
L “ A + Sk\K
L/
That is, they differ by a weighted shift in the capital-labor ratio. This
analysis is attributable to Jan Tinbergen and, independently, to Robert M.
Solow. See Tinbergen, “Zur theorie der langristigen wirtschaftsentwicklung,” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, Band 55:1, 1942, pp. 5 11-49 (English
translation, “On the Theory of Trend Movements,” in L.H. Klassen, L.M.
Koyck, and H.J. Witteveen, eds., Jan Tinbergen, Selected Papers (Am
sterdam, North Holland, 1959)); and Solow, “Technical Change and the
Aggregate Production Function,” Review of Economics and Statistics, vol.
39, no. 3, 1957, pp. 312-20.
6 The relationship between value added and gross output productivity
measures is demonstrated in Martin N. Baily, “Productivity Growth and
Materials Use in U.S. Manufacturing,” Quarterly Journal of Economics,
February 1986, pp. 185-95.
26
where intermediate inputs of energy (E), materials (M), and purchased
business services (5) are included. Using steps paralleling those in the
value added model, a sectoral output multifactor productivity index (B ) can
be determined from:
B _ Y _
K_
L_
E
_
M
_
B Y
Sr K Sl L
Se E Sm M Ss S
S
The shares here are shares in the value of sectoral ouput. The derivation is
slightly less restrictive than that of the value added multifactor productivity
measure, A , in that functional separability of primary and intermediate
inputs is not assumed.
8 The Tomqvist index is a discrete approximation to a Divisia index in
which growth rates are defined as the difference in natural logarithms of
successive observations and weights are equal to the mean of the factor
shares in the corresponding pair of years. W. Erwin Diewert, “Exact and
Superlative Index Numbers,” Journal of Econometrics, vol. 4, no. 4,
1976, pp. 115-45, shows that the Tomqvist index is consistent with a
translog specification of the production function, which in turn is a secondorder approximation to any production function, as shown in Laurits R.
Christensen, Dale W. Jorgenson, and Lawrence J. Lau, “Transcendental
Logarithmic Production Frontiers,” Review of Economics and Statistics,
February 1973, pp. 2 8 -4 5 . However, the maintained assumptions of sepa
rability and neutral technical change are implicit in the measure as shown
by Charles R. Hulten, “Divisia Index Numbers,” Econometrica, vol. 41,
no. 6, 1973, pp. 1017-25.
Multifactor Productivity, 1948-81.
in which output is determined by capital (K ), and labor (L) inputs using the
technology available at time t . Assume that the function is differentiable
and has constant returns to scale, that inputs are paid the value of their
marginal products, and that technical change is “neutral” (that is, the
relative marginal products of inputs are unaffected by technical change).
The assumption that inputs are paid the value of their marginal products is
consistent with an assumption of perfect competition. Using these assump
tions, the growth rate o f multifactor productivity (A) can be determined
from:
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Y = f(K ,L,E,M ,S,t)
9 These procedures are described in appendices C and D of Trends in
N = f(K,L,t)
A _ N _
K
A " N
Sk K
7 The sectoral output (Y) production function is:
10 The hours paid data originate in the highly reliable bls Current Em
ployment Statistics survey. However, they do not reflect hours spent on the
job. The difference, leave time paid by employers, is not an input into the
production process. The ratio of hours worked to hours paid has gradually
fallen over the postwar period (according to special bls surveys) which
implies a slight downward bias in productivity growth estimates, bls has
collected hours worked data since 1981 and is examining these and other
available data on hours worked for manufacturing industries.
Labor is the only input category which is not adjusted for composition
change. In order to maintain consistency with labor measures published
previously by bls , and because of limitations in the data available for
adjustment of labor composition for industries at the 2-digit Standard In
dustrial Classification level, the labor input series used here are direct
aggregates of hours paid, that is, the simple sum of hours, without regard
to skill levels. Because of a significant shift toward use of more highly
skilled labor throughout the U .S. economy, change in the composition of
the labor force has historically been an important source of productivity
growth. For the nonfarm business sector as a whole, bls has estimated that
changes in labor composition accounted for about one-tenth of multifactor
productivity growth in the postwar period. See William H. Waldorf, Kent
Kunze, Larry S. Rosenblum, and Michael B. Tannen, “New Measures of
the Contribution of Education and Experience to U.S. Productivity
Growth,” paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Eco
nomic Association, New Orleans, December 1987.
11 The implicit rental price of capital, c , is derived by assuming that the
price of an asset will be recovered by the discounted stream of services
(implicit rents) the asset will provide. It corresponds to the one-period user
cost of capital:
c = T(pr + p8 - Ap)
where p is the price of new capital goods, r is the discount rate, 8 is the rate
of economic depreciation, Ap is the rate of price change for new goods, and
T is a factor reflecting tax incentives. Capital measurement methods are
reviewed in detail in Trends in Multifactor Productivity, 1948-81, ap
pendix C.
12 The use of a 3-year moving average for the capital gains term is
explained in Michael J. Harper, Ernst R. Bemdt, and David O. Wood,
“Rates o f Return and Capital Aggregation Using Alternative Rental
Prices,” bls working paper (1987, unpublished).
13 Expanded discussions of the procedures used to measure sectoral
output and intermediate inputs may be found in William Gullickson and
Michael J. Harper, “Multifactor Productivity Measurement for Two-Digit
Manufacturing Industries,” paper presented at the meetings of the Western
Economic Association, in San Francisco, c a , July 1986. The multifactor
productivity measures presented in that paper were preliminary and are
revised in this article.
14 In this study, the material inputs of an industry consist only of mate
rials purchased from suppliers outside that industry; transactions between
establishments in the same industry (intrasector transactions) are excluded
from intermediates and from sectoral output. This follows recommenda
tions presented by Frank M. Gollop, “Growth Accounting in an Open
Economy,” Boston College Working Papers in Economics (Boston, 1981);
and “Accounting for Intermediate Input: The Link Between Sectoral and
Aggregate Measures of Productivity Growth,” in National Research Coun
cil, Measurement and Interpretation of Productivity (Washington, National
Academy o f Sciences, 1979), pp. 318-33. Econometric evidence that the
exclusion of intraindustry sales is important is presented in Richard G.
Anderson, “On the Specification of Conditional Factor Demand Functions
in Recent Studies of U.S. Manufacturing,” in Ernst R. Bemdt and Barry
C. Field, eds., Modeling and Measuring Natural Resource Substitution
(Cambridge, m a , The mit Press, 1981), pp. 119-44.
15 Receipts, value of shipments, inventory change, and cost of materials
data (among other data) are published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census for
about 400 4-digit establishment groups in manufacturing. These data are
tabulated and deflated by the Bureau of Economic Analysis ( bea ) of the
U.S. Department of Commerce for use in compiling the National Income
and Product Accounts, bea performs this work under the guidance of the
Real Product Committee, whose membership includes bls , bea , the Fed
eral Reserve Board, the Bureau of the Census, and the Office of Manage
ment and Budget. The Census Bureau also publishes annual values of
shipments of 5-digit product classes, which allows the bea to deflate these
data at that level before aggregating. The bls Producer Price Indexes are
available at the same level of detail, supplemented in some cases by 5-digit
prices estimated by bea . Four-digit industry real output is aggregated by
bea from 5-digit indexes. The bls then Tomqvist-aggregates from the
4-digit to the 2-digit level.
One substantial complication to time-series analysis is the periodic revi
sion of the Standard Industrial Classification (sic). Large revisions took
place in 1957 and 1972, both of which caused some establishments to be
reclassified to different 2-digit industries. In most cases, the effects of these
revisions were trivial, but in a few cases adjustments had to be made to
avoid large, spurious jumps in time series.
16 Input-output tables are presently available for the years 1947, 1958,
1963, and for every year between 1967 and 1980. bls modifies the pub
lished tables for mutual consistency and to reflect establishment output
concepts; for years lacking published tables, estimates are obtained by
interpolation using annual control totals for gross output, final demand, and
value added. Published input-output tables incorporate the 4-digit census
materials-consumed data directly and therefore reflect the establishment
coding implicit in the census data. The portion of the value of production
for each sector which is consumed by the same sector is estimated from the
input-output tables. For this purpose, imported goods of all types included
in intrasector consumption of a given industry are estimated and removed.
The remainder, domestic consumption of materials produced by the same
domestic industry, is then divided by total gross output of the industry, as
given in the input-output tables. The resulting ratio is multiplied by the
census value of production for the industry, as determined in the Census of
Manufactures or the Annual Survey of Manufactures, to estimate intrasec
toral sales. The result is then deflated at the 2-digit level and output net of
intrasectoral transactions computed.
17 These figures are available for five types of fuels (electricity, coal,
fuel oil, natural gas, and miscellaneous fuels) annually for 1973-81, and
for several years before 1973: 1947, 1954, 1958, 1962, 1967, and
1971. Quantity is reported in physical units (for example, tons of coal) and
cost, in dollars. Quantities were interpolated between census years and
extrapolated after 1981 using Producer Price Indexes and annual estimates
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
of the total cost of purchased fuels published in the Annual Survey of
Manufactures.
18 Cost share weighting is particularly important for energy. While it is
straightforward to aggregate energy in terms of btu equivalents, Jack
Alterman, A Historical Perspective on Changes in U.S. Energy-Output
Ratios, Bulletin ea-3997 (Palo Also, CA, Electric Power Research Insti
tute, 1985) has demonstrated a pronounced historical shift toward fuels
with a higher price per btu , such as electricity, and away from less refined
fuels, such as coal. Thus, btu weighting tends to understate substantially
the growth rate of the quantity of energy and to overstate the growth rate
of its price.
19 Measures of costs of materials, based on Census of Manufactures and
Annual Survey of Manufactures series, are deflated by bea using materials
composite prices, bls makes substantial adjustments to the bea data to
avoid using fixed weights for aggregation of quantities.
20 Services consist of the following nine types: communications; finance
and insurance; real estate rental; hotel services; repair services; business
services, including equipment rental, engineering and technical services,
and advertising; vehicle repair; medical and educational services; and
puchases from government enterprises. The bls estimates these services
from published input-output tables. The general approach to these estimates
is to take service shares in the value of production from annual input-output
tables at the greatest possible level of detail; to obtain service costs by
multiplying these shares by the value of production as given in the Census
of Manufactures or the Annual Survey of Manufactures; and to deflate
these current cost estimates. It should be noted that there has been one
important survey of service inputs to manufacturing industries, done in
conjunction with the 1977 Census of Manufactures. This is incorporated
into the input-output table for that year. Prices for many service inputs are
available from the bls price program, from the National Income and
Product Accounts, or from private sources. For some services, such as the
business service items in Standard Industrial Classification group 73, prices
are unavailable. In these cases, prices are estimated as composites of prices
of the inputs to those sectors shown in input-output tables.
21 The measurement of inputs and outputs may not be exact in some
cases. While the methods described were chosen deliberately to capture
changes in the quality of inputs and outputs, these efforts may not have
succeeded completely. Several input and output series are obtained by
deflation, and while deflators are commonly prepared specifically to meas
ure price change net of quality change, this effort is sometimes only
partially successful. In addition, multifactor productivity measures for
broad industries involve considerable aggregation of quantities and, to the
extent that shifts at the detailed level are not captured by weighting proce
dures, a measurement bias can result. To the greatest degree possible, the
measures presented here minimize the effects of these problems. For exam
ple, the output and input measures used in this article take into account
composition change: Current weights are used for aggregating from the
4-digit levels in output products and for aggregating 25 capital asset types,
39 material inputs, 5 fuels, and 9 service inputs. Further, the bls price
program takes explicit account of quality change wherever possible.
22 See, for example, Trends in Multifactor Productivity , 1948-81.
23 For a discussion of cyclicality in productivity measures, see Lawrence
J. Fulco, “U .S. productivity growth since 1982: the post-recession experi
ence,” Monthly Labor Review , December 1986, pp. 18—22. It should be
noted that manufacturing demonstrates a greater reaction to the business
cycle than do most other sectors of the economy. The average trough-topeak growth in output in manufacturing in postwar recessions has been 9.3
percent, compared to 6.5 percent for the business sector as a whole. Total
growth over the whole cycle is roughly equal for manufacturing and busi
ness as a whole.
The shaded areas in chart 1 represent periods o f recession as determined
by the National Bureau of Economic Research. These recessions follow
peaks that occurred in the following quarters: 1948 IV, 1953 III, 1957 III,
1960 II, 1969 IV, 1973 IV, 1980 I, and 1981 III.
24 Readers interested in using different initial and terminal years may
write the Bureau of Labor Statistics for annual data. Measuring early and
late period average growth rates in multifactor productivity for each indus
try according to its own peak years, then taking the arithmetic average of
industry slowdown estimates gives an average industry slowdown of 0.9
percentage points per year. For comparison, the average of industry slow-
27
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
Multifactor Productivity in Manufacturing, 1949-83
down estimates using the years 1949, 1973, and 1983 as terminal years is
1.2 percentage points.
Capital-labor multifactor productivity and output per hour series, for
which data are available through 1985 and 1986, respectively, show growth
for each year after 1982, the year in which the most recent business-cycle
trough occurred. Thus, it is likely that extended versions of the klems
multifactor data will show a smaller slowdown. For a discussion of produc
tivity cyclicality, see Fulco, “U .S. productivity growth.”
25 The value o f Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient is 0.62; this
coefficient is significant at the 0.01 probability level.
26 For total manufacturing, the price of energy rose at an average annual
rate o f only 1.5 percent during 1949-73 and at a rate of 17.8 percent during
1973-83.
27 Just as labor productivity, multifactor productivity, and the capitallabor ratio may be related in the two-factor framework, so may labor
productivity, multifactor productivity, and all nonlabor factor/labor ratios
be related in the klems framework used in this study:
Y
Y
— = — + YS i —
I
R ^
I
where Y is real gross output, and i = K ,L ,E ,M ,S .
This equation can be derived from the equation for BIB given in note 6
above. First, rearrange the equation in note 6 so that Y/Y is on the left-hand
s id e a n d B IB o n th e r ig h t-h a n d s i d e , a lo n g w it h a ll th e s h a r e - w e ig h t e d in p u t
growth rates, now entered with positive rather than negative signs. Then
subtract LIL from both sides of the equation. Because the share weights sum
to 1, apply the term (sK + sL + sE + sM + ss) to the LIL term inserted on
the right-hand side. Gather terms with the same weight and derive the
equation above in this note.
Many forces influence the mix of inputs in production. Factor substitu
tion, although one of the most interesting, is only one of these. Others are
(1) unmeasured composition change, such as a shift from low-skilled labor
to high-skilled labor, which might reduce hours of labor input and thus
change the measured nonlabor/labor input ratios without substitution; and
(2) “nonneutrality” of technical change, in which technical advances are
associated with the use of more or less of some input(s) regardless of
relative prices. Where more than two factors are considered, ratio changes
must be interpreted especially carefully, because change in individual non
labor factor/labor ratios may result from substitution of nonlabor factors for
each other.
28 In addition to direct substitution of factors due to differences in rela
tive price growth, price change can also operate through complementarities
to affect factor proportions. The best-known example of this is the hypoth
esized effect of increasing energy prices in the early 1970’s on capital
formation. The authors have examined these effects based on econometric
estimates of substitution elasticities, using a preliminary version o f the data
set described here. See Michael J. Harper and William Gullickson, “Cost
Function Models and Accounting for Growth in U .S. Manufacturing,
1949-83,” paper presented at the annual meetings of the Amerian Eco
nomic Association, New Orleans, December 1986.
29 It is plausible to suggest that the increases in nonlabor-to-labor ratios
resulted from increases in the price of labor relative to the prices of other
factor inputs. Over the whole period 1949-83, the average annual rate of
increase (compound rate) in the price of undifferentiated labor was 6.3
percent, while for capital, energy, materials, and purchased services, the
rates of increase were 2.4, 6.0, 4.3, and 4.5 percent, respectively. See,
however, the cautionary comment in note 27.
A note on communications
The Monthly Labor Review welcomes communications that supplement,
challenge, or expand on research published in its pages. To be considered
for publication, communications should be factual and analytical, not
polemical in tone. Communications should be addressed to the Editor-inChief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Depart
ment of Labor, Washington, DC 20212.
28
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
An evaluation of State projections
of industry, occupational employment
Analysis o f the first projections by States
using b l s occupational employment data identifies
a number o f causes o f projection errors,
and offers suggestions fo r improving
the projections procedures
H arvey
A.
G o l d st e in
and
A
l v in
M.
C ruze
State Employment Security Agencies develop and publish
statewide and substate industry and occupational employ
ment projections to help meet the information needs of plan
ners and administrators in vocational education, Job Train
ing Partnership Act programs, educational counseling,
private sector training programs, and government economic
development agencies. Almost all States now use the Occu
pational Employment Statistics ( o e s ) program of the Bureau
of Labor Statistics for the development of their projections.
The methodological core of the Bureau program is the
industry-occupational (or staffing pattern) matrix produced
for each State from the results of the o e s survey and other
supplementary data.
Because data from the o e s survey first became available
in 1976, the State agencies had their first opportunity to
develop projections using the o e s results for the 1976-82
projection round. This article summarizes the results of an
evaluation of the accuracy of those projections for 20
States.1 Based on the evaluation results, we provide some
recommendations to improve subsequent rounds of state
wide projections.
Evaluation methodology
The basic approach of the analysis was to calculate the
projection error by industry and occupation for each State in
Harvey A. Goldstein is an associate professor o f planning at the University
of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Alvin M. Cruze is a senior economist at the
Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, nc .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the sample by comparing the projected 1982 employment
levels developed by the respective State agency and the
actual 1982 employment levels directly calculated by b l s
from State reports. The particular error measure used for
each industry or occupation is the adjusted absolute percent
error. The average error for various aggregates of industries
or occupations is the weighted adjusted mean absolute
error.2 Projection errors were calculated for industries and
occupations at all levels of detail. The focus, however, was
on 3-digit Standard Industrial Classification (sic) industry
sectors and the most detailed occupational categories.3
The evaluation was complicated because many of the
1982 industry employment projections were based on the
1967 sic coding system, while the actual 1982 industry
employment estimates were based on 1972 sic codes. So
that the projected and actual employment data would be
comparable, the 1982 industry employment projections
were converted to the 1972 sic code basis using conversion
factors calculated from first-quarter 1975, dual-coded data
for each State from the Bureau’s es-202 program. But be
cause these conversion factors were more than 10 years old,
some error unrelated to the projection error was introduced
into the transformed 1982 industry employment projections.
To minimize the effect of this spurious error in the evalua
tion but still retain as many industry sectors as possible to
avoid biasing the sample, we deleted all observations for
which the difference between the dual-coded employment
levels was greater than 15 percent.
29
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
State Employment Projections
To keep the evaluation manageable, other rules were used
to reduce the number of observations involved. For indus
tries, a minimum size cutoff of 500 employees in both the
base and projection years was used. The final number of
3-digit sic industries in the 20-State sample was 3,010; the
number of 2-digit industries was 1,120. Occupations with
fewer than 50 employees in both the base and projection
years were deleted. Also, occupations for which there had
been definitional changes between the two years were
deleted for reasons of noncomparability. For the remaining
observations, a stratified sample of occupations was drawn
in each State. Each State sample included one subsample of
occupations that were common to all of the States. On
average, there were about 120 occupations from each State
in the evaluation.4
In addition to the procedures and calculations described
above, other methods were used for several specific aspects
of the evaluation. These are described below, with the re
spective results.
Accuracy of industry projections
We attempted to explain variation in the magnitude of the
projection error among all the industry observations in the
sample, rather than focusing on the error magnitude itself.
In other words, we wanted to see if there was a pattern to the
projection errors that could be explained by different at
tributes of the industries themselves, by different projection
techniques used, or by the economic conditions or other
characteristics of the States during the projection period.
The results of this approach should serve as a guide to
identifying problem industries or occupations in future pro
jection rounds and directing efforts to reduce projection
errors for these industries and occupations.
The results indicated, first, that the more detailed the
industry category, the larger the error, an intuitively reason
able result. (See table 1.) On average, sampling and report
ing errors in the data and nonsystematic events (such as
large establishment openings or closings, or strikes) will
have larger proportional effects on projection errors at a
more disaggregated industry level because of the smaller
number of establishments. The projection error by employ
ment size of the industry, with industry detail held constant,
showed a similar pattern.
Projection errors varied significantly among major indus
try divisions. Mining and durable goods manufacturing,
which tend to be the most volatile sectors of the economy,
had the largest average errors. Wholesale trade, retail trade,
and services had the lowest errors.
It had been expected that there would be significant dif
ferences in average projection error among the 20 States in
the sample. This proved to be the case, but there were no
obvious attributes of State economic performance, size, or
location that accounted for the differences. No linear rela
tionship was found between average projection error and a
State’s total employment, census region, total employment
30
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
growth rate, percent of employment in manufacturing indus
tries, or annual average unemployment rate during the pro
jection period.
The differences in employment growth rates by industry
explained by far the largest portion of the variation in pro
jection error. Four industry growth rate categories for the
period 1976-82 were formed: (1) -1 5 .0 percent or under;
(2) -1 4 .9 percent to -0 .1 percent; (3) 0.0 percent to 14.9
percent; and (4) 15.0 percent or over. It is clear from table
1 that if industry employment declined by over 15 percent
during the projection period, the error, on average, was
about twice the average projection error for all 3-digit sic
industries. However, if an industry experienced modest
growth (0.0 percent to 14.9 percent) during the projection
period, the projection error was about one-half the average
error for all 3-digit industries. If an industry experienced
either modest decline or high growth in employment, the
projection error tended to be close to the overall average
projection error.
There are several complementary interpretations of this
result. The first is that the simple time-series regression
models or shift-share techniques used extensively by the
State agencies in the 1976-82 projection round implicitly
assume that the historical employment growth trend will
continue into the future. For the majority of industries, the
historical data used tended to be for the 1960-76 period, a
span characterized by modest but steady employment
Table 1. Industry em ploym ent projection error by selected
characteristics, 20-S tate sam ple
[Error in percent]
C h a r a c te r is tic
S a m p le
s iz e
M ean
a b s o lu te
p e rc e n t
e rro r
S ta n d a rd
d e v ia tio n 1
W e ig h te d
m ean
a b s o lu te
p e rc e n t
e rro r
S ta n d a rd
d e v ia tio n 2
20
157
1,120
3,010
6.9
11.8
16.7
22.6
4.3
11.7
14.5
20.7
7.3
10.6
15.2
19.2
4.7
9.6
13.2
17.8
35
139
611
32.0
23.5
30.6
22.0
20.3
23.3
66.8
20.5
27.6
24.1
15.6
20.5
540
123
100
306
532
23.4
23.3
18.7
16.9
18.4
20.1
21.5
21.3
16.6
17.6
20.6
16.3
15.7
14.5
14.9
15.7
15.6
15.7
11.6
14.3
208
416
20.8
19.5
19.2
20.7
16.8
15.3
15.5
15.1
550
45.7
24.7
39.1
19.4
591
641
1,228
20.2
11.2
19.3
12.1
9.7
18.5
18.5
9.3
19.2
10.6
8.0
18.6
In d u s try le v e l
Total, all in du strie s...................
1-digit s i c ...............................
2-digit s i c ...............................
3-digit s i c ...............................
In d u s try s e c to r
Mining ........................................
Construction ............................
Durable goods manufacturing .
Nondurable goods
m anufacturing........................
Transportation ..........................
Communications and utilities .
Wholesale tra d e ........................
Retail trade ...............................
Finance, insurance, and real
e s ta te ......................................
Services ....................................
G ro w th ra te
-1 5 .0 percent or le s s ..............
-1 4 .9 percent to
-0.1 percent ........................
0.0 percent to 14.9 p erce n t. . .
15.0 percent or more ..............
1 The standard deviation around the unweighted group mean.
2 Standard deviation around the weighted group mean.
Table 2. Type of projection error, 3-digit sic industries, 20State sam ple
T y p e o f erro r
T o ta l..................................................
Predicted 1982 employment > 1976
base year employment; actual 1982
employment > 1976 base year em
ployment .............................................
Predicted 1982 employment > 1976
base year employment; actual 1982
employment < 1976 base year em
ployment .............................................
Predicted 1982 employment < 1976
base year employment; actual 1982
employment > 1976 base year em
ployment .............................................
Predicted 1982 employment < 1976
base year employment; actual 1982
employment < 1976 base year em
ployment .............................................
S a m p le
s ize
3,010
P e rc e n t
d is trib u tio n
W e ig h te d m e a n
a b s o lu te p e rc e n t
erro r
100.0
19.2
1,778
59.1
16.3
956
31.8
29.1
91
3.0
21.2
185
6.1
16.0
growth in most industry sectors in most States. The employ
ment effects of the structural changes in the U.S. economy,
concentrated in the manufacturing industries, had already
begun but were not yet large enough to show up in the
time-series data as shifts in long-term trends.
The second interpretation is that there may be a system
atic, optimistic bias in the projections process— specifi
cally, an unwillingness on the part of analysts to project
employment declines. There may indeed be a sincere fear of
creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, because economic
growth is less likely to occur where markets and overall
local economic activity are seen to be stagnant or declining.
The results of our evaluation do not confirm this interpreta
tion but they do clearly show the overwhelming tendency for
the State agencies to have predicted increases rather than
decreases in industry employment for the 1976-82 period.
(See table 2.) Employment had been projected to grow in
90.9 percent of the cases but actually did so in only 62.1
percent. Put another way, if employment in an industry
sector actually declined, the chances that the decline had
been predicted were less than 1 in 6.
A multiple regression model was developed to estimate
the effects of the recessionary period on industry employ
ment projection error. The model was fitted to crosssectional data in which State-level industries were the units
of observation. The sample of industries consisted of all
2-digit sic industries for which monthly c e s employment
data were available in six sample States.5 These States were
selected, in part, for geographical representation, diversity
of State industrial structure, and variation in the statewide
severity of the 1980-82 recessionary period. The dependent
variable was the projection error for the given industry. The
independent variables were the cyclical severity (cSj) experi
enced by the State industry during the 1979-82 period; and
several control variables, including State industry growth
rate category ( g r o c a t i , g r o c a t 2, and g r o c a t 4 as dummy
variables), level of employment of the State industry ( s iz e ) ,
and total State employment ( s t s iz e ) . 6 CS; was measured as
the percentage change in industry employment from peak to
trough in the 1979-82 period after the trend (linear) compo
nent had been removed from the monthly, seasonally ad
justed time series. The peak and trough were dated uniquely
for each State industry.
The results of the estimated model (in reduced form) are
presented below, t-ratios are indicted in parentheses.
P aram eter
estim ates
Variable
cs ............................................................................
GROCATI..........................................................................
G R O C A T2 ..........................................................................
(«,)
-0.39
(-7 .7 )
24.53
(7.7)
6.82
( 2 .6)
G R O C A T4 ..........................................................................
-1 8 .4 6
( - 8 .6 )
s i z e ................................................................................... -18.21
(-4 .7 )
ST S IZ E ..............................................................................
-4 .1 0
(-3 .2 )
2 .....................................................................................
0.74
Sample size (n ) .............................................................
183
F-statistic ............................................................................
83.9
r
Effect o f the 1980-82 recessionary period. A third possi
ble interpretation of the relation between industry employ
ment growth rates and projection errors is that the target year
of the projections, 1982, was the trough of the deepest
national recession since the 1930’s. One might then con
clude that, except for the unfortunate timing of the 1980 and
1981-82 recessions, the overall projection errors (and par
ticularly the errors for those industries most affected by the
recessions) would have been much lower. Moreover, b l s
and the State agencies acknowledge that they do not attempt
to take into account cyclical fluctuations when making long
term (5- to 10-year) employment projections, but only
attempt to project secular trends. For these reasons, we
attempted to separate that portion of the projection errors
that could be attributed to the recession alone from other
sources of error.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The parameter estimates for CS; indicate that, on average, for
every full percentage-point decrease in industry employ
ment due to recessionary conditions alone, the percent pro
jection error increased by 0.39 points.
The parameter estimates then were used to simulate a
counterfactual scenario of “no recession” for the full sample
of industries and for each subsample by employment growth
rate category. These results are shown in table 3. They
indicate that both the absolute and relative effect of the
recession years on the projection error varied considerably,
depending on the growth rate of the industry. The lower the
growth rate, the larger the effect of the recessionary period
on the projection error. The percentage decline in the per
cent projection error with “no recession” gets larger with
31
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
State Employment Projections
increasing growth rates, except for the highest growth rate
category. In the last case, recession conditions actually had
the effect of lowering the projection error— that is, had there
been no recession, the underprediction in high growth rate
industries would have been even larger.
From these results, we infer that while recessionary con
ditions during the latter part of the projection period had a
significant positive effect on the magnitude of the projection
errors, they were not the most important factor. Indeed, the
evidence from tables 1 and 3 lends support to the hypothesis
that forces leading to changes in the long-term employment
growth trends of many State industries in the late 1970’s
were more important in explaining the variation in industry
employment projection errors. These structural, rather than
cyclical, forces included changes in the international divi
sion of labor, the terms of international trade, technological
change, rapid movements of capital among U.S. regions,
and regional demographic shifts. The industries most af
fected by these structural changes in the national and inter
national economies were more likely to be those with high
rates of employment decline or growth. Because the
“turning points” in the long-term employment trends
occurred near the end of the historical time series, no statis
tically based projection models— shift-share, single
regression, or even fully specified econometric models—
would have been able to project accurately 1982
employment in those industries affected by structural
change. The implications of this plausible interpretation of
the results for improving State and area projections are dis
cussed below.
Occupational projections examined
In the o e s program, projections of occupational employ
ment are developed by multiplying projections of industry
employment by staffing pattern estimates entered into an
industry-occupation matrix. This method could lead to two
major types of errors in projecting occupational employ
ment: (1) errors in projecting industry employment totals,
and (2) errors in projecting the distribution of employment
by occupation within an industry— that is, errors in project
ing staffing patterns to the target year.
Table 3. Estim ated effects of the 1980 and 1 9 8 1 -8 2 reces
sions on percent projection error, by 1 9 7 6 -8 2 industry em
ploym ent grow th rate, 6-S tate sam ple
G ro w th ra te c a te g o ry
R e d u c tio n
in P C E R R
CS1
PCERR2
P C E R R *3
(2)-(3)
d)
(2)
(3)
P e rc e n t
r e d u c tio n
in P C E R R
(4)
(5)
All Industries...............................
-1 2 .2
5.2
0.4
4.8
92.3
-1 5 .0 percent or le s s ...................
-1 4 .9 percent to -0 .1 percent ..
0.0 percent to 14.9 p erce n t..........
15.0 percent or more ...................
-25.1
-19.1
-9 .6
-5 .7
38.3
17.3
6.8
-1 2 .9
28.5
9.9
3.1
-15.1
9.8
7.4
3.7
-2 .2
25.6
42.8
54.4
17.1
1 Average percent decline in industry employment (peak to trough) due to recession.
2 The average actual percent projection error (not absolute value).
3 The simulated, “no recession” scenario projection error.
32
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 4. O ccupational em ploym ent projection error, 15State sam ple
[In percent]
S ta te
M ean
a b s o lu te
p e rc e n t
e rro r
S ta n d a rd
d e v ia tio n
W e ig h te d
m ean
a b s o lu te
p e rc e n t
e rro r
S ta n d a rd
d e v ia tio n
..................................................
..................................................
..................................................
..................................................
..................................................
25.3
27.1
23.9
27.6
30.7
23.2
27.9
20.6
23.6
32.0
13.7
14.9
16.1
16.5
16.6
13.6
16.5
14.3
13.6
16.9
F ..................................................
G ..................................................
H ..................................................
I ....................................................
J ..................................................
27.4
23.7
29.6
23.5
33.8
27.4
21.9
26.2
19.4
30.3
17.4
17.5
18.1
18.4
19.6
13.8
15.3
15.2
16.1
17.5
K
L
M
N
O
30.9
28.0
26.3
31.7
34.3
31.0
24.6
21.8
25.5
29.4
19.8
19.8
20.7
20.8
22.8
16.4
16.2
15.9
16.5
21.1
A
B
C
D
E
..................................................
..................................................
..................................................
..................................................
..................................................
No te : See footnotes to table 1 for definitions of the types of errors.
To evaluate the 1976-82 projections, we first examine
the total occupational employment projection error, with
particular emphasis on identifying factors that may be asso
ciated with systematic variation in the projection errors.
Second, the total error is decomposed into (1) errors in
projecting industry employment, and (2) errors in projecting
staffing patterns within industries. Third, the effects of sam
pling error in the o e s survey on occupational employment
projection errors are analyzed. And fourth, the effects of
industry and regional aggregation in the o e s staffing pattern
matrix on projection errors are evaluated.
Total occupational error. Adjusted absolute percentage
errors in occupational employment projections for each of
15 sample States are presented in table 4. (Because data for
Colorado, the District of Columbia, Kentucky, Missouri,
and Oregon were not available, those jurisdictions are
exluded from this portion of the analysis.) The weighted
average projection error across the State sample is 18.6
percent, while the unweighted average error is 28.8 percent.
On an individual State basis, the weighted average errors
range from a low of 13.7 percent to a high of 22.8 percent.
The unweighted averages range from 23.5 percent to 34.3
percent. In general, there is a high degree of correlation
between the two measures. The product moment correlation
coefficient is 0.59, while the rank correlation coefficient is
0.53. Both of these correlation coefficients are significantly
different from zero at the 95-percent confidence level.
As indicated by the relative magnitudes of the percentage
errors and their associated standard deviations, there are no
statistically significant differences between these measures
across the 15 States in our sample. For this reason, no
formal tests of the statistical significance of these differ
ences were made.
The next step in the evaluation was to identify factors that
may be associated with systematic differences in the projec
tion errors. In analyzing the relationships between occupa
tional employment projection error and employment level,
we formed four size categories of occupational employment:
under 1,000, 1,000 to 1,999, 2,000 to 4,999, and 5,000 and
over. As shown in table 5, there is a definite inverse rela
tionship between the magnitude of the projection error and
the size of occupational employment. The weighted projec
tion error ranged from a high of 37.6 percent for occupations
with fewer than 1,000 workers to a low of 16.4 percent for
those with employment greater than 5,000. In fact, the re
sults for our 15 sample States indicate that the projection
error is a monotonically decreasing function of the size of
employment. In addition, the variation in projection error
decreased with size of employment.
In contrast to these findings, we noted a U-shaped rela
tionship between projection error and occupational growth
rate. As indicated in table 5, occupations with an employ
ment decline greater than 15 percent over the 6-year projec
tion period had the highest mean error—43.4 percent. At
the other end of the distribution, occupations with a growth
rate in excess of 15 percent had an average projection error
of 19.7 percent. The lowest error, 9.2 percent, occurred for
those occupations that grew less than 15 percent.
These results indicate that projections for occupations that
exhibited significant turning points or changes in growth
rates are more likely to be in error, a finding that is consis
tent with that reported in the evaluation of the accuracy of
industry employment projections.
As in the analysis of industry employment projection
errors, it is useful to examine an alternative measure of
projection error— the extent to which the predicted direction
of occupational employment change is the same as the actual
direction. Overall, the direction of change was predicted
correctly in only 61.8 percent of the cases. (See table 6.) Of
these, a large majority (94.4 percent) were instances of cor
Table 5. O ccupational em ploym ent projection error by se
lected characteristics, 15-State sam ple
[Error in percent]
C h a r a c te r is tic
S a m p le
s iz e
M ean
a b s o lu te
p e rc e n t
e rro r
S ta n d a rd
d e v ia tio n
W e ig h te d
m ean
a b s o lu te
p e rc e n t
e rro r
S ta n d a rd
d e v ia tio n
490
384
382
534
36.7
32.8
27.0
19.9
31.8
28.4
24.5
17.0
37.6
30.1
25.4
16.4
32.2
24.8
20.9
13.6
416
57.5
29.6
43.4
18.8
313
307
754
21.1
10.1
23.8
9.0
7.0
22.3
19.6
9.2
19.7
7.6
6.1
18.5
O c c u p a tio n s iz e
Fewer than 1,000 workers ..
1,000 to 1,999 w o rk e rs .........
2,000 to 4,999 w o rk e rs..........
5,000 workers or m o re .........
G ro w th ra te
-1 5 .0 percent or le s s ............
-1 4 .9 percent to
-0.1 p e rc e n t..........................
0.0 percent to 14.9 p erce n t..
15.0 percent or more ............
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
rectly predicting increases in occupational employment. Of the
cases in which the direction of change was incorrectly pre
dicted, 97.5 percent were predictions of positive change when
actual employment declined between 1976 and 1982. Ex
pressed in another way, 95.6 percent of the sample occupa
tions were predicted to have an increase in employment over
the 6-year period, while only 59.2 percent actually did so.
Decomposition o f occupational projection error. The dif
ference between actual and projected occupational employ
ment may be decomposed into two components: the portion
due to changes in staffing patterns and the portion due to
errors in projecting industry employment. (See the appendix
for a mathematical proof of this observation.) The second
component can be readily calculated by multiplying the
1982 staffing patterns by errors in projections of industry
employment. This component can then be subtracted from
the total projection error to provide the portion of the total
error due to changes in staffing patterns. These two sources
of error can then be averaged across selected industry or
occupational groups to identify and analyze patterns of
sources of occupational projection error.
As shown in table 7, total projection error for our 1,790
sample occupations was 440,105, or an average of 246 per
occupation. The industry component of this error was
—185,299, while the occupational component was 625,404.
In other words, although total occupational employment
was overprojected, the component due to industry employ
ment projections resulted in an underprojection of actual
1982 totals. The absolute value of the occupational compo
nent was approximately 3.4 times greater than the absolute
value of the industry component, indicating that changes in
staffing patterns over the 6-year period were a greater source
of error in the occupational employment projections than
were errors in projecting industry employment.
However, it should be noted that for the 1982 projection
round, none of the States developed projections of staffing
patterns. Instead, 1976 State-level staffing patterns were
assumed to remain unchanged over the 1976-82 period. The
effects of this assumption are vividly illustrated by this
decomposition analysis. For later projection rounds, States
are constructing projections of their staffing patterns, using
change factors developed and estimated by b l s for project
ing the national staffing pattern matrix.
By definition, the total projection error will be positive if
the direction of error is greater than zero and negative if the
direction of error is less than zero. According to the error
decomposition, situations in which the direction of error is
greater than zero arise more from changes in staffing pat
terns (average staffing pattern error component = 1,137)
than from errors in projecting industry employment (average
industry error component = 272). Occupations with a pro
jection error less than zero (that is, actual 1982 employment
was greater than the predicted value) were characterized by
more equal industry and staffing pattern error components.
33
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
State Employment Projections
In other words, situations in which predicted 1982 employ
ment exceeded actual values were due more to changes in
staffing patterns than to errors in projecting industry
employment.
industry employment totals. Projected 1982 employment
totals for these cells are obtained by multiplying projected
1982 employment for relevant industry sectors by the
(constant) staffing patterns from the 1976 matrix. Because
this operation requires the use of an actual 1976 industryoccupation matrix, the analysis is restricted to: (1) the six
southeastern States for which sufficient information was
available to calculate standard errors; (2) the 59 occupa
tions common to these States; and (3) industry employment
projections for 2-digit sic sectors. We also restricted our
attention to occupations with at least 50 employees in the
relevant matrix cell in 1982.
The results of the analysis are presented in table 8, in
terms of the percentages of 1982 projected values that fall
within 95-percent confidence intervals around actual 1982
values. To assist in interpretation, we classified these per
centages according to the size of 1982 employment in the
cell— 50 to 99, 100 to 499, and 500 workers or more— and
the year and sector in which the o e s survey was con
ducted— 1980, manufacturing; 1981, nonmanufacturing;
and 1982, nonm anufacturing.
As indicated in the table, projected employment in 37.9
percent of the 2,479 industry-occupation cells falls within
the 95-percent confidence intervals around the respective
actual 1982 employment totals, as estimated from 1982 base
year industry-occupation matrices developed from the o e s
surveys. This percentage is higher for the industry cells in
the 1980 manufacturing survey (40.3 percent) than for the
1981 nonmanufacturing round (34.1 percent), and lower
than for the 1982 nonmanufacturing round (40.0 percent).
There is no consistent pattern across the six States when
these percentages are broken out by size of employment in
the industry-occupation cell.
These percentages do exhibit significant variations across
the six States in our sample, however, with the statewide
percentages of employment projections falling within the
o es sampling error.
The o e s staffing pattern matrices
used to develop projections of occupational employment are
based on surveys of a sample of establishments in each of
the relevant industry sectors. The effects of survey sampling
error on projection errors were measured by determining
whether the projected values of occupational employment
fell within statistically acceptable confidence limits around
the actual values. The confidence limits were calculated
from parameters of the o e s sample survey design.
As indicated in the o es Survey Manual ,7 the sample de
sign for the o e s survey calls for a complete census of all
establishments with more than 100 employees in an industry
sector and a sample of the remaining establishments. Given
the sample design implemented in each State, the standard
error of the number of workers in occupation i in industry
sector j , <JEij , can be readily calculated.8 Given this standard
error, the 90- and 95-percent confidence intervals around
the actual 1982 estimate of the number of workers in this
occupation in the industry sector can be calculated as
follows:
95-percent confidence interval: Eÿ ± 1.96
crEij
90-percent confidence interval: Ey ± 1.645 (jEjj
where El} is employment in occupation i in industry j , and
(j Eij is the standard error of the estimate.
To undertake this analysis, the confidence intervals
around the estimates of 1982 employment in individual
industry-occupation cells are first computed, using results in
the industry-occupation matrix benchmarked to 1982 actual
Table 6.
Type of projection error for sam ple occupations by em ploym ent size category, 15-State sam ple
T y p e o f e rro r
T o ta l
B2
A'
O c c u p a tio n
s iz e c a te g o r y
T o ta l.....................
Fewer than 1,000
workers ...................
1,000 to 1,999
workers ...................
2,000 to 4,999
workers ...................
5,000 workers
or more ...................
C3
D4
S a m p le
s iz e
P e rc e n t
of
to ta l
W e ig h te d
m ean
a b s o lu te
p e rc e n t
erro r
S a m p le
s ize
P e rc e n t
of
to ta l
W e ig h te d
m ean
a b s o lu te
p e rc e n t
e rro r
S a m p le
s iz e
P e rc e n t
of
to ta l
W e ig h te d
m ean
a b s o lu te
p e rc e n t
e rro r
S a m p le
s iz e
P e rc e n t
of
to ta l
W e ig h te d
m ean
a b s o lu te
p e rc e n t
e rro r
S a m p le
s ize
P e rc e n t
of
to ta l
W e ig h te d
m ean
a b s o lu te
p e rc e n t
e rro r
1,790
100.0
18.6
1,044
58.3
16.0
667
37.3
27.1
17
0.9
14.5
62
3.5
23.8
490
100.0
37.6
269
54.9
36.9
189
38.6
41.1
7
1.4
35.1
25
5.1
27.5
384
100.0
30.1
206
53.6
26.8
160
41.7
39.3
5
1.3
28.8
13
3.4
22.0
382
100.0
25.4
227
59.4
22.7
141
36.9
33.7
2
.5
19.8
12
3.1
22.0
534
100.0
16.4
342
64.0
13.9
177
33.1
24.8
3
.6
9.9
12
2.2
24.2
1 Predicted 1982 employment > 1976 base year employment; actual 1982 employment > 1976
base year employment.
2 Predicted 1982 employment > 1976 base year employment; actual 1982 employment < 1976
base year employment.
34
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3 Predicted 1982 employment < 1976 base year employment; actual 1982 employment > 1976
base year employment.
4 Predicted 1982 employment < 1976 base year employment; actual 1982 employment < 1976
base year employment.
Table 7. D ecom position of projection error, total and 13
selected S tates
S ta te
Total
In d u s tr y c o m p o n e n t
o f e rro r
S ta ffin g p a tte r n
c o m p o n e n t o f e rro r
T o ta l p ro je c tio n
e rro r
Sum
M ean
Sum
M ean
Sum
M ean
-185,299
-1 0 4
625,404
349
440,105
246
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
115,935
73,762
22,827
35,464
18,273
37,770
58,761
641
591
217
246
228
420
470
50,167
42,569
37,343
45,202
25,652
8,482
4,924
277
335
356
314
321
94
39
166,102
116,331
60,170
80,666
43,925
46,252
63,685
918
916
573
560
549
514
509
H ............
I ..............
J ............
K ............
L ............
M ............
28,955
-153,027
16,405
-392,395
-31 1
-4 1
252
-1 ,0 3 4
256
-2 ,1 92
-3 1
-1
17,647
212,210
4,116
73,010
27,687
4,062
153
1,434
64
408
243
88
46,602
59,183
20,521
-319,375
27,376
4,021
405
400
321
-1 ,7 8 4
240
87
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
95-percent confidence interval ranging from 30.8 percent to
44.9 percent. On an individual State basis, there is no con
sistent pattern in these percentages across either survey
rounds or size of employment in the matrix cells.
In general, these results indicate that it is extremely diffi
cult to project employment for a given occupation in a
particular industry sector with an acceptable degree of statis
tical precision. Factors such as small sample sizes and low
response rates in the 1980-82 o e s surveys result in wider
confidence intervals, with a greater proportion of the pro
jected values falling within these intervals. Conversely, re
calling that the 1982 projected values were developed under
the assumption of constant staffing patterns over the 6-year
period, we would expect that industries undergoing rapid
technological change would have a larger percentage of
predicted values falling outside the confidence intervals
around the 1982 estimates of actual employment. From
available data, it is difficult to separate the effects of these
two factors. The relative percentages for the manufacturing
and nonmanufacturing rounds are, however, in the expected
directions. Most likely, o e s survey sampling frames are
better developed and occupational titles and duties are better
defined and understood in the manufacturing sector. Other
things equal, each of these factors is expected to produce a
higher proportion of projected values within our confidence
limits in the manufacturing sector, which was indeed the
case for the six States in this analysis.
Effects of aggregation
By industry. Table 9 presents a comparison of the
weighted projection errors for the original, completely de
tailed matrix and for the 2-digit sic level of industry aggre
gation. As indicated, all seven southeastern States are
ranked in order of increasing weighted prediction errors
calculated from the full matrix. Across the seven States, the
weighted projection error increased by only 0.4 percentage
points when the 2-digit industry matrix was used in place of
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the full matrix. Differences for individual States are also
relatively small, the largest being 1.3 percentage points.
A number of factors account for these small differences.
First, although the full matrices contain approximately 400
industry sectors per State, employment data are available
only at the 2-digit level of detail for some of the sectors
(such as government, education, and eating and drinking
places). These sectors contain relatively large proportions of
total employment. In fact, for the 59 common occupations
across the seven southeastern States, 1976 employment in
the industry sectors having only 2-digit level of detail
accounted for an average of 26.9 percent of total employ
ment. Therefore, slightly less than three-fourths of employ
ment in these occupations can even by affected by the indus
try aggregations.
The second factor is that employment in the remaining
2- digit sectors may be concentrated in a single 3-digit indus
try. If this is the case, aggregation to the 2-digit level would
not have much impact because the industry employment
projections and associated staffing patterns would be domi
nated by the constituent 3-digit industry. This appears to be
the case for the States in our sample. For all occupations,
13.2 percent of employment in 2-digit sectors with 3-digit
detail is in a single 3-digit industry that accounts for over 75
percent of employment in the 2-digit sector. A total of 27.1
percent of employment is in a 3-digit industry that accounts
for over 50 percent of employment in the higher-level
sector.
Assuming that employment in our sample occupations
follows similar patterns, between 46 percent and 59 percent
of employment in the 59 common occupations could be
affected by changes in the level of industry aggregation.
With such distribution of industry employment across 2- and
3- digit sectors, it is not surprising that the projection errors
from the 2-digit matrices are not significantly larger than
those developed from the full matrices.
By region. A single regional matrix was built from staff
ing pattern data for the individual States and then applied to
projected industry employment data for each of the seven
southeastern States to develop a second set of simulated
occupational projections for 1982. These simulated projec
tions were then compared with projections developed with
individual State matrices and actual 1982 occupation em
ployment totals. Table 9 presents a comparison of the
weighted projection errors for the 59 common occupations
in the southeastern States that were developed from the
regional matrix and from fully detailed matrices for each
State.
As shown in the table, use of the regional matrix at the
2-digit industry level of detail increases the overall weighted
projection error by 0.9 percentage points— from 15.8 per
cent to 16.7 percent. The effects on the weighted error of
using the regional matrix alone are estimated at 0.5 percent
age points because, as pointed out in the previous section,
35
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
State Employment Projections
the 2-digit matrices yielded a weighted error of 16.2 per
cent. There is no obvious pattern of differences in projection
errors by State, occupational employment size, or occupa
tional employment growth rate when we examine the effects
of using the regional matrix in place of the individual State
matrices. In one State, the combined use of industry aggre
gation and the regional matrix increased the weighted aver
age projection error by 3.9 percentage points, of which 2.6
percentage points were due to use of the regional matrix. In
another State, however, use of the regional matrix alone
reduced the weighted average projection error by 2.2 per
centage points. In reviewing these findings, it should be
noted that these results will not necessarily hold for any
arbitrary selection of States to make up a “region.” Both the
industry structure and associated staffing patterns should be
relatively similar among the States in the region to minimize
the possibility of significant differences in individual State
projection errors when a regional matrix is substituted for
the individual State matrix.
Suggested improvements
The results of this evaluation suggest a number of im
provements that can be made to the State-level industry and
occupational employment projection process. These im
provements can be conveniently organized into two major
categories: ( 1 ) methods for o e s systems design and data
collection, and (2) dissemination of projection results.
Methodology. The first recommendation to improve the
methodology for developing industry and occupation pro
jections is to make the entire process more analytical and to
minimize the mechanical aspects that were prevalent when
the 1976-82 State projections were prepared. The greater
uncertainties in the national and international economies and
markets, the increasing openness of State and substate
economies to worldwide developments, a more rapid rate of
technological change, and the increasing diversity of eco
nomic growth and performance among State and substate
areas all require a more analytical approach to developing
projections. This exercise of analytical judgment would in
clude, for example, identifying special local factors or con
ditions that might require adjustment of rates or ratios
derived from national data and choosing the most appropri
ate projection models based upon the validity of their under
lying economic assumptions.
While the projection process should not be mechanical, it
should still be highly systematic, rather than a series of
ad hoc procedures. The process can and should be made
analytical and systematic at the same time by recognizing
that, at each step, there are choices among alternative proce
dures, models, or data. Analytical judgment is exercised in
choosing the most appropriate option, such that the validity
and utility of the projections will be maximized within the
constraints of available resources. The judgment and experi
ence of the State Employment Security Agencies’ analysts
become increasingly important under this approach, and
efforts to train and retain these experienced staff should be
emphasized.
In facing the reality of restraints on government spending,
the State agencies must make difficult choices about how
they best can use the limited resources available for develop
ing projections. For example, this may mean setting priori
ties among industry and occupational groups, because it
would not be efficient to spend an equal amount of time
developing projections for each detailed industry and occu
pation. In addition, choices among alternative techniques
for particular elements in the projection process should take
into account differences in costs. The analyst should con-
Table 8. P rojections of 1982 occupational em ploym ent falling w ithin 95-percent confid ence interval around actual 1982 esti
m ates, by size of occupational group, 6 southeastern S tates
[In percent]
M a n u fa c tu r in g s u r v e y (1 9 8 0 )
S ta te
N o n m a n u fa c tu r in g s u r v e y (1 9 8 1 )
O c c u p a tio n a l e m p lo y m e n t
T o ta l
5 0 -9 9
1 0 0 -4 9 9
500+
Total ..
40.3
(258)
42.2
(384)
27.9
(61)
A .................
31 8
(44)
36.5
(85)
B .................
36 7
(49)
C ....................
O c c u p a tio n a l e m p lo y m e n t
T o ta l
5 0 -9 9
1 0 0 -4 9 9
500+
40.3
(703)
31.6
(247)
34.3
(464)
36.4
(214)
16.7
(18)
32.7
(147)
53.3
(30)
43.4
(99)
43.2
(74)
20.0
(16)
38.4
(138)
25.6
(39)
30 0
(30)
31.4
(35)
0.0
(1)
30.3
(66)
D ................
48.9
(45)
51.2
(86)
38.9
(18)
E ................
53 9
(52)
48.2
(56)
F .................
34.2
(38)
35.4
(48)
T o ta l
T o ta l
5 0 -9 9
1 0 0 -4 9 9
500+
34.1
(925)
36.9
(149)
39.2
(362)
42.4
(340)
40.0
(851)
37.9
(2,479)
48.4
(93)
46.9
(222)
31.0
(29)
53.4
(73)
45.6
(90)
46.4
(192)
43.0
(561)
24.7
(89)
23.3
(43)
24.6
(171)
33.3
(21)
32.8
(64)
37.3
(67)
34.9
(152)
32.1
(461)
20.8
(48)
44.4
(54)
30.0
(10)
33.0
(112)
39.1
(23)
36.0
(50)
35.5
(31)
36.5
(104)
33.7
(282)
49.0
(149)
34.0
(47)
27.6
(76)
36.4
(33)
31.4
(156)
50.0
(20)
30.6
(62)
42.6
(61)
38.5
(143)
39.5
(448)
50.0
(4)
50.9
(112)
38.1
(42)
37.3
(75)
30.0
(20)
36.5
(137)
44.8
(29)
48.3
(60)
51.1
(45)
48.5
(134)
44.9
(383)
40.0
(5)
35.2
(91)
24.4
(41)
29.6
(71)
13.3
(15)
26.0
(127)
25.9
(27)
30.2
(63)
39.1
(46)
32.5
(126)
30.8
(344)
N o te : Number of observations indicated in parentheses.
36
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
N o n m a n u fa c tu r in g s u r v e y (1 9 8 2 )
O c c u p a tio n a l e m p lo y m e n t
Table 9. C om parison of w eighted m ean absolute
projection errors fo r detailed, industry aggregated, and
geograp hically aggregated in dustry-occu pation m atrices, 7
southeastern States
[In percent]
W e ig h te d p r o je c tio n e r r o r
S ta te
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
D e ta ile d
m a trix
In d u s try
a g g r e g a tio n
G e o g ra p h ic
a g g re g a tio n
All States . . . .
15.8
16.2
16.7
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
12.3
15.4
15.4
15.9
17.1
17.6
18.1
12.3
16.7
15.5
17.1
17.1
17.5
18.1
13.8
19.3
16.8
18.2
15.9
15.3
17.0
sider whether the expected gain in accuracy from using a
more sophisticated technique is justified by the increased
cost. The maxim here is to use the simplest, least costly
technique that “works.” At the same time, it is hoped that
continued research on and evaluation of the projections
process, such as the evaluation summarized in this article,
will lead to further innovations that will improve the costeffectiveness of the projections.
The second recommended improvement is to develop bet
ter projections of staffing patterns that in turn will lead to
improved occupational employment projections. As indi
cated above, the absolute value of the occupational compo
nent of projection error was approximately 3.4 times greater
than the industry component. This finding provides a strong
indication that changes in staffing patterns over the 6-year
period were a greater souce of error in the occupational
employment projections than were errors in projecting in
dustry employment.
For the 1976-82 projection round, none of the States
developed projections of staffing patterns. Instead, the 1976
State-level staffing patterns were assumed to remain un
changed over the projections period. The effects of this
assumption are vividly illustrated by the findings of the
decomposition analysis presented above. And, as noted ear
lier, for later projection rounds, many States have developed
or are developing projections of their staffing patterns, using
factors calculated from projections of national staffing pat
terns prepared by b l s . This type of Federal-State coopera
tion should be encouraged and expanded to ensure that all
States have the capability to develop meaningful projections
of staffing patterns.
Dissemination o f projection results. The first recommen
dation for improving the dissemination of projection results
is to develop better documentation of the entire process.
This recommendation has a number of dimensions: descrip
tion of results in a clear, straightforward manner; compre
hensive documentation of all assumptions underlying the
analyses; simple, nontechnical description of methods, ac
companied by appropriate technical appendices; and consis
tent presentation of tabular materials, with appropriate rules
for rounding off, suppression of unreliable data, and so
forth.
The second suggestion with respect to dissemination of
projection results is to include, where suitable, measures of
the statistical reliability of the projected values in documen
tation of the results. This is particularly appropriate in the
case of industry employment projections developed from
regression models, for which it would be relatively simple
to calculate the standard errors of the projected values. Gen
eral indicators of the reliability of projection results (for
example, low, medium, or high) should be devised and
presented in the general documentation of projections re
sults. Additional details, including specific values of the
standard errors and other statistical properties of the regres
sion equations, can be included in more detailed technical
documentation to accompany the main descriptive results.
Finally, the use of o e s projection data can be extended by
developing improved mechanisms for sharing b l s results
among various user constituencies. This information sharing
should include both the preview of preliminary projection
results and dissemination of final written products. The
findings from a users survey component of our study indi
cated that State agencies and planning staffs are increasingly
turning to the o e s employment projections for their individ
ual planning needs. More widespread dissemination of both
b l s and State projection results, including documentation of
their reliability as discussed above, and continuing efforts to
improve the quality of the entire o e s program should lead to
even greater use of projections estimates. In particular, b l s
efforts to develop micro-matrix formats for projection re
sults and to disseminate all o e s products in these formats
should be encouraged.
FOOTNOTES
1 The industry employment projections were evaluated for the following
20 jurisdictions: Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia,
Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Mis
souri, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. Other portions of the analysis are
limited to selected subsets of these jurisdictions because of data availability
or other technical reasons.
2 The adjusted absolute percent error,
follows:
ADJAPEj =
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
adjape ,
for case i is calculated as
|PREDICTED, - ACTUAL,)
X 100
0.5 (PREDICTEDj + ACTUAL^
The weighted adjusted mean absolute percent error,
as follows:
wadjape ,
is calculated
N
^ ADJMAPEj * ACTUALi
i= 1
WADJMAPE = ----------- ^ --------------------------^ ACTUAL,
i= l
37
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
State Employment Projections
N
2 ] A D JA P E j
i= l
ADJMAPE = ---------rr--------
where
N
See J. Scott Armstrong, Long Range Forecasting from Crystal Ball to
Computer (New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1978), for a detailed
discussion of the merits o f these and alternative measures of forecasting or
projection accuracy.
3 These are the levels of industry and occupational detail at which the
State oes staffing pattern matrices yield occupational employment projec
tions for program planning and decisionmaking.
4 Complete details o f the methods used in this evaluation are provided in
Alvin M. Cruze, Harvey A. Goldstein, John E. S. Lawrence, Edward M.
Bergman, and Katherine A. Desmond, Evaluation of Industry and Occupa
tional Employment Projections Made by State Employment Security Agen
cies , RT1/2742/01-24F (Research Triangle Park, nc , Research Triangle
Institute, 1985).
5 The six States were Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Penn
sylvania, and Texas.
6 The full specification of the model was:
PCERRj = ao + a,CS¡ + a2GROCATl¡ + a3GROCAT2¡ + a4GROCAT4,
+ a5SIZE¡ + a6TIMING, + a7EXPORT¡ + a8STSIZE¡
+ a9S T U E R A T E ¡ + a 10S T P C M F G i
where, for industry i:
CS; is the percent change in industry employment from peak to trough in
the 1979-82 period after removing the trend (linear) component. The
peak and trough were uniquely dated for each State industry;
GROCATlj, GROCAT2;, and GROCAT4; are dummy variables for indus
try employment growth rate between 1976 and 1982. GROCAT1 = 1
if the growth rate was < 1 5 .0 percent; GROCAT2 = 1 if the growth
rate was between - 1 4 .9 percent and - 0 .1 percent; and GROCAT4 = 1 if the growth rate was > 1 5 .0 percent;
SIZE; is a dummy variable for size of State industry. An industry in which
employment was less than 500 in the base year (1976) = 1, other
wise = 0;
TIMING; is a dummy variable that refers to whether the detrended peak of
the State industry’s employment was before (= 1 ) or after (= 0 ) the
U .S. peak for total nonagricultural employment in November 1979;
EXPORT; is a dummy variable that refers to whether the State industry is
primarily export-oriented (= 1 ) or serves a State market (= 0 ). These
assignments were based on the magnitude of the location quotient
computed for the State industry;
STSIZE; is a dummy variable for the size of State measured by 1976 total
nonagricultural employment, = 1 , if > 2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 , = 0 otherwise. This
is a proxy for the resources and staff available to the State agency for
developing projections;
STUERATE; is a dummy variable indicating whether the State’s 1982
average annual unemployment rate was above (= 1) or below (= 0 ) the
U.S. average unemployment rate;
STPCMFG; is a dummy variable indicating whether the State’s proportion
of nonagricultural employment in manufacturing was above (= 1) or
below (= 0 ) the U .S. proportion.
7 U .S. Department of Labor,
Statistics, 1975).
oes
Survey Manual (Bureau of Labor
8 The details of this calculation are provided in chapter 5 of the
Predicted 1982; - Actual 1982¡
rcE R R ' * -------------Actual 1982,------------ ‘ X 100
and:
o es
Survey Manual. It should be noted that these results are restricted to
industry sectors surveyed in the regular oes cycle. Sectors such as rail
roads, education, hospitals, private households, and Federal Government
are excluded because their staffing patterns are not obtained from oes
sample surveys.
APPENDIX: Error decomposition technique
The approach to decomposing the projection error can be
presented in terms of the following notation, where:
IA is a 1 x n vector of actual 1982 employment for n
industry sectors;
Ip is a 1 x n vector of projected 1982 employment for
n industry sectors;
0 A is an n x m matrix of actual 1982 staffing patterns
for m occupations in each of the n industry sectors
(that is, the ratios of employment in each of the m
occupations in a given industry sector divided by
total employment in the industry sector); and
Op is an n x m matrix of projected staffing patterns for
m occupations in each of the n industry sectors.
Note that when the IA vector is multiplied by the Oa
matrix, we obtain a ( l x n) x (n x m) = 1 x m vector of
actual employment in each of the m occupations. The fol
lowing derivations are presented in terms of this vector.
However, conclusions will hold for each of the elements
(separate occupations) of the vector.
Digitized for38
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
In this notation, the error in occupation projections due to
errors in projecting industry employment may be repre
sented by:
V Oa~ Ia‘Oa
Similarly, occupational projection errors due to errors in
projecting the staffing pattern matrix may be represented by:
Ia' Op ~ Ia- Oa
Adding these two components and simplifying, we obtain:
{Ip- 0 A - IA- 0 A} + {IA- Op - IA- 0 A} =
(Ip “ Ia )Oa + IA(Op - 0 A)
Thus, the difference between actual and projected occu
pational employment may be decomposed into (1) the por
tion due to changes in staffing patterns, and (2) the portion
due to errors in projecting industry employment.
Research
Summaries
surveys mass layoffs
and plant closings in 19S6
bls
L e w is
B.
S ie g e l
The Department of Labor has transmitted to the Congress
the first annual report on the Bureau of Labor Statistics
permanent mass layoff and plant closing reporting system.1
The report presents the results of the 1986 data collection
and analysis as required by Section 462(e) of the Job Train
ing Partnership Act.
Data collected during 1986 show that, for the 11 States
that submitted data in the program for the full year, a total
of 1,335 layoff events2 occurred in 926 establishments. This
resulted in the separation of 274,343 workers from their
jobs; 85 percent (233,199) of these workers filed claims for
unemployment insurance benefits. In about 10 percent of
the layoffs, the plants closed. The 11 States were Alabama,
Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nevada,
New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, and Wiscon
sin. The relationships depicted by the mass layoff data
should not be considered to be necessarily representative of
the Nation as a whole.
The incidence of mass layoffs in manufacturing industries
far exceeded that in any other major industry grouping. (See
table 1.) About 2 out of 3 manufacturing layoffs occurred in
the durable goods sector, with the largest percentage taking
place in the machinery industry (29 percent), followed by
transportation equipment and electrical equipment (15 per
cent each). Among nondurable goods industries, 2 out of 3
layoffs were in the food and apparel industries. Among
nonmanufacturing industries, establishments in the con
struction and mining industries were most likely to have
layoffs, accounting for 5 out of 10 nonmanufacturing
layoffs.
“Slack work” was cited most often (31 percent of the
time) by employers as the reason for layoff events.
“Seasonal work” accounted for an additional 20 percent of
the layoff situations, followed by “contract completion” and
“energy-related disruptions.” It is interesting to note that
Lewis B. Siegel is an economist in the Division of Local Area Unemploy
ment Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
only about 2 percent of the layoffs were directly attributed
to “import competition.”
The data available from the mass layoff program not only
provide information on the establishments having the layoff
events, but also on the characteristics of two groups of
workers directly affected by the layoffs— the initial
claimants for unemployment insurance benefits and those
who have exhausted their regular unemployment insurance
benefits. Initial claimants are those who file for unemploy
ment insurance benefits as the result of some employment
termination. Benefit exhaustees are persons whose regular
unemployment insurance benefits have expired.
Of the 233,199 initial claimants in the 11 States, about 1
of 7 were black, 1 of 10 were Hispanic, 1 of 4 were women,
and 1 of 10 were over 55 years of age. A total of 49,968
persons exhausted their regular unemployment insurance
benefits after being separated from a qualifying establish
ment. Greater proportions of the exhaustees were black
(about 1 of 5) and Hispanic (1 of 8).
The permanent mass layoff and plant closing program is
a Federal-State cooperative program that uses a standard
ized, automated approach to identifying, describing, and
tracking the effect of major job cutbacks, using data from
Table 1. M ass layoff events, separations, and initial
claim ants for unem ploym ent in surance, by selected
industries, January-D ecem ber 1986
In d u s try
Total, all
industries1 .........
N um ber of
e s ta b lis h m e n ts
L a y o ff
e v e n ts
S e p a ra tio n s
In itia l
c la im a n ts fo r
u n e m p lo y m e n t
in s u r a n c e
926
1,335
274,343
233,199
A gricu ltu re .....................
N onagriculture..............
M anufacturing............
Durable g o o d s . . . .
Nondurable goods .
20
906
485
305
180
32
1,303
682
425
257
4,560
269,783
142,766
94,903
47,863
2,292
230,907
121,762
86,269
35,493
Nonm anufacturing. . .
M in in g .....................
Construction .........
Transportation and
public utilities . . .
Wholesale and
retail tr a d e .........
Wholesale tra d e .
Retail trade . . . .
Finance and
se rvice s ..............
Government .........
421
101
96
621
113
184
127,017
28,852
42,417
109,145
28,148
41,813
40
47
9,302
5,541
69
17
52
120
21
99
21,241
2,550
18,691
14,388
2,198
12,190
90
25
126
31
17,970
7,235
13,766
5,489
1 Data on layoffs were reported by employers in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin.
39
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
Research Summaries
each State’s unemployment insurance database. Establish
ments that have at least 50 initial claims filed against them
during a 3-week period are targeted for contact by the State
agency to determine the permanency of these separations,
the total number of persons separated, and the reasons for
these separations. Establishments are identified by industry
and location and detailed socioeconomic characteristics of
unemployment insurance claimants, such as age, race, sex,
ethnic group, and place of residence, are noted. The pro
gram yields information on the entire period of insured
unemployment of individuals, to the point where their regu
lar unemployment insurance benefits are exhausted.
As indicated previously, 11 States provided data in the
program for all of 1986; by the second half of that year, 26
States were fully participating. (Data are also provided in
the report for those 26 States, aggregated over the last half
of 1986.) Currently, 47 States and the District of Columbia
are participating in the program.
Copies of the report to the Congress are available from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Division of Local Area Unem
ployment Statistics, 441 G Street, n w , Room 2083, Wash
ington, DC 20212.
--------- FOOTNOTES ---------1 For related information, see Sharon P. Brown, “How often do workers
receive advance notice o f layoffs?” Monthly Labor Review, June 1987,
pp. 13-17.
2 The reporting system covers layoff events of 30 days or more in which
at least 50 initial claims for unemployment compensation were filed in a
3-week period by separated workers against their former employer.
Pay-for-knowledge compensation plans:
hypotheses and survey results
N i n a G u p t a , T im o t h y P. S c h w e iz e r ,
and
G . D o u g l a s Je n k i n s , Jr .
In recent years, the U.S. business environment has been
characterized by fierce international competition and rapid
technological change. This has been accompanied by a
surge of workplace innovations such as quality-of-worklife
programs, autonomous work groups, and employee stock
ownership plans, to name a few. One particular innovation
which has received national attention is “pay-forknowledge” compensation plans, also referred to as skillbased pay or knowledge-based pay plans.1 Unlike tradiNina Gupta is assistant professor, College of Business Administration,
University o f Arkansas; Timothy P. Schweizer is assistant professor, De
partment o f Economics, Accounting, and Management, Luther College;
and G. Douglas Jenkins, Jr. is associate professor, College of Business
Administration, University of Arkansas. This report is based on a paper the
authors presented at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Man
agement in Chicago, August 1986.
Digitized for 40
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tional compensation systems which base employees’ wages
on the specific jobs they actually do, pay-for-knowledge
plans base wages on the repertoire of jobs that the employee
is trained to do. Under such plans, a typical employee starts
at a base rate, and as he or she learns different jobs in the
organization, the pay rate increases simultaneously. One
respondent provided a description of the pay-for-knowledge
system in his organization that is fairly typical of the struc
ture of these systems:
Our pay-for-knowledge system has seven levels of pay. level
is the level at which the employee is hired, level two is the
next level that an employee progresses to once he or she has
learned to complete one job in a work team in a satisfactory
manner. The person progresses to level three when that person
has learned to perform a sufficient number of jobs in that work
team to be considered a flexible team member so that the person
can move around and share work with other people, replace
other people when they are absent, and so forth . . . . level
four is when the person has learned to perform all of the jobs
in a team in a satisfactory manner. The person then reaches
level five by transferring to another team and achieving the
requirements of level three on that new team . . . . The person
then progresses to level six when they have learned all the jobs
on the second team. The last level, which is level seven , is a
team coordinator or team leader type level. Typically, only one
employee on the team can be designated as a team coordinator
and the team is usually the one that designates which team
member can function as a team leader.
one
Pay-for-knowledge plans have been hypothesized to offer
many advantages to organizations and employees. For ex
ample, many analysts suggest that organizations experience
greater work force flexibility, leaner staffing, greater work
force stability, higher quality of output, lower absenteeism,
less turnover, and higher productivity.2 Likewise, analysts
also say that employees in pay-for-knowledge systems may
benefit from higher motivation, higher job satisfaction,
higher pay satisfaction, increased feelings of self-worth,
more opportunities for growth and development, increased
job security, improvements in the quality of worklife, and
higher organizational commitment.3
Unfortunately, to date, only limited information about
pay-for-knowledge systems has been available to assess the
validity of these claims. To be sure, much of the information
known about these systems comes from case reports, anec
dotes, and speculation. Systematic, empirical data on these
compensation plans are rare. In an effort to begin remedying
this deficiency, we studied pay-for-knowledge plans in 20
plants.4 A detailed questionnaire on the workings of payfor-knowledge systems was completed by the personnel di
rectors of these plants.
Of the plants surveyed, 19 were manufacturing facilities
and one was in a service industry. Only two plants were
unionized.5 The plants employed an average of 500 people,
of whom about two-thirds were men. About 70 percent of all
employees were covered by the pay-for-knowledge plan,
and most had at least a high school education.
Hypotheses versus survey findings
The data from the 20 plants were used to assess the
accuracy of a variety of speculations and hypotheses regard
ing pay-for-knowledge plans.
It has been argued that pay-for-knowledge plans are used
with production employees only. The data did not support
this claim. Although production employees were covered
most often, clerical and skilled trades employees were also
covered in several instances. Further, three plants had pro
fessional and technical employees in their pay-for-knowledge plan, and two included managerial employees or firstline supervisors, or both.
Lack o f support from first-line supervisors is a common
problem with pay-for-knowledge plans, largely because the
system may threaten traditional roles.6 The data did not
confirm this notion. The following tabulation shows the
attitudes of first-line supervisors toward pay-for-knowledge
plans. Responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree with
statement) to 7 (strongly agree):
Mean
response
Our first-line supervisors are very supportive of
the pay-for-knowledge plan ....................................
5.5
Using pay-for-knowledge has caused many
tensions among our first-line supervisors...............
2.9
Our first-line supervisors don’t like our pay-forknowledge plan .........................................................
2.1
In general, respondents disagreed with the statements that
such plans created tension among first-line supervisors, or
that the supervisors did not like the plan. Alternatively, they
agreed that first-line supervisors supported the plan.
Pay-for-knowledge plans require “start-up” situations
(plans put in effect when the plants first open), so that the
organization does not have to overcome problems o f his
tory, culture, and tradition.1 In our sample, about threequarters of the pay-for-knowledge plans were “start-ups”;
the remainder were changed from a traditional to a pay-forknowledge compensation system.
The “start-up” plants were compared with the change-over
plants along several outcomes— absenteeism and turnover
rates, quality of product, staffing levels, and employee atti
tudes, as well as the overall success of the plan. Interest
ingly, on none of these dimensions did the start-up plants
appear significantly different from the change-over plants.
The specific mechanics of the pay-for-knowledge plan
make a difference in the plan’s overall effectiveness.8 Gen
erally, the typical pay-for-knowledge plan had about 10 skill
units, although the actual numbers ranged from 4 to 100.
The maximum number of skills an employee was allowed to
learn was about 15, and the minimum number required was
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
about three. Employees generally learned about four skills
or jobs. The time required to learn the maximum number of
skill units was approximately 49 months.
Companies normally spend a lot of time working out the
mechanical details of their pay-for-knowledge plans. Pre
sumably, how these details are handled affects the success
of the plan. The data, however, did not confirm this. The
only factor that had a significant correlation with the various
outcome measures was the number of skill units in the plan.
It appeared that plants with a large number of skill units had
less successful plans than did plants with fewer skill units.
It may be that after seven or eight skill units, the pay-forknowledge plan starts becoming unmanageable, or that em
ployees cannot understand the pay system.
In any case, the number of skill units was the sole predic
tor of success among the plan characteristics measured in
this study. From an administrative perspective, this finding
could be viewed as disappointing. Clearly, it would benefit
those involved in administering or designing the plan to
know on what details they should focus. Unfortunately, the
data do not leave the researchers in this position, but rather,
in the position to say that it does not matter how pay-forknowledge plans are operated.
Other success factors
We searched for factors that would discriminate between
the more and less successful pay-for-knowledge plans.
First, we tested length of time that the plan had been in
operation, because it was hypothesized that more mature
plans would have had time for the “kinks” in the system to
show up. The results yielded no significant differences.
Because pay-for-knowledge plans are usually embedded in
a network of innovations, the analysis also involved looking
at the other innovations that accompanied the plan— em
ployee stock ownership plans, team approach to manage
ment, autonomous work groups, employee participation in
major personnel decisions (hiring, performance appraisals,
terminations) and alternative work schedules, to name a
few. None of these innovations appeared to be related to
plan success, however.
Pay-for-knowledge plans are hypothesized to succeed
only with the “right” employees.9 In our data, differences in
the demographic and background characteristics of em
ployees in the different plans provided no help in explaining
the plan’s success. The bottom line is that after exploring a
variety of commonly held and intuitive hypotheses explain
ing the success of pay-for-knowledge plans, almost invari
ably the results did not confirm these hypotheses. The re
ported success of pay-for-knowledge plans simply did not
correlate with any of these predictors.
Interpreting the results
What factors could be responsible for these “no results”?
It may be that the size of our sample was too small. It is,
after all, more difficult to find significant correlations using
41
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
Research Summaries
Table 1. Factors contrib uting to the success of pay-forknow ledge plans
F a c to r
M ean
re s p o n s e 1
Emphasis on employee growth and d e v e lo p m e n t............
5.6
Local managerial commitment to the p la n ..........................
5.6
Employee com m itm ent...........................................................
5.5
The overall management philosophy of the organization .
5.3
Ability to move employees from one job to another as
needed ...................................................................................
5.3
Emphasis on employee training ...........................................
5.2
Employee selection procedures ...........................................
5.2
Employee participation in the administration of the plan . .
5.1
1 The question was: To what extent do the elements listed below account for any successes
you have had using your pay-for-knowledge plan? Response options were: 1— not at all; 3— to
some extent; 5— to a large extent; and 7— to a very great extent.
a sample size of 20 than with a sample size of, say, 200.
While that may be so, the plants in the sample represent the
gamut of pay-for-knowledge plans and environments. One
might also posit that there was not enough variance in the
outcome measures. The data did not support this notion, but
instead, raised questions about whether some of the issues
that people have discussed about pay-for-knowledge plans
are in fact valid. Perhaps the thinking about pay-forknowledge systems needs to be revised.
The results of this study suggest that, in the past, re
searchers and practitioners have misguidedly focused on
“nitty-gritty” issues with respect to the use of pay-forknowledge plans. Much attention has been directed at the
importance of working out the specific details, anticipating
potential problems, and monitoring the system closely.
Such a focus has been predicated on the assumption that it
is the specifics of the pay-for-knowledge plan that account
for success or failure. It may be, however, that these
specifics are merely the background, and that it is a number
of intangibles that the use of pay-for-knowledge conveys
that actually account for its effectiveness.
For instance, using pay-for-knowledge systems may be
significant in that it signals employees that management
cares about employee growth and development. One might
argue that it does not matter whether the maximum pay rate
can be attained in 50 weeks or in 100 weeks. Rather, what
matters is that employees can increase their pay rates, that
they can attain higher pay levels than possible in a tradi
tional compensation system, and that the maximum rate is
within reach.
Likewise, it may not matter that the pay-for-knowledge
plan has “kinks” that show up periodically. Rather, what is
important is how 'these kinks are handled— whether man
agement retains its commitment to the pay-for-knowledge
plan in the face of difficulties, whether employees are in
volved in making modifications, whether employees get
blamed for difficulties, and so forth. In other words, man
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
agement’s way of handling the problems, rather than the
problems themselves, may be critical in this regard.10
Although some of these issues were not addressed di
rectly in the study, respondents were asked about factors
they thought responsible for the relative success of their
pay-for-knowledge plans. (See table 1.) Clearly, the
“intangibles,” the emphasis on employee growth and devel
opment, the commitment of employees and management,
the overall managerial philosophy of the organization, and
so forth, are viewed by the respondents as critical to the
success of pay-for-knowledge plans.
These data suggest further that the emphasis in designing
and implementing pay-for-knowledge plans should shift
from the specifics to the general. That is, the focus should
be on systemic issues with respect to the use of pay-forknowledge. For example, the proposed Chrysler-UAW payfor-knowledge plan undoubtedly involved hours of meticu
lous planning, as the United Auto Workers and management
at Chrysler hammered out specific details of the plan. How
ever, the results of this study suggest that attending to such
specifics may be far less important than heretofore believed,
and that such efforts may be better devoted to broad issues
such as managerial attitudes, philosophies, and commitment.
Future of pay-for-knowledge plans
We asked the respondents several questions about the
future of pay-for-knowledge plans. The respondents showed
moderately positive attitudes toward their pay-forknowledge plans. (See table 2.) Most indicated it would be
T able 2.
O verall attitudes tow ard p ay-fo r-kno w ledge plans
S ta te m e n t
M ean
resp o n se1
I think it would be a big mistake to discontinue our payfor-knowledge p la n ..............................................................
6.1
Pay-for-knowledge has given us greater flexibility to
respond to changes in our product market ...................
5.6
If we were to stop using pay-for-knowledge, I would
seriously consider quitting ...............................................
3.3
If we had things to do all over again, 1would recommend
against using a pay-for-knowledge plan ........................
1.5
1really wish we didn’t use a pay-for-knowledge plan . . . .
1.4
If 1had my way, we would use pay-for-knowledge plans in
all our fa c ilitie s .........................................................
5.1
Overall, our pay-for-knowledge plan has been very
successful ...........................................................
5.4
If other companies knew of our experiences, they would
want to begin using pay-for-knowledge plans
im m e dia te ly..................................................................
4.6
1would try to use pay-for-knowledge in any other
organization where 1 might w o r k ......................................
5.2
All in all, the costs of pay-for-knowledge plans far
outweigh the b e n e fits ..................................................
3.3
Pay for knowledge plans don't come anywhere near their
touted b e n e fits .........................................................
2.6
1 Response options were: 1— strongly disagree; 2— disagree; 3— slightly disagree;
4— neither agree nor disagree; 5— slightly agree; 6— agree; and 7— strongly agree.
Table 3. R elation ship of anticipated benefits w ith actual
benefits and overall success of p ay-fo r-kno w ledge plans
R e la tio n s h ip w ith
a c tu a l b e n e fit1
R e la tio n s h ip w ith
o v e r a ll s u c c e s s
Better labor-management
relationships..........................
.70
.26
More employee
co m m itm e n t..........................
.64
.37
Enhanced employee
m otivation...............................
.78
.35
Labor-cost reductions..............
.60
2.44
Improved employee
sa tisfactio n ............................
.61
.26
Smaller work fo r c e ...................
.60
.04
A n tic ip a te d b e n e fit
---------- FOOTNOTES---------
1 p < .0 1 .
2 p < .05.
a mistake to discontinue the plan, and many believed payfor-knowledge should be used in all their facilities. Opin
ions were mixed about the cost-benefit balance of pay-forknowledge plans, and about the discrepancy between the
anticipated and actual benefits of the plan. The results
shown in table 3 suggest, however, that the mixed feelings
associated with anticipated versus actual benefits are not of
great concern because the reasons for using pay-forknowledge were significantly correlated with the outcomes
they promoted.
In short, the future of pay-for-knowledge plans appears
positive. Most users are reasonably happy with their plan
and, given the right circumstances, would use these plans
again.
More research needed
The results of this study support the notion that pay-forknowledge plans are capable of providing significant bene
fits to the organization. Such benefits include increasing
work force flexibility, promoting employee growth and de
velopment, leaner staffing, and lower absenteeism and
turnover. The data also suggest that much of the established
thinking about pay-for-knowledge may need to be revised.
For instance, based on our survey of the 20 plants, we
conclude that pay-for-knowledge plans can work in both
start-up or change-over situations, with managerial as well
as production employees, in manufacturing and service fa
cilities, and in unionized and nonunionized plants.
Most important, however, the data suggest that for payfor-knowledge plans to succeed, it is important to focus on
attitudes and less tangible issues, rather than on specific
details of the plan. Organizations considering such plans
would be well-advised to look at their managerial philoso
phies, their commitment to pay-for-knowledge, their atti
tudes toward employees, and so forth, in at least as much
depth as they do the kinds of plants and plans that generally
typify pay-for-knowledge.
While exploratory in nature, this study has been useful in
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
gathering and analyzing information relating to the dynam
ics and effectiveness of pay-for-knowledge systems.
Clearly, more research is warranted in this area to develop
a better understanding of these plans.
Q
1 G. D. Jenkins, Jr. and Nina Gupta, “The payoffs of paying for knowl
edge,” National Productivity Review, Spring 1985, pp. 121-30; E. E.
Lawler III and G. E. Ledford, Jr., “Skill-based pay: A concept that’s
catching on,” Personnel, September 1985, pp. 30-37; and H. Tosi and
L. Tosi, “What managers need to know about knowledge-based pay,”
Organizational Dynamics, Winter 1986, pp. 5 2-64.
2 L. M. Apcar, “Work-rule programs spread to union plants,” The Wall
Street Journal, Apr. 16, 1985, p. 6; Jenkins and Gupta, “The Payoffs”;
Nina Gupta, G. D. Jenkins, and W. P. Curington, “Paying for knowledge:
Myths and realities,” National Productivity Review, Spring 1986, pp.
107-23; T. S. Kochan, H. C. Katz, and N. R. Mower, Worker participa
tion in American unions (Kalamazoo, m i , W. E. Upjohn Institute for
Employment Research, 1984), pp. 12-96; Lawler and Ledford, “Skillbased pay”; and R. E. Walton, “The Topeka work system: Optimistic
visions, pessimistic hypotheses, and reality,” in R. E. Walton, ed., The
innovative organization: Productivity programs in action (New York,
Pergamon, 1982), pp. 260-87.
3 Gupta and others, “Paying for knowledge”; Jenkins and Gupta, “The
payoffs”; E. E. Lawler III, “Reward systems,” in J. R. Hackman and J. L.
Suttle, eds., Improving life at work (Santa Monica, Goodyear, 1977), pp.
163-226; E. E. Lawler III, G. D. Jenkins, and G. E. Herline, Initial data
feedback to General Foods Topeka pet food plant : Selected survey items
(Ann Arbor, Mi, Institute for Social Research, 1977); E. J. Poza and M. L.
Markus, “Success story: the team approach to work restructuring,” Organi
zational Dynamics, Winter 1980, pp. 3-25; and R. E. Walton, “Work
Innovations in the United States,” Harvard Business Review, Winter 1979,
pp. 88-98.
4 The study was conducted in 1985 under contract with the U .S. Depart
ment of Labor, Bureau of Labor-Management Relations and Cooperative
Programs.
5 This suggests that pay-for-knowledge plans can be implemented in
both nonunionized and unionized settings. The fact that the sample did not
contain a greater proportion of unionized plants with pay-for-knowledge
plans may be partially attributable to the commonly held myth that such
plans are in inherent conflict with many union preferences (such as rigid
jurisdictional boundaries). For a discussion of labor-related issues in payfor-knowledge systems, see W. P. Curington, N. Gupta, and G. D.
Jenkins, Jr., “Labor issues and skill-based compensation systems,” Labor
Law Journal, August 1986, pp. 581-86.
6 Jenkins and Gupta, “The payoffs”; E. E. Lawler III, “The new plant
revolution,” Organizational Dynamics, Winter 1978, pp. 2-12; Poza and
Markus, “Success story”; R. E. Walton, “The Topeka work system”; and
R. E. Walton and L. A. Schlesinger, “Do supervisors thrive in participative
work systems?” Organizational Dynamics, Winter 1979, pp. 2 4 -3 8 .
7 Apcar, “Work-rule programs”; Jenkins and Gupta “The payoffs”; and
Lawler and Ledford, “Skill-based pay.”
8 Jenkins and Gupta, “The payoffs.”
9 Walton, “The Topeka work system.”
m a
10 E. E. Lawler III, Pay and Organizational Development (Reading,
, Addison-Wesley, 1981).
Hospital occupational pay
in 23 metropolitan areas
Occupational pay levels in hospitals spanned a broad range
in August 1985, according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics
43
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
Research Summaries
wage survey.1 For each of the 23 metropolitan areas
studied,2 earnings information was developed for full- and
part-time workers in 47 .occupations. These occupations ac
counted for one-half of the total non-Federal hospital em
ployment in most of the areas and were selected from two
major employee categories— professional or technical and
nonprofessional.
Full-time general duty nurses typically averaged between
$11 and $13 an hour, with the lowest average recorded in
Buffalo ($10.11) and the highest in San Francisco ($15.52).
General duty nurses typically averaged 30 to 40 percent
more than licensed practical nurses and 60 to 75 percent
more than nursing aides in the same area. However, head
nurses usually averaged 20 to 30 percent more than general
duty nurses in the same area, while the corresponding pay
advantages for supervisors of nurses were usually 30 to 40
percent.
Area pay levels varied widely among the other jobs sur
veyed. Pharmacists, supervisors of physical therapists,
medical record administrators, and supervisors of radiogra
phers generally averaged between $13 and $16 an hour
among the areas studied. Physical therapists, medical and
psychiatric social workers, dietitians, librarians, electri
cians, engineers, and biomedical technicians typically aver
aged between $11 and $14 an hour. Other technicians (phar
macy, medical record, e k g ) , surgical technologists,
licensed practical nurses, and clerical and service workers
Table 1.
(such as laundry and kitchen employees) commonly
recorded area averages below $8.50 an hour. (See table 1.)
The 58,000 nursing aides— largest of the nonprofessional
group— averaged from $5.43 an hour in Dallas-Fort Worth
to $9.76 in San Francisco. Psychiatric aides averaged more
than nursing aides in 10 of the 12 areas where comparisons
were made, but their hourly pay advantages were less than
10 percent.
Even within the same occupation and area, earnings of
full-time workers spanned broad ranges. For example, in
private hospitals, the differences between the highest and
lowest paid employee frequently exceeded $4 an hour. This
reflects differences in pay levels of individual hospitals in
the same area as well as the range-of-rate pay systems em
ployed by most hospitals. Also contributing to differences in
occupational pay among hospitals in the same area were
type of facility; pay differentials for licensed, certified, or
registered employees; size of facility; and whether the work
ers were covered by collective bargaining agreements.
Where comparisons were possible, occupational pay lev
els were usually higher in private hospitals than in State and
local government hospitals. This continued the reversal of
pay relationships between these two types of hospitals, first
noted in the Bureau’s August 1981 survey.3 Examples of
pay comparisons favoring private hospitals ranged from su
pervisors of nurses to ward clerks, with average differences
usually falling below 10 percent. Areas where State and
Pay ranges for selected occupations in hospitals, selected areas, A ugust 1985
A v e r a g e h o u rly e a r n in g s 1
O c c u p a tio n
L o w e s t-p a y in g
a re a
Pay
le v e ls
H ig h e s t-p a y in g
a re a
Pay
le v e ls
M id -r a n g e o f
a re a p a y le v e ls 2
$13.28
11.69
10.11
Oakland
San Francisco
San Francisco
$19.53
18.39
15.52
$14.97—$16.46
13.68-15.15
11.12-12.44
Registered professional nurses:
Supervisors of nursing ...................................................................................
Head n u rs e s ......................................................................................................
General duty n u rs e s ........................................................................................
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
Technicians and technologists:
e k g technicians ...............................................................................................
Laboratory technicians ...................................................................................
Medical technologists ......................................................................................
Radiographers .................................................................................................
Surgical technologists......................................................................................
Houston
Houston
Baltimore
Baltimore
Atlanta
6.48
7.24
10.07
8.41
6.71
San Francisco
San Francisco
Oakland
Oakland
Oakland
10.58
13.75
15.98
13.38
10.74
7.21-8.36
8.38-9.60
10.52-12.26
9.05-10.29
7.63-8.94
Therapists and social workers:
Occupational therapists....................................................................................
Physical therapists ..........................................................................................
Boston
Boston
10.03
10.12
Oakland
Oakland
14.17
14.52
10.61-11.73
11.07-12.69
Other professional and technical:
Dietitians ...........................................................................................................
Licensed practical nurses ..............................................................................
P h a rm a cists......................................................................................................
Pharmacy technicians......................................................................................
Baltimore
Atlanta
Boston
Dallas
10.34
7.20
12.47
6.23
San Francisco
San Francisco
Los Angeles
San Francisco
14.22
10.80
20.68
10.96
10.64-11.81
8.33-9.16
14.07-16.87
6.70-7.99
Nonprofessional health services:
Nursing a id e s ....................................................................................................
Ward clerks ......................................................................................................
Dallas
Dallas
5.43
5.97
San Francisco
San Francisco
9.76
9.78
6.38-7.26
6.49-7.75
Office clerical:
Admitting clerks ...............................................................................................
Switchboard operators ...................................................................................
Atlanta
Houston
6.01
5.81
San Francisco
New York
9.68
9.24
6.63-7.85
6.55-7.48
Other nonprofessional:
C leaners.............................................................................................................
Food service helpers .....................................................................................
Dallas
Atlanta
4.88
4.83
San Francisco
San Francisco
9.35
9.13
5.86-7.13
5.69-6.89
1 See text footnote 1.
2 Of the areas analyzed, one-fourth reported occupational averages above and one-fourth below
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the range of averages shown. Federal hospitals were not surveyed.
local government workers typically averaged more than
their private counterparts included Buffalo, Denver, and
Detroit.
All hospitals studied provided paid holidays. Private hos
pitals generally provided 8 to 12 days annually, compared
with 10 to 13 days in non-Federal government hospitals.
Paid vacations (after qualifying periods of service) also were
provided by all hospitals covered by the survey. Typical
provisions called for at least 2 weeks of vacation pay after
1 year of service, 3 weeks after 5 years, and at least 4 weeks
after 15 years.
Life insurance and health plan coverage for employees,
including hospitalization, surgical, medical, and major
medical benefits, were nearly always provided by the hospi
tals studied. However, employees in private hospitals often
received at least part of the health benefits package through
direct care. For example, at least one-fifth of the employees
in 10 metropolitan areas received full coverage through a
combination of insurance and direct care. State and local
government hospitals rarely dispensed care directly, relying
almost exclusively on insurance coverage.
Retirement pension plans (in addition to Social Security)
applied to virtually all private hospital employees in 14
areas. Coverage in the other locations was nine-tenths or
more in six areas, approximately four-fifths in Miami and
Los Angeles, and three-fifths in Dallas-Fort Worth. Some
form of retirement plan was available to virtually all em
ployees in the State and local government hospitals studied.
Typically, a combination of an employer-sponsored pension
plan and Social Security were provided.4 In Boston, Cleve
land, and Detroit, however, all hospital workers were cov
ered exclusively by pension plans not funded through Social
Security.
The 1,225 hospitals covered by the survey employed 1.3
million workers in August 1985, or nearly two-fifths of the
3.4 million private and State and local government hospital
workers in the Nation. Of the survey’s total, private hospitals
employed just over four-fifths of the workers. In most areas,
nine-tenths or more of all private hospital workers were em
ployed in short-term, general hospitals that did not special
ize in a particular type of care. Most of the remaining private
hospital workers were in psychiatric, children’s, and orthope
dic facilities. Not-for-profit, secular institutions accounted
for nearly two-thirds of the private hospital employment.
State, county, and city government hospitals each ac
counted for about three-tenths of the 219,737 government
hospital workers covered by the survey. Hospital districts
and city-county hospitals employed the remainder. Of the
total, general hospitals employed four-fifths of the workers;
psychiatric hospitals (typically long-term hospitals run by
State governments), one-seventh; and the remainder were
employed in chronic or convalescent and orthopedic hospitals.
Regularly scheduled part-time employees accounted for
one-fourth of the total hospital work force studied. Min
neapolis reported the largest ratio of part-timers (about one
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
half) and New York, the lowest proportion (about oneseventh). The following occupations were staffed with
part-time workers totaling 20 percent or more: nurse anes
thetists and practitioners; general duty and licensed practical
nurses; e k g and medical laboratory technicians; medical
technologists; radiographers; occupational, physical, res
piratory, and speech therapists; medical librarians; pharma
cists and pharmacy technicians; nursing and psychiatric
aides; ward clerks; food service helpers; and several clerical
occupations.
Collective bargaining agreements generally applied to
greater proportions of workers in State and local govern
ment hospitals than in private hospitals. The extent of cov
erage, however, varied among the metropolitan areas and by
occupational group. Survey wide, collective bargaining con
tracts in government facilities covered two-thirds of the
nurses, seven-tenths of the other professional or technical
personnel, three-fourths of the office clerical workers, and
just over four-fifths of the nonprofessionals. The corre
sponding proportions in private hospitals were nearly onefourth of the registered professional nurses; approximately
one-fifth each of the other professional or technical em
ployees and office clerical workers; and nearly two-fifths of
the other nonprofessional employees.
A comprehensive report on the survey findings, Industry
Wage Survey: Hospitals, August 1985 (Bulletin 2273) may
be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, Wash
ington, DC 20402, or from the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Publications Sales Center, P.O. Box 2145, Chicago, il
60690. The bulletin provides additional information on oc
cupational pay (including area earnings distributions and
averages by type and size of facility and labor-management
contract coverage); work schedules and hospital characteris
tics; and on the incidence of selected employee benefits for
full-time workers.
O
---------- FOOTNOTES--------1 The survey excluded all Federal Government facilities and hospitals
with fewer than 100 workers. Earnings data exclude premium pay for
overtime and for work on weekends, holidays, and late shifts, as well as
the value of room, board, or other perquisites provided in addition to cash
wages. Incentive payments, such as those resulting from piecework or
production bonus systems, and cost-of-living pay increases (but not
bonuses) were included as part of the worker’s regular pay. Excluded are
performance bonuses and lump-sum payments of the type negotiated in the
auto and aerospace industries, as well as profit-sharing payments, attend
ance bonuses, Christmas or yearend bonuses, and other nonproduction
bonuses.
2 Refers to Metropolitan Statistical Areas as defined by the U.S. Office
of Management and Budget through June 1983.
3 For an account of the earlier study, see Industry Wage Survey: Hospi
tals, October 1981, Bulletin 2204 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1984).
4 According to a 1983 amendment to the Social Security Act, effective
January 1984, nonprofit hospitals are required to make contributions to
Social Security. However, State or local government hospitals are not
legally required to make Social Security contributions, but may do so
voluntarily. The amendment specifies that any State or local government
hospital that provided Social Security before the amendment became effec
tive cannot terminate such coverage.
45
M ajor Agreements
Expiring Next M onth
This list of selected collective bargaining agreements expiring in November is based on information
collected by the Bureau’s Office of Wages and Industrial Relations. The list includes agreements
covering 1,000 workers or more. Private industry is arranged in order of Standard Industrial
Classification.
Em ployer and location
Labor organization1
N um ber of
workers
Pineapple co m p a n ies (H aw aii) ..................................................................................
N ational Sam ple Card M anufacturers A ss n ., Inc.
(N ew Y ork, N Y )
Martin M arietta C orp ., A erosp ace D iv isio n (Interstate) ...............................
G eneral D y na m ics C orp. (Fort W orth, TX ) .........................................................
U nited A irlin es, flight attendants (Interstate) ...................................................
G eneral T elep hon e C o . o f O hio ( O h i o ) ................................................................
Carolina T elep hon e and Telegraph (North C arolina) ....................................
L ongshorem en and W arehousem en .
Paperworkers ..............................................
5 ,5 0 0
1 ,7 0 0
A uto W orkers ............................................
M achinists ...................................................
A ir Line P i l o t s ............................................
Electrical W orkers ( i b e w ) .........................
C om m unications W o r k e r s .....................
4 ,8 0 0
6 ,4 0 0
1 1 ,0 0 0
1 ,0 0 0
2 ,7 5 0
T eam sters (Ind .) ......................................
Food and C om m ercial W orkers . . . .
Food and C om m ercial W orkers . . . .
Food and C om m ercial W orkers . . . .
O ffice and Professional E m p lo y ees .
1 ,6 5 0
5 ,4 0 0
1 ,8 0 0
1 ,2 0 0
1 ,3 5 0
Industry or activity
Private
F ood products .........................................
Printing and p u b l is h i n g .......................
Fabricated m etal p r o d u c t s ..................
Transportation equipm ent ..................
A ir transportation .................................
C om m unication .......................................
Sanitary services ....................................
Retail trade ..............................................
Industrial R efu se C o llectin g Contractors (N ew Y ork, N Y ) ..........................
K roger Food S tores, grocery departm ent (A tlanta, g a ) ...............................
K roger Food S tores, m eat departm ent (A tlanta, g a ) ....................................
F inance ........................................................
K ings M arkets (northern N e w Jersey) ...................................................................
N ew York Stock E x ch a n g e, N ew York Futures E xchange and
Securities Industry A utom ation Corp. (N ew Y ork, N Y )
S ervices
N e w Y ork C ity laundries (N ew Y o r k ) ...................................................................
C lothing and T extile W orkers
..........
5 ,0 0 0
G eneral governm ent ............................
H ealth services .......................................
Illinois:
Law e n f o r c e m e n t ....................................
O hio:
Service E m p lo y ees .................................
N urses A sso cia tio n (Ind .) .....................
Service E m p lo y ees .................................
P olice ( I n d . ) .................................................
2 ,2 0 0
1 ,0 0 0
1 ,4 0 0
1 ,150
......................................................
Public
1 Affiliated with
A F L -C IO
C ook C ounty general e m p lo y e es ......................................................
C ook C ounty registered n u r s e s ...........................................................
C ook C ounty h ospital serv ice e m p lo y e es ....................................
C olum bus p o lic e ........................................................................................
except where noted as independent (Ind.).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Developments in
Industrial Relations
Postal Service contract
Negotiators for the U.S. Postal Service and three major
unions agreed on new contracts, thereby averting use of fact
finding and binding arbitration procedures. These procedures
are triggered if the parties are unable to settle before the ex
isting contract expires, and have been used three times—in
1971, 1978, and 1984.
Despite the peaceful resolution with the Postal Service,
there were interunion differences, as the American Postal
Workers and the Letter Carriers criticized the leadoff accord
negotiated by the Mail Handlers unit of the Laborers union.
That 3-year agreement, reached in mid-July, called for a
$350 specified increase in annual pay on July 21, 1987,
followed by a $400 increase on July 21, 1988, and a $500
increase on July 21, 1989. The 51,000 workers represented
by the Mail Handlers also may receive possible semiannual
pay adjustments under the cost-of-living formula, which
was continued at the rate of 1 cent an hour for each 0.4-point
movement in the b l s c p i - w (1967=100).
Leaders of the Postal Workers and the Letter Carriers
denounced the Mail Handlers’ contract, calling it “obscene”
and the “most shameful contract in the 17 years of collective
bargaining in the Postal Service.” These unions were partic
ularly critical of the 1.6-percent annual specified wage in
creases, in light of the 6.8-percent a year increases they
were demanding.
Following the leadoff settlement, another dispute arose
when the Postal Workers, backed by the Letter Carriers,
accused the Mail Handlers and the Postal Service of plan
ning to reclassify 10,000 Postal Workers’ jobs so that they
would fall within the jurisdiction of the Mail Handlers. This
dispute was resolved when the Postal Service and the Postal
Workers signed a memorandum assuring that the jobs would
not be reclassified. In return, the Postal Workers and the
Letter Carriers (who bargained as a unit) reduced their de
mand for specified wage increases to 4.5 percent a year.
Following this, the two unions returned to the bargaining
table and settled with the Postal Service in late July, a few
hours after the expiration of the prior contracts. The new
40-month contracts, a change from the parties’ usual 3-year
contracts, provided for specified wage increases totaling
about 7 percent, plus possible cost-of-living adjustments
“Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by George Ruben of the
Division o f Developments in Labor-Management Relations, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, and is largely based on information from secondary
sources.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
totaling 11 to 12 percent, based on the unions’ projection of
movement of the c pi over the term. The specified wage
increases, which totaled $1,700 to $1,866, consisted of a
2-percent immediate increase, $250 increases in July 1988
and January 1989, $300 increases in July 1989 and January
1990, and a $200 increase in July 1990, 4 months before the
contract expiration date. Prior to the settlement, wages for
the 350,000 Postal Workers and the 235,000 Letter Carriers
ranged from $20,094 to $27,089 a year.
Other wage terms included continuation of the same costof-living pay adjustment formula as for the Mail Handlers,
except an adjustment will be made in July 1990 because of
the longer contract duration.
There were no changes in medical and life insurance
plans, but there was a 10-percent increase in the uniform
allowance over the term.
The economic terms negotiated by the Letter Carriers and
the Postal Workers also applied to the Mail Handlers, whose
contract included provisions for automatically raising their
gains to any higher levels subsequently negotiated by the
other unions.
These settlements concluded bargaining in the Postal
Service except for one major unit, the Rural Letter Carriers,
which represents 76,000 workers. Their contract expires in
January 1988, w ith negotiations scheduled to begin 3
months earlier.
UPS lengthens pay progression schedule
More than 110,000 workers throughout the Nation were
covered by a 3-year agreement between United Parcel Serv
ice, Inc., and the Teamsters union. Wages were increased
by 30 cents an hour on August 1 of 1987, 1988, and 1989.
There also was a provision for lump-sum payments of
$1,000 for full-time employees and $500 for part-time em
ployees (who make up about half of the work force) on
September 1 of the same years. Under the prior 3-year
contract, employees received wage increases totaling $1.68
an hour, in addition to a lump-sum payment of $1,000.
In a change in the pay progression schedule, new workers
will start at 70 percent of the top rate for their job, move to
75 percent after 1 month, 80 percent after 12 months, 90
percent after 18 months, and 100 percent after 24 months.
Previously, employees started at 70 percent of full pay and
reached full pay after 6 to 12 months.
Reflecting the growth in United Parcel Service next-day
air express operations, the parties agreed to a new air ex
press driver classification which pays $12.50 an hour for
47
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
Developments in Industrial Relations
full-time employees and $10 for part-timers. Employees at
the air hubs will be paid $8 an hour, and the company gained
flexibility in setting work schedules.
The union was strengthened by a company agreement to
add some 2,000 operating clerks to the bargaining unit. The
clerks, previously not represented by a union, will earn $8
to $10 an hour.
Other terms included:
• Retention of the automatic cost-of-living pay adjustment
provision. As under the prior contract, the clause be
comes operative only after the allowance calculated under
the formula exceeds the total cost of the specified wage
increases, lump-sum payments, and improvements in
benefits.
• Increases totaling 60 cents an hour in the company’s fi
nancing of health and welfare and pension benefits.
• A clause specifying that the company will not “overly
supervise or unfairly coerce employees in the perform
ance of their duties.” The clause was adopted in response
to some employees’ contention that supervisors exerted
undue pressure to increase productivity.
• A requirement that company supervisors and union stew
ards wear identifying badges or name tags.
• Greater emphasis on team approaches to increasing pro
ductivity.
Guarantees and safeguards benefiting employees included:
• A company commitment to make capital investments nec
essary to maintain full operating capacity.
• Formation of a joint committee and adoption of additional
restrictions on outsourcing to assure that as much work as
possible will be performed in-house.
• Assurances that cuts in the work force will be achieved
only through attrition, retirement, or special “opt-out”
provisions.
• No layoffs as a result of negotiated productivity
improvements.
• Protections against cuts in earning potentials under incen
tive plans.
The agreement, which runs to September 1990, did not
provide for increases in pay rates, but the employees re
ceived an immediate $500 lump-sum payment, to be fol
lowed by $500 payments in July of 1988 and 1989. Other
terms included a variety of improvements in the pension
plan and establishment of a legal services plan.
The contract covers 3,000 workers. The ratification vote
was 1,333 to 1,326.
Ford subsidiary improves competitive position
Doubts about the future of Ford Motor Co.’s Rouge Steel
subsidiary were eased when the Auto Workers agreed to
some contract provisions designed to reduce operating
costs. During the negotiations, which continued without a
work stoppage after the previous contract expired, Ford had
pressed for a $3 cut in the average $27 an hour employee
compensation. In return, the company had promised to con
tinue operating the Dearborn, mi, facility for at least the
contract term. Although the company did not get the com
pensation cut, economies attained in other parts of the con
tract led the company’s negotiator to conclude that the
agreement “will go a long way toward improving our com
petitive position within the industry.”
In addition to this improved outlook, the new contract
specifies that any prospectve purchaser of the steelmaking
operations must assume the full labor contract as a condition
of sale. In the event of a sale, Rouge Steel employees could
also “bump” into the auto manufacturing parts of the com
plex if they have enough seniority. Cost-reducing provisions
of the settlement provide for:
• Consolidation of some job classifications and formation
of new production teams.
• Replacement of absent workers only if necessary to main
tain output.
• Adoption of a staggered downtime method for performing
maintenance work.
• Employee responsibility for cleaning his or her immediate
work area.
48FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Soft drink bottlers, Teamsters settle
In Los Angeles and Orange counties, c a , three soft drink
bottlers and six Teamsters locals negotiated a 3-year con
tract that reduced the companies’ funding of health and
welfare benefits to $200 a month, from $408.27, for each of
the 1,600 employees. The $200 rate was possible because of
the high level of fund reserves. The companies’ funding will
increase to $300 on April 1, 1988, and will increase to the
level necessary to cover benefit costs on April 1, 1989. An
official of the Food Employers Council, the employers’
bargaining association, said that the final level is expected
to be about $395 a month.
The contract provides for an immediate lump-sum pay
ment of $1,000 to employees with at least 1 year of service
and prorated amounts to those with less service. All
employees will receive a 35-cent-an-hour wage increase in
the second contract year and a 30-cent increase in the final
year.
The contract also permits the companies to assign up to 30
percent of their employees to a Tuesday through Saturday
workweek at straight-time pay rates. In another cost-savings
change, new employees will be paid 80 percent of the top
rate for their job during the first 6 months, 90 percent during
the next 6 months, and the top rate thereafter. Previously,
new workers received 90 percent of the top rate during the
first 90 days and the top rate thereafter.
The companies involved in the settlement are Coca-Cola,
Pepsi-Cola, and Royal Crown.
Minnesota nurses get pay increases
More than 6,000 nurses were covered by a 2-year agree
ment between the Minnesota Nurses Association and Health
Employees, Inc., comprising 15 health care facilities in the
Minneapolis-St. Paul area. The peaceful settlement, which
contrasted with the 2-month strike that preceded the 1984
settlement, provided for 3-percent salary increases in both
years. After the second increase, monthly salary rates for
nurses with an associate degree or diploma will range from
$1,967 for starting nurses to $2,669 for nurses with 12
years’ experience. For nurses with 4-year college degrees,
the range will be $2,015 to $2,735.
Other terms included:
• A 15-cent-an-hour increase in the night shift differential,
beginning in the second year.
• An additional
days of paid vacation after each 6
months for nurses who work permanent night shifts.
• New joint committees in each hospital to advise manage
ment on staff size and utilization.
• A provision prohibiting management from disciplining
nurses who refuse to work overtime. (Nurses were not
required to work overtime under the 1984 agreement but
the union contended that some departments had been
scheduling procedures in a way that pressured nurses to
work overtime to avoid “abandoning” their patients.)
• New provisions prohibiting the hospitals from using oncall employees as substitutes for on-duty nurses, and
from requiring nurses to be on-call on their regularly
scheduled days off.
• A change in the patemity/matemity leave provision guar
anteeing nurses their former position if they return within
4 months.
• A new requirement that the hospitals give the union
6 months’ notice of decisions to merge, consolidate,
close beds, or reorganize. Within 6 months of receiving
the notice, the union has the right to reopen negotiations
or seek mediation of the issue.
• A $10 increase in the pension rate, bringing it to $24 a
month for each year of credited service.
New owners give returning strikers three options
A 4-year work stoppage against Magic Chef, Inc., in
Cleveland, t n , ended when the Molders and Allied Workers
reached agreement with Maytag Corp., which had pur
chased the kitchen range plant in 1986. Reportedly, the
issue that triggered the strike was Magic Chef’s demand that
a dues checkoff provision be dropped from the initial con
tract when it expired in 1983. Immediately after the strike
began, Magic Chef hired replacement workers and contin
ued production.
The breakthrough in the dispute came when Maytag
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
agreed to a proposal from the a f l c i o ’ s Industrial Union
Department that it participate directly in the negotiations. In
its proposal, the Industrial Union Department noted the har
monious bargaining relationships Maytag has with seven
other unions.
Under the new contract, which runs to August 8, 1988,
the 600 original strikers have three options:
• Return to their original (or equivalent) jobs and receive an
immediate $2,000 lump-sum payment, followed by a
$6,500 payment when they actually begin work.
• Retire immediately if their age plus years of service (in
cluding credit for the stoppage period) total 70 or more.
Until they attain eligibility for Social Security at age 62,
they will receive a $500 a month supplement to their
regular pension.
• Do not return to work or draw a pension, in exchange for
an $11,000 “buyout payment.”
All of the replacement workers hired during the stop
page were expected to retain their jobs because Magic Chef
was shifting work to the plant from one it was closing in
California.
Other settlement terms included retention of the dues
checkoff provision and a requirement that the union pay
$1 million to Magic Chef to drop a lawsuit over a boy
cott campaign against company products, and other strike
issues.
Union certification ends 25-year dispute
In Tennessee, there was a settlement of a long labormanagement dispute, as 2,000 employees of Areata Graph
ics voted by more than 2 to 1 to be represented by the
Aluminum, Brick and Glass Workers. The dispute and re
sulting strike by 1,000 workers began more than 25 years
ago, in 1963, when the company was known as Kingsport
Press. The unions— the Bookbinders, Printing Pressmen,
Machinists, Stereotypers, and Typographers— contended
that Kingsport Press forced the strike by using unfair bar
gaining practices. Kingsport Press responded to the stop
page by hiring replacement workers, leading the a f l -c io to
launch a national boycott campaign against the books the
company produced.
Decertification of the unions in a 1967 National Labor
Relations Board election, in which only replacement work
ers were permitted to vote, was followed by several unsuc
cessful organizing drives by unions.
According to Aluminum, Brick and Glass Workers Pres
ident Ernest J. LaBaff, the union’s success in the 1987
election resulted from employee concern over job security.
He said that earlier in the year, Areata Graphics had termi
nated 283 employees and replaced them with lower paid
temporary employees.
Q
49
Book Reviews
Resetting the framework
Unheard Voices: Labor and Economic Policy in a Compet
itive World. By Ray Marshall. New York, Basic
Books, 1987. 304 pp. $19.95.
During the early 1980’s, there were many books critical
of Reaganomics and of classical liberalism and calling for a
new national industrial policy. In the mid-1980’s, these
have been partially supplanted by books urging labormanagement teamwork in response to America’s foreign
competition. Within the past year, reports have come from
the National Academy of Science, the Office of Technology
Assessment, and the U.S. Department of Labor, each rec
ommending new cooperation between labor and manage
ment to best exploit new technologies and increase Amer
ica’s productivity and economic strength.
Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor during the Carter ad
ministration, makes an especially important contribution by
stressing the need for “A consensus-based policy with
worker participation (which) could improve economic poli
cymaking at the national or industry level just as worker
participation improves management” (p. 215). While much
of the literature emphasizes worker participation practices in
other industrial democracies, Marshall presents the achieve
ments in Austria, Germany, and Japan in terms of labor
participation in economic decisionmaking.
He argues persuasively that the internationalizing of the
economy and developments in new technology have altered
the economic climate and demand a new industrial relations.
What makes Marshall’s call different from many others is
his strong argument that it is in this country’s best interest
to substantially increase worker participation in basic eco
nomic policymaking. This, he proclaims, is a lesson the
United States must learn from our industrial competitors.
Workers must “have organized representation in arenas
where national policies are formulated” (p. 5).
This book will be of considerable interest to all concerned
with economic policymaking and the range of issues con
fronting the United States in terms of trade, labor relations,
and national economic development. Some may feel that
Marshall is insufficiently appreciative of post-1981 develop
ments because he gives many illustrations of tripartite
Digitized for50
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
groups under the last administration and suggests precious
little since. In fact, new initiatives in the U.S. Department
of Labor have encouraged'cooperative efforts not only in
shop floor participation but also in economic development
and worker retraining strategies. Some State programs have
gone a good distance toward implementing some of Mar
shall’s proposals, and it is disappointing that he gives these
only a fleeting reference (p. 289).
His review of Japan is useful, avoiding either euphoria or
Japan-bashing, and he challenges adaptations appropriate to
the United States. He advocates more authentic power be
given to labor for planning and coordination to work and,
thus, reinforces those who see more logic in the Swedish vs.
the Japanese system of labor relations. Marshall states, “Our
current economic policies not only create instability and
make us less competitive; they also shift most of the benefits
of limited growth to nonworkers and most of the cost to
workers” (p. 283). In his view, “U.S. policies should pro
tect the national interest by giving more weight to a human
resources development strategy” (p. 305). This last argu
ment is one which we read in Marshall’s books years ago
and his analysis today is even more cogent than in earlier
times. New technology, globalization of the economy, and
other substantial changes make it ever more imperative that
a national system of worker retraining and job skills upgrad
ing be accomplished. In this area, America has much to
learn and Marshall’s analysis makes the point and helps
direct the way.
My expectation is that this book will serve as a major
stimulus for dialogue among policymakers, researchers, and
practitioners in the next year or two. It is an important
statement. We need to understand some of the causes of
economic trauma and the alternative solutions. Marshall’s
argument that economic policymaking is too important to be
left to economists and managers alone will be well received
in many circles, and his call for labor representation, con
sensus decisionmaking, and more active and cooperative
policies will challenge many.
-------- S t e v e n D e u t s c h
Director, Center for the Study of Work, Economy and
Community and Professor of Sociology
University of Oregon
Publications received
Agriculture and natural resources
de Janry, Alain and Elisabeth Sadoulet, “Agricultural Price Policy
in General Equilibrium Models: Results and Comparisons,”
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, May 1987, pp.
230-46.
Runge, Carlisle Ford and Harold von Witzke, “Institutional
Change in the Common Agricultural Policy of the European
Community,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
May 1987, pp. 213-22.
Economic and social statistics
Exter, Thomas G. and Frederick Barber, “What Men and Women
Think,” American Demographics, August 1987, beginning
on p. 34.
Isard, Peter, “Lessons from Empirical Models of Exchange
Rates,” International Monetary Fund Staff Papers, March
1987, pp. 1-28.
Townsend, Bickley and Martha Farnsworth Riche, “Two Paychecks and Seven Lifestyles,” American Demographics, Au
gust 1987, pp. 24-29.
Economic growth and development
Buchanan, James M., “The Constitution of Economic Policy,” The
American Economic Review, June 1987, pp. 243-50.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Economic Development in
the 1980’s: Preparing for the Future. Washington, U.S. De
partment of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agri
culture and Rural Economy Division, 1 9 8 7 , 4 0 3 pp. (ERS
Staff Report, A G E S 8 7 0 7 2 4 .)
Health and safety
Committee for Economic Development, Reforming Health Care:
A Market Prescription. New York, Committee for Economic
Development, Research and Policy Committee, 1987, 100
pp.
Kahn, Shulamit, “Occupational Safety and Worker Preferences: Is
There a Marginal Worker?” The Review of Economics and
Statistics, May 1987, pp. 262-68.
Manning, Willard G. and others, “Health Insurance and the De
mand for Medical Care: Evidence from a Randomized Exper
iment,” The American Economic Review, June 1987, pp.
251-77.
Industrial relations
Balfour, Alan, Union-Management Relations in a Changing Econ
omy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1987, 482
pp.
Barth, Peter S., The Tragedy of Black Lung: Federal Compensa
tion for Occupational Disease. Kalamazoo, M l, W. E. Up
john Institute for Employment Research, 1987, 292 pp.
$16.95, cloth; $11.95, paper.
Fiorito, Jack and Wallace E. Hendricks, “Union Characteristics
and Bargaining Outcomes,” Industrial and Labor Relations
Review, July 1987, pp. 569-84.
Flaherty, Sean, “Strike Activity and Productivity Change: The
U.S. Auto Industry,” Industrial Relations, Spring 1987, pp.
174-85.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Krislov, Joseph and John Mead, “Changes in IR Programs Since
the Mid-Sixties,” Industrial Relations, Spring 1987, pp.
208-12.
Ozaki, M ., “Labour Relations in the Public Service,” International
Labour Review, May-June 1987, pp. 277-99.
Spilsbury, M. and others, “A Note on the Trade Union Member
ship Patterns of Young Adults,” British Journal of Industrial
Relations, July 1987, pp. 267-74.
The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Construction Craft Jurisdic
tion Agreements, 1987 Edition. Washington, 1987, 208 pp.
$33. Add State sales tax and $2.50 shipping charges. Avail
able from b n a Books Distribution Center, Edison, n j 08818.
—Pregnancy and Employment: The Complete Handbook on Dis
crimination, Maternity Leave, and Health and Safety. Wash
ington, 1987, 210 pp. $65, paper. Distributed by
tomer Service Center, Rockville, m d 20850.
bna
Cus
—Primer on ERISA (the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974). 2d ed. By Barbara J. Coleman. Washington, 1987,
164 pp. $23, paper. Add State sales tax and $2.50 shipping
charges. Available from BNA Books Distribution Center,
Edison, NJ 08818.
in the Workplace: New Issues, New Answers. 2d ed. Wash
ington, 1987, 231 pp., bibliography. $75, paper. Available
from b n a ’ s Customer Service Center, Rockville, m d 20850.
— VDTS
The Immigration Reform Law o f1986: Analysis, Text, and Legisla
tive History. By Nancy Humel Montwieler. Washington,
1987, 557 pp. $48. Add State sales tax and $2.50 shipping
charges. Available from b n a Books Distribution Center,
Edison, NJ 08818.
Townley, Barbara, “Union Recognition: A Comparative Analysis
of the Pros and Cons of a Legal Procedure,” British Journal
of Industrial Relations, July 1987, pp. 177-99.
Verma, Anil and Robert B. McKersie, “Employee Involvement:
The Implications of Noninvolvement by Unions,” Industrial
and Labor Relations Review, July 1987, pp. 556-68.
International economics
Bond, Marian E., “An Econometric Study of Primary Commodity
Exports from Developing Country Regions to the World,”
International Monetary Fund Staff Papers, June 1987, pp.
191-227.
Bovenberg, A. Lans, “Indirect Taxation in Developing Countries:
A General Equilibrium Approach,” International Monetary
Fund Staff Papers, June 1987, pp. 333-73.
Clark, Don P., “Regulation of International Trade in the United
States: The Tokyo Round,” The Journal of Business, April
1987, pp. 297-306.
Cohen, Stephen S. and John Zysman, Manufacturing Matters: The
Myth of the Post-Industrial Economy. New York, Basic
Books, Inc., Publishers, 1987, 297 pp. $19.95.
Collyns, Charles and Steven Dunaway, “The Cost of Trade Re
straints: The Case of Japanese Automobile Exports to the
United States,” International Monetary Fund Staff Papers,
March 1987, pp. 150-75.
Labor and economic history
Beffel, John Nicholas, ed., Bread Upon the Waters: Rose Pesotta.
Ithaca, NY, il r Press, 1987, 472 pp. $32, cloth; $10.95,
paper.
51
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
Book Review
“Wage Effects of Unions in the Late Nineteenth Century: The
Impact of Late Nineteenth Century Unions on Labor Earnings
and Hours— Iowa in 1894,” by Barry Eichengreen; “The
Earnings Effects of Labor Organizations in 1890,” by Patricia
Dillion and Ira Gang, Industrial and Labor Relations Review,
July 1987, pp. 501-27.
Labor force
Abraham, Katharine G. and Henry S. Farber, “Job Duration, Se
niority, and Earnings,” The American Economic Review,
June 1987, pp. 278-97.
Campling, Robert F., Employee Benefits and the Part-time
Worker. Kingston, Ontario, Canada, Queen’s University, In
dustrial Relations Center, 1987, 100 pp., bibliography.
(School of Industrial Relations Research Essay Series, 13.)
Great Britain, Department of Employment, “Helping People with
Disabilities into Employment,” by Jerry Leese, Employment
Gazette, July 1987, pp. 320-24.
Holzer, Harry J., “Job Search by Employed and Unemployed
Youth,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, July 1987,
pp. 601-11.
The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Older Americans in the
Workforce: Challenges and Solutions. Washington, 1987,
237 pp. $75, paper. Available from b n a Customer Service
Center, Rockville, MD 20850.
Prices and living conditions
Gordon, Robert J., The Postwar Evolution of Computer Prices.
Cambridge, m a , National Bureau of Economic Research,
Inc., 1987, 55 pp. (Working Paper Series, 2227.) $2, paper.
Great Britain, Department of Employment, “Retail Prices Index:
Historical Series, 1974 to 1986,” Employment Gazette, July
1987, pp. 330-33.
Productivity and technological change
Allen, Steven G., Productivity Levels and Productivity Change
Under Unionism. Cambridge m a , National Bureau of Eco
nomic Research, Inc., 1987, 29 pp., bibliography. (Working
Paper 2304.) $2, paper.
52
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Bergson, Abram, “Comparative Productivity: The USSR, Eastern
Europe, and the West,” The American Economic Review,
June 1987, pp. 342-57.
Wages and compensation
Blyton, Paul, “The Working Time Debate in Western Europe,”
Industrial Relations, Spring 1987, pp. 201-07.
Drewes, Torben, “Regional Wage Spillover in Canada,” The Re
view of Economics and Statistics, May 1987, pp. 224-31.
Farber, Stephen C. and Robert J. Newman, “Accounting for
South/Non-South Real Wage Differentials and for Changes in
Those Differentials Over Time,” The Review of Economics
and Statistics, May 1987, pp. 215-23.
Great Britain, Department of Employment, “Earnings and Hours
of Agricultural Workers in 1986,” Employment Gazette, July
1987, pp. 347-53.
Viscusi, W. Kip and Michael J. Moore, “Workers’ Compensation:
Wage Effects, Benefit Inadequacies, and the Value of Health
Losses,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, May 1987,
pp. 249-61.
Welfare programs and social insurance
Euzeby, Chantal, “A Minimum Guaranteed Income: Experiments
and Proposals,” International Labour Review, May-June
1987, pp. 253-76.
Hiraishi, Nagahisa, Social Security. Tokyo, The Japan Institute of
Labor, 1987, 34 pp. (Japanese Industrial Relations Series, 5.)
O ’Neill, June A., Laurie J. Bassi, Douglas A. Wolf, “The Dura
tion of Welfare Spells,” The Review of Economics and Statis
tics, May 1987, pp. 241-48.
Worker training and development
Phillips, Jack J., Recruiting, Training, and Retaining New Em
ployees. San Francisco, c a , Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers,
1987, 324 pp. $27.95.
Stace, Sheila, “Vocational Rehabilitation for Women with Disabil
ities,” International Labour Review, May-June 1987, pp.
301-16.
Steedman, Hilary, “Vocational Training in France and Britain:
Office Work,” National Institute Economic Review, May
1987, pp. 58-70.
Current
Labor Statistics
Schedule of release dates for major
statistical series
......................................................................................................
54
................................................................................................................................................................
55
1. Labor market indicators..................................................................................................................................................................................................
2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in compensation, prices, andproductivity ..........................................................................................
3. Alternative measures of wage and compensation changes ...................................................................................................................................
64
65
65
Notes on Current Labor Statistics
bls
Comparative indicators
Labor force data
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Employment status o f the total population, data seasonally ad ju sted .................................................................................................................
Employment status of the civilian population, data seasonally adjusted ..........................................................................................................
Selected employment indicators, data seasonally adjusted ...................................................................................................................................
Selected unemployment indicators, data seasonally adjusted ...............................................................................................................................
Unemployment rates by sex and age, data seasonally adjusted ..........................................................................................................................
Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, data seasonally a d ju sted ...................................................................................................
Duration of unemployment, data seasonally adjusted ............................................................................................................................................
Unemployment rates of civilian workers, by State ................................................................................................
Employment of workers by State ...............................................................................................................................................................................
Employment of workers by industry, data seasonally adjusted...........................................................................................................................
Average weekly hours by industry, data seasonally adjusted ..............................................................................................................................
Average hourly earnings by industry .........................................................................................................................................................................
Average weekly earnings by industry.........................................................................................................................................................................
Hourly Earnings Index by industry..............................................................................................................................................................................
Indexes of diffusion: proportion of industries in which employment increased, seasonally adjusted ......................................................
Annual data: Employment status of the noninstitutional population
.............................................................................................................
Annual data: Employment levels by industry ..........................................................................................................................................................
Annual data: Average hours and earnings levels by industry..............................................................................................................................
66
67
68
69
70
70
70
71
71
72
73
74
75
75
76
76
76
77
Labor compensation and collective bargaining data
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Employment Cost Index, compensation, by occupation and industry group ..................................................................................................
Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry g r o u p .........................................................................................
Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and area s i z e ..............................................................
Specified compensation and wage adjustments from contract settlements, and effective wage adjustments,
situations covering 1,000 workers or more ..............................................................................................................................................................
Average specified compensation and wage adjustments, bargainingsituations covering 1,000 workers or m o r e ......................................
Average effective wage adjustments, bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or more ......................................................................
Specified compensation and wage adjustments, State and local government bargaining
situations covering 1,000 workers or more .............................................................................................................................................................
Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more .................................................................................................................................................
78
79
80
81
81
82
82
82
Price data
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average, by expenditure category and commodity and service g ro u p s................................................
Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and local data, all ite m s ....................................................................................................................
Annual data: Consumer Price Index, all items and major groups .....................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes by stage of processing .......................................................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product ...................................................................................................................................................
Annual data: Producer Price Indexes by stage of p ro cessin g ...............................................................................................................................
U.S. export^price indexes by Standard International Trade C lassification.........................................................................................................
U.S. import price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification.........................................................................................................
U.S. export price indexes by end-use category .......................................................................................................................................................
U.S. import price indexes by end-use ca teg o ry .......................................................................................................................................................
U.S. export price indexes by Standard Industrial C lassification...........................................................................................................................
U.S. import price indexes by Standard Industrial Classification .........................................................................................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
83
86
87
88
89
89
90
91
92
92
92
93
53
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
Current Labor Statistics
Contents—Continued
Productivity data
42. Indexes o f productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs, data seasonally adjusted .............................................................................
43. Annual indexes of multifactor productivity ..............................................................................................................................................................
44. Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and p r ic e s.................................................................................................
93
94
95
International comparisons
45. Unemployment rates in nine countries, data seasonally adjusted ........................................................................................................................
46. Annual data: Employment status o f civilian working-age population, ten countries ....................................................................................
47. Annual indexes of productivity and related measures, twelve countries ..........................................................................................................
95
96
97
Injury and illness data
48. Annual data: Occupational injury and illness incidence ra te s..............................................................................................................................
S ch edule of release dates for
S e rie s
b ls
98
statistical series
R e le a s e
d a te
P e rio d
c o v e re d
R e le a s e
d a te
P e rio d
c o v e re d
R e le a s e
d a te
P e rio d
c o v e re d
MLR ta b le
num ber
Employment situation .................................
October 2
September
November 6
October
December 4
November
1 ; 4—21
Producer Price In d e x....................................
October 16
September
November 13
October
December 11
November
2; 33-3 5
Consumer Price In d e x .................................
October 23
September
November 20
October
December 18
November
2; 30-3 2
Real earnings ...............................................
October 23
September
November 20
October
December 18
November
14-17
Major collective bargaining
settlements ...............................................
October 26
1st 9 months
Employment Cost Index ............................
October 27
3rd quarter
1 -3 :2 2 -2 4
U.S. Import and Export
Price Indexes.............................................
October 29
3rd quarter
36-41
Productivity and costs:
Nonfarm business and manufacturing ..
3; 25-2 8
November 2
3rd quarter
Nonfinancial corporations.......................
Occupational Illnesses and
injuries ......................................................
54
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2; 42-4 4
December 3
November 12
1986
3rd quarter
2; 42-4 4
48
NOTES ON CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
This section of the Review presents the principal statistical series collected
and calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics: series on labor force,
employment, unemployment, collective bargaining settlements, consumer,
producer, and international prices, productivity, international comparisons,
and injury and illness statistics. In the notes that follow, the data in each
group o f tables are briefly described, key definitions are given, notes on the
data are set forth, and sources of additional information are cited.
Adjustments for price changes. Some data— such as the Hourly
Earnings Index in table 17— are adjusted to eliminate the effect of changes
in price. These adjustments are made by dividing current dollar values by
the Consumer Price Index or the appropriate component of the index, then
multiplying by 100. For example, given a current hourly wage rate o f $3
and a current price index number of 150, where 1977 = 100, the hourly rate
expressed in 1977 dollars is $2 ($3/150 x 100 = $2). The $2 (or any other
resulting values) are described as “real,” “constant,” or “1977” dollars.
General notes
Additional information
The following notes apply to several tables in this section:
Seasonal adjustment.
Certain monthly and quarterly data are adjusted
to eliminate the effect on the data of such factors as climatic conditions,
industry production schedules, opening and closing of schools, holiday
buying periods, and vacation practices, which might prevent short-term
evaluation o f the statistical series. Tables containing data that have been
adjusted are identified as “seasonally adjusted.” (All other data are not
seasonally adjusted.) Seasonal effects are estimated on the basis of past
experience. When new seasonal factors are computed each year, revisions
may affect seasonally adjusted data for several preceding years. (Season
ally adjusted data appear in tables 1 -3 , 4 -1 0 , 13, 14, 17, and 18.) Begin
ning in January 1980, the bls introduced two major modifications in the
seasonal adjustment methodology for labor force data. First, the data are
seasonally adjusted with a procedure called x - n arima , which was devel
oped at Statistics Canada as an extension of the standard X -n method
previously used by bls . A detailed description of the procedure appears in
The x -ii a r im a Seasonal Adjustment Method by Estela Bee Dagum (Statis
tics Canada, Catalogue No. 12-564E, February 1980). The second change
is that seasonal factors are calculated for use during the first 6 months of
the year, rather than for the entire year, and then are calculated at midyear
for the July-December period. However, revisions of historical data con
tinue to be made only at the end of each calendar year.
Seasonally adjusted labor force data in tables 1 and 4 -1 0 were revised
in the February 1987 issue of the Review, to reflect experience through
1986.
Annual revisions of the seasonally adjusted payroll data shown in tables
13, 14, and 18 were made in the July 1986 Review using the X-ll arima
seasonal adjustment methodology. New seasonal factors for productivity
data in table 42 are usually introduced in the September issue. Seasonally
adjusted indexes and percent changes from month to month and from
quarter to quarter are published for numerous Consumer and Producer Price
Index series. However, seasonally adjusted indexes are not published for
the U .S. average All Items cpi . Only seasonally adjusted percent changes
are available for this series.
Data that supplement the tables in this section are published by the
Bureau in a variety of sources. News releases provide the latest statistical
information published by the Bureau; the major recurring releases are
published according to the schedule preceding these general notes. More
information about labor force, employment, and unemployment data and
the household and establishment surveys underlying the data are available
in Employment and Earnings, a monthly publication of the Bureau. More
data from the household survey are published in the two-volume data
book— Labor Force Statistics Derived From the Current Population Sur
vey, Bulletin 2096. More data from the establishment survey appear in two
data books— Employment, Hours, and Earnings, United States, and Em
ployment, Hours, and Earnings, States and Areas, and the annual supple
ments to these data books. More detailed information on employee com
pensation and collective bargaining settlements is published in the monthly
periodical, Current Wage Developments. More detailed data on consumer
and producer prices are published in the monthly periodicals, The c p i
Detailed Report, and Producer Prices and Price Indexes. Detailed data on
all of the series in this section are provided in the Handbook of Labor
Statistics, which is published biennally by the Bureau, bls bulletins are
issued covering productivity, injury and illness, and other data in this
section. Finally, the Monthly Labor Review carries analytical articles on
annual and longer term developments in labor force, employment, and
unemployment; employee compensation and collective bargaining; prices;
productivity; international comparisons; and injury and illness data.
Symbols
p = preliminary. To increase the timeliness of some series, prelim
inary figures are issued based on representative but incom
plete returns.
r = revised. Generally, this revision reflects the availability of later
data but may also reflect other adjustments,
n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified,
n.e.s. = not elsewhere specified.
COMPARATIVE INDICATORS
(Tables 1-3)
Comparative indicators tables provide an overview and comparison of
major bls statistical series. Consequently, although many of the included
series are available monthly, all measures in these comparative tables are
presented quarterly and annually.
Labor market indicators include employment measures from two ma
jor surveys and information on rates of change in compensation provided
by the Employment Cost Index ( eci) program. The labor force participation
rate, the employment-to-population ratio, and unemployment rates for
major demographic groups based on the Current Population (“household ”)
Survey are presented, while measures of employment and average weekly
hours by major industry sector are given using nonagricultural payroll data.
The Employment Cost Index (compensation), by major sector and by
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
bargaining status, is chosen from a variety of bls compensation and wage
measures because it provides a comprehensive measure of em ployer costs
for hiring labor, not just outlays for wages, and it is not affected by
em ploym ent shifts among occupations and industries.
Data on changes in compensation, prices, and productivity are pre
sented in table 2. Measures of rates of change of compensation and wages
from the Employment Cost Index program are provided for all civilian
nonfarm workers (excluding Federal and household workers) and for all
private nonfarm workers. Measures of changes in: consumer prices for all
urban consumers; producer prices by stage of processing; and the overall
export and import price indexes are given. Measures of productivity (output
per hour of all persons) are provided for major sectors.
55
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
Current Labor Statistics
Alternative measures of wage and compensation rates of change,
which reflect the overall trend in labor costs, are summarized in table 3.
Differences in concepts and scope, related to the specific purposes of the
series, contribute to the variation in changes among the individual mea
sures.
Notes on the data
Definitions o f each series and notes on the data are contained in later
sections of these notes describing each set of data. For detailed descriptions
of each data series, see b l s Handbook of Methods, Volumes I and II,
Bulletins 2134-1 and 2 1 34-2 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982 and 1984,
respectively), as well as the additional bulletins, articles, and other publi
cations noted in the separate sections of the Review's “Current Labor
Statistics Notes.” Historical data for many series are provided in the Hand
book of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985).
Users may also wish to consult Major Programs, Bureau of Labor Statis
tics, Report 718 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985).
EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT DATA
(Tables 1; 4-21)
Household survey data
the various data series appear in the Explanatory Notes of Employment and
Earnings.
Description of the series
in this section are obtained from the Current Population
Survey, a program o f personal interviews conducted monthly by the Bureau
o f the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The sample consists of
about 59,500 households selected to represent the U .S. population 16 years
o f age and older. Households are interviewed on a rotating basis, so that
three-fourths o f the sample is the same for any 2 consecutive months.
Data in tables 4 -1 0 are seasonally adjusted, based on the seasonal
experience through December 1986.
employment data
Definitions
Employed persons include (1) all civilians who worked for pay any time
during the week which includes the 12th day of the month or who worked
unpaid for 15 hours or more in a family-operated enterprise and (2) those
who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs because of illness,
vacation, industrial dispute, or similar reasons. Members of the Armed
Forces stationed in the United States are also included in the employed
total. A person working at more than one job is counted only in the job at
which he or she worked the greatest number of hours.
Unemployed persons are those who did not work during the survey
week, but were available for work except for temporary illness and had
looked for jobs within the preceding 4 weeks. Persons who did not look for
work because they were on layoff or waiting to start new jobs within the
next 30 days are also counted among the unemployed. The overall unem
ployment rate represents the number unemployed as a percent of the labor
force, including the resident Armed Forces. The civilian unemployment
rate represents the number unemployed as a percent of the civilian labor
force.
The labor force consists of all employed or unemployed civilians plus
members o f the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. Persons not
in the labor force are those not classified as employed or unemployed; this
group includes persons who are retired, those engaged in their own house
work, those not working while attending school, those unable to work
because o f long-term illness, those discouraged from seeking work because
of personal or job-market factors, and those who are voluntarily idle. The
noninstitutional population comprises all persons 16 years of age and
older who are not inmates of penal or mental institutions, sanitariums, or
homes for the aged, infirm, or needy, and members of the Armed Forces
stationed in the United States. The labor force participation rate is the
proportion o f the noninstitutional population that is in the labor force. The
employment-population ratio is total employment (including the resident
Armed Forces) as a percent of the noninstitutional population.
Notes on the data
From time to time, and especially after a decennial census, adjustments
are made in the Current Population Survey figures to correct for estimating
errors during the preceding years. These adjustments affect the comparabil
ity of historical data. A description of these adjustments and their effect on
56
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Additional sources of information
For detailed explanations of the data, see b l s Handbook of Methods ,
Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 1, and for
additional data, Handbook of Labor Statistics , Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 1985). A detailed description of the Current Population
Survey as well as additional data are available in the monthly Bureau of
Labor Statistics periodical, Employment and Earnings. Historical data
from 1948 to 1981 are available in Labor Force Statistics Derived from the
Current Population Survey: A Databook, Vols. I and II, Bulletin 2096
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982).
A comprehensive discussion of the differences between household and
establishment data on employment appears in Gloria P. Green, “Comparing
employment estimates from household and payroll surveys,” Monthly
Labor Review, December 1969, pp. 9 -2 0 .
Establishment survey data
Description of the series
E mployment , hours, and earnings data in this section are compiled from
payroll records reported monthly on a voluntary basis to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics and its cooperating State agencies by more than 290,000
establishments representing all industries except agriculture. In most indus
tries, the sampling probabilities are based on the size of the establishment;
most large establishments are therefore in the sample. (An establishment is
not necessarily a firm; it may be a branch plant, for example, or ware
house.) Self-employed persons and others not on a regular civilian payroll
are outside the scope of the survey because they are excluded from estab
lishment records. This largely accounts for the difference in employment
figures between the household and establishment surveys.
Definitions
An establishment is an economic unit which produces goods or services
(such as a factory or store) at a single location and is engaged in one type
of economic activity.
Employed persons are all persons who received pay (including holiday
and sick pay) for any part of the payroll period including the 12th o f the
month. Persons holding more than one job (about 5 percent of all persons
in the labor force) are counted in each establishment which reports them.
Production workers in manufacturing include working supervisors and
all nonsupervisory workers closely associated with production operations.
Those workers mentioned in tables 12-17 include production workers in
manufacturing and mining; construction workers in construction; and non
supervisory workers in the following industries: transportation and public
utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and
services. These groups account for about four-fifths of the total employ
ment on private nonagricutural payrolls.
Earnings are the payments production or nonsupervisory workers re
ceive during the survey period, including premium pay for overtime or
late-shift work but excluding irregular bonuses and other special payments.
Real earnings are earnings adjusted to reflect the effects of changes in
consumer prices. The deflator for this series is derived from the Consumer
Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPi-w). The
Hourly Earnings Index is calculated from average hourly earnings data
adjusted to exclude the effects of two types of changes that are unrelated
to underlying wage-rate developments: fluctuations in overtime premiums
in manufacturing (the only sector for which overtime data are available)
and the effects o f changes and seasonal factors in the proportion of workers
in high-wage and low-wage industries.
Hours represent the average weekly hours of production or nonsupervi
sory workers for which pay was received and are different from standard
or scheduled hours. Overtime hours represent the portion of average
weekly hours which was in excess of regular hours and for which overtime
premiums were paid.
The Diffusion Index, introduced in the May 1983 Review, represents
the percent o f 185 nonagricultural industries in which employment was
rising over the indicated period. One-half of the industries with unchanged
employment are counted as rising. In line with Bureau practice, data for
the 1-, 3-, and 6-month spans are seasonally adjusted, while those for the
12-month span are unadjusted. The diffusion index is useful for measur
ing the dispersion of economic gains or losses and is also an economic
indicator.
Notes on the data
Establishment data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are peri
odically adjusted to com prehensive counts o f em ploym ent (called
“benchmarks”). The latest complete adjustment was made with the release
of May 1987 data, published in the July 1987 issue of the Review. Conse
quently, data published in the Review prior to that issue are not necessarily
comparable to current data. Unadjusted data have been revised back to
April 1985; seasonally adjusted data have been revised back to January
1982. These revisions were published in the Supplement to Employment
and Earnings (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1987). Unadjusted data from
April 1986 forward, and seasonally adjusted data from January 1983 for
ward are subject to revision in future benchmarks.
In the establishment survey, estimates for the 2 most recent months are
based on incomplete returns and are published as preliminary in the tables
(13 to 18 in the Review). When all returns have been received, the esti
mates are revised and published as final in the third month o f their appear
ance. Thus, August data are published as preliminary in October and
November and as final in December. For the same reason, quarterly estab
lishment data (table 1) are preliminary for the first 2 months of publication
and final in the third month. Thus, second-quarter data are published as
preliminary in August and September and as final in October.
Additional sources of information
Detailed national data from the establishment survey are published
monthly in the bls periodical, Employment and Earnings. Earlier compara
ble unadjusted and seasonally adjusted data are published in Employment,
Hours, and Earnings, United States, 1909-84, Bulletin 1312-12 (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 1985) and its annual supplement. For a detailed discus
sion of the methodology of the survey, see b l s Handbook of Methods,
Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 2. For addi
tional data, see Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 1985).
A comprehensive discussion of the differences between household and
establishment data on employment appears in Gloria P. Green, “Comparing
employment estimates from household and payroll surveys,” Monthly
Labor Review, December 1969, pp. 9 -2 0 .
Unemployment data by State
Description of the series
Data presented in this section are obtained from two major sources— the
Current Population Survey (cps ) and the Local Area Unemployment Statis
tics (laus) program, which is conducted in cooperation with State employ
ment security agencies.
Monthly estimates of the labor force, employment, and unemployment
for States and sub-State areas are a key indicator of local economic condi
tions and form the basis for determining the eligibility o f an area for
benefits under Federal economic assistance programs such as the Job Train
ing Partnership Act and the Public Works and Economic Development Act.
Insofar as possible, the concepts and definitions underlying these data are
those used in the national estimates obtained from the cps .
Notes on the data
Data refer to State of residence. Monthly data for 11 States— California,
Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas— are obtained directly from the
cps , because the size of the sample is large enough to meet bls standards
of reliability. Data for the remaining 39 States and the District o f Columbia
are derived using standardized procedures established by bls . Once a year,
estimates for the 11 States are revised to new population controls. For the
remaining States and the District of Columbia, data are benchmarked to
annual average CPS levels.
Additional sources of information
Information on the concepts, definitions, and technical procedures used
to develop labor force data for States and sub-State areas as well as addi
tional data on sub-States are provided in the monthly Bureau o f Labor
Statistics periodical, Employment and Earnings, and the annual report,
Geographic Profile of Employment and Unemployment (Bureau of Labor
Statistics). See also b l s Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 4.
COMPENSATION AND WAGE DATA
(Tables 1-3; 22-29)
C ompensation and wage data are gathered by the Bureau from business
establishments, State and local governments, labor unions, collective bar
gaining agreements on file with the Bureau, and secondary sources.
Employment Cost Index
Description of the series
The Employment Cost Index (eci) is a quarterly measure of the rate of
change in compensation per hour worked and includes wages, salaries, and
employer costs of employee benefits. It uses a fixed market basket of
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
labor— similar in concept to the Consumer Price Index’s fixed market
basket of goods and services— to measure change over time in employer
costs of employing labor. The index is not seasonally adjusted.
Statistical series on total compensation costs and on wages and salaries
are available for private nonfarm workers excluding proprietors, the selfemployed, and household workers. Both series are also available for State
and local government workers and for the civilian nonfarm economy,
which consists of private industry and State and local government workers
combined. Federal workers are excluded.
The Employment Cost Index probability sample consists of about 2,200
private nonfarm establishments providing about 12,000 occupational ob
servations and 700 State and local government establishments providing
57
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
Current Labor Statistics
3,500 occupational observations selected to represent total employment in
each sector. On average, each reporting unit provides wage and compensa
tion information on five well-specified occupations. Data are collected each
quarter for the pay period including the 12th day of March, June, Septem
ber, and December.
Beginning with June 1986 data, fixed employment weights from the
1980 Census o f Population are used each quarter to calculate the indexes
for civilian, private, and State and local governments. (Prior to June 1986,
the employment weights are from the 1970 Census of Population.) These
fixed weights, also used to derive all of the industry and occupation series
indexes, ensure that changes in these indexes reflect only changes in com
pensation, not employment shifts among industries or occupations with
different levels of wages and compensation. For the bargaining status,
region, and metropolitan/nonmetropolitan area series, however, employ
ment data by industry and occupation are not available from the census.
Instead, the 1980 employment weights are reallocated within these series
each quarter based on the current sample. Therefore, these indexes are not
strictly comparable to those for the aggregate, industry, and occupation
series.
Definitions
Total compensation costs include wages, salaries, and the employer’s
costs for employee benefits.
Wages and salaries consist of earnings before payroll deductions, in
cluding production bonuses, incentive earnings, commissions, and cost-ofliving adjustments.
Benefits include the cost to employers for paid leave, supplemental pay
(including nonproduction bonuses), insurance, retirement and savings
plans, and legally required benefits (such as Social Security, workers’
compensation, and unemployment insurance).
Excluded from wages and salaries and employee benefits are such items
as payment-in-kind, free room and board, and tips.
Notes on the data
The Employment Cost Index data series began in the fourth quarter of
1975, with the quarterly percent change in wages and salaries in the private
nonfarm sector. Data on employer costs for employee benefits were in
cluded in 1980 to produce, when combined with the wages and salaries
series, a measure of the percent change in employer costs for employee
total compensation. State and local government units were added to the eci
coverage in 1981, providing a measure of total compensation change in the
civilian nonfarm economy (excluding Federal employees). Historical in
dexes (June 1981 —100) of the quarterly rates of change are presented in the
May issue o f the bls monthly periodical, Current Wage Developments.
Additional sources of information
For a more detailed discussion o f the Employment Cost Index, see the
Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982),
chapter 11, and the fo llo w in g M onthly L abor R eview articles:
“Employment Cost Index: a measure of change in the ‘price of labor’,” July
1975; “How benefits will be incorporated into the Employment Cost In
dex,” January 1978; “Estimation procedures for the Employment Cost
Index,” May 1982; and “Introducing new weights for the Employment Cost
Index,” June 1985.
Data on the eci are also available in bls quarterly press releases issued
in the month following the reference months of March, June, September,
and December; and from the Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217
(Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1985).
Collective bargaining settlements
(wage and benefit costs) and wages alone, quarterly for private industry and
semiannually for State and local government. Compensation measures
cover all collective bargaining situations involving 5,000 workers or more
and wage measures cover all situations involving 1,000 workers or more.
These data, covering private nonagricultural industries and State and local
governments, are calculated using information obtained from bargaining
agreements on file with the Bureau, parties to the agreements, and second
ary sources, such as newspaper accounts. The data are not seasonally
adjusted.
Settlement data are measured in terms of future specified adjustments:
those that will occur within 12 months after contract ratification— firstyear— and all adjustments that will occur over the life of the contract
expressed as an average annual rate. Adjustments are worker weighted.
Both first-year and over-the-life measures exclude wage changes that may
occur under cost-of-living clauses that are triggered by future movements
in the Consumer Price Index.
Effective wage adjustments measure all adjustments occurring in the
reference period, regardless of the settlement date. Included are changes
from settlements reached during the period, changes deferred from con
tracts negotiated in earlier periods, and changes under cost-of-living adjust
ment clauses. Each wage change is worker weighted. The changes are
prorated over all workers under agreements during the reference period
yielding the average adjustment.
Definitions
Wage rate changes are calculated by dividing newly negotiated wages
by the average hourly earnings, excluding overtime, at the time the agree
ment is reached. Compensation changes are calculated by dividing the
change in the value of the newly negotiated wage and benefit package by
existing average hourly compensation, which includes the cost of previ
ously negotiated benefits, legally required social insurance programs, and
average hourly earnings.
Compensation changes are calculated by placing a value on the benefit
portion of the settlements at the time they are reached. The cost estimates
are based on the assumption that conditions existing at the time of settle
ment (for example, methods of financing pensions or composition of labor
force) will remain constant. The data, therefore, are measures of negotiated
changes and not of total changes in employer cost.
Contract duration runs from the effective date of the agreement to the
expiration date or first wage reopening date, if applicable. Average annual
percent changes over the contract term take account of the compounding of
successive changes.
Notes on the data
Care should be exercised in comparing the size and nature of the settle
ments in State and local government with those in the private sector because
of differences in bargaining practices and settlement characteristics. A
principal difference is the incidence of cost-of-living adjustment (cola )
clauses which cover only about 2 percent of workers under a few local
government settlements, but cover 50 percent of workers under private
sector settlements. Agreements without cola ’s tend to provide larger speci
fied wage increases than those with cola ’s . Another difference is that State
and local government bargaining frequently excludes pension benefits
which are often prescribed by law. In the private sector, in contrast,
pensions are typically a bargaining issue.
Additional sources of information
Description of the series
For a more detailed discussion on the series, see the b l s Handbook of
Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 10.
Collective bargaining settlements data provide statistical measures of
negotiated adjustments (increases, decreases, and freezes) in compensation
Comprehensive data are published in press releases issued quarterly (in
January, April, July, and October) for private industry, and semi-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
annually (in February and August) for State and local government. Histor
ical data and additional detailed tabulations for the prior calendar year
appear in the April issue of the bls monthly periodical, Current Wage
monthly periodical, Current Wage Developments. Historical data appear in
the B L S Handbook of Labor Statistics.
Other compensation data
Developments.
Work stoppages
Description of the series
Data on work stoppages measure the number and duration of major
strikes or lockouts (involving 1,000 workers or more) occurring during the
month (or year), the number of workers involved, and the amount of time
lost because o f stoppage.
Data are largely from newspaper accounts and cover only establishments
directly involved in a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or second
ary effect o f stoppages on other establishments whose employees are idle
owing to material shortages or lack of service.
Definitions
Number of stoppages: The number of strikes and lockouts involving
1,000 workers or more and lasting a full shift or longer.
Workers involved: The number of workers directly involved in the
stoppage.
Number of days idle: The aggregate number of workdays lost by
workers involved in the stoppages.
Days of idleness as a percent of estimated working time: Aggregate
workdays lost as a percent of the aggregate number of standard workdays
in the period multiplied by total employment in the period.
Notes on the data
This series is not comparable with the one terminated in 1981 that
covered strikes involving six workers or more.
Additional sources of information
Data for each calendar year are reported in a bls press release issued in
the first quarter o f the following year. Monthly data appear in the bls
Other bls data on pay and benefits, not included in the Current Labor
Statistics section of the Monthly Labor Review, appear in and consist o f the
following:
Industry Wage Surveys provide data for specific occupations selected to
represent an industry’s wage structure and the types of activities performed
by its workers. The Bureau collects information on weekly work schedules,
shift operations and pay differentials, paid holiday and vacation practices,
and information on incidence of health, insurance, and retirement plans.
Reports are issued throughout the year as the surveys are completed.
Summaries of the data and special analyses also appear in the Monthly
Labor Review.
Area Wage Surveys annually provide data for selected office, clerical,
professional, technical, maintenance, toolroom, powerplant, material
movement, and custodial occupations common to a wide variety o f indus
tries in the areas (labor markets) surveyed. Reports are issued throughout
the year as the surveys are completed. Summaries of the data and special
analyses also appear in the Review.
The National Survey of Professional, Administrative, Technical, and
Clerical Pay provides detailed information annually on salary levels and
distributions for the types of jobs mentioned in the survey’s title in private
employment. Although the definitions of the jobs surveyed reflect the
duties and responsibilities in private industry, they are designed to match
specific pay grades of Federal white-collar employees under the General
Schedule pay system. Accordingly, this survey provides the legally re
quired information for comparing the pay of salaried employees in the
Federal civil service with pay in private industry. (See Federal Pay Com
parability Act of 1970, 5 u .s.c. 5305.) Data are published in a bls news
release issued in the summer and in a bulletin each fall; summaries and
analytical articles also appear in the Review.
Employee Benefits Survey provides nationwide information on the inci
dence and characteristics of employee benefit plans in medium and large
establishments in the United States, excluding Alaska and Hawaii. Data are
published in an annual bls news release and bulletin, as well as in special
articles appearing in the Review.
PRICE DATA
(Tables 2; 30-41)
P rice data are gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from retail and
primary markets in the United States. Price indexes are given in relation to
a base period (1967 = 100, unless otherwise noted).
Consumer Price Indexes
Description of the series
The Consumer Price Index (cpi) is a measure of the average change in
the prices paid by urban consumers for a fixed market basket of goods and
services. The cpi is calculated monthly for two population groups, one
consisting only o f urban households whose primary source of income is
derived from the employment o f wage earners and clerical workers, and the
other consisting o f all urban households. The wage earner index (cpi- w ) is
a continuation o f the historic index that was introduced well over a halfcentury ago for use in wage negotiations. As new uses were developed for
the cpi in recent years, the need for a broader and more representative index
became apparent. The all urban consumer index (cpi- u ), introduced in
1978, is representative of the 1982-84 buying habits of about 80 percent
of the noninstitutional population of the United States at that time, com
pared with 32 percent represented in the cpi- w . In addition to wage earners
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
and clerical workers, the cpi- u covers professional, managerial, and tech
nical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the unemployed,
retirees, and others not in the labor force.
The cpi is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, fuel, drugs, trans
portation fares, doctors’ and dentists’ fees, and other goods and services
that people buy for day-to-day living. The quantity and quality of these
items are kept essentially unchanged between major revisions so that only
price changes will be measured. All taxes directly associated with the
purchase and use of items are included in the index.
Data collected from more than 21,000 retail establishments and 60,000
housing units in 91 urban areas across the country are used to develop the
“U .S. city average.” Separate estimates for 27 major urban centers are
presented in table 31. The areas listed are as indicated in footnote 1 to the
table. The area indexes measure only the average change in prices for each
area since the base period, and do not indicate differences in the level of
prices among cities.
Notes on the data
In January 1983, the Bureau changed the way in which homeownership
costs are measured for the CPI-U. A rental equivalence method replaced the
59
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
Current Labor Statistics
asset-price approach to homeownership costs for that series. In January
1985, the same change was made in the cpi- w . The central purpose of the
change was to separate shelter costs from the investment component of
homeownership so that the index would reflect only the cost o f shelter
services provided by owner-occupied homes. An updated cpi-u and cpi-w
were introduced with release of the January 1987 data.
Additional sources of information
For a discussion of the general method for computing the
cpi ,
see
bls
Handbook of Methods, Volume II, The Consumer Price Index, Bulletin
2 1 3 4 -2 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1984). The recent change in the mea
surement o f homeownership costs is discussed in Robert Gillingham and
Walter Lane, “Changing the treatment of shelter costs for homeowners in
the c pi ,” Monthly Labor Review, July 1982, pp. 9 -1 4 . An overview of the
recently introduced revised cpi , reflecting 1982-84 expenditure patterns, is
contained in The Consumer Price Index: 1987 Revision, Report 736 (Bu
reau o f Labor Statistics, 1987).
Additional detailed cpi data and regular analyses of consumer price
changes are provided in the c p i Detailed Report, a monthly publication of
the Bureau. Historical data for the overall cpi and for selected groupings
may be found in the Handbook of Labor Statistics , Bulletin 2217 (Bureau
o f Labor Statistics, 1985).
Producer Price Indexes
Description of the series
Producer Price Indexes (ppi) measure average changes in prices re
ceived in primary markets of the United States by producers of commodi
ties in all stages o f processing. The sample used for calculating these
indexes currently contains about 3,200 commodities and about 60,000
quotations per month selected to represent the movement of prices of all
commodities produced in the manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, fishing,
mining, gas and electricity, and public utilities sectors. The stage of proc
essing structure of Producer Price Indexes organizes products by class of
buyer and degree of fabrication (that is, finished goods, intermediate
goods, and crude materials). The traditional commodity structure of ppi
organizes products by similarity of end use or material composition.
To the extent possible, prices used in calculating Producer Price Indexes
apply to the first significant commercial transaction in the United States
from the production or central marketing point. Price data are generally
collected monthly, primarily by mail questionnaire. Most prices are ob
tained directly from producing companies on a voluntary and confidential
basis. Prices generally are reported for the Tuesday of the week containing
the 13th day o f the month.
Since January 1987, price changes for the various commodities have
been averaged together with implicit quantity weights representing their
importance in the total net selling value of all commodities as of 1982. The
detailed data are aggregated to obtain indexes for stage-of-processing
groupings, commodity groupings, durability-of-product groupings, and a
number o f special composite groups. All Producer Price Index data are
subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
Notes on the data
Beginning with the January 1986 issue, the Review is no longer present
ing tables o f Producer Price Indexes for commodity groupings, special
composite groups, or sic industries. However, these data will continue to
be presented in the Bureau’s monthly publication Producer Price Indexes.
The Bureau has completed the first major stage of its comprehensive
overhaul o f the theory, methods, and procedures used to construct the
Producer Price Indexes. Changes include the replacement of judgment
sampling with probability sampling techniques; expansion to systematic
60
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
coverage o f the net output of virtually all industries in the mining and
manufacturing sectors; a shift from a commodity to an industry orientation;
the exclusion of imports from, and the inclusion of exports in, the survey
universe; and the respecification of commodities priced to conform to
Bureau of the Census definitions. These and other changes have been
phased in gradually since 1978. The result is a system of indexes that is
easier to use in conjunction with data on wages, productivity, and employ
ment and other series that are organized in terms of the Standard Industrial
Classification and the Census product class designations.
Additional sources of information
For a discussion of the methodology for computing Producer Price In
dexes, see b l s Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 1982), chapter 7.
Additional detailed data and analyses of price changes are provided
monthly in Producer Price Indexes. Selected historical data may be found
in the Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 1985).
International Price Indexes
Description of the series
The bls International Price Program produces quarterly export and
import price indexes for nonmilitary goods traded between the United
States and the rest of the world. The export price index provides a measure
of price change for all products sold by U .S. residents to foreign buyers.
(“Residents” is defined as in the national income accounts: it includes
corporations, businesses, and individuals but does not require the organiza
tions to be U .S. owned nor the individuals to have U .S. citizenship.) The
import price index provides a measure of price change for goods purchased
from other countries by U .S. residents. With publication of an all-import
index in February 1983 and an all-export index in February 1984, all U .S.
merchandise imports and exports now are represented in these indexes. The
reference period for the indexes is 1977 = 100, unless otherwise indicated.
The product universe for both the import and export indexes includes raw
materials, agricultural products, semifinished manufactures, and finished
manufactures, including both capital and consumer goods. Price data for
these items are collected quarterly by mail questionnaire. In nearly all
cases, the data are collected directly from the exporter or importer, al
though in a few cases, prices are obtained from other sources.
To the extent possible, the data gathered refer to prices at the U .S. border
for exports and at either the foreign border or the U.S. border for imports.
For nearly all products, the prices refer to transactions completed during the
first 2 weeks of the third month of each calendar quarter— March, June,
September, and December. Survey respondents are asked to indicate all
discounts, allowances, and rebates applicable to the reported prices, so that
the price used in the calculation of the indexes is the actual price for which
the product was bought or sold.
In addition to general indexes of prices for U .S. exports and imports,
indexes are also published for detailed product categories of exports and
imports. These categories are defined by the 4- and 5-digit level of detail
of the Standard Industrial Trade Classification System (sitc ). The calcula
tion of indexes by sitc category facilitates the comparison of U .S. price
trends and sector production with similar data for other countries. Detailed
indexes are also computed and published on a Standard Industrial Classifi
cation (sic-based) basis, as well as by end-use class.
Notes on the data
The export and import price indexes are weighted indexes of the
Laspeyres type. Price relatives are assigned equal importance within each
weight category and are then aggregated to the sitc level. The values
assigned to each weight category are based on trade value figures compiled
by the Bureau o f the Census. The trade weights currently used to compute
both indexes relate to 1980.
Because a price index depends on the same items being priced from
period to period, it is necessary to recognize when a product’s specifica
tions or terms o f transaction have been modified. For this reason, the
Bureau’s quarterly questionnaire requests detailed descriptions of the phys
ical and functional characteristics of the products being priced, as well as
information on the number o f units bought or sold, discounts, credit terms,
packaging, class o f buyer or seller, and so forth. When there are changes
in either the specifications or terms of transaction of a product, the dollar
value o f each change is deleted from the total price change to obtain the
“pure” change. Once this value is determined, a linking procedure is
employed which allows for the continued repricing of the item.
For the export price indexes, the preferred pricing basis is f.a.s. (free
alongside ship) U .S. port of exportation. When firms report export prices
f.o.b. (free on board), production point information is collected which
enables the Bureau to calculate a shipment cost to the port of exportation.
An attempt is made to collect two prices for imports. The first is the import
price f.o.b. at the foreign port of exportation, which is consistent with the
basis for valuation of imports in the national accounts. The second is the
import price c.i.f. (cost, insurance, and freight) at the U .S. port of impor
tation, which also includes the other costs associated with bringing the
product to the U .S. border. It does not, however, include duty charges.
Additional sources of information
For a discussion of the general method of computing International Price
Indexes, see b l s Handbook of Methods , Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 1982), chapter 8.
Additional detailed data and analyses of international price develop
ments are presented in the Bureau’s quarterly publication U.S. Import and
Export Price Indexes and in occasional Monthly Labor Review articles
prepared by bls analysts. Selected historical data may be found in the
Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1985).
PRODUCTIVITY DATA
(Tables 2; 42-47)
U. S. productivity and related data
Description of the series
The productivity measures relate real physical output to real input. As
such, they encompass a family of measures which include single factor
input measures, such as output per unit of labor input (output per hour) or
output per unit o f capital input, as well as measures of multifactor produc
tivity (output per unit of labor and capital inputs combined). The Bureau
indexes show the change in output relative to changes in the various inputs.
The measures cover the business, nonfarm business, manufacturing, and
nonfinancial corporate sectors.
Corresponding indexes of hourly compensation, unit labor costs, unit
nonlabor payments, and prices are also provided.
Unit profits include corporate profits and the value of inventory adjust
ments per unit of output.
Hours of all persons are the total hours paid of payroll workers, selfemployed persons, and unpaid family workers.
Capital services is the flow of services from the capital stock used in
production. It is developed from measures of the net stock o f physical
assets— equipment, structures, land, and inventories— weighted by rental
prices for each type of asset.
Labor and capital inputs combined are derived by combining changes
in labor and capital inputs with weights which represent each component’s
share of total output. The indexes for capital services and combined units
of labor and capital are based on changing weights which are averages of
the shares in the current and preceding year (the Tomquist index-number
formula).
Notes on the data
Definitions
Output per hour of all persons (labor productivity) is the value of
goods and services in constant prices produced per hour of labor input.
Output per unit of capital services (capital productivity) is the value of
goods and services in constant dollars produced per unit of capital services
input.
Multifactor productivity is the ratio output per unit of labor and capital
inputs combined. Changes in this measure reflect changes in a number of
factors which affect the production process such as changes in technology,
shifts in the composition of the labor force, changes in capacity utilization,
research and development, skill and efforts of the work force, manage
ment, and so forth. Changes in the output per hour measures reflect the
impact of these factors as well as the substitution of capital for labor.
Compensation per hour is the wages and salaries of employees plus
employers’ contributions for social insurance and private benefit plans, and
the wages, salaries, and supplementary payments for the self-employed
(except for nonfinancial corporations in which there are no selfemployed)— the sum divided by hours paid for. Real compensation per
hour is compensation per hour deflated by the change in the Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
Unit labor costs are the labor compensation costs expended in the
production of a unit of output and are derived by dividing compensation by
output. Unit nonlabor payments include profits, depreciation, interest,
and indirect taxes per unit of output. They are computed by subtracting
compensation of all persons from current dollar value of output and divid
ing by output. Unit nonlabor costs contain all the components of unit
nonlabor payments except unit profits.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Output measures for the business sector and the nonfarm businesss sector
exclude the constant dollar value o f owner-occupied housing, rest o f world,
households and institutions, and general government output from the con
stant dollar value of gross national product. The measures are derived from
data supplied by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U .S. Department of
Commerce, and the Federal Reserve Board. Quarterly manufacturing out
put indexes are adjusted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to annual esti
mates of output (gross product originating) from the Bureau o f Economic
Analysis. Compensation and hours data are developed from data of the
Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
The productivity and associated cost measures in tables 4 2 -4 4 describe
the relationship between output in real terms and the labor time and capital
services involved in its production. They show the changes from period to
period in the amount of goods and services produced per unit o f input.
Although these measures relate output to hours and capital services, they
do not measure the contributions of labor, capital, or any other specific
factor of production. Rather, they reflect the joint effect o f many influ
ences, including changes in technology; capital investment; level of output;
utilization of capacity, energy, and materials; the organization o f produc
tion; managerial skill; and the characteristics and efforts of the work force.
Additional sources of information
Descriptions of methodology underlying the measurement o f output per
hour and multifactor productivity are found in the b l s Handbook of Meth
ods , Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 13. His
torical data for selected industries are provided in the Bureau’s Handbook
of Labor Statistics , 1985, Bulletin 2217.
61
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
Current Labor Statistics
INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS
(Tables 45-47)
Labor force and unemployment
Description of the series
Tables 45 and 46 present comparative measures of the labor force,
employment, and unemployment— approximating U .S. concepts— for the
United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, and six European countries. The
unemployment statistics (and, to a lesser extent, employment statistics)
published by other industrial countries are not, in most cases, comparable
to U .S. unemployment statistics. Therefore, the Bureau adjusts the figures
for selected countries, where necessary, for all known major definitional
differences. Although precise comparability may not be achieved, these
adjusted figures provide a better basis for international comparisons than
the figures regularly published by each country.
Definitions
For the principal U .S. definitions of the labor force, employment, and
unemployment, see the Notes section on EMPLOYMENT DATA: House
hold Survey Data.
Notes on the data
The adjusted statistics have been adapted to the age at which compulsory
schooling ends in each country, rather than to the U .S. standard of 16 years
o f age and over. Therefore, the adjusted statistics relate to the population
age 16 and over in France, Sweden, and from 1973 onward, the United
Kingdom; 16 and over in Canada, Australia, Japan, Germany, the Nether
lands, and prior to 1973, the United Kingdom; and 14 and over in Italy. The
institutional population is included in the denominator of the labor force
participation rates and employment-population ratios for Japan and Ger
many; it is excluded for the United States and the other countries.
In the U .S. labor force survey, persons on layoff who are awaiting recall
to their job are classified as unemployed. European and Japanese layoff
practices are quite different in nature from those in the United States;
therefore, strict application of the U .S. definition has not been made on this
point. For further information, see Monthly Labor Review, December
1981, pp. 8 -1 1 .
The figures for one or more recent years for France, Germany, Italy, the
Netherlands, and the United Kingdom are calculated using adjustment
factors based on labor force surveys for earlier years and are considered
preliminary. The recent-year measures for these countries are, therefore,
subject to revision whenever data from more current labor force surveys
become available.
Additional sources of information
For further information, see International Comparisons of Unemploy
ment , Bulletin 1979 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1978), Appendix B and
unpublished Supplements to Appendix B available on request. The statis
tics are also analyzed periodically in the Monthly Labor Review. Additional
historical data, generally beginning with 1959, are published in the Hand
book of Labor Statistics and are available in unpublished statistical supple
ments to Bulletin 1979.
Manufacturing productivity and labor costs
Description of the series
Table 47 presents comparative measures of manufacturing labor produc
tivity, hourly compensation costs, and unit labor costs for the United
62
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
States, Canada, Japan, and nine European countries. These measures are
limited to trend comparisons— that is, intercountry series of changes over
time— rather than level comparisons because reliable international com
parisons of the levels of manufacturing output are unavailable.
Definitions
Output is constant value output (value added), generally taken from the
national accounts of each country. While the national accounting methods
for measuring real output differ considerably among the 12 countries, the
use of different procedures does not, in itself, connote lack of comparabil
ity— rather, it reflects differences among countries in the availability and
reliability of underlying data series.
Hours refer to all employed persons including the self-employed in the
United States and Canada; to all wage and salary employees in the other
countries. The U.S. hours measure is hours paid; the hours measures for the
other countries are hours worked.
C o m p e n s a t io n ( la b o r c o s t ) includes all payments in cash or kind made
directly to employees plus employer expenditures for legally required in
surance programs and contractual and private benefit plans. In addition, for
some countries, compensation is adjusted for other significant taxes on
payrolls or employment (or reduced to reflect subsidies), even if they are
not for the direct benefit of workers, because such taxes are regarded as
labor costs. However, compensation does not include all items of labor
cost. The costs of recruitment, employee training, and plant facilities and
services— such as cafeterias and medical clinics— are not covered because
data are not available for most countries. Self-employed workers are in
cluded in the U .S. and Canadian compensation figures by assuming that
their hourly compensation is equal to the average for wage and salary
employees.
Notes on the data
For most of the countries, the measures refer to total manufacturing as
defined by the International Standard Industrial Classification. However,
the measures for France (beginning 1959), Italy (beginning 1970), and the
United Kingdom (beginning 1971), refer to manufacturing and mining less
energy-related products and the figures for the Netherlands exclude
petroleum refining from 1969 to 1976. For all countries, manufacturing
includes the activities of government enterprises.
The figures for one or more recent years are generally based on current
indicators of manufacturing output, employment, hours, and hourly com
pensation and are considered preliminary until the national accounts and
other statistics used for the long-term measures become available.
Additional sources of information
For additional information, see the b l s Handbook of Methods , Bulletin
2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 16 and periodic Monthly
Labor Review articles. Historical data are provided in the Bureau’s Hand
book of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217, 1985. The statistics are issued
twice per year— in a news release (generally in May) and in a Monthly
Labor Review article (generally in December).
OCCUPATIONAL INJURY AND ILLNESS DATA
(Table 48)
Description of the series
ployee worked at a permanent job less than full time; or (3) the employee
worked at a permanently assigned job but could not perform all duties
The Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses is designed to
collect data on injuries and illnesses based on records which employers in
the following industries maintain under the Occupational Safety and Health
Act o f 1970: agriculture, forestry, and fishing; oil and gas extraction;
construction; manufacturing; transportation and public utilities; wholesale
and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services. Excluded
from the survey are self-employed individuals, farmers with fewer than 11
employees, employers regulated by other Federal safety and health laws,
and Federal, State, and local government agencies.
Because the survey is a Federal-State cooperative program and the data
must meet the needs of participating State agencies, an independent sam
ple is selected for each State. The sample is selected to represent all pri
vate industries in the States and territories. The sample size for the
survey is dependent upon (1) the characteristics for which estimates are
needed; (2) the industries for which estimates are desired; (3) the charac
teristics o f the population being sampled; (4) the target reliability of the
estimates; and (5) the survey design employed.
While there are many characteristics upon which the sample design could
be based, the total recorded case incidence rate is used because it is one of
the most important characteristics and the least variable; therefore, it re
quires the smallest sample size.
The survey is based on stratified random sampling with a Neyman
allocation and a ratio estimator. The characteristics used to stratify the
establishments are the Standard Industrial Classification (sic) code and size
o f employment.
normally connected with it.
Definitions
Recordable occupational injuries and illnesses are: (1) occupational
deaths, regardless o f the time between injury and death, or the length of the
illness; or (2) nonfatal occupational illnesses; or (3) nonfatal occupational
injuries which involve one or more of the following: loss of consciousness,
restriction of work or motion, transfer to another job, or medical treatment
(other than first aid).
The number of days away from work or days of restricted work
activity does not include the day of injury or onset of illness or any days
on which the employee would not have worked even though able to work.
Incidence rates represent the number of injuries and/or illnesses or lost
workdays per 100 full-time workers.
Notes on the data
Estimates are made for industries and employment-size classes and for
severity classification: fatalities, lost workday cases, and nonfatal cases
without lost workdays. Lost workday cases are separated into those where
the employee would have worked but could not and those in which work
activity was restricted. Estimates of the number of cases and the number of
days lost are made for both categories.
Most of the estimates are in the form of incidence rates, defined as the
number of injuries and illnesses, or lost workdays, per 100 full-time em
ployees. For this purpose, 200,000 employee hours represent 100 em
ployee years (2,000 hours per employee). Only a few of the available
measures are included in the Handbook of Labor Statistics. Full detail is
presented in the annual bulletin, Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in the
United States, by Industry.
Comparable data for individual States are available from the bls Office
of Occupational Safety and Health Statistics.
Mining and railroad data are furnished to bls by the Mine Safety and
Health Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration, respec
tively. Data from these organizations are included in bls and State publica
tions. Federal employee experience is compiled and published by the Occu
pational Safety and Health Administration. Data on State and local
government employees are collected by about half of the States and territo
ries; these data are not compiled nationally.
Additional sources of information
Occupational injury is any injury such as a cut, fracture, sprain, ampu
tation, and so forth, which results from a work accident or from exposure
involving a single incident in the work environment.
Occupational illness is an abnormal condition or disorder, other than
one resulting from an occupational injury, caused by exposure to environ
mental factors associated with employment. It includes acute and chronic
illnesses or disease which may be caused by inhalation, absorption, inges
tion, or direct contact.
Lost workday cases are cases which involve days away from work, or
days o f restricted work activity, or both.
Lost workday cases involving restricted work activity are those cases
which result in restricted work activity only.
Lost workdays away from work are the number of workdays (consec
utive or not) on which the employee would have worked but could not
because o f occupational injury or illness.
Lost workdays— restricted work activity are the number of workdays
(consecutive or not) on which, because of injury or illness: (1) the em
ployee was assigned to another job on a temporary basis; or (2) the em
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The Supplementary Data System provides detailed information describ
ing various factors associated with work-related injuries and illnesses.
These data are obtained from information reported by employers to State
workers’ compensation agencies. The Work Injury Report program exam
ines selected types of accidents through an employee survey which focuses
on the circumstances surrounding the injury. These data are not included
in the Handbook of Labor Statistics but are available from the bls Office
of Occupational Safety and Health Statistics.
The definitions of occupational injuries and illnesses and lost workdays
are from Recordkeeping Requirements under the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 . For additional data, see Occupational Injuries and
Illnesses in the United States, by Industry, annual Bureau o f Labor
Statistics bulletin; bls Handbook of Methods , Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 17; Handbook of Labor Statistics , Bulletin
2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985), pp. 411-14; annual reports in the
Monthly Labor Review, and annual U.S. Department of Labor press
releases.
63
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
1.
October 1987 •
Current Labor Statistics:
Comparative Indicators
Labor m arket indicators
1985
S elected indicators
1985
1986
1987
1986
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
Employment data
E m ploym ent status of th e civilian noninstitutionalized population
(household survey)'
Labor fo rce p articipation r a t e ....................................................................
E m ploym ent-population r a t io ......................................................................
U nem ploym ent rate .......................................................................................
Men ..................................................................................................................
16 to 24 years ..........................................................................................
25 years and o v e r ...................................................................................
W om en ...........................................................................................................
16 to 24 years ..........................................................................................
25 years and o v e r ...................................................................................
U nem ploym ent rate, 15 w e eks and o v e r ...........................................
64.8
60.1
7.2
7.0
14.1
5.3
7.4
13.0
5.9
2.0
65.3
60.7
7.0
6.9
13.7
5.4
7.1
12.8
5.5
1.9
64.7
60.1
7.2
7.0
14.0
5.3
7.4
12.9
5.9
2.0
64.9
60.3
7.1
6.9
14.2
5.2
7.3
13.1
5.6
1.9
65.1
60.5
7.1
6.9
13.5
5.3
7.3
13.1
5.7
1.9
65.2
60.6
7.1
7.0
14.2
5.3
7.2
13.1
5.7
1.9
65.3
60.8
6.9
6.9
13.7
5.4
6.9
12.6
5.4
1.9
65.4
60.9
6.9
6.9
13.4
5.4
6.8
12.5
5.3
1.8
65.5
61.1
6.7
6.7
13.4
5.2
6.6
12.6
5.1
1.8
65.5
61.5
6.2
6.3
13.1
4.8
6.1
11.8
4.6
1.7
T otal .......................................................................................................................
Private sector ..................................................................................................
G o o d s -p ro d u c in g ............................................................................................
M anufacturing ...............................................................................................
S ervice-producing ..........................................................................................
97,519
81,125
24,859
19,260
72,660
99,610
82,900
24,681
18,994
74,930
97,775
81,303
24,788
19,183
72,987
98,444
81,905
24,788
19,133
73,656
98,901
82,299
24,767
19,086
74,134
99,321
82,670
24,702
19,003
74,619
99,804
83,119
24,629
18,939
75,175
100,397
83,498
24,624
18,953
75,773
101,133
84,183
24,733
18,979
76,399
101,708
84,675
24,757
19,015
76,951
A verage hours:
Private se ctor ..................................................................................................
M anufacturing ...........................................................................................
O v e rtim e ....................................................................................................
34.9
40.5
3.3
34.8
40.7
3.4
34.9
40.6
3.3
34.9
40.8
3.4
34.9
40.7
3.4
34.8
40.7
3.4
34.7
40.7
3.5
34.7
40.8
3.5
34.8
41.0
3.6
34.8
40.9
3.7
P ercent change in th e ECI, com pensation:
All w orkers (excluding farm , household, and Federal w orkers) .......
Private industry w orkers ............................................................................
G oo ds-producing2 ....................................................................................
S ervice-producing2 ..................................................................................
S tate and local governm ent w o rk e r s ....................................................
4.3
3.9
3.4
4.4
5.7
3.6
3.2
3.1
3.2
5.2
1.6
1.3
.6
1.8
3.4
.6
.6
.6
.5
.7
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
.7
.8
.9
.6
.6
1.1
.7
.6
.8
2.8
.6
.6
.5
.6
.8
.9
1.0
.5
1.3
.8
.7
.7
.7
.7
.3
W o rkers by bargaining status (private industry):
U n io n .................................................................................................................
N onunion .........................................................................................................
2.6
4.6
2.1
3.6
.8
1.4
.5
.6
1.0
1.2
.2
.9
.5
.8
.3
.7
.5
1.1
.5
.7
E m ploym ent, nonagricultural (payroll data), in tho u san d s:'
Employment Cost Index
1 Q uarterly data seasonally adjusted.
2 G oods-producing industries include m ining, construction, and m anufacturing. S ervice-
64
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
producing industries include all o th e r private se ctor industries.
2.
Annual and quarterly percent changes in com pensation, prices, and productivity
1985
1987
1986
1985
S elected m easures
1986
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
Compensation data \ 2
E m ploym ent C ost In d e x-co m p e n sa tio n (wages, salaries,
benefits):
Civilian nonfarm ..................................................................................
Private nonfarm .................................................................................
E m ploym ent C ost In d e x-w a g e s and salaries
Civilian nonfarm ..................................................................................
Private nonfarm .................................................................................
4.3
3.9
3.6
3.2
1.6
1.3
0.6
.6
1.1
1.1
0.7
.8
1.1
.7
0.6
.6
0.9
1.0
0.7
.7
4.4
4.1
3.5
3.1
1.7
1.3
.6
.6
1.0
1.0
.8
.9
1.1
.7
.6
.5
1.0
1.0
.5
.7
C onsum er Price Index (All urban consum ers): A ll ite m s .......
3.8
1.1
.7
.9
-.4
.6
P roducer Price Index:
Finished g o o d s ....................................................................................
Finished co nsum er g o o d s ..............................................................
Capital e quipm ent ............................................................................
Interm ediate m aterials, supplies, com p on e n ts ........................
Crude m a te ria ls ...................................................................................
1.8
1.5
2.7
-.3
-5 .6
-2 .3
-3 .6
2.1
-4 .4
-9 .0
-1 .4
-1 .4
-1 .4
-.5
-4 .5
2.5
2.5
2.5
.4
4.3
-3.1
-4.1
.2
-2 .9
-7 .6
.5
.4
.6
-.9
-1 .5
1.8
1.2
2.1
1.9
1.6
1.6
2.5
1.7
3.3
1.9
1.0
2.3
2.8
2.3
2.6
2.3
1.9
1.8
Price data1
.3
1.4
1.3
-.7
-.7
-.7
-.2
-.5
1.1
.8
2.0
-.4
.6
.8
.9
.1
1.4
4.2
1.4
1.8
.4
1.8
5.6
1.3
1.1
.7
1.5
1.5
1.5
.2
-.1
.4
.3
.3
.7
Productivity data3
O utput per hour o f all persons:
Business s e c to r .................................................................................
N onfarm business s e c t o r ...............................................................
N onfinancial co rpo ra tio ns 4 ............................................................
Q uarterly p ercent ch a ng e s reflect annual rates of change in quarterly in
dexes. T he data are seasonally adjusted.
4 O utput per hour of all em ployees.
- Data not available.
1 A nnual changes are D ecem ber-to-D ecem ber change. Q uarterly changes
are calculated using th e last m onth o f each quarter. C om pensation and price
data are n ot seasonally adjusted and the price data are not com pounded.
2 Excludes Federal and private household w orkers.
3 A nnual rates o f change are com puted by com paring annual averages.
3.
A ltern ative m easures o f w ag e and com pensation changes
Four quarters e n d e d -
Q uarterly average
I
A verage hourly co m p en sa tio n :1
All persons, business s e c to r ................................................................................
A ll em ployees, nonfarm business s e c t o r ........................................................
E m ploym ent C ost In d e x-co m p e n sa tio n :
Civilian nonfarm 2 .....................................................................................................
Private nonfarm ....................................................................................................
Union ......................................................................................................................
N o n u n io n ...............................................................................................................
S tate and local g o v e rn m e n ts ...........................................................................
E m ploym ent C ost In d e x-w a g e s and salaries:
Civilian n onfarm 2 ......................................................................................................
P rivate nonfarm ....................................................................................................
U n io n ......................................................................................................................
N o n u n io n ...............................................................................................................
S tate and local g o v e rn m e n ts ............................................................................
T otal e ffe ctive w age adju stm en ts3 ............................................................................
From current s e ttle m e n ts ......................................................................................
From prior s e ttle m e n ts ..........................................................................................
From cost-of-living p ro v is io n ................................................................................
N egotiated wage adjustm ents from settlem e n ts:3
First-year a d ju s tm e n ts ............................................................................................
A nnual rate over life o f c o n tr a c t........................................................................
N egotiated wage and ben e fit adju stm en ts from settlem e n ts:5
First-year adjustm ent ..............................................................................................
A nnual rate over life o f c o n tr a c t........................................................................
II
III
I
IV
1987
1986
II
I
III
II
IV
I
II
4.8
4.5
4.4
4.1
3.7
3.6
3.3
3.4
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.7
3.2
3.9
3.5
2.9
3.0
2.8
3.6
4.0
1.4
1.1
3.3
3.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.0
.7
.8
.2
.9
.6
1.1
.7
.5
.8
2.8
.6
.6
.3
.7
.8
.9
1.0
.5
1.1
.8
.7
.7
.5
.7
.3
4.1
3.8
2.9
4.2
5.5
4.0
3.8
2.5
4.2
5.8
3.6
3.2
2.3
3.5
5.2
3.6
3.2
2.1
3.6
5.2
3.4
3.1
1.6
3.6
5.0
3.3
3.0
1.9
3.4
4.7
1.0
1.0
.7
1.1
1.0
.6
(4)
.4
.2
.8
.9
.4
.9
.4
.7
.2
.6
1.1
.7
.6
.7
3.2
.5
.1
.5
(4)
.6
.5
.2
.7
.7
.5
.2
.2
.1
1.0
1.0
.4
1.2
.8
.4
(4)
.3
.1
.5
.7
.5
.8
.2
1.0
.1
.7
.2
4.2
3.9
3.2
4.3
5.5
3.1
.6
1.7
.8
4.1
3.7
2.5
4.1
5.7
2.9
.5
1.8
.7
3.5
3.1
2.3
3.4
5.4
2.3
.5
1.6
.2
3.5
3.1
2.0
3.5
5.4
2.3
.5
1.7
.2
3.5
3.2
1.7
3.5
5.2
2.0
.4
1.5
.1
3.2
3.0
1.7
3.3
5.0
2.2
.3
1.6
.3
.8
1.5
1.3
2.0
.8
1.5
2.0
2.1
1.2
1.8
2.6
2.9
2.0
2.5
1.6
2.2
1.2
1.7
1.2
1.8
1.2
1.8
1.5
2.0
.6
1.2
.7
1.6
.7
1.2
2.7
2.4
1.7
2.4
4.2
3.9
2.3
2.5
1.4
2.0
.9
1.4
1.1
1.6
1.2
1.7
1.9
2.1
1 S easonally adjusted.
2 Excludes Federal and household w orkers.
3 Lim ited to m ajor co llective bargaining units o f 1,000 w orkers or m ore. The
m ost recen t data are prelim inary.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1987
1986
C om ponents
(4)
4 Data round to zero.
5 Lim ited to m ajor collective bargaining units o f 5,000 w o rkers o r m ore. The
m ost recen t data are prelim inary.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
4.
October 1987 •
Current Labor Statistics:
Employment Data
E m ploym ent status o f the to tal population, by sex, m onthly data seasonally adjusted
(N um bers in thousands)
A nnual average
1986
E m ploym ent status
1987
1985
1986
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
179,912
117,167
65.1
108,856
182,293
119,540
65.6
111,303
182,525
119,821
65.6
111,764
182,713
119,988
65.7
111,703
182,935
120,163
65.7
111,941
183,114
120,426
65.8
112,183
183,297
120,336
65.7
112,387
183,575
120,782
65.8
112,759
183,738
121,089
65.9
113,122
183,915
120,958
65.8
113,104
184,079
121,070
65.8
113,570
184,259
121,719
66.1
114,173
184,421
121,235
65.7
113,975
184,605
121,672
65.9
114,447
184,738
122,038
66.1
114,817
60.5
1,706
107,150
3,179
103,971
8,312
7.1
62,744
61.1
1,706
109,597
3,163
106,434
8,237
6.9
62,752
61.2
1,697
110,067
3,057
107,010
8,057
6.7
62,704
61.1
1,716
109,987
3,142
106,845
8,285
6.9
62,725
61.2
1,749
110,192
3,162
107,030
8,222
6.8
62,772
61.3
1,751
110,432
3,215
107,217
8,243
6.8
62,688
61.3
1,750
110,637
3,161
107,476
7,949
6.6
62,961
61.4
1,748
111,011
3,145
107,866
8,023
6.6
62,793
61.6
1,740
111,382
3,236
108,146
7,967
6.6
62,649
61.5
1,736
111,368
3,284
108,084
7,854
6.5
62,957
61.7
1,735
111,835
3,290
108,545
7,500
6.2
63,009
62.0
1,726
112,447
3,335
109,112
7,546
6.2
62,540
61.8
1,718
112,257
3,178
109,079
7,260
6.0
63,187
62.0
1,720
112,727
3,219
109,508
7,224
5.9
62,933
62.2
1,736
113,081
3,092
109,989
7,221
5.9
62,700
86,025
65,967
76.7
61,447
87,349
66,973
76.7
62,443
87,460
66,911
76.5
62,483
87,556
67,128
76.7
62,528
87,682
67,130
76.6
62,565
87,773
67,407
76.8
62,833
87,868
67,425
76.7
62,986
88,020
67,672
76.9
63,187
88,099
67,764
76.9
63,335
88,186
67,644
76.7
63,282
88,271
67,603
76.6
63,417
88,361
67,816
76.7
63,562
88,442
67,556
76.4
63,471
88,534
67,656
76.4
63,715
88,598
67,925
76.7
63,918
71.4
1,556
59,891
4,521
6.9
71.5
1,551
60,892
4,530
6.8
71.4
1,541
60,942
4,428
6.6
71.4
1,560
60,968
4,600
6.9
71.4
1,590
60,975
4,565
6.8
71.6
1,592
61,241
4,574
6.8
71.7
1,593
61,393
4,439
6.6
71.8
1,591
61,596
4,484
6.6
71.9
1,584
61,751
4,429
6.5
71.8
1,575
61,707
4,362
6.4
71.8
1,575
61,842
4,186
6.2
71.9
1,566
61,996
4,254
6.3
71.8
1,559
61,912
4,085
6.0
72.0
1,561
62,154
3,941
5.8
72.1
1,575
62,343
4,007
5.9
93,886
51,200
54.5
47,409
94,944
52,568
55.4
48,861
95,065
52,910
55.7
49,281
95,156
52,860
55.6
49,175
95,253
53,033
55.7
49,376
95,341
53,019
55.6
49,350
95,429
52,911
55.4
49,401
95,556
53,110
55.6
49,572
95,639
53,325
55.8
49,787
95,729
53,314
55.7
49,822
95,808
53,467
55.8
50,153
95,898
53,903
56.2
50,611
95,979
53,679
55.9
50,504
96,071
54,016
56.2
50,733
96,140
54,113
56.3
50,899
50.5
150
47,259
3,791
7.4
51.5
155
48,706
3,707
7.1
51.8
156
49,125
3,629
6.9
51.7
156
49,019
3,685
7.0
51.8
159
49,217
3,657
6.9
51.8
159
49,191
3,669
6.9
51.8
157
49,244
3,510
6.6
51.9
157
49,415
3,538
6.7
52.1
156
49,631
3,538
6.6
52.0
161
49,661
3,492
6.6
52.3
160
49,993
3,314
6.2
52.8
160
50,451
3,292
6.1
52.6
159
50,345
3,175
5.9
52.8
159
50,574
3,283
6.1
52.9
161
50,738
3,213
5.9
June
July
Aug.
TOTAL
N oninstitutional population ', 2 ........
Labor fo rce 2 ........................................
P articipation rate 3 ....................
Total em ployed 2 .............................
E m ploym ent-population
ratio 4 ..........................................
R esident Arm ed Forces 1 ........
Civilian em ployed ........................
A griculture ..................................
N onagricultural in d u s trie s ......
U n e m p lo y e d ........................
U nem ploym ent rate 5 ..............
N ot in labor fo rce ..............................
Men, 16 years and over
N oninstitutional population 1, 2 ........
Labor fo rce 2 ...............................
Participation rate 3 ...................
T otal em ployed 2 ...........................
E m ploym ent-population
ratio 4 ..........................................
R esident A rm ed Forces 1 ........
Civilian em ployed ........................
U n e m p lo y e d ...................................
U nem ploym ent rate 5 ..............
Women, 16 years and over
N oninstitutional population 1, 2 ........
Labor fo rce 2 .........................................
P articipation rate 3 ...................
Total em ployed2 .......................
E m ploym ent-population
ratio 4 ..........................................
R esident Arm ed Forces 1 ........
Civilian em ployed ........................
U n e m p lo y e d ...............................
U nem ploym ent rate 5 ..............
1 The population and A rm ed Forces figures are not adjusted fo r seasonal variation.
2 Includes m em bers o f th e Arm ed Forces stationed in th e United States.
3 Labor fo rce as a p ercent o f the noninstitutional population.
66
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4 To ta l em ployed as a perce n t of the n oninstitutional population.
5 U nem ploym ent as a p ercent o f the labor fo rce (including
Forces).
th e resident Arm ed
5. E m ploym ent status o f th e civilian population, by sex, age, race and H ispanic origin, m onthly data seasonally
adjusted
(N um bers in thousands)
A nnual average
1987
1986
E m ploym ent status
June
July
Aug.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
M ay
181,827
119,034
65.5
111,011
181,998
119,349
65.6
111,382
182,179
119,222
65.4
111,368
182,344
119,335
65.4
111,835
182,533
119,993
65.7
112,447
182,703
119,517
65.4
112,257
182,885
119,952
65.6
112,727
183,002
120,302
65.7
113,081
60.9
7,949
6.7
62,961
61.1
8,023
6.7
62,793
61.2
7,967
6.7
62,649
61.1
7,854
6.6
62,957
61.3
7,500
6.3
63,009
61.6
7,546
6.3
62,540
61.4
7,260
6.1
63,187
61.6
7,224
6.0
62,933
61.8
7,221
6.0
62,700
78,874
61,703
78.2
57,883
78,973
61,826
78.3
58,101
79,132
61,948
78.3
58,227
79,216
61,973
78.2
58,325
79,303
61,983
78.2
58,410
79,387
61,976
78.1
58,567
79,474
62,156
78.2
58,721
79,536
62,057
78.0
58,620
79,625
62,116
78.0
58,793
79,668
62,053
77.9
58,818
73.1
2,297
55,298
3,814
6.2
73.4
2,303
55,580
3,820
6.2
73.6
2,289
55,812
3,725
6.0
73.6
2,254
55,974
3,720
6.0
73.6
2,300
56,024
3,648
5.9
73.7
2,411
55,999
3,573
5.8
73.8
2,411
56,155
3,409
5.5
73.9
2,441
56,280
3,436
5.5
73.7
2,307
56,313
3,437
5.5
73.8
2,343
56,450
3,323
5.4
73.8
2,254
56,564
3,235
5.2
87,779
48,920
55.7
45,905
87,856
49,014
55.8
46,020
87,933
49,043
55.8
46,067
88,016
48,923
55.6
46,058
88,150
49,161
55.8
46,261
88,237
49,348
55.9
46,475
88,321
49,355
55.9
46,498
88,395
49,466
56.0
46,751
88,464
49,774
56.3
47,094
88,546
49,714
56.1
47,126
88,632
49,971
56.4
47,288
88,685
49,989
56.4
47,324
52.4
622
45,334
2,994
6.1
52.3
614
45,291
3,015
6.2
52.4
612
45,408
2,994
6.1
52.4
675
45,392
2,976
6.1
52.3
621
45,437
2,865
5.9
52.5
628
45,633
2,900
5.9
52.7
641
45,835
2,873
5.8
52.6
589
45,909
2,857
5.8
52.9
587
46,164
2,715
5.5
53.2
634
46,460
2,680
5.4
53.2
615
46,512
2,588
5.2
53.4
619
46,669
2,683
5.4
53.4
603
46,722
2,664
5.3
14,496
7,926
54.7
6,472
14,505
7,955
54.8
6,526
14,496
7,940
54.8
6,475
14,527
7,991
55.0
6,577
14,557
7,929
54.5
6,482
14,558
7,837
53.8
6,478
14,545
7,926
54.5
6,524
14,546
8,028
55.2
6,582
14,555
7,884
54.2
6,460
14,562
7,894
54.2
6,518
14,595
8,063
55.2
6,633
14,621
7,746
53.0
6,511
14,628
7,865
53.8
6,647
14,649
8,260
56.4
6,939
44.4
305
6,129
1,468
18.6
44.6
258
6,215
1,454
18.3
45.0
250
6,276
1,429
18.0
44.7
242
6,233
1,465
18.5
45.3
253
6,324
1,414
17.7
44.5
237
6,245
1,447
18.2
44.5
251
6,227
1,359
17.3
44.9
264
6,260
1,402
17.7
45.2
295
6,287
1,446
18.0
44.4
284
6,176
1,424
18.1
44.8
292
6,226
1,376
17.4
45.4
261
6,372
1,430
17.7
44.5
257
6,254
1,235
15.9
45.4
258
6,389
1,218
15.5
47.4
236
6,703
1,321
16.0
153,679
99,926
65.0
93,736
155,432
101,801
65.5
95,660
155,604
102,122
65.6
96,177
155,723
102,158
65.6
96,000
155,856
102,297
65.6
96,147
155,979
102,455
65.7
96,281
156,111
102,503
65.7
96,533
156,313
102,746
65.7
96,717
156,431
102,893
65.8
96,995
156,561
102,797
65.7
96,998
156,676
102,894
65.7
97,340
156,811
103,573
66.1
98,050
156,930
103,106
65.7
97,716
157,058
103,272
65.8
97,958
157,134
103,614
65.9
98,299
61.0
6,191
6.2
61.5
6,140
6.0
61.8
5,945
5.8
61.6
6,158
6.0
61.7
6,150
6.0
61.7
6,174
6.0
61.8
5,970
5.8
61.9
6,029
5.9
62.0
5,898
5.7
62.0
5,799
5.6
62.1
5,554
5.4
62.5
5,524
5.3
62.3
5,390
5.2
62.4
5,314
5.1
62.6
5,315
5.1
19,664
12,364
62.9
10,501
19,989
12,654
63.3
10,814
20,028
12,553
62.7
10,716
20,056
12,652
63.1
10,799
20,089
12,720
63.3
10,895
20,120
12,719
63.2
10,910
20,152
12,707
63.1
10,968
20,187
12,831
63.6
10,997
20,218
12,957
64.1
11,101
20,249
12,844
63.4
11,053
20,279
12,743
62.8
11,090
20,312
12,860
63.3
11,080
20,341
12,863
63.2
11,223
20,373
13,047
64.0
11,401
20,396
13,194
64.7
11,563
53.4
1,864
15.1
54.1
1,840
14.5
53.5
1,837
14.6
53.8
1,853
14.6
54.2
1,825
14.3
54.2
1,809
14.2
54.4
1,739
13.7
54.5
1,833
14.3
54.9
1,855
14.3
54.6
1,791
13.9
54.7
1,653
13.0
54.6
1,779
13.8
55.2
1,640
12.7
56.0
1,647
12.6
56.7
1,630
12.4
1985
1986
Aug.
Sept.
O ct.
Nov.
Dec.
178,206
115,461
64.8
107,150
180,587
117,834
65.3
109,597
180,828
118,124
65.3
110,067
180,997
118,272
65.3
109,987
181,186
118,414
65.4
110,192
181,363
118,675
65.4
110,432
181,547
118,586
65.3
110,637
60.1
8,312
7.2
62,744
60.7
8,237
7.0
62,752
60.9
8,057
6.8
62,704
60.8
8,285
7.0
62,725
60.8
8,222
6.9
62,772
60.9
8,243
6.9
62,688
77,195
60,277
78.1
56,562
78,523
61,320
78.1
57,569
78,634
61,219
77.9
57,585
78,722
61,412
78.0
57,607
78,802
61,409
77.9
57,595
73.3
2,278
54,284
3,715
6.2
73.3
2,292
55,277
3,751
6.1
73.2
2,185
55,400
3,634
5.9
73.2
2,286
55,321
3,805
6.2
86,506
47,283
54.7
44,154
87,567
48,589
55.5
45,556
87,689
48,950
55.8
45,956
51.0
596
43,558
3,129
6.6
52.0
614
44,943
3,032
6.2
14,506
7,901
54.5
6,434
Jan.
TOTAL
C ivilian n oninstitutional
p op u lation 1 ............................................
Civilian labor fo r c e .............................
P articipation rate ......................
E m p lo y e d ..........................................
E m ploym ent-population
ratio2 ............................................
U n e m p lo y e d ......................................
U nem ploym ent r a t e .................
N ot in labor fo rce ..............................
Men, 20 years and over
C ivilian noninstitutional
p op u lation 1 ............................................
C ivilian la bo r fo r c e .............................
P articipation rate ......................
Em ployed ..........................................
E m ploym ent-population
ratio2 ............................................
A g ric u ltu re ......................................
N onagricultural in d u s trie s .........
U n e m p lo y e d ......................................
U nem ploym ent r a t e .................
Women, 20 years ond over
Civilian noninstitutional
p op u lation 1 ............................................
C ivilian labor fo r c e .............................
P articipation rate ......................
E m ployed ..........................................
E m ploym ent-population
ratio2 ............................................
A g ric u ltu re ......................................
N onagricultural in d u s trie s .........
U n e m p lo y e d ......................................
U nem ploym ent r a t e .................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years
C ivilian n oninstitutional
p op u lation 1 ............................................
C ivilian labor fo r c e .............................
Participation rate ......................
Em ployed ..........................................
E m ploym ent-population
ratio2 ............................................
A g ric u ltu re ......................................
N onagricultural in d u s trie s .........
U n e m p lo y e d ......................................
U nem ploym ent r a t e .................
White
Civilian noninstitutional
p op u lation 1 ............................................
C ivilian labor fo r c e .............................
P articipation rate ......................
E m ployed ..........................................
E m ploym ent-population
ratio2 ............................................
U n e m p lo y e d ......................................
U nem ploym ent r a t e .................
Black
C ivilian n oninstitutional
p op u lation 1 ............................................
Civilian labor fo r c e .............................
P articipation rate ......................
E m ployed ..........................................
E m ploym ent-population
ratio2 ...........................................
U n e m p lo y e d ......................................
U nem ploym ent r a t e .................
See fo o tn o te s at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
67
!
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
Current Labor Statistics:
Employment Data
5. C o n tinued— E m ploym ent status o f the civilian population, by sex, age, race and Hispanic origin, m onthly data seasonally
adjusted
(Num bers in thousands)
A nnual average
1986
1987
E m ploym ent status
1985
1986
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
M ay
June
July
Aug.
11,915
7,698
64.6
6,888
12,344
8,076
65.4
7,219
12,397
8,130
65.6
7,248
12,432
8,179
65.8
7,286
12,469
8,200
65.8
7,345
12,505
8,226
65.8
7,437
12,540
8,320
66.3
7,446
12,653
8,431
66.6
7,538
12,692
8,457
66.6
7,644
12,732
8,392
65.9
7,639
12,770
8,484
66.4
7,701
12,809
8,586
67.0
7,838
12,848
8,452
65.8
7,730
12,887
8,411
65.3
7,744
12,925
8,544
66.1
7,864
57.8
811
10.5
58.5
857
10.6
58.5
882
10.8
58.6
893
10.9
58.9
855
10.4
59.5
789
9.6
59.4
874
10.5
59.6
893
10.6
60.2
813
9.6
60.0
753
9.0
60.3
783
9.2
61.2
748
8.7
60.2
722
8.5
60.1
667
7.9
60.8
680
8.0
Hispanic origin
C ivilian noninstitutional
p op u lation 1 ............................................
Civilian labor fo r c e ............................
P articipation rate ......................
E m ployed ..........................................
E m ploym ent-population
ratio2 ...........................................
U n e m p lo y e d ............................
U nem ploym ent r a t e .................
The population figures are not seasonally adjusted.
2 Civilian e m ploym ent as a p erce n t o f th e civilian noninstitutional population.
NO TE: Detail fo r th e above race and H ispanic-origin groups will not sum to totals
6.
because data fo r th e “ o th e r races” groups are not p resented and H ispanics are included
in both th e w hite and b lack population groups.
S elected em p lo ym en t indicators, m onthly data seasonally adjusted
(In thousands)
1987
1986
A nnual average
S elected categories
1985
1986
Aug.
Sept.
O ct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
CHARACTERISTIC
Civilian em ployed, 16 years and
o v e r .......................................................
M e n ...................................................
W om en ............................................
M arried men, spouse p resent ..
M arried w om en, spouse
p re s e n t...........................................
W om en w h o m aintain fa m ilies .
107,150
59,891
47,259
39,248
109,597
60,892
48,706
39,658
110,067
60,942
49,125
39,735
109,987
60,968
49,019
39,691
110,192
60,975
49,217
39,780
110,432
61,241
49,191
39,952
110,637
61,393
49,244
40,093
111,011
61,596
49,415
40,102
111,382
61,751
49,631
39,913
111,368
61,707
49,661
40,100
111,835
61,842
49,993
39,967
112,447
61,996
50,451
40,029
112,257
61,912
50,345
40,057
112,727
62,154
50,574
40,241
113,081
62,343
50,738
40,260
26,336
5,597
27,144
5,837
27,388
5,832
27,249
5,926
27,323
6,016
27,333
6,041
27,400
6,005
27,525
5,985
27,817
5,906
27,965
5,933
28,213
5,972
28,495
5,921
28,458
5,939
28,426
6,013
28,196
6,108
1,535
1,458
185
1,547
1,447
169
1,509
1,387
174
1,521
1,460
159
1,562
1,451
164
1,582
1,425
198
1,621
1,400
152
1,650
1,370
136
1,647
1,454
126
1,739
1,418
150
1,589
1,505
175
1,695
1,442
170
1,614
1,386
165
1,619
1,429
154
1,566
1,363
159
95,871
16,031
79,841
1,249
78,592
7,811
289
98,299
16,342
81,957
1,235
80,722
7,881
255
98,586
16,446
82,140
1,247
80,893
7,956
271
98,692
16,333
82,359
1,229
81,130
7,939
275
98,846
16,264
82,582
1,216
81,366
7,993
265
98,869
16,457
82,412
1,183
81,229
8,179
252
99,164
16,443
82,721
1,189
81,532
8,056
239
99,550
16,412
83,138
1,269
81,869
8,192
246
99,748
16,532
83,216
1,204
82,012
8,187
255
99,834
16,568
83,265
1,227
82,038
8,050
273
100,112
16,484
83,628
1,266
82,362
8,117
268
100,834
16,710
84,124
1,266
82,858
8,142
275
100,420
16,956
83,464
1,146
82,318
8,328
274
100,838
16,931
83,907
1,224
82,683
8,205
268
101,334
16,760
84,574
1,172
83,402
8,216
250
5,590
2,430
2,819
13,489
5,588
2,456
2,800
13,935
5,471
2,417
2,741
13,981
5,544
2,472
2,772
13,922
5,740
2,481
2,826
14,178
5,563
2,510
2,714
14,021
5,596
2,444
2,867
13,877
5,505
2,473
2,695
14,170
5,780
2,535
2,828
14,061
5,456
2,440
2,698
14,167
5,391
2,322
2,746
13,862
5,282
2,223
2,665
14,573
5,184
2,317
2,579
15,054
5,508
2,456
2,722
14,422
5,262
2,515
2,494
14,634
5,334
2,273
2,730
13,038
5,345
2,305
2,719
13,502
5,269
2,283
2,678
13,606
5,303
2,314
2,710
13,520
5,450
2,314
2,739
13,736
5,319
2,366
2,626
13,567
5,342
2,286
2,765
13,455
5,201
2,281
2,599
13,750
5,459
2,340
2,742
13,597
5,164
2,218
2,595
13,682
5,110
2,137
2,662
13,399
5,029
2,071
2,594
14,069
4,918
2,155
2,477
14,485
5,235
2,295
2,634
13,946
4,998
2,306
2,433
14,168
MAJOR INDUSTRY AND CLASS
OF WORKER
Agriculture:
W age and salary w o rk e r s .........
S elf-em ployed w o rk e r s ...............
Unpaid fam ily w o rk e r s ................
N onagricultural industries:
W age and salary w orkers .........
G overn m en t ................................
Private in d u s trie s .......................
Private h o u s e h o ld s ................
O th e r ..........................................
S elf-em ployed w o rk e r s ...............
Unpaid fam ily w o rk e r s ................
PERSONS AT WORK
PART TIME1
All industries:
Part tim e fo r e conom ic reasons .
S lack w o rk ......................................
Could only find p art-tim e w ork
V oluntary part tim e .........................
N onagricultural industries:
Part tim e fo r eco no m ic reasons .
S lack w ork ......................................
Could only find part-tim e w ork
V oluntary part tim e .........................
1 E xcludes persons “ w ith a jo b but n ot a t w o rk” during the survey period fo r such reasons as vacation, illness, or industrial disputes.
68
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
7.
S elected unem ploym ent indicators, m onthly data seasonally adjusted
(U nem ploym ent rates)
1987
1986
A nnual average
S elected categories
1985
1986
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
M ay
June
July
Aug.
Total, all civilian w o rk e rs ..................................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 y e a rs .......................................
M en, 20 years and over .............................................
W om en, 20 years and o v e r .......................................
7.2
18.6
6.2
6.6
7.0
18.3
6.1
6.2
6.8
18.0
5.9
6.1
7.0
18.5
6.2
6.2
6.9
17.7
6.2
6.1
6.9
18.2
6.2
6.1
6.7
17.3
6.0
5.9
6.7
17.7
6.0
5.9
6.7
18.0
5.9
5.8
6.6
18.1
5.8
5.8
6.3
17.4
5.5
5.5
6.3
17.7
5.5
5.4
6.1
15.9
5.5
5.2
6.0
15.5
5.4
5.4
6.0
16.0
5.2
6.3
W hite, to ta l ......................................................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 y e a r s ...................................
Men, 16 to 19 years ..........................................
W om en, 16 to 19 y e a rs .....................................
Men, 20 years and over .........................................
W om en, 20 years and o v e r ....................................
6.2
15.7
16.5
14.8
5.4
5.7
6.0
15.6
16.3
14.9
5.3
5.4
5.8
15.4
16.6
14.2
5.1
5.2
6.0
15.9
16.6
15.1
5.4
5.3
6.0
15.4
15.7
15.2
5.4
5.2
6.0
16.0
16.3
15.7
5.4
5.2
5.8
15.1
15.5
14.6
5.3
5.0
5.9
15.0
16.1
13.8
5.3
5.1
5.7
15.2
16.0
14.3
5.2
4.9
5.6
15.5
17.1
13.9
5.1
4.8
5.4
14.9
16.7
13.1
4.8
4.6
5.3
15.2
17.3
13.1
4.7
4.5
5.2
13.6
14.5
12.7
4.9
4.4
5.1
13.0
13.0
13.0
4.7
4.5
5.1
14.0
15.4
12.5
4.5
4.4
Black, total ......................................................................
B oth sexes, 16 to 19 y e a rs ...................................
M en, 16 to 19 years ..........................................
W om en, 16 to 19 y e a rs .....................................
M en, 20 years and over .........................................
W om en, 20 years and o v e r ...................................
15.1
40.2
41.0
39.2
13.2
13.1
14.5
39.3
39.3
39.2
12.9
12.4
14.6
40.3
38.8
41.9
13.2
12.5
14.6
38.4
38.6
38.3
13.4
12.4
14.3
35.8
37.8
33.8
13.1
12.4
14.2
36.0
35.0
37.0
12.9
12.5
13.7
36.5
36.1
36.9
11.8
12.3
14.3
39.5
36.5
43.2
12.2
12.8
14.3
38.9
38.3
39.5
12.0
12.9
13.9
37.6
36.5
38.8
11.5
13.0
13.0
38.0
39.3
36.5
10.9
11.5
13.8
39.0
40.3
37.6
12.5
11.6
12.7
33.3
31.5
35.1
11.5
11.1
12.6
31.5
31.5
31.4
11.3
11.4
12.4
29.2
32.6
25.3
10.7
11.3
H ispanic origin, to ta l....................................................
10.5
10.6
10.8
10.9
10.4
9.6
10.5
10.6
9.6
9.0
9.2
8.7
8.5
7.9
8.0
M arried men, spouse p re s e n t..................................
M arried w om en, spouse p re s e n t............................
W om en w ho m aintain fa m ilie s .................................
Full-tim e w orkers ..........................................................
Part-tim e w orkers .........................................................
U nem ployed 15 w eeks and o v e r .............................
Labor fo rce tim e lo s t1 .................................................
4.3
5.6
10.4
6.8
9.3
2.0
8.1
4.4
5.2
9.8
6.6
9.1
1.9
7.9
4.2
5.1
10.1
6.4
9.3
1.9
7.7
4.3
5.1
9.8
6.6
9.3
2.0
7.9
4.6
5.0
8.9
6.6
9.2
1.8
7.8
4.5
5.0
9.7
6.6
9.1
1.9
7.7
4.3
4.8
9.8
6.3
8.8
1.8
7.6
4.2
4.8
9.8
6.4
9.0
1.8
7.6
4.2
4.8
9.5
6.3
8.7
1.8
7.6
4.1
4.5
9.7
6.2
9.2
1.7
7.4
4.1
4.4
9.3
5.9
8.6
1.7
7.3
3.9
4.1
9.6
5.9
8.7
1.8
7.2
4.0
4.0
9.7
5.9
6.9
1.7
7.1
3.8
4.2
9.4
5.7
7.9
1.6
6.9
3.7
4.3
9.0
5.6
8.2
1.6
6.8
7.2
9.5
13.1
7.7
7.6
7.8
5.1
7.6
5.6
3.9
13.2
7.0
13.5
13.1
7.1
6.9
7.4
5.1
7.6
5.5
3.6
12.5
6.9
16.6
12.4
6.9
6.8
6.9
4.8
7.5
5.6
3.3
13.3
7.0
13.9
12.9
7.0
6.5
7.7
4.7
7.6
5.6
3.5
12.9
7.0
14.5
13.8
7.3
7.2
7.3
5.2
7.4
5.4
3.7
11.9
7.0
14.5
15.1
7.1
6.6
7.9
4.4
7.2
5.4
3.6
10.1
6.8
14.1
13.7
6.9
6.4
7.7
4.6
7.2
5.1
3.3
11.5
6.7
14.0
12.2
6.8
6.8
6.8
4.8
7.5
5.2
3.6
11.6
6.6
12.4
11.6
6.8
6.8
6.9
4.0
7.2
5.4
3.7
11.2
6.5
9.3
12.5
6.9
6.7
7.3
4.6
7.3
4.9
3.4
10.7
6.2
11.1
11.9
6.2
6.2
6.2
4.8
7.0
4.7
3.6
9.0
6.3
12.9
12.1
6.4
6.3
6.6
4.4
6.9
4.8
3.3
8.7
6.2
10.8
11.6
5.6
5.3
6.0
5.0
7.2
4.8
3.4
8.8
6.1
7.8
10.7
6.0
6.1
5.9
4.4
6.8
5.1
3.4
11.3
5.9
8.9
11.2
5.5
5.5
5.5
4.3
7.0
4.6
3.9
10.8
CHARACTERISTIC
INDUSTRY
N onagricultural private wage and salary w o rkers ....
M in in g ................................................................................
C onstruction ...................................................................
M anufacturing ................................................................
D urable g o o d s ............................................................
N ondurable goods ....................................................
T ransportation and public utilities ..........................
W holesale and retail t r a d e ........................................
Finance and service in d u s trie s ................................
G overn m en t w orkers .........................................................
A gricultural w age and salary w orkers .........................
1 A ggregate hours lo st by th e unem ployed and persons on part tim e fo r eco no m ic reasons as a perce n t o f pote ntia lly available labor fo rce hours.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
69
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
Current Labor Statistics:
Employment Data
8. U nem p loym ent rates by sex and age, m onthly data seasonally adjusted
(C ivilian workers)
A nnual
average
S ex and age
1985
1986
1986
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
1987
Nov.
Jan.
Dec.
Mar.
Feb.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Total, 16 years and over ................................................................................
16 to 24 y e a r s .......................................................................................
16 to 19 y e a r s ..............................................................................................
16 to 17 years ..........................................................................................
18 to 19 years ..........................................................................................
20 to 24 years ................................
25 years and o v e r ..........................................................................................
25 to 54 years ..........................................................................................
55 years and o v e r ...................................................................................
7.2
13.6
18.6
21.0
17.0
11.1
5.6
5.8
4.1
7.0
13.3
18.3
20.2
17.0
10.7
5.4
5.7
3.9
6.8
12.9
18.0
19.8
16.8
10.3
5.4
5.7
3.7
7.0
13.6
18.5
20.0
17.2
11.1
5.4
5.6
4.0
6.9
13.0
17.7
19.3
16.5
10.5
5.5
5.7
4.1
6.9
12.9
18.2
20.6
16.7
10.2
5.5
5.8
3.8
6.7
12.9
17.3
18.8
16.3
10.7
5.2
5.5
3.5
6.7
13.1
17.7
20.1
16.2
10.7
5.2
5.6
3.2
6.7
13.1
18.0
20.3
16.6
10.5
5.1
5.5
3.0
6.6
12.9
18.1
20.0
16.5
10.2
5.1
5.4
3.4
6.3
12.6
17.4
19.2
16.3
10.1
4.8
5.0
3.4
6.3
12.6
17.7
21.4
15.0
9.8
4.8
5.0
3.7
6.1
12.2
15.9
18.8
13.7
10.2
4.6
4.9
3.2
6.0
11.7
15.5
17.1
13.9
9.8
4.7
5.0
3.1
6.0
11.6
16.0
18.0
14.7
9.1
4.7
5.0
3.2
M en, 16 years and o v e r ...........................................................................
16 to 24 years ..........................................................................................
16 to 19 y e a rs ........................................................................................
16 to 17 y e a rs ....................................................................................
18 to 19 y e a r s ....................................................................................
20 to 24 y e a rs ........................................................................................
25 years and o v e r ...................................................................................
25 to 54 y e a r s .................................................
55 years and o v e r .........................................
7.0
14.1
19.5
21.9
17.9
11.4
5.3
5.6
4.1
6.9
13.7
19.0
20.8
17.7
11.0
5.4
5.6
4.1
6.8
13.3
19.1
20.9
18.0
10.3
5.3
5.6
4.1
7.0
14.3
19.1
21.0
17.5
11.9
5.4
5.5
4.2
7.0
13.2
18.2
19.8
17.0
10.7
5.5
5.7
4.4
6.9
13.4
18.3
21.3
16.2
10.9
5.5
5.7
4.1
6.7
13.4
17.8
19.1
17.0
11.3
5.2
5.5
4.0
6.8
13.4
18.5
21.4
16.9
10.7
5.4
5.7
3.5
6.7
13.6
18.6
21.2
17.0
11.1
5.1
5.4
3.3
6.6
13.2
19.3
20.2
18.6
10.1
5.1
5.4
3.6
6.3
13.2
19.2
21.5
17.5
10.1
4.8
5.0
3.7
6.4
13.4
20.0
23.2
17.7
10.0
4.9
5.1
4.1
6.2
12.6
16.4
18.7
14.4
10.7
4.7
5.0
3.4
6.0
11.9
15.5
16.6
13.8
10.0
4.7
4.9
3.4
6.0
12.4
18.0
20.6
16.3
9.3
4.7
4.9
3.4
W om en, 16 years and o v e r ..................................................
16 to 24 y e a r s .............................................
16 to 19 years ......................................................................................
16 to 17 years ..................................................................................
18 to 19 years ..................................................................................
20 to 24 years ......................................................................................
25 years and o v e r ..................................................................................
25 to 54 years ..................................................
55 years and o v e r ..........................................................
7.4
13.0
17.6
20.0
16.0
10.7
5.9
6.2
4.1
7.1
12.8
17.6
19.6
16.3
10.3
5.5
5.9
3.6
6.9
12.4
16.7
18.7
15.4
10.2
5.4
5.8
3.3
7.0
12.8
17.7
18.8
16.9
10.2
5.5
5.8
3.6
6.9
12.7
17.2
18.6
16.0
10.3
5.4
5.7
3.6
6.9
12.4
18.2
19.8
17.2
9.4
5.5
5.8
3.4
6.7
12.4
16.8
18.4
15.7
10.0
5.2
5.5
2.9
6.7
12.7
16.8
18.7
15.3
10.6
5.1
5.5
2.7
6.7
12.4
17.4
19.2
16.1
9.8
5.1
5.6
2.6
6.6
12.5
16.7
19.7
14.2
10.3
5.0
5.4
3.2
6.2
12.0
15.6
16.7
15.1
10.1
4.7
5.0
3.0
6.1
11.7
15.4
19.6
12.4
9.7
4.7
4.9
3.0
5.9
11.7
15.4
18.9
13.0
9.7
4.4
4.7
2.8
6.1
11.6
15.4
17.7
14.0
9.5
4.7
5.0
2.6
6.0
10.7
13.9
15.3
12.9
8.9
4.7
5.0
2.9
9. U nem p loyed persons by reason fo r unem ploym ent, m onthly data seasonally adjusted
(N um bers in thousands)
1987
1986
A nnual average
R eason fo r unem ploym ent
1985
Job losers ..............................................................................
On la y o ff..............................................................................
O th er job lo s e rs ................................................................
Job leavers ...........................................................................
R eentrants .............................................................................
N ew entran ts ........................................................................
1986
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
4,139
1,157
2,982
877
2,256
1,039
4,033
1,090
2,943
1,015
2,160
1,029
3,824
1,017
2,807
990
2,199
1,014
4,044
1,029
3,015
1,041
2,145
1,038
3,984
1,072
2,912
1,027
2,190
972
3,947
1,073
2,874
1,056
2,119
1,076
3,890
1,078
2,812
1,036
2,019
1,015
3,971
1,118
2,854
891
2,054
1,084
3,839
998
2,842
1,046
2,042
1,040
3,822
1,011
2,811
1,000
2,111
956
3,732
958
2,774
923
1,940
911
3,611
906
2,705
906
2,018
1,018
3,565
901
2,664
949
1,969
798
3,522
918
2,604
1,007
1,913
801
3,339
850
2,489
1,006
1,997
829
49.8
13.9
35.9
10.6
27.1
12.5
48.9
13.2
35.7
12.3
26.2
12.5
47.6
12.7
35.0
12.3
27.4
12.6
48.9
12.4
36.5
12.6
25.9
12.6
48.7
13.1
35.6
12.6
26.8
11.9
48.1
13.1
35.1
12.9
25.8
13.1
48.9
13.5
35.3
13.0
25.4
12.8
49.6
14.0
35.7
11.1
25.7
13.6
48.2
12.5
35.7
13.1
25.6
13.1
48.4
12.8
35.6
12.7
26.8
12.1
49.7
12.8
37.0
12.3
25.8
12.1
47.8
12.0
35.8
12.0
26.7
13.5
49.0
12.4
36.6
13.0
27.0
11.0
48.6
12.7
36.0
13.9
26.4
11.1
46.6
11.9
34.7
14.0
27.9
11.6
3.6
.8
2.0
.9
3.4
.9
1.8
.9
3.2
.8
1.9
.9
3.4
.9
1.8
.9
3.4
.9
1.8
.8
3.3
.9
1.8
.9
3.3
.9
1.7
.9
3.3
.7
1.7
.9
3.2
.9
1.7
.9
3.2
.8
1.8
.8
3.1
.8
1.6
.8
3.0
.8
1.7
.8
3.0
.8
1.6
.7
2.9
.8
1.6
.7
2.8
.8
1.7
.7
PERCENT OF UNEMPLOYED
Job lo s e rs ...........................................................................
O n la y o ff..........................................................................
O th er job lo s e rs ............................................................
Job le a v e rs .........................................................................
R e e n tra n ts ..........................................................................
N ew entran ts ....................................................................
PERCENT OF
CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE
Job losers ..............................................................................
Job leavers ...........................................................................
R eentrants ............................................................................
N ew entran ts ........................................................................
10. D uration o f unem ploym ent, m onthly data seasonally adjusted
(Num bers in thousands)
A nnual average
1986
1987
W eeks o f unem ploym ent
1985
1986
Aug.
Sept.
O ct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Less than 5 w eeks ....................................................
5 to 14 w eeks ..............................................................
15 w eeks and o v e r ....................................................
15 to 26 w eeks ........................................................
27 w eeks and over .................................................
3,498
2,509
2,305
1,025
1,280
3,448
2,557
2,232
1,045
1,187
3,436
2,407
2,272
1,068
1,204
3,415
2,524
2,373
1,110
1,263
3,418
2,563
2,168
950
1,218
3,382
2,613
2,217
1,045
1,172
3,355
2,389
2,171
1,023
1,148
3,416
2,530
2,200
1,022
1,178
3,361
2,477
2,131
1,008
1,123
3,383
2,447
2,050
945
1,105
3,143
2,232
2,075
1,025
1,049
3,349
2,118
2,101
1,003
1,098
3,085
2,114
2,055
998
1,057
3,168
2,141
1,907
945
962
3,197
2,170
1,884
814
1,070
M ean duration in w e e k s ...........................................
M edian duration in w e e k s ........................................
15.6
6.8
15.0
6.9
15.6
7.1
15.5
7.1
15.2
7.0
14.8
7.0
15.0
7.1
15.0
7.0
14.6
6.6
14.9
6.6
14.9
7.0
14.9
6.5
14.8
6.7
14.0
6.7
14.3
6.4
70
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
11. U nem p loym ent rates o f civilian w o rkers by S tate, data not seasonally adjusted
July
1986
July
1987
10.3
10.2
7.8
8.6
7.5
7.7
9.7
6.7
79
6.0
C olorado .........................................
C onnecticut .............................................
D e la w a re ................................................................
D istrict o f C o lu m b ia ...............................
Florida ..........................................................
N ew J e r s e y ...........................................................
5.7
7.4
3.9
5.1
7.7
6.9
7.1
34
3.4
6.2
5.9
4.5
89
N orth C arolina ......................................................
5.1
5.9
4.7
4.0
G eorgia ..........................................................
H a w a ii........................................................................
Idaho .........................................................................
Illinois ........................................................................
Indiana ......................................................................
O hio .........................................................................
6.4
5.0
8.5
7.8
6.3
7.8
5.1
4.0
7.4
7.1
6.2
O re g o n ...................................................................
P e n n s y lv a n ia .......................................
R hode Is la n d .........................................................
8.0
6.7
4.6
6.7
7 1
5.7
5.8
4.0
South C a ro lin a ......................................................
6.7
6.5
5.5
9.9
14.0
7.2
4.5
4.4
8.8
10.7
4.9
T e nnessee .........................................
8.6
State
A la b a m a ...........................................
A laska ...........................................
A riz o n a ........................................
A rkansas ......................................
C a lifo rn ia .................................
Io w a ............................................
K ansas .....................................................
K e n tu c k y .....................................................
L o u is ia n a .......................................................
M a in e ................................................
M aryland .................................................
M a s s a c h u s e tts ...................................................
M ic h ig a n ..................................................
M in n e s o ta ..........................................
M is s is s ip p i.....................................
M is s o u ri...........................................................
Data not available.
NO TE: S om e data in this
12.
table
44
3.8
9.2
4.7
13.1
5.9
2.6
88
4.6
9.7
6.6
m ay diffe r from
data
State
July
1986
July
1987
3.2
SR
2.6
U tah ....
5.9
5.5
3 ft
7.0
87
6.3
V e rm o n t..........................................................
4.3
3.2
W ashington ......................
8.1
7.0
6.4
5.1
8.4
7.0
published e lsew here because o f the continual updating o f the
database.
E m ploym ent o f w o rk e rs on nonagricultural payrolls by S tate, data not seasonally adjusted
(In thousands)
State
July 1986
June 1987
A la b a m a .....................
A laska ........................
A riz o n a .......................
A rkansas ....................
C a lifo rn ia ....................
1,469.5
237.9
1,323.2
810.9
11,235.6
1,488.1
219.3
1,351.7
834.7
11,671.8
C o lo r a d o ....................
C o nn e cticut ..............
D e la w a re ....................
D istrict o f Colum bia
F lo rid a .........................
1,396.0
1,599.7
305.4
657.3
4,530.2
1,403.9
1,664.2
319.1
648.9
4,786.7
G eorgia ...................... .
H a w a ii..........................
Idaho ...........................
Illinois ..........................
Indiana ........................
2,672.7
438.3
335.0
4,785.9
2,223.0
2,757.4
451.0
343.9
4,874.2
2,306.5
Io w a ..............................
Kansas ........................
K e n tu c k y .....................
L o u is ia n a .....................
M a in e ............................
1,070.9
973.1
1,268.4
1,505.9
485.6
1,108.7
999.9
1,307.1
1,490.8
505.9
M aryland .....................
M a s s a c h u s e tts .........
M ic h ig a n ......................
M in n e s o ta ..................
M is s is s ip p i..................
M is s o u ri.......................
M o n ta n a ......................
1,970.9
2,972.3
3,602.2
1,896.9
840.3
2,130.3
275.7
2,008.3
3,081.5
3,709.0
1,961.8
855.8
2,160.2
280.3
July 1987p
p = prelim inary
NO TE: S om e data in this tab le m ay d iffe r from data published elsew here
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
State
1,490.0 N e b ra s k a ...............................................
226.0 N evada .......................................................
1,341.5
830.1
11,597.7 N ew Jersey ...........................................................
N ew M exico ..........................................................
1,387.7 N ew Y o r k ...............................................................
1,647.3 N orth C arolina .......................................
316.8 N orth D akota .........................................
661.3
4,737.3 O hio ........................................................
O k la h o m a ...............................................................
2,747.3 O re g o n ........................................................
452.0
339.7 R hode Is la n d ...............................................
4,871.6
2,299.7 S outh C a ro lin a ......................................................
South D a k o ta ......................................................
1,098.2 T e nnessee ......................................................
987.6 Texas ...............................................
1,294.5 Utah .........................................................................
1,486.9
500.7 V e rm o n t..................................................................
V irg in ia .....................................................................
1,999.0 W ashington ............................................
3,041.6 W est V irg in ia ................................................
3,640.0 W is c o n s in .......................................................
1,945.0
851.0 W y o m in g .................................................................
2,144.3 P uerto R ico ............................................................
274.9 Virgin Islands ........................................................
July 1986
June 1987
July 1987p
651 3
473 7
494.0
6 66 5
503 4
509.1
509.9
3 522 3
525.7
7,930.1
2,694.3
249 9
3 623 1
535.9
8,158.3
2,840.9
254.1
3 614 9
533.9
8,106.8
2,795.0
252.2
T 1 3 7.5
1 111 0
T 1 2 3.2
4 478 3
1,131.9
1 051 1
4 792 6
440.3
6 60 0
5 06 4
451.0
446.3
1,333 6
253.4
1 923 9
6 549 6
629.8
1 394 0
260.3
1 377 2
255.2
643.2
636.6
233.8
2,565.5
1,775.0
603.6
2,021.7
239.3
2,656.6
1,854.0
604.2
2,085.2
239.0
2,640.1
1,838.1
604.4
2,067.3
204.5
732.3
38.0
198.8
772.7
37.6
196.3
761.2
37.5
because o f th e continual updating o f th e database.
71
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
13.
October 1987 •
Current Labor Statistics:
Employment Data
E m ploym ent o f w o rk e rs on nonagricultural payrolls by industry, m onthly data seasonally adjusted
(In thousands)
A nnual average
1987
Industry
1985
1986
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
97,519
81,125
99,610
82,900
99,772
83,125
100,039
83,241
100,209
83,337
G O O D S-P R O D U C IN G ... .
Mining ....................
Oil and gas extraction ..................
24,859
927
583
24,681
783
457
24,639
748
428
24,620
739
419
Construction .....................
G eneral building c o n tra c to rs .....
4,673
1,253
4,904
1,293
4,946
1,295
19,260
13,092
18,994
12,895
11,490
7,644
TOTAL .....................................
PRIVATE SECTOR ..........
Manufacturing....................
P roduction w orkers .............
Durable goods............
P roduction w orkers ......................
Lum ber and w ood p ro d u c ts ..........
Furniture and fix tu re s .......................
S tone, clay, and glass pro d u cts ...
Prim ary m etal industries .................
B last fu rn aces and basic steel
p ro d u c ts .........................................
Fabricated m etal p ro d u c ts ..............
M achinery, exce p t e le c tric a l..........
E lectrical and electronic
e q u ip m e n t.................................
T ransportation e q u ip m e n t...............
M o to r veh icles and e quipm ent ....
Instrum ents and related products
M iscellaneous m anufacturing
in d u s trie s ......................................
Dec.
Jan.
100,415
83,515
100,567
83,643
100,919
83,983
24,611
735
416
24,630
730
412
24,630
724
406
4,948
1,291
4,942
1,289
4,946
1,289
18,945
12,857
18,933
12,851
18,934
12,849
11,244
7,432
11,206
7,399
11,181
7,382
697
494
588
808
711
497
586
753
712
499
584
735
303
1,465
275
1,431
265
1,423
2,174
2,060
2,051
2,031
2,022
2,015
2,011
2,007
2,018
2,015
2,197
1,980
884
720
2,123
2,015
865
707
2,123
2,016
861
703
2,118
2,015
857
703
2,120
2,013
850
702
2,119
2,023
858
700
2,118
2,018
853
698
2,111
2,014
851
697
2,106
2,022
859
695
2,099
2,022
854
694
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
Julyp
Aug.'
101,150
84,215
101,329
84,352
101,598
84,560
101,708
84,677
101,818
84,787
102,114
85,089
102,270
85,196
24,708
718
405
24,743
719
406
24,749
722
408
24,759
729
416
24,752
735
420
24,761
738
425
24,857
743
429
24,857
749
433
4,936
1,277
5,034
1,311
5,038
1,309
5,032
1,291
5,019
1,272
4,999
1,267
5,008
1,266
5,008
1,263
5,007
1,264
18,954
12,879
18,970
12,906
18,956
12,884
18,986
12,916
18,995
12,925
19,011
12,939
19,018
12,946
19,015
12,958
19,106
13,021
19,101
13,021
11,169
7,369
11,174
7,385
11,175
7,393
11,157
7,370
11,179
7,398
11,176
7,399
11,175
7,406
11,175
7,409
11,176
7,421
11,195
7,424
11,219
7,457
716
499
584
732
718
499
581
733
723
499
582
733
728
499
584
733
731
500
586
726
733
501
588
733
734
502
586
739
736
504
586
743
738
509
584
742
735
510
582
746
740
519
582
749
736
520
584
751
260
1,424
262
1,421
260
1,419
259
1,422
254
1,422
261
1,419
266
1,419
272
1,423
272
1,420
275
1,424
276
1,425
278
1,423
2,022
2,025
2,028
2,032
2,041
2,092
2,011
847
694
2,087
2,011
843
693
2,080
2,010
842
693
2,087
1,994
813
696
2,089
2,012
833
694
367
362
360
359
360
361
364
363
364
366
364
366
368
371
369
Nondurable goods.............
P roduction w o rk e rs .......................
7,770
5,449
7,750
5,463
7,739
5,458
7,752
5,469
7,765
5,480
7,780
5,494
7,795
5,513
7,799
5,514
7,807
5,518
7,819
5,526
7,836
5,533
7,843
5,537
7,839
5,537
7,911
5,597
7,882
5,564
Food and kindred p ro d u c ts .........
T o bacco m anufactures .................
T e xtile mill p ro d u c ts ................
A pparel and o th e r textile
p ro d u c ts ......................................
Paper and allied products ..............
1,603
64
702
1,617
59
705
1,616
58
707
1,619
58
707
1,621
58
709
1,627
59
714
1,631
58
715
1,628
58
718
1,630
58
722
1,635
57
725
1,642
56
724
1,633
57
727
1,634
57
729
1,646
58
737
1,637
56
733
1,121
678
1,106
674
1,102
671
1,102
675
1,104
677
1,101
678
1,110
679
1,106
678
1,101
679
1,103
678
1,104
677
1,107
677
1,108
676
1,131
676
1,110
675
1,428
1,044
179
1,457
1,023
169
1,462
1,021
168
1,465
1,021
167
1,469
1,020
166
1,472
1,020
165
1,474
1,017
163
1,479
1,018
164
1,483
1,018
164
1,485
1,017
164
1,493
1,018
164
1,497
1,022
164
1,498
1,014
164
1,503
1,026
163
1,507
1,029
165
786
165
790
151
786
148
791
147
794
147
797
147
800
148
803
147
805
147
807
148
809
149
809
150
810
149
816
155
817
153
72,660
74,930
75,133
75,419
75,598
75,785
75,937
76,211
76,407
76,580
76,839
76,956
77,057
77,257
77,413
5,238
3,003
5,244
3,041
5,202
3,035
5,255
3,050
5,251
3,053
5,278
3,071
5,286
3,078
5,304
3,089
5,315
3,097
5,333
3,112
5,348
3,124
5,344
3,120
5,350
3,128
5,360
3,131
5,376
3,144
2,235
2,203
2,167
2,205
2,198
2,207
2,208
2,215
2,218
2,221
2,224
2,224
2,222
2,229
2,232
5,717
3,388
2,329
5,735
3,383
2,351
5,736
3,382
2,354
5,736
3,383
2,353
5,731
3,379
2,352
5,728
3,380
2,348
5,725
3,383
2,342
5,741
3,386
2,355
5,757
3,391
2,366
5,766
3,397
2,369
5,772
3,397
2,375
5,775
3,401
2,374
5,781
3,405
2,376
5,796
3,417
2,379
5,798
3,420
2,378
17,356
2,324
2,775
17,845
2,363
2,873
17,913
2,371
2,889
17,939
2,374
2,892
17,980
2,385
2,901
18,009
2,379
2,906
18,007
2,363
2,916
18,080
2,358
2,929
18,140
2,373
2,940
18,136
2,380
2,944
18,197
2,385
2,953
18,205
2,390
2,956
18,226
2,387
2,960
18,271
2,404
2,959
18,248
2,406
2,958
1,890
5,709
1,943
5,879
1,949
5,904
1,958
5,911
1,960
5,919
1,963
5,927
1,970
5,938
1,978
5,946
1,979
5,956
1,979
5,964
1,978
5,962
1,978
5,976
1,983
5,982
1,984
5,986
1,986
5,993
5,955
2,977
1,833
1,146
6,297
3,152
1,945
1,200
6,351
3,183
1,961
1,207
6,374
3,193
1,971
1,210
6,395
3,204
1,980
1,211
6,418
3,212
1,990
1,216
6,451
3,227
1,999
1,225
6,480
3,235
2,012
1,233
6,501
3,243
2,016
1,242
6,526
3,256
2,022
1,248
6,558
3,272
2,032
1,254
6,576
3,276
2,037
1,263
6,586
3,280
2,037
1,269
6,607
3,290
2,042
1,275
6,630
3,298
2,052
1,280
Services.................
B usiness s e rv ic e s ...................
H ealth services ...................
22,000
4,457
6,299
23,099
4,781
6,551
23,284
4,815
6,594
23,317
4,835
6,615
23,369
4,861
6,644
23,452
4,877
6,661
23,544
4,912
6,691
23,670
4,950
6,721
23,759
4,984
6,748
23,842
5,020
6,773
23,926
5,044
6,800
24,025
5,083
6,822
24,083
5,086
6,853
24,198
5,107
6,884
24,287
5,145
6,923
Government .................................
F e d e ra l..................................................
S ta te .......................................................
L o c a l.......................................................
16,394
2,875
3,832
9,687
16,711
2,899
3,888
9,923
16,647
2,882
3,881
9,884
16,798
2,902
3,890
10,006
16,872
2,897
3,907
10,068
16,900
2,900
3,915
10,085
16,924
2,904
3,927
10,093
16,936
2,912
3,929
10,095
16,935
2,916
3,927
10,092
16,977
2,922
3,930
10,125
17,038
2,933
3,943
10,162
17,031
2,935
3,947
10,149
17,031
2,935
3,932
10,164
17,025
2,930
3,950
10,145
17,074
2,944
3,951
10,179
Printing and p u b lis h in g .....................
C hem icals and allied p ro d u c ts ......
Petroleum and coal p ro d u c ts .....
R ubber and m isc. plastics
p ro d u c ts ..........................................
Leather and leather p roducts .......
SERVICE-PRODUCING ..............
Transportation and public
utilities........................
T ra n s p o rta tio n ........................
C o m m unication and public
u tilitie s ......................................
Wholesale trade ....................
Durable g o o d s ...........................
N ondurable g o o d s ..........
Retail trad e.........................
G eneral m erchandise s to r e s .........
Food s to r e s ...............................
A utom o tive dealers and sarvice
station s ...................................
Eating and drinking p la c e s ...........
Finance, insurance, and real
estate ....................................................
Finance .................................................
In s u ra n c e ..............................................
Real e s ta te ..........................................
p = prelim inary
NO TE: S ee n otes on th e data fo r a d escription o f th e m ost recen t benchm ark revision.
72
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
14. A verage w ee k ly hours o f produ ction or nonsu pervisory w o rk e rs on p rivate nonagricultural payrolls by industry,
m onthly data seasonally adjusted
Industry
Annual
average
1985
1987
1986
1986
Aug.
Sept.
Nov.
Oct.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
M ay
June
July»
A ug.p
PRIVATE SECTOR ..........................................
34.9
34.8
34.7
34.7
34.7
34.8
34.6
34.7
34.9
34.8
34.7
34.9
34.8
34.8
35.0
MANUFACTURING................................................
O vertim e h o u r s .........................................................
40.5
3.3
40.7
3.4
40.8
3.5
40.8
3.5
40.7
3.5
40.8
3.5
40.8
3.6
40.9
3.6
41.1
3.6
40.9
3.6
40.6
3.5
41.0
3.8
41.0
3.7
41.0
3.8
41.0
3.8
Durable goods....................................................
O vertim e h o u r s .........................................................
Lum ber and w ood p ro d u c ts .......................................
Furniture and fix tu re s ...................................................
S tone, clay, and glass p ro d u c ts ...............................
Prim ary m etal industries ..............................................
B last fu rn aces and basic steel p ro d u c ts ...........
Fabricated m etal pro d u cts .........................................
41.2
3.5
39.9
39.4
41.9
41.5
41.1
41.3
41.3
3.5
40.3
39.8
42.2
41.9
41.7
41.3
41.4
3.6
40.2
39.9
42.3
42.0
41.7
41.3
41.4
3.6
40.3
40.0
42.4
42.1
41.9
41.5
41.3
3.5
40.4
39.9
42.3
42.3
42.4
41.3
41.4
3.5
40.8
39.8
41.9
42.4
42.5
41.4
41.4
3.6
40.6
39.9
42.2
42.5
42.6
41.2
41.6
3.7
40.8
40.2
42.5
42.6
42.7
41.6
41.7
3.7
41.3
40.2
42.8
42.6
42.3
41.6
41.5
3.7
40.9
40.0
42.5
42.6
42.3
41.5
41.2
3.6
40.6
39.1
41.9
42.3
42.4
41.2
41.6
3.9
41.0
39.9
42.3
43.1
43.3
41.6
41.5
3.8
40.6
40.0
42.0
43.1
43.5
41.5
41.5
3.8
40.6
39.9
42.2
43.1
43.6
41.4
41.6
4.0
40.7
39.7
42.0
43.4
43.3
41.8
M achinery e xce p t electrical .......................................
E lectrical and e lectron ic e q u ip m e n t........................
T ransportation e q u ip m e n t............................................
M otor vehicles and e q u ip m e n t...............................
Instrum ents and related products ...........................
41.5
40.6
42.6
43.5
41.0
41.6
41.0
42.3
42.6
41.0
41.6
41.1
42.4
42.5
40.9
41.7
41.2
42.4
42.7
40.7
41.7
41.0
42.1
42.1
40.9
41.7
41.0
42.2
42.4
41.1
41.7
41.0
42.1
42.4
41.1
42.0
41.0
42.3
42.9
41.2
42.2
41.1
42.5
43.0
41.3
42.0
40.9
42.3
42.9
41.3
41.8
40.6
41.9
42.1
41.0
42.2
40.8
42.2
42.5
41.5
42.2
41.1
41.9
42.0
41.5
42.4
41.1
41.8
41.8
41.6
42.2
41.0
41.9
42.1
42.0
Nondurable goods..............................................
O vertim e h o u r s .........................................................
Food and kindred p ro d u c ts ........................................
T e xtile mill p ro d u c ts ......................................................
A pparel and oth e r te xtile p ro d u c ts ..........................
Paper and allied products ..........................................
39.6
3.1
40.0
39.7
36.4
43.1
39.9
3.3
40.0
41.1
36.7
43.2
40.0
3.4
40.2
41.2
36.6
43.4
39.9
3.3
39.8
41.4
36.8
42.9
39.9
3.4
39.8
41.4
36.8
43.1
40.0
3.5
40.0
41.4
36.9
43.2
40.0
3.5
39.8
41.6
37.0
43.2
40.1
3.5
40.0
41.6
37.0
43.4
40.3
3.5
40.1
42.0
37.4
43.3
40.1
3.5
40.0
42.1
37.0
43.0
39.7
3.3
39.8
41.4
36.1
43.0
40.2
3.7
40.1
42.0
37.2
43.5
40.2
3.6
40.1
42.1
37.1
43.3
40.3
3.7
39.9
42.6
37.3
43.5
40.3
3.7
40.3
41.7
37.3
43.3
Printing and p u b lis h in g .................................................
C hem icals and allied p ro d u c ts ..................................
P etroleum and coal p ro d u c ts .....................................
37.8
41.9
43.0
38.0
41.9
43.8
38.0
42.0
44.2
38.0
41.8
43.5
38.0
42.0
43.7
38.0
42.3
43.8
38.0
42.1
43.6
37.9
42.2
44.6
38.1
42.2
44.0
37.9
42.0
44.1
37.7
42.2
43.9
37.9
42.1
44.3
38.1
42.0
43.3
38.1
42.2
44.5
37.9
42.3
44.7
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES....
39.5
39.2
39.1
39.1
39.1
39.2
38.9
39.0
39.2
39.0
39.0
39.2
38.8
39.2
39.0
WHOLESALE TRADE...........................................
37.8
37.7
38.4
38.2
38.3
38.3
38.2
38.3
38.3
38.1
38.2
38.3
38.2
38.1
38.4
RETAIL TRADE ....................................................
29.4
29.2
29.2
29.1
29.1
29.2
28.9
29.0
29.3
29.3
29.5
29.4
29.2
29.3
29.6
32.5
32.5
32.4
32.4
32.4
32.5
32.4
32.4
32.6
32.5
32.4
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.6
SERVICES .............................................................
p = prelim inary
NO TE: S ee "N o te s on th e d ata ” fo r a description o f the m ost recen t
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ben ch m a rk adjustm ent.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
Current Labor Statistics:
Employment Data
15. A verage hourly earnings o f produ ction or nonsu pervisory w o rk e rs on p rivate nonagricultural payrolls by
industry
Industry
1986
1987
1985
1986
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July?
Aug.p
PRIVATE SECTOR................................................ $8.57
S easonally adjusted ..................................................
-
$8.76
-
$8.70
8.77
$8.82
8.78
$8.82
8.82
$8.88
8.86
$8.86
8.84
$8.90
8.86
$8.92
8.88
$8.92
8.91
$8.91
8.91
$8.93
8.95
$8.92
8.94
$8.91
8.96
$8.95
9.03
MINING............................................................
11.98
12.44
12.51
12.52
12.50
12.57
12.63
12.66
12.56
12.51
12.43
12.42
12.44
12.33
12.42
CONSTRUCTION..................................................
12.32
12.47
12.44
12.59
12.68
12.66
12.77
12.58
12.51
12.59
12.55
12.60
12.61
12.57
12.68
MANUFACTURING...............................................
9.54
9.73
9.68
9.73
9.72
9.78
9.85
9.84
9.84
9.85
9.87
9.87
9.87
9.88
9.86
Durable goods .................................................... 10.10
Lum ber and w ood p ro d u c ts ....................................... 8.22
Furniture and fix tu re s ...................................................
7.17
Stone, clay, and glass p ro d u c ts ............................... 9.84
Prim ary m etal industries .............................................. 11.67
B last furnaces and basic steel p ro d u c ts ........... 13.33
Fabricated m etal products .........................................
9.70
10.29
8.33
7.46
10.05
11.86
13.73
9.89
10.22
8.33
7.50
10.07
11.74
13.61
9.82
10.29
8.35
7.55
10.11
11.82
13.76
9.88
10.27
8.32
7.53
10.10
11.75
13.63
9.88
10.33
8.35
7.55
10.14
11.80
13.68
9.94
10.40
8.32
7.65
10.17
11.82
13.74
10.02
10.38
8.27
7.61
10.17
11.76
13.55
9.98
10.39
8.31
7.58
10.15
11.78
13.59
9.99
10.39
8.28
7.58
10.13
11.82
13.66
9.99
10.39
8.34
7.58
10.23
11.96
13.84
9.98
10.40
8.37
7.64
10.26
11.96
13.80
9.97
10.42
8.44
7.66
10.29
11.97
13.83
10.00
10.41
8.47
7.71
10.31
12.01
13.84
9.96
10.40
8.54
7.77
10.32
11.95
13.86
9.92
M achinery, exce p t electrical ...................................... 10.29
E lectrical and e lectron ic e q u ip m e n t........................ 9.46
T ransportation e q u ip m e n t............................................ 12.71
M otor vehicles and e q u ip m e n t............................... 13.39
Instrum ents and related products ...........................
9.17
M iscellaneous m a n u fa c tu rin g ..................................... 7.30
10.59
9.65
12.81
13.45
9.47
7.54
10.59
9.64
12.70
13.29
9.47
7.51
10.61
9.70
12.82
13.42
9.54
7.58
10.58
9.67
12.82
13.42
9.56
7.57
10.62
9.73
12.88
13.44
9.63
7.62
10.67
9.82
12.96
13.56
9.65
7.69
10.64
9.84
12.93
13.58
9.64
7.69
10.68
9.84
12.88
13.49
9.67
7.68
10.72
9.84
12.86
13.49
9.67
7.66
10.70
9.82
12.80
13.40
9.67
7.67
10.70
9.83
12.85
13.42
9.69
7.72
10.76
9.84
12.88
13.47
9.70
7.74
10.74
9.89
12.83
13.35
9.74
7.71
10.73
9.89
12.91
13.43
9.72
7.66
Nondurable goods ..............................................
8.71
Food and kindred p ro d u c ts ........................................ 8.57
T o b acco m a n u fa c tu re s ................................................ 11.96
Textile mill p ro d u c ts ...................................................... 6.70
A pparel and oth e r te xtile p ro d u c ts ..........................
5.73
Paper and allied pro d u cts .......................................... 10.83
8.94
8.74
12.85
6.93
5.84
11.18
8.94
8.66
13.55
6.97
5.83
11.19
8.96
8.65
12.29
7.02
5.91
11.23
8.96
8.69
12.14
7.02
5.87
11.25
9.02
8.79
12.67
7.05
5.87
11.27
9.07
8.88
12.93
7.10
5.90
11.34
9.09
8.90
12.97
7.10
5.94
11.26
9.08
8.91
13.44
7.11
5.93
11.26
9.09
8.93
13.80
7.12
5.93
11.27
9.14
8.95
14.28
7.12
5.94
11.37
9.13
8.96
14.53
7.13
5.89
11.40
9.11
8.91
15.57
7.15
5.91
11.41
9.16
8.88
14.84
7.14
5.89
11.50
9.13
8.83
14.13
7.19
5.88
11.46
Printing and p u b lis h in g .................................................
9.71
C hem icals and allied p ro d u c ts .................................. 11.56
Petroleum and coal p ro d u c ts ..................................... 14.06
R ubber and m iscellaneous plastics p ro d u c ts ...... 8.54
Leather and leather p roducts ...................................
5.83
9.99
11.98
14.18
8.73
5.92
10.02
11.99
14.06
8.77
5.92
10.12
12.03
14.18
8.72
5.95
10.09
12.08
14.19
8.73
5.95
10.11
12.17
14.32
8.77
5.98
10.15
12.20
14.41
8.82
5.98
10.14
12.18
14.57
8.83
6.04
10.16
12.21
14.51
8.79
6.01
10.17
12.24
14.50
8.80
6.06
10.14
12.30
14.50
8.82
6.12
10.19
12.31
14.52
8.84
6.05
10.19
12.27
14.43
8.87
6.04
10.24
12.36
14.46
8.94
5.97
10.28
12.35
14.46
8.90
6.05
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES.... 11.40
11.70
11.67
11.77
11.77
11.90
11.90
11.89
11.93
11.90
11.94
11.95
11.91
11.99
12.07
WHOLESALE TRADE......................................
9.16
9.35
9.32
9.37
9.36
9.47
9.47
9.49
9.55
9.53
9.53
9.57
9.57
9.57
9.63
RETAIL TRADE ...........................................
5.94
6.03
5.97
6.06
6.06
6.08
6.07
6.09
6.09
6.08
6.09
6.09
6.08
6.07
6.06
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE
7.94
8.35
8.34
8.39
8.39
8.57
8.48
8.60
8.75
8.72
8.71
8.72
8.68
8.66
8.79
SERVICES ................................................
7.90
8.16
8.04
8.19
8.23
8.33
8.32
8.37
8.43
8.41
8.40
8.38
8.35
8.33
8.40
- Data n ot available.
p = prelim inary
74
Annual
average
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NO TE: S ee “ N otes on th e d ata ” fo r a description o f th e m ost recent
b enchm ark revision.
16.
A verag e w eekly earnings o f produ ction or nonsu pervisory w o rkers on p rivate nonagricultural payrolls by industry
1987
1986
A nnual average
Industry
1986
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
May
June
JulyP
>c
<p
1985
Apr.
Mar.
PRIVATE SECTOR
C urrent d o lla rs .............................................................. $299.09 $304.85 $305.37 $306.94 $306.05 $308.14 $308.33 $306.16 $307.74 $308.63 $308.29 $310.76 $312.20 $311.85 $315.94
S easonally a d ju s te d ................................................
304.32 304.67 306.05 308.33 305.86 307.44 309.91 310.07 309.18 312.36 311.11 311.81 316.05
C onsta n t (1977) d ollars ........................................... 170.42 171.07 171.36 171.47 170.88 171.86 171.87 169.52 169.74 169.48 168.28 169.17 169.21 168.66
MINING..................................................................
519.93
524.97
529.17
527.09
526.25
520.40
535.51
538.05
527.52
522.92
519.57
526.61
527.46
521.56
536.54
467.98
460.37
470.87
469.37
485.10
480.44
485.20
489.45
CONSTRUCTION..................................................
464.46
466.38
476.45
484.72
480.57
462.09
469.94
MANUFACTURING
C urrent d o lla r s ...............................................................
C onstant (1977) d o lla r s ..............................................
386.37
220.15
396.01
222.23
393.98
221.09
398.93
222.87
395.60
220.88
400.98
223.64
408.78
227.86
401.47
222.30
401.47
221.44
402.87
221.24
398.75
217.78
403.68
219.75
405.66
219.87
401.13
216.94
403.27
Durable goods .....................................................
Lum ber and w ood p ro d u c ts .......................................
Furniture and fix tu re s ....................................................
Stone, clay, and glass p ro d u c ts ...............................
Prim ary m etal in d u s trie s ..............................................
B last fu rn aces and basic steel p ro d u c ts ............
Fabricated m etal p roducts .........................................
416.12
327.98
282.50
412.30
484.31
547.86
400.61
424.98
335.70
296.91
424.11
496.93
572.54
408.46
420.04
338.20
300.75
431.00
487.21
560.73
403.60
428.06
340.68
305.78
434.73
497.62
575.17
411.01
424.15
337.79
304.97
430.26
493.50
569.73
408.04
429.73
337.34
303.51
423.85
500.32
580.03
413.50
439.92
337.79
314.42
427.14
508.26
589.45
422.84
430.77
331.63
302.88
421.04
500.98
575.88
414.17
431.19
337.39
299.41
423.26
503.01
577.58
413.59
432.22
337.00
301.68
425.46
505.90
581.92
414.59
427.03
338.60
294.10
430.68
508.30
593.74
408.18
431.60
345.68
301.78
439.13
514.28
598.92
412.76
434.51
348.57
306.40
437.33
517.10
605.75
417.00
426.81
342.19
301.46
438.18
512.83
602.04
406.37
429.52
350.14
310.02
438.60
512.66
593.21
411.68
M achinery, e xce p t electrical ......................................
E lectrical and electron ic e q u ip m e n t........................
T ransportation e q u ip m e n t...........................................
M otor veh icles and e q u ip m e n t...............................
Instrum ents and related products ...........................
M iscellaneous m a n u fa c tu rin g .....................................
427.04
384.08
541.45
582.47
375.97
287.62
440.54
395.65
541.86
572.97
388.27
298.58
436.31
394.28
528.32
550.21
383.54
294.39
442.44
400.61
542.29
570.35
389.23
299.41
439.07
396.47
537.16
562.30
389.09
301.29
444.98
402.82
546.11
568.51
398.68
305.56
456.68
413.42
562.46
595.28
407.23
309.14
446.88
404.42
549.53
585.30
397.17
303.76
449.63
402.46
546.11
577.37
399.37
301.06
452.38
402.46
547.84
582.77
401.31
301.04
445.12
395.75
536.32
566.82
394.54
297.60
449.40
399.10
542.27
571.69
399.23
302.62
455.15
404.42
539.67
567.09
402.55
304.18
447.86
399.56
527.31
547.35
398.37
297.61
448.51
403.51
530.60
550.63
404.35
301.04
Nondurable goods ...............................................
Food and kindred p ro d u c ts ........................................
T o b acco m a n u fa c tu re s ................................................
Textile m ill p ro d u c ts ......................................................
A pparel and o th e r textile p ro d u c ts ..........................
Paper and allied p ro d u c ts ..........................................
344.92
342.80
444.91
265.99
208.57
466.77
356.71
349.60
480.59
284.82
214.33
482.98
358.49
351.60
490.51
288.56
213.96
483.41
359.30
349.46
470.71
293.44
217.49
485.14
358.40
347.60
473.46
292.03
216.60
484.88
363.51
353.36
481.46
294.69
218.36
489.12
368.24
357.86
483.58
299.62
220.66
500.09
362.69
354.22
481.19
293.94
218.59
488.68
362.29
351.05
486.53
295.78
220.00
484.18
363.60
352.74
525.78
299.04
219.41
483.48
361.03
351.74
536.93
291.21
212.65
486.64
366.11
359.30
571.03
298.75
219.11
493.62
367.13
357.29
624.36
303.16
221.03
494.05
366.40
354.31
525.34
297.74
217.93
496.80
367.94
359.38
505.85
301.26
219.32
493.93
Printing and p u b lis h in g .................................................
C hem icals and allied p ro d u c ts ..................................
Petroleum and coal p ro d u c ts .....................................
R ubber and m iscellaneous
plastics p ro d u c ts .........................................................
Leather and le athe r pro d u cts ....................................
367.04
484.36
604.58
379.62
501.96
621.08
381.76
499.98
624.26
387.60
502.85
625.34
384.43
504.94
622.94
387.21
516.01
630.08
392.81
519.72
628.28
381.26
514.00
645.45
384.05
514.04
629.73
386.46
515.30
636.55
381.26
519.06
635.10
384.16
518.25
637.43
384.16
516.57
624.82
387.07
517.88
646.36
391.67
518.70
649.25
350.99
216.88
360.55
218.45
361.32
217.86
362.75
218.37
362.30
218.96
365.71
221.86
373.09
227.84
367.33
225.29
364.79
223.57
365.20
227.25
360.74
224.60
366.86
233.53
370.77
237.37
367.43
229.25
369.35
232.32
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC
UTILITIES.............................................................
450.30
458.64
459.80
461.38
460.21
467.67
465.29
457.77
465.27
462.91
463.27
466.05
465.68
472.41
474.35
WHOLESALE TRADE...........................................
351.74
359.04
358.82
358.87
359.42
363.65
363.65
361.57
361.95
361.19
363.09
366.53
367.49
366.53
370.76
RETAIL TRADE ....................................................
174.64
176.08
178.50
176.35
175.74
176.32
178.46
172.35
174.78
175.71
177.83
178.44
179.97
182.10
183.62
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE ...............................................................
289.02
303.94
304.41
303.72
305.40
312.81
309.52
312.18
318.50
316.54
316.17
316.54
315.95
312.63
321.71
269.51
273.13
272.48
271.32
271.51
272.21
273.22
277.20
SERVICES .............................................................
256.75
265.20
263.71
265.36
266.65
- Data n ot available.
p = prelim inary
269.89
269.57
NO TE: S ee “ N otes on th e d a ta ” fo r a descriptio n o f th e m ost recen t benchm ark
revision.
17. T he H ourly Earnings In dex fo r produ ction or nonsupervisory w o rk e rs on private nonagricultural payrolls by
industry
_____________________________
S easonally adjusted
N ot seasonally adjusted
Industry
Aug.
1986
June
1987
July
19S7P
Aug.
1987p
PRIVATE SECTOR (in current dollars).........................
168.6
172.6
172.7
173.0
M anufacturing ............................................................................
Transpo rta tio n and public u tilitie s .......................................
W holesale tra d e ' .......................................................................
Retail trade .................................................................................
Finance, insurance, and real e s ta te '.................................
S e rv ic e s ........................................................................................
181.9
152.0
171.9
170.3
172.0
157.5
179.5
172.7
182.1
154.1
174.7
174.7
176.4
160.3
186.5
179.2
182.5
153.6
175.0
175.2
176.5
160.3
186.4
179.0
182.0
153.9
174.4
175.7
177.5
160.7
187.8
179.7
PRIVATE SECTOR [in constant (1977) dollars] ..........
94.6
93.6
93.4
' This series is not seasonally adjusted because the seasonal co m p on e n t is sm all
relative to the trend-cycle, irregular com ponents, or both, and consequently cannot
be separated w ith sufficien t precision.
- Data n ot available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-
Aug.
1986
Apr.
1987
May
1987
169.5
172.6
172.9
_
154.1
174.4
176.2
June
1987
July
1987p
Aug.
1987p
173.2
173.9
-
-
154.3
174.8
176.2
153.9
1 /5 .3
176.6
172.9
_
_
152.0
172.7
171.2
153.7
175.0
175.2
“
“
158.6
174.6
159.8
179.4
160.2
155.0
174.7
175.6
”
160.3
179.9
179.9
160.9
"
180.5
181.7
95.2
94.2
94.0
93.8
93.7
-
161.8
“
p = prelim inary.
NOTE: S ee “ N otes on th e d a ta ” fo r a d escription o f the m ost recen t benchm ark
revision.
75
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
18.
October 1987 •
Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data
In d exes o f diffusion: industries in w hich em p lo ym en t increased, data seasonally adjusted
(In percent)
Jan.
Tim e span and year
O ver
1985
1986
1987
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
June
May
Aug.
July
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
1-m onth span:
.......................................................................................
.......................................................................................
.......................................................................................
55.9
53.2
53.5
47.0
48.1
56.8
52.4
48.1
58.6
47.3
53.5
58.4
53.2
52.4
58.6
46.8
46.8
55.7
53.8
52.4
69.5
53.8
56.2
54.9
47.8
55.1
53.2
53.2
54.3
59.7
57.3
59.7
-
-
-
-
O ver 3-m onth span:
1985 ......................................................................................
1986
.................................................................
1987
.....................................................................
51.1
49.7
58.6
48.4
44.9
59.5
42.4
45.7
61.1
46.5
48.4
61.6
44.3
47.6
61.4
49.7
45.4
68.4
47.0
48.4
65.1
48.6
55.1
45.9
55.9
47.6
58.1
55.1
58.6
56.5
60.3
-
-
-
-
-
O ver 6 -m onth span:
1985 .....................................................................................
1986 ...................................................................................
1987
..........................................................................
46.5
47.6
61.9
46.5
47.6
62.7
43.2
43.0
58.9
44.3
43.2
68.1
44.3
45.4
65.9
45.1
48.4
43.0
47.3
44.3
53.0
49.2
59.2
49.2
58.9
47.3
57.8
45.9
58.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
O ver 12-m onth span:
1985 ...................................................................................
1986 .......................................................................................
1987 .......................................................................................
44.6
43.2
62.2
44.1
44.1
64.6
43.8
46.2
40.8
45.7
41.6
47.8
41.6
49.5
42.2
49.5
42.4
51.6
43.8
54.9
44.3
52.2
44.1
55.1
42.4
56.5
- Data n ot available.
NO TE: Figures are th e p ercent o f industries w ith e m ploym ent rising. (H alf o f
th e unchanged co m p on e n ts are cou nted as rising.) Data are ce n te red w ithin th e
19.
spans. D ata fo r th e 2 m ost recen t m onths show n in each span are prelim inary.
S ee th e “ D efin ition s” in th is section. S ee N otes on th e data fo r a d escription of
th e m ost recen t benchm ark revision.
A nnual data: E m ploym ent status o f the noninstitutional population
(N um bers in thousands)
20.
E m ploym ent status
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
N o ninstitutional p o p u la tio n .............................................
163,541
166,460
169,349
171,775
173,939
175,891
178,080
179,912
182,293
Labor force:
T otal (n u m b e r)..............................................................
P ercent o f p o p u la tio n ................................................
103,882
63.5
106,559
64.0
108,544
64.1
110,315
64.2
111,872
64.3
113,226
64.4
115,241
64.7
117,167
65.1
119,540
65.6
Em ployed:
Total (n u m b e r).......................................................
P ercent o f population .........................................
R esident Arm ed F o rc e s ..................................
Civilian
T otal ....................................................................
A g ric u ltu re ......................................................
N onagricultural in d u s trie s .........................
97,679
59.7
1,631
100,421
60.3
1,597
100,907
59.6
1,604
102,042
59.4
1,645
101,194
58.2
1,668
102,510
58.3
1,676
106,702
59.9
1,697
108,856
60.5
1,706
111,303
61.1
1,706
96,048
3,387
92,661
98,824
3,347
95,477
99,303
3,364
95,938
100,397
3,368
97,030
99,526
3,401
96,125
100,834
3,383
97,450
105,005
3,321
101,685
107,150
3,179
103,971
109,597
3,163
106,434
Unem ployed:
T otal (n u m b e r)......................................................
P ercent of labor f o r c e .......................................
6,202
6.0
6,137
5.8
7,637
7.0
8,273
7.5
10,678
9.5
10,717
9.5
8,539
7.4
8,312
7.1
8,237
6.9
N ot in labor fo rce (num ber) .......................................
59,659
59,900
60,806
61,460
62,067
62,665
62,839
62,744
62,752
Annual data: E m ploym ent levels by industry
(N um bers in thousands)
Industry
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
86,697
71,026
25,585
851
4,229
20,505
89,823
73,876
26,461
958
4,463
21,040
90,406
74,166
25,658
1,027
4,346
20,285
91,156
75,126
25,497
1,139
4,188
20,170
89,566
73,729
23,813
1,128
3,905
18,781
90,200
74,330
23,334
952
3,948
18,434
94,496
78,472
24,727
966
4,383
19,378
97,519
81,125
24,859
927
4,673
19,260
99,610
82,900
24,681
783
4,904
18,994
S e rvice -p ro d u cin g ..............................................................
T ransportation and public u tilitie s ..........................................
W holesale trade ......................................................................
Retail trade .....................................................................................
Finance, insurance, and real e s ta te ......................................
S e rv ic e s ..................................................................................
61,113
4,923
4,969
14,573
4,724
16,252
63,363
5,136
5,204
14,989
4,975
17,112
64,748
5,146
5,275
15,035
5,160
17,890
65,659
5,165
5,358
15,189
5,298
18,619
65,753
5,082
5,278
15,179
5,341
19,036
66,866
4,954
5,268
15,613
5,468
19,694
69,769
5,159
5,555
16,545
5,689
20,797
72,660
5,238
5,717
17,356
5,955
22,000
74,930
5,244
5,735
17,845
6,297
23,099
G o v e rn m e n t........................................................................
F e d e ra l......................................................................................
S tate ..........................................................................................
Local .........................................................................................
15,672
2,753
3,474
9,446
15,947
2,773
3,541
9,633
16,241
2,866
3,610
9,765
16,031
2,772
3,640
9,619
15,837
2,739
3,640
9,458
15,869
2,774
3,662
9,434
16,024
2,807
3,734
9,482
16,394
2,875
3,832
9,687
16,711
2,899
3,888
9,923
Total e m p lo y m e n t................................................
Private s e c to r .............................................................
G oods-producing .......................................................
M in in g ...............................................................
C onstruction ......................................................................
M a n u fa c tu rin g ...................................................................
NO TE:
76
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
S ee "N o te s on th e d ata ” fo r a descriptio n o f th e m o st
recen t b enchm ark revision.
21. A nnual data: A verag e hours and earnings o f produ ction o r nonsu pervisory w o rk e rs on nonagricultural
payrolls, by industry
Industry
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
35.8
5.69
203.70
35.7
6.16
219.91
35.3
6.66
235.10
35.2
7.25
255.20
34.8
7.68
267.26
35.0
8.02
280.70
35.2
8.32
292.86
34.9
8.57
299.09
34.8
8.76
304.85
43.4
7.67
332.88
43.0
8.49
365.07
43.3
9.17
397.06
43.7
10.04
438.75
42.7
10.77
459.88
42.5
11.28
479.40
43.3
11.63
503.58
43.4
11.98
519.93
42.2
12.44
524.97
36.8
8.66
318.69
37.0
9.27
342.99
37.0
9.94
367.78
36.9
10.82
399.26
36.7
11.63
426.82
37.1
11.94
442.97
37.8
12.13
458.51
37.7
12.32
464.46
37.4
12.47
466.38
40.4
6.17
249.27
40.2
6.70
269.34
39.7
7.27
288.62
39.8
7.99
318.00
38.9
8.49
330.26
40.1
8.83
354.08
40.7
9.19
374.03
40.5
9.54
386.37
40.7
9.73
396.01
40.0
7.57
302.80
39.9
8.16
325.58
39.6
8.87
351.25
39.4
9.70
382.18
39.0
10.32
402.48
39.0
10.79
420.81
39.4
11.12
438.13
39.5
11.40
450.30
39.2
11.70
458.64
38.8
5.88
228.14
38.8
6.39
247.93
38.5
6.96
267.96
38.5
7.56
291.06
38.3
8.09
309.85
38.5
8.55
329.18
38.5
8.89
342.27
38.4
9.16
351.74
38.4
9.35
359.04
31.0
4.20
130.20
30.6
4.53
138.62
30.2
4.88
147.38
30.1
5.25
158.03
29.9
5.48
163.85
29.8
5.74
171.05
29.8
5.85
174.33
29.4
5.94
174.64
29.2
6.03
176.08
36.4
4.89
178.00
36.2
5.27
190.77
36.2
5.79
209.60
36.3
6.31
229.05
36.2
6.78
245.44
36.2
7.29
263.90
36.5
7.63
278.50
36.4
7.94
289.02
36.4
8.35
303.94
32.8
4.99
163.67
32.7
5.36
175.27
32.6
5.85
190.71
32.6
6.41
208.97
32.6
6.92
225.59
32.7
7.31
239.04
32.6
7.59
247.43
32.5
7.90
256.75
32.5
8.16
265.20
P r iv a te s e c t o r
A verage w eekly h o u r s ........................................................................
A verage hourly e arnings (in d o lla rs )..............................................
A verage w eekly e arnings (in dollars) ...........................................
M in in g
A verage w eekly hours .................................................................
A verage hourly e arnings (in d ollars) .......................................
A verage w eekly earnings (in d o lla rs )......................................
C o n s tr u c tio n
A verage w eekly hours .................................................................
A verage hourly e arnings (in d o lla r s ) .......................................
A verage w eekly e arnings (in d o lla rs )......................................
M a n u f a c t u r in g
A verage w eekly hours .................................................................
A verage hourly earnings (in d ollars) .......................................
A verage w eekly e arnings (in d o lla r s ) ......................................
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n a n d p u b lic u t ilit ie s
A verage w eekly hours .................................................................
A verage hourly e arnings (in dollars) .......................................
A verage w eekly e arnings (in d o lla rs )......................................
W h o le s a le tr a d e
A verage w eekly hours .................................................................
A verage hourly e arnings (in d ollars) .......................................
A verage w eekly e arnings (in d o lla rs )......................................
R e ta il tra d e
A verage w eekly hours .................................................................
A verage hourly e arnings (in dollars) .......................................
A verage w eekly e arnings (in d o lla rs )......................................
F in a n c e , in s u r a n c e , a n d r e a l e s t a t e
A verage w eekly hours .................................................................
A verage hourly e arnings (in dollars) .......................................
A verage w eekly e arnings (in d o lla r s ) ......................................
S e r v ic e s
Average w eekly hours .................................................................
A verage hourly earnings (in dollars) .......................................
A verage w eekly e arnings (in d o lla rs )......................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
22.
October 1987 •
Current Labor Statistics: Compensation and Industrial Relations Data
E m ploym ent C ost Index, co m p e n s a tio n ,1 by occupation and industry group
(June 1 9 8 1 = 1 0 0 )
P ercent change
1987
1986
1985
Series
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
3
m onths
ended
12
m onths
ended
June 1987
C iv ilia n w o rk e rs 2 ..................................................................................
W orkers, by occupational group:
W h ite -colla r w orkers ........................................................................
B lue-collar w o rk e rs ...........................................................................
S ervice o c c u p a tio n s .........................................................................
W orkers, by industry division:
G o o d s-p ro d u c in g .................................................................................
M anufacturing .....................................................................................
S ervice-producing ...............................................................................
S e rv ic e s ...............................................................................................
H ealth s e rv ic e s ..............................................................................
H o s p ita ls ..........................................................................................
Public adm inistration 3 ....................................................................
N o n m a n u fa ctu rin g ...............................................................................
126.4
128.4
129.2
130.6
131.5
133.0
133.8
135.0
135.9
0.7
3.3
128.3
123.1
128.0
130.7
124.4
130.9
131.6
124.9
131.8
133.1
126.2
133.1
134.2
126.8
133.7
136.0
127.8
135.4
136.9
128.4
136.6
138.5
129.1
138.0
139.3
130.1
138.5
.6
.8
.4
3.8
2.6
3.6
123.9
124.6
127.9
132.6
130.3
127.2
124.9
125.5
130.7
136.4
134.2
129.7
125.5
126.0
131.5
137.1
134.8
130.6
126.9
127.7
132.9
138.8
136.8
131.9
128.1
128.7
133.7
139.4
138.0
132.8
128.8
129.3
135.6
142.4
140.6
134.6
129.5
130.1
136.5
143.6
141.6
135.4
130.2
130.7
138.1
145.2
144.1
136.9
131.1
131.5
138.9
145.8
144.7
137.8
.7
.6
.6
.4
.6
.8
.4
.7
2.3
2.2
3.9
4.6
4.7
4.5
4.9
3.8
P riv a te in d u s try w o r k e r s ................................................................
W orkers, by o ccupational group:
W hite-collar w o rk e rs ......................................................................
P rofessional sp ecialty and te chnical o c c u p a tio n s ............
Executive, adm inistrative, and m anagerial o ccupations
S ales o c c u p a tio n s ........................................................................
A dm inistrative support o ccupations, including
c le r ic a l.............................................................................................
B lue-collar w o rk e rs ........................................................................
Precision production, craft, and repair o c c u p a tio n ..........
M achine operators, assem blers, and in s p e c to rs ..............
T ransportation and m aterial m oving o c c u p a tio n s .............
H andlers, e quipm ent cleaners, helpers, and laborers ....
S ervice o c c u p a tio n s ......................................................................
W orkers, by industry division:
G o o d s-p ro d u c in g ..............................................................................
C onstruction .....................................................................................
M a n u fa ctu rin g ..................................................................................
Durables ..........................................................................................
N o n d u ra b le s ...................................................................................
S ervice-producing ...........................................................................
T ransportation and public u tilitie s .............................................
T ra n s p o rta tio n ................................................................................
Public u tilitie s .................................................................................
W holesale and retail tr a d e .........................................................
W holesale trade ............................................................................
Retail trade ....................................................................................
Finance, insurance, and real e s ta te ........................................
S ervice ...............................................................................................
H ealth s e rv ic e s ..............................................................................
H ospitals ........................................................................................
125.2
126.8
127.5
128.9
129.9
130.8
131.6
132.9
133.8
.7
3.0
137.0
-
.7
.6
.7
.5
3.4
3.5
3.9
2.1
-
1.0
.9
.8
1.0
1.1
.5
.4
3.5
2.5
2.4
2.7
3.0
2.0
3.1
127.1
-
128.8
-
129.8
-
131.3
-
132.5
-
133.5
-
134.3
-
136.1
"
-
122.8
126.5
124.0
128.8
124.4
129.5
125.7
130.9
126.3
131.1
127.2
132.3
127.8
133.5
128.4
“
134.7
129.5
135.2
123.8
124.6
126.4
-
124.6
125.5
128.7
-
125.3
126.0
129.4
-
126.7
127.7
130.8
-
127.8
128.7
131.6
-
128.6
129.3
132.7
-
129.2
130.1
133.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
129.9
130.7
135.3
-
130.8
131.5
136.3
-
.7
1.3
.6
.7
.5
.7
1.1
1.4
.9
1.5
1.5
1.4
-1 .0
.6
.7
.7
2.3
3.1
2.2
2.0
2.6
3.6
2.8
2.8
2.9
3.4
4.3
3.0
3.0
4.3
5.0
4.6
134.1
135.1
.7
3.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
N onm anufacturing .........................................................................
125.6
127.6
128.4
129.7
130.6
131.7
132.4
S ta te a n d lo c a l g o v e rn m e n t w o rk e rs ......................................
W orkers, by o ccupational group:
W hite -colla r w o rk e rs ......................................................................
B lue-collar w o rk e rs ........................................................................
W orkers, by industry division:
S e rv ic e s .............................................................................................
H o spitals and o th e r services4 ................................................
Health s e r v ic e s ..........................................................................
S c h o o ls .........................................................................................
Elem entary and s e c o n d a ry .................................................
Public adm inistration3 ..................................................................
132.0
136.5
137.5
138.9
139.7
143.6
144.7
145.9
146.3
.3
4.7
146.0
139.5
147.2
140.8
147.5
141.3
.2
.4
5.0
3.7
146.6
141.1
148.4
150.3
141.6
147.3
142.5
148.9
150.5
144.1
147.6
143.3
149.1
150.7
144.7
.2
.6
.6
.1
.1
.4
4.8
3.9
3.8
5.2
5.2
4.9
-
132.9
128.5
137.6
131.9
138.6
132.7
140.0
134.7
140.5
136.3
145.0
138.5
133.2
131.5
137.9
134.1
139.1
135.2
140.4
136.8
140.8
137.9
145.5
139.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
133.7
134.6
130.3
139.1
140.9
134.2
140.3
142.0
134.8
141.5
143.0
136.8
141.7
143.2
138.0
147.6
149.4
140.6
' C ost (cents per hour w orked) m easured in the E m ploym ent C ost Index
consists o f wages, salaries, and em plo ye r co st o f em ployee benefits.
2
C onsist o f private industry w o rkers (excluding farm and household w orkers)
and S tate and local g overnm ent (excluding Federal G overnm ent) w orkers.
78
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-
3 C onsist o f legislative, judicial, adm inistrative, and regulatory
4 Includes, fo r exam ple, library, social, and health services.
- Data not available.
activities.
23.
E m ploym ent C ost Index, w ages and salaries, by occupation and industry group
(June 1981 = 100)
Series
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
P ercent change
1987
1986
1985
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
12
m onths
ended
3
m onths
ended
June 1987
124.2
126.3
127.0
128.3
131.5
132.8
133.5
0.5
3.2
134.1
125.0
131.7
135.0
125.6
132.8
136.6
126.2
134.2
137.3
127.1
134.7
.5
.7
.4
3.7
2.4
3.6
125.6
126.5
131.5
137.0
134.6
130.4
126.3
127.2
133.4
139.9
137.5
132.2
127.0
127.9
134.2
141.1
138.1
133.0
127.8
128.7
135.8
142.7
140.5
134.5
128.5
129.5
136.5
143.4
141.0
135.2
.5
.6
.5
.5
.6
.7
.4
.5
2.3
2.4
3.8
4.7
5.0
4.7
4.8
3.7
127.9
128.8
129.5
130.8
131.7
.7
3.0
132.7
136.4
134.6
138.4
135.4
139.1
.6
.5
3.3
3.8
136.4
127.1
.6
.3
3.3
2.3
129.3
C iv ilia n w o rk e rs 1 ..................................................................................
W orkers, by occu p ation a l group:
W hite -colla r w orkers ........................................................................
B lue-collar w o rk e rs ...........................................................................
S ervice o c c u p a tio n s .........................................................................
126.4
120.5
125.3
128.8
122.0
128.0
129.8
122.3
128.6
131.2
123.4
129.8
132.4
124.1
130.0
W orkers, by industry division
G o o d s -p ro d u c in g .................................................................................
M anufacturing .....................................................................................
S e rv ic e -p ro d u c in g ...............................................................................
S ervices ............................................................................................
H ealth s e rv ic e s ..............................................................................
H o s p ita ls ..........................................................................................
Public a dm inistration 2 .................................................................
N o n m a n u fa c tu rin g ............................................................................
121.5
122.3
125.8
130.5
127.2
125.0
122.5
123.2
128.6
134.2
131.4
127.6
123.1
123.8
129.4
134.8
132.0
128.4
124.4
125.3
130.7
136.4
133.8
129.6
123.3
124.9
125.6
126.8
P riv a te in d u s try w o r k e r s .............................................................
W orkers, by o ccupational group:
W hite -colla r w o rk e r s ..................................................................
P rofessional specialty and te chnical o c c u p a tio n s .......
E xecutive, adm inistrative, and m anagerial
o c c u p a tio n s ..............................................................................
S ales o c c u p a tio n s ...................................................................
A dm inistrative support o ccupations, including
c le r ic a l........................................................................................
B lue-collar w o rk e r s .....................................................................
Precision production, craft, and repair
o c c u p a tio n s .............................................................................
M achine operators, assem blers, and in s p e c to rs .........
T ransportation and m aterial m oving o c c u p a tio n s ........
H andlers, e quipm ent cleaners, helpers, and
la b o r e rs ......................................................................................
S ervice o c c u p a tio n s ..................................................................
W orkers, by industry division:
G o o d s -p ro d u c in g ..........................................................................
C onstruction .................................................................................
M a n u fa c tu rin g ...............................................................................
D u ra b le s ......................................................................................
N o n d u ra b le s ...............................................................................
S e rvice -p ro d u cin g .........................................................................
T ransportation and public u tilitie s ......................................
T ra n s p o rta tio n .........................................................................
Public u tilitie s ...........................................................................
W holesale and retail tr a d e ...................................................
W h olesale trade ...................................................................
Retail tr a d e ..............................................................................
Finance, insurance, and real e s ta te .................................
S e rv ic e s .......................................................................................
H ealth services .......................................................................
H o s p ita ls ..................................................................................
130.7
125.5
128.7
127.3
131.2
128.3
131.5
129.6
132.7
131.1
134.0
132.0
135.4
126.5
117.4
127.7
119.3
128.4
122.5
130.5
122.4
132.1
124.3
132.4
125.2
133.5
124.9
135.6
126.7
125.6
127.1
127.9
129.6
130.8
131.7
132.7
134.3
135.5
.9
3.6
126.6
.8
2.3
120.3
121.7
122.0
123.1
123.7
124.5
125.1
125.6
122.0
120.1
115.7
123.7
121.1
117.7
123.8
121.6
117.8
125.3
122.6
118.0
125.7
123.6
118.9
126.7
124.1
119.8
127.4
124.9
120.1
127.9
125.5
120.5
128.8
126.7
121.5
.7
1.0
.8
2.5
2.5
2.2
118.5
124.4
118.6
126.3
119.8
126.6
120.0
128.0
120.3
128.0
120.9
128.9
121.4
130.1
121.9
131.4
122.6
131.9
.6
.4
1.9
3.0
121.4
116.6
122.3
122.0
122.6
124.8
122.8
-
122.3
117.3
123.2
122.7
124.0
127.0
124.8
122.7
127.7
120.8
124.1
133.9
-
122.9
117.9
123.8
123.4
124.6
127.8
125.2
123.7
128.3
121.9
126.5
134.1
-
124.2
118.3
125.3
124.8
126.1
129.0
126.3
-
125.4
119.8
126.5
125.8
127.9
129.9
126.6
-
126.8
120.8
127.9
127.2
129.3
131.6
127.5
126.9
133.1
124.5
130.0
139.5
-
127.5
121.7
128.7
127.7
130.5
133.4
128.1
127.9
134.8
125.2
133.5
141.8
-
128.3
122.7
129.5
128.7
131.0
134.3
129.3
129.9
137.2
127.1
131.5
142.8
“
.6
.8
.6
.8
.4
.7
.9
1.3
.7
1.6
1.8
1.5
-1 .5
.7
.7
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.4
3.4
2.1
1.8
2.6
3.3
4.6
2.7
2.7
4.3
5.1
4.8
.7
3.2
-
121.1
126.8
118.9
121.7
131.0
-
-
-
-
124.5
129.7
122.5
126.6
136.2
-
125.8
131.2
123.7
128.0
136.9
-
126.1
120.5
127.2
126.4
128.5
130.9
127.3
“
126.5
131.8
124.4
129.0
138.2
-
-
-
.7
N o n m a n u fa ctu rin g .......................................................................
123.9
125.9
126.6
127.7
128.7
129.7
130.4
131.9
132.8
S t a t e a n d lo c a l g o v e r n m e n t w o r k e r s ...................................
128.7
133.2
134.2
135.5
136.0
140.4
141.4
142.5
142.8
.2
5.0
129.6
124.5
134.3
127.9
135.3
128.4
136.6
130.4
137.0
131.9
141.8
134.5
142.8
135.1
143.9
136.3
144.1
136.9
.1
.4
5.2
3.8
129.7
128.0
130.2
131.1
127.2
134.5
130.2
135.8
137.5
131.4
135.6
130.9
137.0
138.5
132.0
136.8
132.4
138.0
139.4
133.8
137.1
133.3
138.2
139.4
134.6
142.1
135.8
144.1
145.7
137.5
143.3
137.3
145.1
146.4
138.1
143.9
138.6
145.5
146.5
140.5
144.2
139.4
145.6
146.6
141.0
.2
.6
.6
.1
.1
.4
5.2
4.6
4.1
5.4
5.2
4.8
W orkers, by o ccupational group
W hite -colla r w o rk e r s ..................................................................
B lue-collar w o rk e r s .....................................................................
W orkers, by industry division
S ervices .........................................................................................
H ospitals and o th e r services 3 ............................................
H ealth services .......................................................................
S c h o o ls ........................................................................................
E lem entary and secondary ...............................................
Public a dm inistration 2 ...............................................................
1 C onsists o f private industry w orkers (excluding farm and household w orkers)
and S tate and local g overnm ent (excluding Federal G overnm ent) w orkers.
2 C onsists o f legislative, judicial, adm inistrative, and regulatory activities.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3 Includes, fo r exam ple, library, social and health services,
- D ata not available.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
Current Labor Statistics: Compensation and Industrial Relations Data
24. E m ploym ent C ost Index, p rivate nonfarm w o rkers, by bargaining status, region, and area size
(June 1 9 8 1 = 1 0 0 )
P ercent change
1987
1986
1985
3
m onths
ended
Series
June
Sept.
Mar.
Dec.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
12
m onths
ended
June 1987
C O M P E N S A T IO N
W o r k e r s , b y b a r g a in in g s t a t u s '
Union ........................................................................................................
G oods-producing ...............................................................................
S e rvice -p ro d u cin g ..............................................................................
M anufacturing .....................................................................................
N o n m a n u fa c tu rin g .............................................................................
125.5
123.9
128.0
124.2
126.6
126.5
124.6
129.5
125.0
127.8
127.1
125.2
130.2
125.5
128.6
128.4
126.4
131.6
127.0
129.7
128.7
126.7
131.9
126.9
130.4
129.4
127.3
132.8
127.5
131.2
129.8
127.5
133.4
127.9
131.5
130.5
128.0
134.4
128.0
132.6
131.2
128.7
135.2
128.7
133.5
0.5
.5
.6
.5
.7
1.9
1.6
2.5
1.4
2.4
N o n u n io n .................................................................................................
G o o d s -p ro d u c in g ...............................................................................
S e rvice -p ro d u cin g ..............................................................................
M anufacturing .....................................................................................
N o n m a n u fa c tu rin g .............................................................................
125.0
123.5
125.8
124.8
125.1
126.8
124.4
128.3
125.7
127.3
127.5
125.1
129.0
126.3
128.1
129.0
126.7
130.4
128.1
129.5
130.2
128.2
131.4
129.7
130.4
131.2
129.1
132.5
130.4
131.6
132.1
130.0
133.4
131.4
132.5
133.6
130.8
135.3
132.2
134.3
134.6
131.8
136.4
133.2
135.3
.7
.8
.8
.8
.7
3.4
2.8
3.8
2.7
3.8
126.4
125.2
122.7
127.9
128.8
126.5
124.2
129.1
129.9
127.2
124.6
129.8
131.6
128.7
125.9
130.8
133.3
129.6
126.2
131.6
134.2
130.7
127.3
132.1
135.2
131.4
128.1
132.8
137.4
132.1
129.1
134.1
138.6
133.2
130.2
134.2
.9
.8
.9
.1
4.0
2.8
3.2
2.0
125.7
122.5
127.3
123.9
128.1
123.9
129.5
125.5
130.5
126.4
131.4
127.2
132.2
127.9
133.5
129.0
134.4
130.2
.7
.9
3.0
3.0
Union ........................................................................................................
G oods-producing ...............................................................................
S e rvice -p ro d u cin g ..............................................................................
M anufacturing .....................................................................................
N o n m a n u fa c tu rin g .............................................................................
123.0
121.3
125.7
121.7
124.1
124.1
122.2
127.1
122.8
125.3
124.7
122.7
127.8
123.3
125.9
125.6
123.4
129.0
124.2
126.9
126.1
124.1
129.3
124.6
127.4
126.9
124.5
130.5
125.0
128.5
127.2
124.8
130.9
125.5
128.7
127.7
125.0
131.7
125.6
129.5
128.3
125.8
132.2
126.2
130.1
.5
.6
.4
.5
.5
1.7
1.4
2.2
1.3
2.1
N o n u n io n .................................................................................................
G o o d s -p ro d u c in g ...............................................................................
S e rvice -p ro d u cin g ..............................................................................
M anufacturing .....................................................................................
N o n m a n u fa c tu rin g .............................................................................
123.4
121.4
124.4
122.8
123.6
125.2
122.3
126.9
123.7
125.9
125.9
123.0
127.7
124.4
126.6
127.3
124.5
128.9
126.1
127.8
128.5
126.1
129.9
127.7
128.9
129.4
127.0
130.8
128.5
129.8
130.3
127.8
131.7
129.5
130.6
131.8
128.8
133.6
130.6
132.4
132.8
129.6
134.6
131.5
133.4
.8
.6
.7
.7
.8
3.3
2.8
3.6
3.0
3.5
124.6
123.4
121.1
125.1
126.8
124.8
122.5
126.6
128.1
125.4
122.9
127.1
129.2
126.8
124.2
128.1
131.3
127.8
124.4
128.9
132.3
128.8
125.3
129.3
133.1
129.4
126.2
130.1
135.4
130.1
127.4
131.2
136.6
131.1
128.5
131.1
.9
.8
.9
-.1
4.0
2.6
3.3
1.7
123.8
120.6
125.5
121.9
126.3
122.0
127.4
123.6
128.5
124.5
129.4
125.0
130.2
125.6
131.6
126.6
132.4
127.8
.6
.9
3.0
2.7
W o r k e r s , b y r e g io n '
N o rth e a s t.................................................................................................
South ........................................................................................................
M idw est (form erly N orth C e n tra l)....................................................
W e s t..........................................................................................................
W o r k e r s , b y a r e a s iz e 1
M e tropolitan a r e a s ...............................................................................
O th er a re a s .............................................................................................
W A G E S A N D S A L A R IE S
W o r k e r s , b y b a r g a in in g s t a t u s 1
W o r k e r s , b y r e g io n 1
N o rth e a s t.................................................................................................
S outh ........................................................................................................
M idw est (form erly North C e n tra l)....................................................
W e s t..........................................................................................................
W o rk e rs , b y a re a s iz e 1
M e tropolitan a r e a s ...............................................................................
O th er a re a s .............................................................................................
1 The indexes are calculated diffe re ntly fro m th o se fo r th e occu p ation and
industry groups. For a detailed description o f th e index calculation, see th e
80
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
L a b o r R e v ie w T e chnical
E m ploym ent C ost In d e x," M ay 1982.
M o n th ly
N ote,
“ Estim ation
p rocedures
fo r
th e
25. S pecified com pensation and w age adjustm ents from co n tra c t settlem en ts, and e ffe c tiv e w ag e adjustm ents, private
industry co llective bargaining situations covering 1,000 w o rk e rs or m ore (in percent)
Q uarterly average
A nnual average
1985
1987
1986
1985
M easure
1986
III
IV
I
II
III
IIP
lp
ivp
S p e c i f i e d a d ju s t m e n t s :
Total com p en sa tio n 1 a djustm ents, 2 se ttlem e n ts
covering 5,000 w o rkers or more:
First year o f c o n tr a c t....................................................
A nnual rate over life o f c o n tr a c t...............................
2.6
2.7
1.1
1.6
2.0
3.0
2.0
1.4
0.6
1.2
0.7
1.6
0.7
1.2
2.7
2.4
1.7
2.4
4.2
3.9
W age a djustm ents, settlem e n ts covering 1,000
w o rkers o r more:
First year o f co n tra ct ....................................................
A nnual rate o ve r life o f co n tra ct ...............................
2.3
2.7
1.2
1.8
2.0
3.1
2.1
1.9
.8
1.5
1.3
2.0
.8
1.5
2.0
2.1
1.2
1.8
2.6
2.9
3.3
.7
2.3
.5
1.2
.2
.5
.1
.6
.0
.7
.2
.5
.1
.5
.2
.4
.0
1.0
.1
1.8
.7
1.7
.2
.5
.4
.2
.1
.4
.2
.6
.0
.5
.0
.2
.1
.3
.1
.7
.2
E f f e c t i v e a d ju s t m e n t s :
T otal effe ctive w age a d ju s tm e n t 3 ...............................
From settlem e n ts reached in period .......................
D eferred from settlem e n ts reached in earlier
p e rio d s ...............................................................................
From cost-of-living-adjustm ents c la u s e s ................
1 C om pensation includes w ages, salaries, and em plo ye rs’ co st o f em ployee
b enefits w hen co n tra ct is negotiated.
2 A dju stm e n ts are the net result o f increases, decreases, and no changes in
com pensation or wages.
3 B ecause o f rounding, to ta l m ay n ot equal sum o f parts.
p = prelim inary.
26. A verag e specified com pensation and w ag e adjustm ents, m ajor collective bargaining s e ttlem en ts in private
industry situations covering 1,000 w o rk e rs or m ore during 4-quarter periods (in percent)
A verage fo r four quarters e n d in g M easure
1985
III
1986
IV
I
II
1987
IVP
III
lp
IIP
S pecified to ta l co m pensation adjustm ents, settlem e n ts covering 5,000
w o rkers or m ore, all industries:
First year o f c o n tr a c t................................................................................
A nnual rate o ve r life o f c o n tr a c t................................................................
3.1
2.7
2.6
2.7
2.3
2.5
1.4
2.0
0.9
1.4
1.1
1.6
1.2
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.4
1.9
2.7
2.5
1.8
3.0
2.3
1.6
2.7
2.7
2.5
2.8
2.0
1.6
2.2
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.6
1.8
1.5
2.2
2.5
2.1
1.2
2.2
.8
1.7
2.0
1.6
1.2
1.9
.9
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.2
2.0
.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.5
1.8
1.4
2.0
1.7
2.2
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.4
2.4
.8
.8
.9
1.8
2.1
1.6
.8
.8
.9
1.8
2.1
1.5
.1
.7
-.4
1.4
2.0
.9
-1 .0
1.1
-2 .0
.3
1.1
-.1
-1 .2
1.3
-2 .8
.2
.9
-.2
-1 .6
1.3
-3 .5
.0
.8
-.6
-.8
1.4
-2 .9
.2
.8
-.3
3.2
4.0
3.0
3.3
3.9
3.2
3.3
3.6
3.3
3.3
3.6
3.3
2.8
3.5
2.7
3.0
3.6
2.8
2.6
3.4
2.4
2.8
3.3
2.6
2.1
2.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.2
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.3
2.1
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.4
2.2
2.5
2.3
2.1
2.4
2.6
2.2
2.8
1.6
2.3
1.1
2.4
2.5
1.2
2.6
2.3
1.4
2.4
2.6
1.6
2.6
2.2
1.4
2.3
2.5
1.6
2.5
2.4
1.6
2.4
2.5
1.4
2.6
S pecified w age adjustm ents, settlem e n ts covering 1,000 w orkers or
more:
A ll industries
First year o f co n tra ct ...............................................................
C o ntracts w ith C O LA c la u s e s .......................................................
C o ntracts w ithout C O LA clauses ..............................................
A nnual rate over life o f co n tra ct ..........................................
C o ntracts w ith C O LA c la u s e s .......................................................
C o ntracts w ith o ut CO LA clauses ..................................
M anufacturing
First year o f co n tra ct ..................................................................
C o ntracts with CO LA c la u s e s ......................................
C o ntracts w ith o ut C O LA clauses .............................................
A nnual rate over life o f co n tra ct .................................................................
C o ntracts with C O LA c la u s e s ..............................................
C ontracts w ith o ut C O LA clauses .....................................................
N onm anufacturing
First year o f co n tra ct ..................................................................
C o ntracts w ith CO LA c la u s e s ......................................................
C o ntracts w ith o ut CO LA clauses ..................................
A nnual rate o ve r life o f c o n tr a c t............................................
C o ntracts w ith CO LA c la u s e s ..........................................
C o ntracts w ith o ut C O LA clauses ........................................
C onstruction
First year o f co n tra ct ....................................................................
C ontracts with C O LA c la u s e s ...................................................
C ontracts w ith o ut CO LA clauses ................................................
A nnual rate o ve r life o f co n tra ct .....................................................
C ontracts w ith C O LA c la u s e s ............................................
C ontracts w ith o ut CO LA clauses ...............................................................
1 Data do not m eet publication standards.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1.0
0
(')
1.5
0
(1)
1.7
(’ )
(1)
(')
(1)
2.1
(’ )
(’ )
p
2.2
(1)
0
= prelim inary.
2.6
(1)
f)
2.8
(1)
<1)
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
Current Labor Statistics: Compensation and Industrial Relations Data
27. A verag e e ffe c tiv e w ag e adjustm ents, p rivate industry collective bargaining situations covering 1,000
w o rkers o r m ore during 4-q u arter periods (in percent)
A verage fo r fo u r quarters e n d in g E ffective w age adjustm ent
1985
1986
1987
IV
I
II
III
IVP
lp
IP
F o r a ll w o rk e rs :'
T o ta l.......................................................
From se ttlem e n ts reached in period .................................................
D eferred from settlem e n ts reached in earlier period .........................
From cost-o f-livin g-a d ju stm en ts c la u s e s .....................................................
3.3
.7
1.8
.7
3.1
.6
1.7
.8
2.9
.5
1.8
.7
2.3
.5
1.6
.2
2.3
.5
1.7
.2
2.0
.4
1.5
.1
2.2
.3
1.6
.3
F o r w o rk e rs re c e iv in g ch a n g e s:
T o ta l....................................................................
From settlem e n ts reached in period .................................................
Deferred from settlem e n ts reached in earlier period .............................
From cost-of-living-adjustm ents c la u s e s .....................................................
4.1
3.4
3.7
2.2
4.0
2.9
3.5
2.5
3.8
2.5
3.4
2.0
3.1
1.7
3.8
1.0
2.8
1.6
3.9
1.0
2.4
1.2
3.7
.6
2.8
1.1
3.5
1.8
1 B ecause o f rounding, to ta l m ay not equal sum o f parts.
p
= prelim inary.
28. S pecified com pensation and w ag e adjustm ents from co n tra c t settlem en ts, and e ffe c tiv e w age adjustm ents, S tate and
local go vern m en t collective bargaining situations covering 1,000 w o rk e rs or m ore (in percent)
A nnual average
1985
1986
First 6 m onths
1987
First year o f co n tra ct ................................................................................................................................................................
A nnual rate over life o f co n tra ct ..............................................................................................................................................................
42
5.1
6.2
6.0
5.7
4.9
W age a djustm ents, settlem e n ts covering 1,000 w o rkers or more:
First year of co n tra ct ....................................................................................................................................................................................
A nnual rate over life o f c o n tr a c t...............................................................................................................................................................
46
5.4
57
5.7
5.4
E ffective adjustm ents:
T otal effe ctive wage adjustm ent 3 ...............................................................................................................................................................
From settlem e n ts reached in p e rio d ........................................................................................................................................................
D eferred from settlem e n ts reached in earlier periods ......................................................................................................................
From cost-o f-livin g-a d ju stm en t c la u s e s ...................................................................................................................................................
5.7
4.1
1.6
(4)
5.5
2.4
3.0
(4)
1.6
.4
1.2
(4)
M easure
S pecified adjustm ents:
T otal com pensation 1 a djustm ents, 2 se ttlem e n ts covering 5,000 w o rkers or m ore:
' C om pensation includes wages, salaries, and em plo ye rs’ co st o f em ployee
ben e fits w hen co n tra ct is negotiated.
2 A dju stm e n ts are the net result o f increases, decreases, and no ch a ng e s in
com pensation or wages.
3 B ecause o f rounding, total m ay not equal sum of parts.
4 Less than 0.05 percent.
- D ata n ot available.
29. W ork stoppages involving 1,000 w o rk e rs or m ore
A nnua totals
1986
M easure
1985
N um ber o f stoppages:
B eginning in p e r io d .........................
In e ffe ct during p e r io d ...................
W orkers involved:
Beginning in period (in
th o u s a n d s )..................................
In e ffe ct during period (in
th o u s a n d s )...................................
Days idle:
N um ber (in th o u s a n d s )..................
P ercent o f e stim ated working
tim e 1 ...................................
54
61
1986
Aug.
Sept.
69
72
10
22
323.9
533.1
113.3
584.1
899.5
153.0
7,079.0
1,200.1
1371.6
.03
.05
.08
Oct.
8
18
1987p
Nov.
82
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
5
18
2
9
1
6
2
7
5
7
3
5
2
5
3
7
8
12
5
13
11
39.4
44.3
8.7
3.0
7.3
37.6
12.2
2.7
7.8
16.1
8.4
17.4
87.4
109.9
67.8
49.4
47.6
41.6
16.2
8.9
14.7
26.6
26.2
38.0
1,225.6
1,423.7
940.4
933.2
828.6
194.1
104.4
151.3
223.7
295.7
483.0
403.2
.06
.06
.05
.04
.04
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.02
.02
1 A gricultural and g overnm ent em ployees are included in th e to ta l em ployed and total
w orking time: private household, forestry, and fishery em ployees are excluded. An e xpla
nation o f the m easurem ent o f idleness as a p ercentage o f the total tim e w orked is found
in “ T o ta l eco no m y’ m easure o f strike idleness,” M o n th ly L a b o r R eview , O cto b er 1968,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Dec.
pp. 54-56.
- Data not available.
p = prelim inary
30. C onsum er Price In dex fo r All Urban C onsum ers: U.S. city average, by e xpenditure c ateg o ry and co m m o d ity or
service group; and CPI fo r Urban W age E arners and C lerical W orkers, all item s
(1967 = 100, unless oth e rw ise indicated)
Series
1987
1986
Annual
average
Aug.
Sept.
O ct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
328.4
381.9
328.6
382.1
330.2
384.1
330.5
384.4
330.8
384.7
331.1
385.1
333.1
387.4
334.4
388.9
335.9
390.7
337.7
392.7
338.7
393.9
340.1
395.6
340.8
396.3
342.7
398.5
302.0
309.8
296.8
317.0
263.4
258.0
325.7
361.1
398.8
294.4
451.7
294.2
346.6
229.5
311.8
319.7
305.3
325.8
275.1
258.4
328.7
373.6
411.1
287.8
478.2
301.9
360.1
239.7
314.6
322.7
308.9
328.2
283.0
258.3
332.1
374.0
413.1
287.8
476.9
303.2
361.8
240.1
315.1
323.2
309.0
328.5
284.7
258.5
329.1
373.7
413.7
285.6
475.7
303.8
363.3
240.4
315.6
323.7
309.5
328.4
284.9
260.0
328.6
374.4
413.4
284.6
477.5
304.7
364.0
240.6
316.4
324.6
309.9
328.5
286.3
261.2
327.8
373.9
412.4
285.4
476.9
303.9
365.8
240.5
317.0
325.2
310.2
329.5
287.3
262.2
328.5
372.2
411.8
286.0
470.2
305.2
367.1
240.8
320.5
328.9
315.2
331.5
289.2
263.3
344.3
378.7
415.8
293.2
482.6
308.4
368.6
242.5
321.6
330.1
316.6
332.7
286.4
264.7
355.2
380.0
415.8
290.3
481.9
312.1
369.6
243.2
321.6
330.0
315.8
333.2
286.5
263.7
352.5
378.6
417.2
294.6
475.4
311.3
370.9
243.6
322.5
331.0
316.9
335.6
285.9
263.2
360.6
377.6
417.4
291.8
469.8
313.2
371.5
244.3
324.0
332.5
318.8
336.5
288.5
264.3
365.7
377.5
417.7
293.3
467.9
313.5
372.3
245.0
325.4
334.1
320.4
337.0
290.7
263.7
372.8
376.4
419.3
291.4
462.6
314.5
373.8
245.9
325.1
333.6
319.1
338.4
293.1
263.2
359.3
375.9
418.8
292.9
458.5
315.4
374.9
246.7
325.4
333.8
319.0
338.8
294.6
264.2
352.5
377.0
419.6
292.6
458.8
317.5
375.9
247.3
349.9
382.0
115.4
264.6
398.4
113.1
113.2
112.4
368.9
421.1
269.6
393.6
488.1
619.5
452.7
240.7
247.2
200.1
313.6
338.9
360.2
402.9
121.9
280.0
416.2
119.4
119.4
119.2
373.8
430.9
269.7
384.7
463.1
501.5
446.7
253.1
250.4
201.1
319.5
346.6
362.4
405.2
122.9
281.7
425.7
119.9
119.9
119.9
376.4
434.2
271.3
389.5
469.0
447.3
464.5
255.9
250.5
200.9
319.8
347.4
363.7
407.6
123.6
283.2
429.1
120.7
120.7
120.2
376.2
437.0
268.7
388.3
467.2
453.5
461.1
255.6
251.5
202.2
320.1
347.8
363.0
409.5
124.0
284.6
427.3
121.3
121.3
120.6
379.0
437.5
273.0
379.1
450.3
451.9
441.4
257.1
251.6
202.2
319.8
348.5
361.7
410.2
124.3
285.6
425.5
121.5
121.5
121.1
377.1
433.7
272.9
371.1
437.8
452.0
426.7
255.4
251.2
201.4
320.4
348.5
362.1
410.4
124.2
286.0
418.2
121.6
121.6
121.6
380.0
433.1
278.3
371.0
438.1
460.6
425.3
254.9
252.4
202.5
322.9
349.3
363.9
412.3
125.3
287.1
428.3
122.0
122.0
121.8
382.1
437.7
277.7
373.7
443.7
487.9
428.8
254.9
253.1
203.0
324.6
349.8
365.1
414.0
125.8
288.0
430.8
122.5
122.5
122.0
381.9
436.1
278.8
374.8
445.1
503.2
428.9
255.6
253.5
203.2
325.3
350.6
366.4
415.9
126.4
288.3
438.7
123.0
123.0
122.2
383.4
439.4
278.5
374.9
444.6
500.6
428.7
256.2
254.3
203.8
327.7
351.0
367.7
418.0
127.1
288.8
446.1
123.6
1 2 Î&
122.4
382.4
437.1
278.7
374.2
442.0
500.5
425.9
257.0
255.2
204.7
328.2
352.2
368.9
419.2
127.3
289.4
446.1
124.0
124.1
123.0
381.9
435.3
279.6
377.5
448.7
497.7
433.3
257.2
254.9
203.7
330.1
353.1
371.3
420.2
127.9
289.6
453.1
124.2
124.2
123.6
385.0
440.5
280.2
387.6
470.8
498.6
456.8
256.4
254.9
203.6
330.5
353.0
372.5
422.1
129.3
291.2
465.9
124.4
124.4
124.5
392.4
452.8
281.9
388.1
468.9
497.9
454.8
258.6
255.1
203.9
330.1
353.8
374.9
425.1
130.1
293.1
467.7
125.4
125.4
125.1
391.3
451.5
281.3
391.1
473.6
502.3
459.4
259.9
255.4
204.2
329.5
354.3
206.0
191.6
197.9
169.5
299.7
212.1
215.5
320.9
207.8
192.0
200.0
168.0
312.7
211.2
217.9
334.6
207.0
191.2
197.8
167.2
310.6
209.6
221.6
334.7
212.1
196.6
203.2
175.7
309.7
212.0
221.1
336.7
213.2
197.6
204.3
176.4
312.0
215.1
219.8
338.3
213.1
197.4
205.3
175.0
307.0
215.1
221.1
339.0
210.9
194.9
202.3
171.7
312.7
214.0
220.0
339.5
207.1
190.9
199.2
166.6
301.8
209.9
223.2
342.5
208.4
192.1
199.9
167.8
304.5
211.0
226.0
343.2
215.2
199.1
203.5
177.0
319.6
216.5
227.4
344.7
218.7
202.6
205.6
182.2
319.1
219.2
227.0
344.7
218.0
201.8
207.1
179.6
316.4
220.8
226.7
346.8
214.5
198.1
205.3
173.7
308.0
218.8
230.6
347.4
210.5
194.0
203.0
168.3
301.2
214.3
231.9
348.7
214.7
198.3
204.1
175.0
304.8
215.9
234.2
348.2
319.9
314.2
214.9
215.2
379.7
373.8
373.3
351.4
287.6
202.6
312.8
402.8
307.5
299.5
224.1
224.4
363.2
292.1
291.4
363.1
303.9
201.6
333.9
426.4
301.3
292.8
224.5
224.7
358.0
265.9
265.3
364.3
304.5
201.8
334.6
428.0
302.2
293.7
224.2
224.5
359.5
271.1
270.6
365.0
302.3
200.3
332.3
428.5
302.6
294.1
226.7
227.1
360.6
263.2
262.6
365.7
307.6
198.9
339.3
428.7
304.3
295.8
230.2
230.7
361.0
260.9
260.2
368.4
311.6
200.0
344.1
431.7
304.8
295.9
231.7
232.2
356.6
261.9
261.2
370.7
312.0
200.4
344.5
437.5
308.5
299.8
232.3
233.0
354.6
275.8
275.1
371.3
314.9
202.2
347.7
438.9
310.0
301.3
229.9
230.2
356.9
288.1
287.5
373.0
314.0
201.8
346.7
439.8
310.6
301.9
229.2
229.4
363.0
290.0
289.4
373.0
314.4
202.3
347.0
441.4
313.3
304.8
229.9
230.4
371.6
297.2
296.7
376.1
315.1
200.8
348.6
440.8
314.6
306.3
230.6
231.3
378.6
299.7
299.3
376.1
315.9
202.3
349.1
439.6
316.7
308.6
231.2
232.0
383.0
306.0
305.5
376.3
317.6
202.3
351.3
438.1
318.5
310.5
231.8
232.7
385.5
311.2
310.8
376.8
318.8
201.6
353.2
438.3
320.2
312.0
231.0
232.1
385.7
319.5
319.1
378.6
318.6
202.6
352.6
442.8
403.1
256.7
435.1
367.3
224.0
433.5
273.6
468.6
390.9
237.4
437.5
276.0
473.0
393.3
239.5
439.7
276.7
475.7
396.1
240.1
442.3
277.5
478.8
398.0
242.3
444.6
278.2
481.5
399.8
243.8
446.8
280.8
483.4
401.0
245.0
449.6
282.4
486.5
403.7
246.7
452.4
283.9
489.6
406.8
248.1
455.0
286.3
492.1
409.6
249.0
457.3
287.5
494.7
412.5
250.1
458.9
289.6
496.0
413.9
251.0
461.3
291.5
498.4
416.7
251.8
464.1
293.4
501.5
418.9
254.6
466.1
294.6
503.6
420.6
256.4
265.0
260.6
271.8
274.1
265.9
286.3
274.7
266.1
287.3
275.3
265.9
289.2
276.5
266.7
290.8
277.4
267.6
291.8
277.4
267.4
292.2
278.3
268.1
293.3
278.7
268.1
294.1
279.8
269.9
294.5
281.3
270.8
296.6
282.0
271.7
297.2
282.3
271.8
297.6
283.5
272.8
299.1
283.9
272.5
300.1
326.6
328.5
281.9
278.5
286.0
397.1
350.8
407.7
346.4
351.0
291.3
287.9
295.4
428.8
380.C
440.1
346.4
356.2
292.3
289.1
296.2
422.9
376.9
433.7
353.3
356.8
292.0
288.2
296.5
445.2
389.4
457.8
354.6
357.2
293.1
289.9
297.1
447.6
392.3
460.2
354.9
357.3
293.4
289.6
297.9
448.2
392.5
460.8
355.2
357.6
293.6
289.6
298.2
448.8
392.6
461.6
358.1
364.9
295.7
291.3
300.8
450.6
400.7
462.8
359.7
368.3
296.4
292.1
301.3
452 .C
403.4
464.2
360.3
369.6
296.4
292.0
301.5
452.8
403.9
465 .C
361.1
370.4
297.3
292.9
302.3
453.8
404.4
466.0
362.0
370.9
299.0
294.2
304.6
454.4
404.9
466.6
362.9
372.7
299.2
294.2
304.9
455.5
405.1
467.9
365.1
379.9
300.2
295.8
305.3
456.5
405.2
469.0
366.6
380.8
300.8
295.7
306.7
459.0
405.7
471.6
1985
1986
322.2
374.7
C O N S U M E R P R IC E IN D E X F O R A L L U R B A N C O N S U M E R S :
A ll item s ( 1 9 5 7 - 5 9 - 1 0 0 ) ................................................................................
Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Food at h o m e ............................................................................................
C ereals and bakery p ro d u c ts ...........................................................
M eats, poultry, fish, and e g g s ..........................................................
Dairy p ro d u c ts ........................................................................................
Fruits and v e g e ta b le s ..........................................................................
Sugar and s w e e ts ..............................................................................
N onalcoholic b e v e ra g e s ..................................................................
O th er prepared fo o d s .......................................................................
Food away from hom e ..........................................................................
A lcoh o lic b e v e ra g e s ...................................................................................
H ousing ..............................................................................................................
R e n te rs 'c o s ts ( 1 2 /8 2 = 1 0 0 ) ..............................................................
O th er ren ters' co sts ............................................................................
H o m eo w n e rs’ co sts ( 1 2 / 8 2 = 1 0 0 ) .....................................................
O w ners' equivalent ren t (1 2 /8 2 — 1 0 0 ) .........................................
H ousehold insurance (1 2 /8 2 — 1 0 0 ) ...............................................
M aintenance and re p a irs .......................................................................
M aintenance and repair s e r v ic e s ...................................................
M aintenance and repair c o m m o d itie s ...........................................
Fuel and o th e r u tilitie s ...............................................................................
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas .........................................................
G as (piped) and electricity ................................................................
O th er utilities and public services ......................................................
H ousehold furnishings and o p e ra tio n s ................................................
H o u s e fu rn is h in g s ......................................................................................
H ousekeeping s u p p lie s ..........................................................................
H ousekeeping s e rv ic e s ..........................................................................
A pparel and u p k e e p ......................................................................................
A pparel c o m m o d itie s .................................................................................
M en’s and b oys’ a p p a re l.......................................................................
W o m en ’s and g irls’ apparel .................................................................
Infa n ts’ and to d d le rs’ a p p a re l..............................................................
O th er apparel c o m m o d itie s ..................................................................
A pparel s e rv ic e s ..........................................................................................
Tra nspo rta tio n .................................................................................................
Private tra n s p o rta tio n .................................................................................
N ew v e h ic le s ..............................................................................................
M aintenance and re p a ir.........................................................................
O th er private tra n s p o rta tio n .................................................................
O th er private transp orta tio n c o m m o d itie s ....................................
O th er private tran sp orta tio n s e rv ic e s .............................................
Public tra n s p o rta tio n .................................................................................
M edical c a r e ...................................................................................................
M edical care c o m m o d itie s ......................................................................
M edical care s e rv ic e s ...............................................................................
Personal and educational services ..................................................
S ee fo o tn o te s at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
83
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
Current Labor Statistics:
Price Data
30. C o n tinued— C onsum er Price In dex fo r All Urban C onsum ers: U.S. city average, by exp en d itu re c ateg o ry and co m m o d ity or
service group; and CPI fo r Urban W age E arners and C lerical W orkers, all item s
(1967 = 100, u nless otherw ise indicated)
A nnual
1986
1987
Series
1985
A ll ite m s .......................
C o m m o d itie s ................
Food and b e v e ra g e s ..........
C om m odities less fo o d and b e v e ra g e s ..............................................
N ondurables less food and beverages
A pparel c o m m o d itie s ................
N ondurables less food, beverages, and apparel
D u ra b le s ...........................
S e rv ic e s ..................
R ent o f shelter ( 1 2 / 8 2 = 1 0 0 ) .....
H ousehold services less ren t o f shelter (1 2 /8 2 = 1 0 0 )
T ransportation s e rv ic e s ........
M edical care s e rv ic e s ..........
O th er services ......................
S pecial indexes:
A ll item s less fo o d .........
A ll item s less s h e lte r ..........
A ll item s less hom e o w n ers’ co sts (1 2 /8 2 = 100)
A ll item s less m edical c a r e ......................................................................
C om m odities less f o o d ......................................................
N ondurables less fo o d .....................................................................
N ondurables less food and apparel
N o n d u ra b le s ..............
S ervices less ren t o f shelter (1 2 /8 2 = 100)
S ervices less m edical c a r e ........
E n e rg y .....................
All item s less energy .......
A ll item s less food and energy
C om m odities less food and e n e r g y ......................................................
Energy com m odities ....................
S ervices less e n e rg y ......
Purchasing p ow er o f th e co nsum er dollar:
1967 = $ 1 .0 0 ..............
1957-59 = $ 1 .0 0 .......
1986
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
330.
331.1
284.2
334.4
287.7
321.6
265.2
265.4
192.1
310.3
271.2
335.£
289.6
321.6
267.9
269.7
199.1
311.9
271.7
337.7
291.4
322.6
270.4
273.2
202.6
315.0
273.0
3 3 8 .'
292.C
324 .C
270.9
273.6
201.8
316.4
273.6
340.1
292.6
325.4
270.9
273.2
198.1
319.1
274.2
340.8
292.8
325.1
271.0
272.8
194.0
322.0
274.9
342.7
294.2
325.4
273.0
276.6
198.3
325.2
274.6
262.1
260.1
262.4
260.C
262.4
260.0
297.2
296.7
298.0
271.7
333.1
286.C
320.1
263.7
261.8
190.S
304.8
272.4
406.1
339. j
406.6
122.5
110.8
366.2
483.4
340.8
408.6
123.1
111.3
368.5
486.5
342.2
409.9
123.6
111.5
368.5
489.6
343.1
411.2
124.1
111.5
369.Ü
492.1
343.7
412.8
124.8
111.4
370.5
494.7
345.0
414.2
125.1
112.3
370.5
496.0
345.9
416.7
125.4
114.8
371.6
498.4
346.6
418.3
126.0
115.1
372.9
501.5
347.7
420.7
126.9
115.8
373.8
503.6
349.2
330.6
308.3
111.9
324.8
261.2
257.5
265.8
290.5
405.7
332.2
310.3
112.7
326.7
262.5
259.2
294.9
292.1
120.8
397.6
352.2
334.0
333.6
265.5
306.1
407.5
333.6
311.5
113.1
328.0
264.0
262.6
299.6
294.6
121.1
398.8
359.2
334.9
334.5
265.7
319.2
408.9
335.4
312.9
113.6
329.4
266.5
266.4
301.0
296.8
121.3
400.0
360.0
336.5
336.4
268.4
320.9
410.4
337.3
314.6
114.2
331.1
268.9
269.6
303.7
299.1
121.6
401.5
362.4
338.2
338.3
270.3
328.0
412.3
338.3
315.6
114.6
332.2
269.4
270.0
305.0
300.0
122.1
402.9
366.9
339.0
338.9
270.7
330.2
413.2
339.6
317.1
115.1
333.5
269.5
269.8
307.4
300.5
123.2
405.4
380.6
339.5
339.1
270.1
336.4
414.1
340.5
317.4
115.3
334.1
269.6
269.5
309.9
300.1
123.7
406.8
382.4
340.1
339.9
269.6
341.4
416.0
342.7
319.0
115.9
336.0
271.6
273.1
312.7
302.3
124.2
409.3
388.9
341.6
341.7
270.9
349.9
418.3
26.7
30.2
26.0
30.0
25.8
29.9
25.7
29.8
25.6
29.6
25.5
29.5
25.4
29.4
25.3
29.3
25.2
29.2
25.1
370.4
325.7
378.8
327.7
381.1
329.0
382.6
330.5
384.4
332.3
386.5
333.4
387.8
334.9
389.5
335.6
390.3
337.4
392.4
316.8
324.8
308.7
328.0
286.6
260.9
323.4
370.5
243.9
320.3
328.4
313.4
330.0
288.5
262.0
338.2
378.9
414.9
292.6
483.7
309.7
372.2
245.4
321.3
329.5
314.6
331.2
285.8
263.6
348.2
380.0
414.8
289.9
482.5
313.3
373.2
246.2
321.2
329.4
313.8
331.6
285.6
262.4
346.0
378.8
416.5
293.9
476.9
312.6
374.3
246.5
322.1
330.2
314.9
334.1
285.2
262.0
353.6
377.8
416.5
291.3
471.3
314.5
374.8
247.2
323.5
331.8
316.8
334.8
287.9
263.1
358.5
377.9
417.1
292.6
470.0
314.9
375.6
247.8
325.0
333.4
318.5
335.4
290.0
262.5
366.7
376.8
418.7
290.7
464.5
315.8
377.1
248.6
324.8
333.1
317.5
336.8
292.5
261.9
354.1
376.3
418.3
292.2
460.5
316.7
378.2
249.2
325.1
333.4
317.4
337.1
293.9
262.9
347.1
377.5
419.3
291.9
461.0
318.7
379.2
249.8
356.3
399.6
112.3
286.1
424.9
111.1
111.1
111.9
377.3
434.5
267.6
373.9
442.7
489.3
427.4
255.6
200.0
322.0
351.2
357.5
401.2
112.7
287.0
427.6
111.6
111.5
112.1
376.9
432.5
268.4
374.9
443.7
503.9
427.3
256.5
249.4
200.2
323.1
352.0
358.8
403.2
113.3
287.3
439.0
112.1
112.1
112.4
378.5
436.8
267.9
375.1
443.2
501.4
427.0
257.1
250.1
200.7
325.2
352.3
360.0
405.1
113.8
287.8
448.1
112.7
112.7
112.5
378.0
435.7
267.9
374.3
440.7
501.1
424.4
257.8
250.8
201.4
325.7
353.3
361.1
406.3
114.0
288.3
449.2
113.1
113.1
113.1
378.0
433.2
269.7
377.5
446.9
498.2
431.2
258.1
250.5
200.5
327.2
354.0
363.5
406.9
114.2
288.5
453.1
113.2
113.2
113.8
380.9
438.3
270.5
388.0
470.0
499.4
455.4
257.4
250.4
200.5
327.5
354.0
364.6
408.7
115.3
290.0
467.0
113.4
113.4
114.6
386.4
449.8
270.7
388.3
467.6
498.4
453.0
259.5
250.7
200.8
327.6
354.4
367.0
411.7
116.0
291.9
468.8
114.3
114.3
115.1
385.7
448.7
270.4
391.5
472.6
502.7
457.8
260.8
251.0
201.2
327.0
354.8
205.8
206.9
213.7
217.4
216.6
213.0
209.1
212.9
302.0
274.6
282.1
191.6
333.3
113.9
1112
337.0
435.1
314.1
264.7
265.2
260.1
258.1
o I o.
262.3
261.5
307.3
296.9
299.5
120.2
112.8
356.3
468.6
120.9
115.3
357.3
323.3
303.9
109 7
317.7
272.5
277.2
319.2
293.2
113.5
373.3
118.7
390.6
314.8
314.4
259.7
409.9
375.9
327.0
327.1
263.2
322.4
397.1
306.7
111.2
322.6
263.4
262.2
297.1
114.9
112.9
JOU.O
111.2
322.6
259.0
255.6
287.9
111.7
324.2
261.1
258.9
111.7
324.4
260.9
257.8
119.8
120.2
jy j.4
120.1
jy o . t
264.5
297.7
401.4
265.5
290.6
403.7
111.0
324.5
261.2
257.4
289.5
120.2
395.8
342.4
332.6
uOo.O
262.9
292.4
399.0
266.1
288.5
405.0
C O N S U M E R P R IC E IN D E X F O R U R B A N W A G E E A R N E R S
A N D C L E R IC A L W O R K E R S :
All item s ..........................
A ll item s (1957-59 = 1 0 0 ) .......
Food and beverages .......
F o o d ...................................
Food at hom e ................
C ereals and bakery products ....
M eats, poultry, fish, and e g g s ..........................................................
Dairy p ro d u c ts ..................
Fruits and v e g e ta b le s ...
O th er foods at h o m e .........
Sugar and s w e e ts .............
Fats and o ils ...............
N ona lco h olic b e v e ra g e s ..........................................................
O th er prepared fo o d s ...........
Food aw ay from hom e ...........
A lcoh o lic b e v e ra g e s .........
301.8
315.4
262.7
320.3
J 1J.U
303.7
324.2
274.4
257.1
323.8
307.3
326.7
282.2
256.9
327.2
287.2
478.1
287.1
476.9
307.5
284.0
257.1
324.2
o ! o. j
398.3
453.2
295.7
349.7
232.6
H ousing .........................
S he lte r .................
R e nte rs’ co sts (1 2 /8 4 = 1 0 0 ) .....
Rent, re s id e n tia l..............
O th er re n ters’ co sts ......
H om eow ners' costs ( 1 2 / 8 4 = 1 0 0 ) ...............................................
O w ne rs’ equivalent rent (1 2 /8 4 = 1 0 0 ) .........................................
H ousehold insurance (1 2 /8 4 = 1 0 0 ) ...............................................
M aintenance and repairs ..
M aintenance and repair services ...................................................
M aintenance and repair c o m m o d itie s ............................................
Fuel and other u tilitie s ................
Fuels ..............................
Fuel oil, coal, and bottle d g a s .........................................................
G as (piped) and electricity ................................................................
O th er utilities and public s e rv ic e s ......................................................
H ousehold furnishings and operations
H ousefurnishings ...............
H ousekeeping s u p p lie s ..........
H ousekeeping s e rv ic e s .............
622.0
451.6
241.6
243.4
197.6
310.7
340.2
A pparel and upkeep .........................
205.0
103.6
263.7
397.9
103.1
103.0
103.2
364.1
415.0
261.1
394.7
109.5
279.1
416.0
108.8
108.8
109.4
369.4
425.3
262.5
385.4
462.7
504.5
445.6
253.8
246.5
198.4
317.1
348.2
280.8
426.1
109.3
109.2
110.1
371.5
428.6
263.5
390.6
469.3
450.7
464.1
256.6
246.6
285.1
475.5
282.2
428.9
110.0
110.0
110.4
370.6
430.7
261.1
389.1
467.1
456.6
460.3
256.2
247.5
307.9
326.8
284.4
258.6
322.9
412.8
284.1
477.7
o u j.y
324.2
308.4
327.0
285.8
259.9
322.2
411.9
284.5
477.1
30^.3
369.2
243.4
355.6
354.3
397.8
283.6
426.7
110.5
110.5
110.8
373.1
431.1
264.3
379.3
449.2
454.8
439.6
257.8
284.6
424.8
110.7
110.7
111.3
372.4
428.2
265.0
371.3
437.1
455.0
425.3
255.8
354.8
398.1
111.6
285.1
417.3
110.8
110.8
111.7
374.6
428.1
268.0
371.1
437.3
463.5
423.8
255.3
350.1
199.7
320.6
350.8
317.3
349.J
211 0
411.2
285.5
470.3
vJOU. i
209.6
.
S ee fo o tn o te s at end o f table.
84
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
30. C o n tinued— C onsum er Price Index fo r All Urban C onsum ers: U.S. city average, by exp en d itu re c a te g o ry and co m m o d ity or
service group; and CPI fo r Urban W age E arners and C lerical W orkers, all item s
(1967 = 100, unless otherw ise indicated)
S eries
1987
1986
Annual
average
1985
1986
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
A pparel c o m m o d itie s .................................................................................
M e n ’s and b oys’ a p p a re l.......................................................................
W o m en ’s and girls' apparel .................................................................
Infants' and to d d le rs’ a p p a r e l..............................................................
F o o tw e a r......................................................................................................
O th er apparel c o m m o d itie s ..................................................................
Apparel s e rv ic e s ..........................................................................................
191.3
198.2
171.3
311.7
212.5
203.1
318.5
191.5
199.7
169.4
329.4
211.8
206.1
332.0
190.8
197.1
169.3
328.6
209.9
209.5
332.3
196.2
202.3
178.1
326.2
212.0
209.0
334.2
197.1
203.6
178.1
329.2
215.3
207.9
335.6
196.6
204.6
176.2
323.8
215.6
208.9
336.2
194.5
202.1
173.1
329.3
214.9
207.8
336.6
190.5
198.6
168.2
319.1
211.1
210.1
339.7
191.5
198.9
169.2
322.2
212.4
212.1
340.5
198.3
201.9
178.6
337.3
217.7
214.1
341.8
202.1
204.3
184.4
336.3
220.0
213.9
341.6
201.2
205.7
181.8
334.7
221.3
213.1
343.3
197.5
204.0
175.8
324.2
219.4
217.0
343.8
193.6
201.7
170.4
318.3
215.5
217.6
344.8
197.4
203.1
176.6
320.9
217.2
219.4
344.2
T ransportation .................................................................................................
Private tra n s p o rta tio n .................................................................................
N ew v e h ic le s ..............................................................................................
N ew c a r s ..................................................................................................
Used c a r s ....................................................................................................
M otor fuel ....................................................................................................
G a s o lin e ...................................................................................................
M aintenance and re p a ir .........................................................................
O th er private tra n s p o rta tio n .................................................................
O ther private transportation c o m m o d itie s ...................................
O ther private transportation s e rv ic e s .............................................
Public tra n s p o rta tio n ..................................................................................
321.6
317.4
214.2
214.5
379.7
375.4
375.0
352.6
287.7
204.7
312.3
391.7
307.6
301.5
223.3
223.6
363.2
293.1
292.5
364.7
302.2
203.9
330.9
416.3
300.9
294.4
223.6
223.9
358.0
266.7
266.1
365.7
302.2
204.0
330.9
418.4
301.8
295.3
223.3
223.7
359.5
271.9
271.4
366.6
299.7
202.7
328.1
418.8
302.2
295.7
225.7
226.3
360.6
264.0
263.4
367.2
305.2
201.1
335.4
418.9
304.0
297.5
229.4
230.0
361.0
262.0
261.3
369.7
309.5
202.3
340.7
421.1
304.2
297.5
230.7
231.4
356.6
263.2
262.5
372.3
309.9
202.8
341.0
425.8
308.2
301.6
231.2
232.0
354.7
277.7
277.1
373.4
312.6
204.3
344.0
426.7
309.9
303.4
228.9
229.3
357.0
289.5
288.9
375.1
311.5
204.0
342.6
427.2
310.8
304.2
228.2
228.5
363.1
291.3
290.7
374.9
311.7
204.3
342.9
428.7
313.9
307.4
229.0
229.5
371.7
298.7
298.3
377.9
312.1
202.6
344.1
428.9
315.5
309.1
229.5
230.3
378.7
301.2
300.7
378.1
312.9
204.0
344.6
428.9
317.9
311.7
229.9
230.9
383.0
307.6
307.2
378.3
314.7
204.4
346.9
426.9
319.7
313.6
230.3
231.6
385.4
313.0
312.6
378.8
315.8
203.8
348.7
426.9
321.4
315.2
229.5
230.9
385.6
321.4
321.0
380.6
315.4
204.7
347.7
430.7
M edical c a r e ....................................................................................................
M edical care com m odities .......................................................................
M edical care s e rv ic e s ................................................................................
P rofessional s e rv ic e s .............................................................................
H ospital and related services ..............................................................
401.2
256.3
432.7
367.7
221.2
431.0
272.8
465.7
391.4
234.2
435.0
275.2
470.1
394.0
236.3
437.1
275.8
472.6
396.6
236.8
439.7
276.6
475.6
398.4
239.1
441.7
277.0
478.2
400.2
240.4
443.9
279.8
480.1
401.5
241.6
446.7
281.4
483.2
404.2
243.2
449.7
282.9
486.5
407.4
244.6
452.3
285.1
489.2
410.2
245.4
454.9
286.2
492.1
413.3
246.5
456.6
288.2
493.6
414.7
247.4
459.3
290.5
496.2
417.5
248.2
462.1
292.1
499.4
419.7
250.9
464.2
293.2
501.7
421.5
252.8
E n te rta in m e n t..................................................................................................
E ntertainm ent com m odities ....................................................................
E ntertainm ent s e r v ic e s ..............................................................................
260.1
254.2
271.6
268.7
259.5
286.0
269.2
259.8
286.7
270.0
259.8
288.9
271.1
260.6
290.7
272.1
261.7
291.6
272.3
261.7
292.0
272.9
262.2
292.7
273.4
262.3
293.9
274.4
263.7
294.2
276.0
264.7
296.6
276.9
265.9
297.2
277.0
265.9
297.4
278.2
266.8
299.0
278.5
266.8
299.9
O ther goods and services ..........................................................................
T o b acco pro d u cts .......................................................................................
Personal c a r e ................................................................................................
T o ilet g oods and personal care a p p lia n c e s ....................................
Personal care services ..........................................................................
Personal and educational e x p e n s e s .....................................................
S chool b ooks and s u p p lie s ..................................................................
Personal and educational s e r v ic e s ...................................................
322.7
328.1
279.6
279.0
280.5
399.3
355.7
410.1
341.7
350.7
289.0
288.6
289.8
430.7
384.8
442.0
342.6
355.9
289.9
289.7
290.5
425.1
381.4
436.0
347.5
356.5
289.5
288.7
290.8
446.1
393.9
458.7
348.8
356.8
290.8
290.5
291.6
448.7
396.7
461.3
349.2
356.9
291.2
290.5
292.4
449.4
396.9
462.1
349.5
357.2
291.3
290.3
292.7
450.0
397.1
462.8
352.8
364.7
293.2
292.0
294.9
452.0
406.5
464.3
354.6
368.0
294.1
293.2
295.4
453.7
409.3
465.9
355.1
369.2
293.9
292.7
295.5
454.3
409.6
466.6
356.0
370.0
294.7
293.6
296.2
455.5
410.1
467.8
356.9
370.5
296.4
294.9
298.4
456.1
410.5
468.5
357.8
372.3
296.4
294.8
298.8
457.3
410.6
469.8
360.5
379.7
297.3
296.1
299.1
458.4
410.7
471.0
361.9
380.5
298.2
296.6
300.4
460.6
411.4
473.4
All item s ................................................................................................................
C o m m o d itie s .....................................................................................................
Food and beverages ..................................................................................
C om m odities less food and b e v e ra g e s ...............................................
N ondurables less food and beverages ...........................................
A pparel c o m m o d itie s ............................................................................
N ondurables less food, beverages, and apparel ......................
D u ra b le s .......................................................................................................
318.5
286.5
301.8
274.9
283.8
191.3
334.2
265.2
323.4
283.1
311.6
264.2
265.6
191.5
306.7
264.0
323.4
281.1
314.5
259.4
258.1
190.8
295.9
262.6
324.9
282.6
315.0
261.5
261.5
196.2
298.4
263.0
325.0
282.6
315.4
261.1
260.2
197.1
296.0
264.0
325.4
283.1
316.2
261.5
259.7
196.6
295.6
265.3
325.7
283.3
316.8
261.5
259.9
194.5
296.9
265.0
327.7
285.5
320.3
262.9
262.3
190.5
304.4
265.4
329.0
287.0
321.3
264.6
266.0
191.5
310.2
264.5
330.5
288.6
321.2
267.2
270.0
198.3
311.5
265.3
332.3
290.7
322.1
269.9
273.7
202.1
315.0
266.8
333.4
291.6
323.5
270.6
274.2
201.2
316.5
267.8
334.9
292.4
325.0
270.9
274.1
197.5
319.5
268.5
335.6
292.5
324.8
271.2
274.1
193.6
322.8
269.1
337.4
293.9
325.1
273.3
277.9
197.4
326.2
269.0
S e rv ic e s ..............................................................................................................
R ent o f shelter (1 2 /8 4 — 1 0 0 ) .................................................................
H ousehold services less rent o f shelter (1 2 /8 4 —1 0 0 ) .................
T ransportation s e rv ic e s ............................................................................
M edical care s e rv ic e s ................................................................................
O th er services ..............................................................................................
377.3
103.2
102.6
332.2
432.7
310.1
395.7
109.0
103.9
350.1
465.7
326.9
399.0
109.6
106.4
350.7
470.1
326.0
400.4
110.3
106.0
349.2
472.6
332.2
401.0
110.8
103.8
353.8
475.6
333.8
401.0
111.0
102.0
357.9
478.2
334.7
401.5
111.1
101.8
359.5
480.1
335.1
403.3
111.5
102.3
361.7
483.2
336.4
404.5
111.9
102.5
361.3
486.5
337.5
405.9
112.5
102.5
361.6
489.2
338.0
407.3
113.0
102.4
363.2
492.1
339.4
408.8
113.4
103.2
363.5
493.6
340.3
411.4
113.5
105.7
364.7
496.2
340.9
412.8
114.0
105.9
365.9
499.4
342.0
415.3
114.9
106.6
366.3
501.7
343.3
Special indexes:
All item s less fo o d ......................................................................................
All item s less shelter .................................................................................
All item s less hom e o w n ers’ co sts (1 2 /8 4 = 1 0 0 ).............................
All item s less m edical c a r e ......................................................................
C om m odities less f o o d ..............................................................................
N ondurables less food ..............................................................................
N ondurables less food and apparel .....................................................
N o n d u ra b le s ..................................................................................................
S ervices less rent o f shelter (1 2 /8 4 = 1 0 0 ) .......................................
S ervices less m edical c a r e ......................................................................
E n e rg y ..............................................................................................................
All item s less energy .................................................................................
A ll item s less fo o d and energy ..............................................................
C om m odities less fo o d and e n e rg y ......................................................
Energy co m m o ditie s ..................................................................................
S ervices less e n e rg y ..................................................................................
319.4
303.4
101.8
314.3
272.8
279.0
320.3
293.9
102.6
369.0
426.3
309.9
308.7
256.8
410.9
371.1
323.0
305.1
102.8
318.0
262.9
262.7
296.9
289.8
107.1
385.9
367.5
321.2
320.3
259.8
322.9
391.9
322.2
304.6
102.7
317.8
258.3
255.8
287.3
287.5
108.1
389.0
354.8
322.4
321.0
259.3
292.9
393.7
323.9
305.9
103.2
319.3
260.3
259.1
289.6
289.5
108.3
390.3
356.9
323.9
322.7
260.9
298.2
395.7
324.0
305.7
103.2
319.3
260.0
257.8
287.4
289.0
108.2
390.6
344.8
325.3
324.4
261.7
290.9
398.2
324.2
305.9
103.2
319.6
260.3
257.4
287.0
289.2
108.1
390.4
338.5
326.3
325.4
262.4
289.1
399.6
324.4
306.3
103.4
319.8
260.4
257.6
288.2
289.6
108.3
390.7
339.2
326.5
325.6
262.1
291.1
400.2
326.0
308.4
104.0
321.8
261.8
259.9
294.8
292.5
108.8
392.5
349.8
327.8
326.3
261.7
307.2
401.9
327.4
309.6
104.5
323.0
263.5
263.3
299.7
294.9
109.0
393.5
356.9
328.7
327.1
262.0
319.9
403.2
329.3
311.0
104.9
324.5
265.9
266.9
300.9
296.9
109.2
394.7
357.7
330.2
329.0
264.6
321.5
404.7
331.3
312.8
105.5
326.2
268.5
270.4
303.9
299.2
109.5
396.1
360.8
331.9
330.9
266.6
328.9
406.5
332.3
313.9
105.9
327.3
269.2
270.8
305.3
300.1
109.9
397.5
364.9
332.8
331.6
267.1
331.2
407.5
333.7
315.6
106.4
328.8
269.5
270.9
307.9
300.9
111.1
400.1
378.6
333.2
331.8
266.7
337.7
408.2
334.6
315.9
106.6
329.3
269.8
270.9
310.8
300.8
111.5
401.4
380.6
333.8
332.6
266.3
343.1
410.1
336.8
317.4
107.1
331.1
271.8
274.4
313.8
302.9
112.0
403.8
387.5
335.2
334.2
267.5
351.8
412.3
Purchasing pow er o f the co nsum er dollar:
1 9 6 7 - $ 1 ,0 0 ..................................................................................................
1957-59 —$ 1 .0 0 ...........................................................................................
31.4
27.0
30.9
26.6
30.9
26.6
30.8
26.5
30.8
26.5
30.7
26.4
30.7
26.4
30.5
26.2
30.4
26.1
30.3
26.0
30.1
25.9
30.0
25.8
29.9
25.7
29.8
25.6
29.6
25.5
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
85
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
31.
October 1987 •
Current Labor Statistics:
Price Data
C onsum er Price Index: U.S. city a v erag e and available local area data: all item s
(1 9 6 7 = 1 0 0 , u nless otherw ise indicated)
All Urban C onsum ers
A re a '
Pricing
sch e
d ule2
Urban W age Earners
O ther
index
base
U.S. city a v e ra g e ................
1987
Aug.
Sept.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Aug.
Sept.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
328.6
330.2
337.7
338.7
340.1
340.8
342.7
323.4
324.9
332.3
333.4
334.9
335.6
337.4
175.0
-
181.0
181.7
182.4
182.7
184.1
172.2
-
178.2
178.9
179.5
179.9
181.2
173.1
-
178.8
179.5
180.5
180.7
182.1
168.8
-
174.4
175.2
176.1
176.3
177.7
174.7
-
182.3
182.8
182.0
182.5
183.3
171.8
-
179.3
179.7
179.0
179.5
180.3
182.8
176.2
-
189.0
180.8
189.7
182.4
190.9
182.6
192.5
184.0
187.2
172.2
_
-
188.9
180.4
-
193.1
176.2
193.5
176.7
194.1
178.3
195.1
178.6
196.6
179.8
180.7
-
184.0
184.5
186.6
186.9
188.2
175.0
-
178.3
178.8
180.7
181.0
182.3
R e g io n a n d a r e a s i z e 3
N ortheast u rb a n ...................
Size A - M ore than
1,200,000 .............................
Size B - 500,000 to
1,200,000 .............................
Size C - 50,000 to
500.000 ................................
N orth C entral urban ...........
Size A - M ore than
1.200.000 ............................
Size B - 360,000 to
1,200,000 .............................
Size C - 50,000 to
360.000 .................................
Size D - N o nm e tro
p olitan (less
than 50,0000 ......................
S outh u rb a n ............................
Size A - M ore than
1.200.000 .............................
Size B - 450,000 to
1,200,000 .............................
Size C - 50,000 to
450.000 .................................
Size D - N o nm e tro
politan (less
than 50,000) ........................
W est u rb a n .............................
Size A - M ore than
1.250.000 .............................
Size B - 330,000 to
1.250.000 .............................
Size C - 50,000 to
330.000 ................................
1 2 /7 7
1 2 /7 7
1 2 /7 7
1 2 /7 7
1 2 /7 7
1 2 /7 7
1 2 /7 7
1 2 /7 7
1 2 /7 7
1 2 /7 7
172.5
-
179.5
179.5
180.2
180.2
182.0
168.1
-
174.6
174.8
175.5
175.6
177.4
171.2
-
176.1
176.9
177.8
178.2
179.6
167.7
-
172.2
173.0
174.0
174.3
175.5
171.4
176.4
-
174.6
180.9
174.9
181.4
176.1
182.1
176.7
182.6
177.1
183.2
172.4
175.3
-
175.7
179.7
176.2
180.3
177.4
181.0
178.2
181.6
178.5
182.1
176.7
183.3
_
-
181.5
182.0
182.6
183.3
184.0
176.1
-
180.7
181.4
182.1
182.7
178.6
-
183.0
183.2
183.7
184.1
184.8
174.6
-
178.7
179.1
179.6
180.0
180.6
174.8
-
179.2
179.8
180.8
181.4
181.7
175.3
-
179.8
180.4
181.6
182.2
182.5
174.3
179.0
.
-
178.0
183.8
178.9
184.4
179.1
184.5
179.9
184.7
180.0
185.6
175.0
176.4
-
178.6
181.1
179.5
181.7
179.7
181.9
180.6
182.1
180.9
183.0
182.0
-
187.2
188.1
187.9
188.1
189.2
176.9
-
182.1
182.9
182.8
182.9
183.9
178.1
-
182.7
183.2
183.9
184.0
184.3
178.3
-
182.8
183.5
184.0
184.2
184.6
173.0
-
175.8
175.2
176.4
176.6
177.1
171.1
-
173.8
173.2
174.2
174.6
175.2
.
102.2
182.1
179.6
177.4
102.5
182.4
180.0
178.2
103.0
182.7
181.0
178.8
103.2
183.0
181.5
179.5
103.8
183.9
182.4
179.7
-
.
173.5
174.8
174.5
-
“
102.2
178.9
179.4
178.1
102.6
179.3
179.8
178.9
103.1
179.6
180.8
179.6
103.3
179.9
181.4
180.3
103.9
180.8
182.2
180.7
_
176.6
175.0
173.8
-
331.4
333.9
337.1
338.4
345.0
346.1
348.8
318.3
321.6
322.7
328.9
330.0
332.5
330.9
334.6
342.8
345.1
344.2
344.1
346.7
323.5
326.8
334.8
337.1
336.3
336.2
338.8
325.9
323.1
326.6
325.8
337.0
333.8
339.0
336.2
340.6
339.0
340.7
339.1
343.7
342.2
317.2
324.4
317.5
326.7
328.2
334.9
330.2
337.5
331.7
340.4
331.6
340.7
334.4
343.9
345.5
-
353.0
353.5
353.5
356.0
356.9
339.0
-
346.9
347.0
347.3
349.3
349.9
-
334.0
328.2
-
340.1
335.1
357.5
179.1
330.5
340.5
343.8
338.0
361.4
180.5
334.7
343.1
_
_
_
-
329.9
-
-
-
-
174.5
320.7
334.6
-
341.9
336.3
337.9
180.9
331.0
345.4
_
-
337.4
332.9
334.2
179.2
326.3
343.2
_
-
330.9
325.2
-
S e l e c t e d lo c a l a r e a s
C hicago, ILN orthw estern IN .................
Los A ngeles-Long
Beach, A naheim , C A .......
N ew York, NYN ortheastern N J .................
Philadelphia, P A -N J .............
S an FranciscoO akland, C A .........................
Baltim ore, MD .......................
Boston, MA ...........................
Cleveland, O H .......................
Miami, F L ................................
St. Louis, M O -IL ....................
W ashington, DC-M D-VA ....
Dallas-Ft. W orth, T X ...........
Detroit, Ml
Houston, TX
P ittsburgh, PA
1 1/7 7
-
352.7
-
-
-
174.3
325.7
332.3
-
-
346.2
323.2
332.9
330.1
-
321.1
-
~
-
351.8
330.5
341.1
338.2
-
1 Area is the C o nsolidated M e tropolitan S tatistical A rea (CM SA), e xclu
sive of farm s and m ilitary. Area definitio n s are th o se established by th e O f
fice o f M anagem ent and Budget in 1983, e xcept fo r B oston-Law rence-S alem, M A-NH Area (excludes M onroe County); and M ilwaukee, W l A rea (in
cludes only the M ilw aukee MSA). D efinitions do not include revisions m ade
since 1983.
2 Foods, fuels, and several other item s priced every m onth in all areas;
m ost o th e r g oods and services priced as indicated:.
M - Every m onth.
1 - January, M arch, May, July, S eptem ber, and Novem ber.
2 - February, April, June, August, O ctober, and Decem ber.
86
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
_
-
354.1
330.2
341.5
338.9
_
-
-
316.2
-
-
-
-
356.0
333.5
344.0
341.7
339.1
312.8
330.5
309.2
_
310.5
-
-
-
-
344.4
319.9
338.5
316.6
_
-
-
-
347.4
319.7
339.7
317.8
_
-
-
-
349.5
322.7
341.7
320.3
3 Regions are defined as the four C ensus regions.
- Data not available.
NOTE: Local area CPI indexes are byproducts o f the national CPI p ro
gram . B ecause each local index is a sm all subset o f the national index, it
has a sm aller sam ple size and is, therefore, subject to substantially m ore
sam pling and oth e r m easurem ent error than the national index. A s a result,
local area indexes show g reater vola tility than the national index, although
th e ir long-term tre n ds are quite sim ilar. Therefore, the Bureau o f Labor S ta
tistics strongly urges users to consider adopting the national average CPI
fo r use in esca lato r clauses.
32. A nnual data: C onsum er Price Index all item s and m ajor groups
Series
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
195.4
7.7
217.4
11.3
246.8
13.5
272.4
10.4
289.1
6.1
298.4
3.2
311.1
4.3
322.2
3.6
328.4
1.9
206.3
9.7
228.5
10.8
248.0
8.5
267.3
7.8
278.2
4.1
284.4
2.2
295.1
3.8
302.0
2.3
311.8
3.2
202.8
8.7
227.6
12.2
263.3
15.7
293.5
11.5
314.7
7.2
323.1
2.7
336.5
4.1
349.9
4.0
360.2
2.9
159.6
3.5
166.6
4.4
178.4
7.1
186.9
4.8
191.8
2.6
196.5
2.5
200.2
1.9
206.0
2.9
207.8
.9
185.5
4.7
212.0
14.3
249.7
17.8
280.0
12.1
291.5
4.1
298.4
2.4
311.7
4.5
319.9
2.6
307.5
-3 .9
219.4
8.4
239.7
9.3
265.9
10.9
294.5
10.8
328.7
11.6
357.3
8.7
379.5
6.2
403.1
6.2
433.5
7.5
176.6
5.3
188.5
6.7
205.3
8.9
221.4
7.8
235.8
6.5
246.0
4.3
255.1
3.7
265.0
3.9
274.1
3.4
183.3
6.4
196.7
7.3
214.5
9.0
235.7
9.9
259.9
10.3
288.3
10.9
307.7
6.7
326.6
6.1
346.4
6.1
195.3
7.6
217.7
11.5
247.0
13.5
272.3
10.2
288.6
6.0
297.4
3.0
307.6
3.4
318.5
3.5
323.4
1.5
C onsum er Price Index fo r A ll Urban Consum ers:
A ll item s:
Food and beverages:
Housing:
A pparel and upkeep:
Transportation:
M edical care:
E ntertainm ent:
O th er goods and services:
C onsum er Price Index fo r Urban W age E arners and
Clerical W orkers:
A ll items:
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
I
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
33.
October 1987 •
Current Labor Statistics:
Price Data
P roducer Price Indexes, by stage o f processing
(1967 = 100)
1987
1986
A nnual average
G r o u p in g
F in is h e d g o o d s ...............................................................
Finished co nsum er g oods ..............................
Finished co nsum er fo o d s .............................
Finished co nsum er g oods excluding
fo o d s .................................................................
N ondurable g oods less fo o d ..................
D urable g oods ..............................................
C apital e q u ip m e n t..............................................
I n t e r m e d i a t e m a t e r ia ls , s u p p l ie s , a n d
c o m p o n e n t s ......................................................................
M aterials and com p on e n ts fo r
m anufacturing ....................................................
M aterials fo r food m a n u fa c tu rin g ..............
M aterials fo r nondurable m anufacturing .
M aterials fo r durable m a n u fa c tu rin g ........
C o m po n e nts fo r m a n u fa c tu rin g .................
M aterials and com p on e n ts for
c o n s tru c tio n ........................................................
P rocessed fu e ls and lu b ric a n ts .....................
C o n ta in e rs .............................................................
S u p p lie s .................................................................
C r u d e m a t e r i a l s f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e s s in g ...
Foo dstu ffs and fe e d stu ffs .............................
C rude n onfood m a te ria ls ...............................
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
1985
1986
Sept.
O ct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
293.7
291.8
271.2
289.7
284.9
278.1
287.3
282.5
282.9
290.7
285.2
283.6
290.7
285.1
283.1
290.4
284.8
282.9
291.8
286.2
280.1
292.3
287.1
280.8
292.6
287.5
280.3
294.9
290.1
283.2
296.3
292.0
286.7
296.8
292.7
287.7
297.8
293.8
287.6
297.2
293.0
283.6
297.3
339.3
241.5
300.5
283.5
311.2
246.8
306.4
277.4
304.5
241.7
303.9
281.0
301.9
253.5
309.9
281.2
302.2
253.5
310.4
280.8
302.1
252.8
310.1
284.4
307.7
253.2
311.2
285.3
310.5
250.7
310.7
286.3
312.2
250.6
310.5
288.6
314.7
252.5
311.8
289.6
316.5
252.0
311.9
290.1
317.4
251.9
311.6
292.0
320.2
252.3
312.1
292.9
322.2
251.3
312.1
318.7
307.6
306.1
304.8
304.8
305.0
307.0
308.9
309.3
311.0
312.7
314.8
317.1
318.2
299.5
258.8
285.9
320.2
291.5
296.1
251.0
279.1
313.8
294.4
296.2
254.3
277.0
314.9
295.0
296.4
253.9
277.5
315.3
294.9
296.4
253.2
278.0
314.9
294.9
296.4
253.2
278.3
313.9
295.2
297.8
251.1
281.3
315.8
295.8
298.7
251.6
283.1
316.2
296.1
299.5
250.4
283.9
317.8
297.0
301.4
255.3
286.9
320.3
297.0
303.2
261.5
287.9
323.9
297.3
304.6
261.2
291.6
325.3
297.2
306.4
262.0
293.1
329.7
298.0
306.6
258.5
292.3
332.5
298.3
315.2
548.9
311.2
284.2
317.4
430.2
314.9
287.3
317.6
409.1
317.4
288.0
317.3
394.9
318.1
287.5
317.5
392.8
319.0
288.0
316.9
395.5
319.2
288.2
317.1
406.7
320.7
289.0
317.9
418.5
323.6
289.5
318.7
416.0
324.9
289.6
319.3
421.3
325.4
290.5
319.9
425.0
325.0
292.1
320.2
437.5
326.1
292.7
321.8
449.5
326.1
293.2
323.8
457.4
326.8
293.3
306.1
235.0
459.2
280.3
231.0
386.8
275.4
233.5
365.6
277.2
235.0
367.9
279.2
236.8
370.3
277.0
233.5
370.6
284.2
227.6
394.2
287.2
229.9
398.5
288.6
229.6
402.0
295.3
240.1
405.3
304.7
251.3
414.0
304.9
246.5
420.1
307.8
243.1
431.0
307.7
240.1
434.1
299.0
720.9
269.2
261.3
268.7
291.1
518.5
275.6
267.9
274.9
286.1
471.7
275.5
268.5
272.9
290.4
452.1
280.0
272.6
278.9
290.7
453.7
280.0
272.4
279.1
290.4
454.6
279.6
272.0
278.7
293.2
477.4
279.7
271.8
279.8
293.6
489.6
279.5
271.7
279.3
294.3
495.5
279.5
271.8
279.5
296.3
507.4
281.2
273.6
280.7
296.9
516.5
282.2
274.9
280.7
297.2
520.7
282.5
275.3
280.7
298.6
527.5
283.1
276.0
281.6
299.3
534.0
282.0
274.6
281.8
252.1
258.4
256.7
262.6
262.6
262.2
263.4
262.9
263.3
264.4
264.4
264.5
265.7
265.9
246.2
253.0
254.2
254.8
254.9
254.7
256.4
257.2
257.9
258.4
258.7
258.9
260.7
261.6
325.0
232.8
528.3
304.0
313.3
230.3
414.4
303.5
311.5
233.2
393.8
304.0
310.4
230.3
380.3
303.9
310.3
231.0
378.3
304.1
310.5
231.5
380.7
304.1
312.8
229.5
391.3
305.2
314.7
230.0
402.6
306.1
315.3
227.6
400.3
306.8
316.9
231.9
405.3
308.2
318.1
240.2
408.1
309.8
320.3
241.3
420.1
310.8
322.8
241.1
431.7
312.2
324.2
237.7
439.3
312.6
305.2
304.4
304.6
304.8
304.9
304.8
306.2
307.2
308.1
309.3
310.5
311.6
313.2
314.0
537.0
233.3
244.4
533.2
231.5
247.1
578.0
228.1
250.3
584.4
230.4
252.8
590.1
230.6
254.4
594.1
238.9
257.4
606.9
248.4
263.1
612.2
247.1
271.1
629.5
246.0
276.4
632.6
244.8
280.0
S p e c ia l g r o u p in g s
Finished goods, excluding fo o d s .....................
Finished energy goods .......................................
Finished g oods less e n e r g y ..............................
Finished co nsum er g oods less e n e r g y .........
Finished g oods less fo o d and energy ..........
Finished co nsum er g oods less fo o d and
e n e r g y ......................................................................
C onsum er nondurable g oods less food and
e n e r g y ......................................................................
Interm ediate m aterials less foods and
fe e d s ........................................................................
Interm ediate fo o d s and fe e d s ..........................
Interm ediate energy goods ...............................
Interm ediate g oods less e n e r g y ......................
Interm ediate m aterials less fo o d s and
e n e r g y ......................................................................
C rude energy m a te ria ls .......................................
C rude m aterials less energy .............................
C rude nonfood m aterials less e n e rg y ...........
88
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
748.1
233.2
249.7
575.8
229.2
245.6
533.9
229.7
239.1
534.4
231.6
242.3
34.
P roducer Price indexes, by durability o f produ ct
(1967 = 100)
A nnual average
1986
1987
G r o u p in g
1985
1986
Sept.
O ct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
M ay
June
July
Aug.
Total durable g oods .............................................
Total nondurable g o o d s ......................................
297.3
317.2
300.0
298.8
298.8
295.6
302.2
294.4
302.4
294.8
302.1
294.7
302.9
298.2
302.8
300.7
303.4
301.1
304.3
304.4
304.9
308.0
305.2
309.8
306.2
312.0
306.9
312.0
T otal m a n u fa c tu re s ...............................................
D u ra b le ..................................................................
N ondurable ..........................................................
304.3
298.1
310.5
297.6
300.8
294.0
296.0
299.6
292.1
297.0
303.1
290.4
297.1
303.3
290.5
297.2
302.9
291.0
299.5
303.7
294.7
300.7
303.5
297.4
300.8
304.1
297.0
303.0
305.0
300.5
304.4
305.5
302.9
305.4
305.4
304.9
306.8
306.3
306.8
307.5
306.9
307.7
T otal raw o r slightly p rocessed g oods .........
D u ra b le ..................................................................
N ondurable ..........................................................
327.9
252.2
332.4
305.6
252.0
308.6
299.0
252.8
301.6
299.2
252.0
301.8
300.6
254.4
303.1
298.6
255.4
300.9
301.6
258.8
303.9
303.6
260.9
305.8
305.9
261.1
308.3
308.4
262.1
310.9
315.2
268.4
317.7
316.9
279.0
318.8
320.0
286.3
321.7
318.3
292.5
319.5
35.
A nnual data: P roducer Price Indexes, by stage o f processing
(1967 = 100)
In d e x
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
195.9
194.9
199.2
217.7
217.9
216.5
247.0
248.9
239.8
269.8
271.3
264.3
280.7
281.0
279.4
285.2
284.6
287.2
291.1
290.3
294.0
293.7
291.8
300.5
289.7
284.9
306.4
215.6
243.2
280.3
306.0
310.4
312.3
320.0
318.7
307.6
208.7
224.7
295.3
202.8
198.5
234.4
247.4
364.8
226.8
218.2
265.7
268.3
503.0
254.5
244.5
286.1
287.6
595.4
276.1
263.8
289.8
293.7
591.7
285.6
272.1
293.4
301.8
564.8
286.6
277.1
301.8
310.3
566.2
302.3
283.4
299.5
315.2
548.9
311.2
284.2
296.1
317.4
430.2
314.9
287.3
234.4
216.2
272.3
426.8
274.3
247.9
330.0
507.6
304.6
259.2
401.0
615.0
329.0
257.4
482.3
751.2
319.5
247.8
473.9
886.1
323.6
252.2
477.4
931.5
330.8
259.5
484.5
931.3
306.1
235.0
459.2
909.6
280.3
231.0
386.8
817.2
F in is h e d g o o d s :
T otal ....................................................................................
C onsum er g o o d s .......................................................
Capital e quipm ent .....................................................
I n t e r m e d i a t e m a t e r ia ls , s u p p l ie s , a n d
c o m p o n e n ts :
Total ....................................................................................
M aterials and co m p on e n ts fo r
m a n u fa c tu rin g ...........................................................
M aterials and co m p on e n ts fo r construction ....
P rocessed fu e ls and lubricants ............................
C o n ta in e rs ....................................................................
S u p p lie s ........................................................................
C r u d e m a t e r i a l s f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e s s in g :
T otal ...................................................................................
Foo dstu ffs and fe e d stu ffs ......................................
N o nfo od m aterials e xcept fuel .............................
Fuel ................................................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
89
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
36.
October 1987 •
Current Labor Statistics:
Price Data
U.S. exp o rt price in dexes by S tandard In ternational T rad e C lassification
(June 1 9 7 7 = 1 0 0 , u nless otherw ise indicated)
Category
1974
SITC
1984
Dec.
Mar.
June
1987
1986
1985
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
98.1
97.5
97.5
96.5
96.7
97.0
96.7
95.1
96.2
97.2
99.9
Food (3 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................................................................................
M eat (3 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ).........................................................................................................
Fish (3 /8 3 = 100) ..........................................................................................................
G rain and gram p reparations (3 /8 0 = 100) .........................................................
V egetables and truit ( 3 / 8 3 - 1 0 0 ) ..........................................................................
F eedstuffs fo r anim als ( 3 /8 3 — 1 0 0 ).......................................................................
M isc. food pro d u cts ( 3 / 8 3 - 1 0 0 ) ...........................................................................
0
01
03
04
05
08
09
96.5
104.4
98.7
92.9
114.7
82.4
108.4
95.8
103.9
101.0
92.4
119.5
72.8
110.6
94.0
104.7
103.6
90.3
120.2
68.6
109.2
90.2
106.1
102.6
82.6
126.9
75.7
108.1
93.6
112.2
101.8
87.1
118.9
83.4
107.7
90.5
111.5
102.2
82.1
115.3
88.5
106.0
89.5
114.7
106.2
79.1
125.8
85.5
104.7
77.2
122.0
111.2
59.0
131.4
90.2
106.6
81.2
122.6
116.9
64.8
131.9
87.4
108.2
79.8
123.4
118.5
62.9
130.8
85.7
108.6
83.4
129.0
122.9
66.5
130.8
93.7
110.0
Beverages and tobacco ( 6 / 8 3 = 1 0 0 ) ....................................................................
B everages ( 9 / 8 3 = 1 0 0 ) ..............................................................................................
T o b ac co and to b a cco p roducts ( 6 /8 3 — 1 0 0 ) .....................................................
1
11
12
101.3
103.7
101.1
99.9
104.0
99.5
100.1
105.3
99.6
99.7
101.8
99.5
98.6
100.9
98.4
95.6
101.9
95.1
96.5
103.0
95.9
96.3
102.2
95.8
101.6
102.9
101.4
101.7
104.7
101.4
104.0
104.8
104.0
Crude materials (6 /8 3 — 1 0 0 ) .....................................................................................
Raw hides and skins (6 /8 0 — 100) .........................................................................
O ilseeds and oleaginous fruit ( 9 /7 7 — 1 0 0 ) .........................................................
Crude rubber (including synthetic and reclaim ed) (9 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ) ..................
W o o d .................................................................................................................................
Pulp and w aste paper ( 6 / 8 3 - 1 0 0 ) .......................................................................
T e xtile fib e rs ...................................................................................................................
Crude fertilizers and m in e ra ls ..................................................................................
M etalliferous ores and m etal scrap .......................................................................
2
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
101.4
133.6
74.8
104.0
125.4
114.2
106.7
163.2
92.4
97.5
121.0
71.0
106.4
128.7
100.5
102.4
165.6
89.2
96.8
126.2
71.2
106.3
125.7
96.1
105.8
167.9
82.0
93.3
129.0
64.2
107.1
124.5
93.8
103.6
169.4
80.1
92.5
139.9
63.9
106.0
128.1
92.7
97.7
165.5
78.7
95.8
138.9
66.9
106.0
128.7
98.8
101.6
168.0
83.4
95.6
148.9
65.8
106.1
128.7
109.7
98.6
166.1
80.5
92.3
138.0
64.5
105.3
129.7
119.8
74.7
164.3
84.6
94.8
148.3
62.9
104.4
135.5
121.2
92.2
162.8
80.7
97.3
168.8
60.4
139.0
133.0
99.7
155.6
82.2
106.4
191.2
68.6
111.8
146.2
138.7
115.0
155.1
90.7
Mineral fuels...............................................................................................
3
99.7
100.1
99.2
97.6
96.6
91.9
86.7
85.7
84.7
85.6
84.4
Animal and vegetables oils, fats, and waxes.........................................
Fixed vegetable o ils and fa ts ( 6 / 8 3 - 1 0 0 ) .........................................................
4
42
147.9
156.7
142.0
152.9
144.5
164.8
114.5
128.8
101.4
108.7
90.8
95.4
84.4
95.3
76.5
80.8
86.8
87.0
88.9
89.1
94.5
94.7
Chemicals ( 3 /8 3 — 100) ................................................................................................
O rganic chem icals ( 1 2 / 8 3 - 1 0 0 ) ............................................................................
Fertilizers, m anufactured (3 /8 3 — 1 0 0 ) ..................................................................
5
51
56
97.7
94.7
94.8
97.0
93.8
92.5
96.8
96.5
87.9
97.1
97.1
89.8
96.6
95.4
90.0
96.5
93.5
88.6
95.4
89.3
84.0
93.1
88.0
77.4
92.2
89.4
68.7
96.6
99.5
75.4
103.1
114.3
80.4
Intermediate manufactured products ( 9 / 8 1 = 1 0 0 ) ........................................
Leather and furskins (9 /7 9 = 1 0 0 ) ..........................................................................
R ubber m anufactures .................................................................................................
Paper and paperboard products ( 6 / 7 8 = 1 0 0 ) ...................................................
Iron and steel (3 /8 2 -1 0 0 ) .......................................................................................
N onferrous m etals (9/81 = 1 0 0 ) ..............................................................................
M etal m anufactures, n.e.s. (3 /8 2 = 100) ..............................................................
6
61
62
64
67
68
69
100.4
79.0
148.5
159.5
96.5
82.5
105.0
99.4
82.5
150.2
155.0
95.5
79.7
105.4
99.2
79.2
149.0
151.6
95.3
79.6
105.2
99.2
75.9
148.3
149.6
95.9
79.8
105.4
99.1
78.5
148.7
148.2
98.2
78.2
104.4
100.3
77.8
151.0
152.2
98.4
80.2
105.3
101.2
82.5
150.0
158.7
99.4
79.1
105.5
102.2
84.2
150.4
165.3
100.2
79.4
105.6
102.7
88.0
151.3
167.9
100.1
78.8
105.7
104.4
96.3
152.1
174.4
101.5
80.3
105.7
106.8
101.1
153.9
177.7
101.5
90.2
105.6
Machinery and transport equipment, excluding military
and commercial aircraft ( 1 2 /7 8 - 1 0 0 ) ...............................................................
P ower g enerating m achinery and equipm ent (1 2 /7 8 = 100) ........................
M achinery specialized fo r p articular industries (9 /7 8 = 1 0 0 ) ........................
M etalw orking m achinery ( 6 / 7 8 - 1 0 0 ) ..................................................................
G eneral industrial m achines and parts n.e.s. 9 / 7 8 = 1 0 0 ) .............................
O ffice m achines and autom atic data processing e quipm ent .......................
T elecom m unications, sound recording and reproducing e q u ip m e n t.........
E lectrical m achinery and e q u ip m e n t......................................................................
Road vehicles and parts (3 /8 0 — 1 0 0 ) ..................................................................
O th er tra n sp ort equipm ent, excl. m ilitary and co m m ercial aviation .........
7
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
141.5
167.5
153.4
151.9
150.2
101.4
134.3
114.6
131.8
191.7
142.3
165.3
155.0
153.4
152.4
100.9
133.3
114.9
133.1
195.5
142.9
167.4
155.7
155.1
152.0
100.0
133.3
116.1
133.9
196.6
143.1
167.1
156.0
156.3
152.4
99.9
134.1
115.3
133.8
199.3
143.3
167.5
156.2
158.4
152.2
99.4
134.5
113.8
135.0
200.7
144.0
169.1
155.5
159.0
152.3
99.9
136.5
115.1
135.5
203.3
144.2
169.2
154.7
158.9
153.3
99.2
137.0
114.2
136.4
206.8
144.6
169.5
155.0
160.4
154.4
98.9
137.8
114.4
136.5
207.4
145.5
171.4
155.7
161.8
155.3
98.1
139.7
114.9
137.9
209.7
146.2
173.0
154.7
165.0
157.7
96.1
141.3
117.0
138.0
211.4
146.8
172.8
156.0
165.8
157.8
96.0
140.8
117.3
138.5
214.7
Other manufactured articles....................................................................
A pparel (9 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ) ...................................................................................................
P rofessional, scientific, and contro llin g instrum ents and a p p a ra tu s ..........
P hotographic apparatus and supplies, optical goods, w atches and
clo cks ( 1 2 / 7 7 - 1 0 0 ) ..................................................................................................
8
84
87
99.3
103.4
171.7
99.5
104.7
175.5
100.4
104.7
178.3
100.3
105.0
178.7
100.3
105.3
178.8
102.6
103.4
182.1
183.8
104.1
183.8
104.3
110.0
184.8
105.3
186.4
107.3
188.5
88
130.3
128.0
129.1
127.5
128.5
131.6
132.9
132.7
132.0
133.4
133.1
M iscellaneous m anufactured articles, n .e.s..........................................................
89
94.1
92.4
93.1
93.1
92.4
95.6
95.6
97.6
97.7
98.1
102.1
Gold, non-monetary (6 /8 3 = 1 0 0 )..............................................................
971
79.5
69.1
75.4
77.4
77.5
81.8
82.2
97.5
94.5
98.2
108.4
ALL COMMODITIES (9 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ).............................................................................
- Data n ot available.
90
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-
-
37.
U.S. im port price in dexes by S tandard In ternational T ra d e C lassification
(June 1977 = 100, unless otherw ise indicated)
Category
1974
SITC
ALL COMMODITIES (9 /8 2 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................................................
1985
June
Sept.
1986
Dec.
Mar.
June
1987
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
93.0
92.9
94.2
88.5
83.2
83.9
86.0
91.6
95.3
Food ( 9 / 7 7 = 1 0 0 ) ...........................................................................................................
M eat .......................................................................................................................
Dairy pro d u cts and eggs (6/81 = 100) ................................................................
F is h ..................................................................................................................
Bakery goods, pasta products, grain and grain preparations
(9 /7 7 = 1 0 0 ) ..................................................................................................................
Fruits and ve g etab le s .................................................................................................
Sugar, sugar preparations, and honey ( 3 / 8 2 = 1 0 0 ) ........................................
C offee, tea, c o c o a ........................................................................................................
0
01
02
03
96.8
118.2
97.9
129.4
94.9
120.6
99.1
129.7
102.8
131.2
100.5
132.7
113.4
122.7
106.7
139.3
104.7
118.5
107.1
144.8
109.1
126.9
109.4
149.6
105.3
134.4
111.5
157.1
100.2
132.1
116.8
161.6
102.0
135.9
119.6
167.4
04
05
06
07
132.3
129.4
122.6
56.0
136.3
120.2
123.1
54.4
141.9
131.3
111.9
64.6
146.9
119.4
124.6
85.9
149.2
119.4
121.6
69.2
154.0
127.1
123.9
71.8
155.3
125.5
124.3
61.0
161.0
120.5
126.0
50.9
165.2
125.4
128.6
49.3
Beverages and tobacco ............................................................................
B everages .......................................................................................................................
1
11
157.1
154.3
158.0
156.0
162.1
159.1
163.2
161.8
165.5
163.9
165.8
165.5
168.0
168.2
170.8
171.5
174.1
174.6
Crude materials..........................................................................................
Crude rubber (inc. synthetic & reclaim ed) ( 3 / 8 4 - 1 0 0 ) .................................
W ood (9 /8 1 = 1 0 0 ) .......................................................................................................
Pulp and w aste paper (12/81 = 1 0 0 ) ....................................................................
Crude fertilizers and crude m inerals (1 2 /8 3 — 100) .........................................
M etalliferous ores and m etal scrap ( 3 / 8 4 = 1 0 0 ) ..............................................
C rude veg etab le and anim al m aterials, n .e.s.......................................................
2
23
24
25
27
28
29
93.6
76.4
106.9
80.4
101.7
87.6
104.9
91.5
68.9
101.6
76.8
102.7
89.5
102.5
91.2
73.2
99.4
75.8
102.1
90.1
102.5
94.2
78.8
104.3
74.9
101.5
94.5
103.6
95.3
75.5
106.3
79.9
100.0
95.6
104.4
98.1
76.9
109.4
86.0
100.4
98.2
104.8
98.5
78.5
107.2
92.8
100.2
95.4
104.7
103.1
79.1
115.0
100.5
99.5
98.0
113.4
105.6
84.5
112.0
104.6
98.4
100.0
120.3
Fuels and related products (6 /8 2 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................................
Petroleum and petroleum pro d u cts (6 /8 2 = 100) ...............................................
3
33
80.9
81.6
79.8
80.3
79.1
80.1
55.3
54.7
37.5
36.1
33.6
32.1
38.4
37.9
49.7
49.9
54.8
55.2
Fats and oils (9 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ) ..........................................................................................
V egetable oils (9 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ) .......................................................................................
4
42
76.7
75.9
57.6
56.2
50.6
48.9
41.4
39.3
39.3
37.4
35.5
33.5
51.6
50.0
50.8
49.2
54.5
52.6
Chemicals (9 /8 2 = 1 0 0 ) ...............................................................................................
M edicinal and pharm aceutical products (3 /8 4 = 100) ....................................
M anufactured fertilizers ( 3 / 8 4 - 1 0 0 ) ....................................................................
C hem ical m aterials and products, n.e.s. (9 /8 4 = 1 0 0 ) .....................................
5
54
56
59
94.9
95.1
82.0
95.6
94.5
95.3
80.8
96.9
94.2
96.7
78.5
97.8
94.6
102.9
79.2
99.9
93.3
104.9
79.7
100.3
93.4
110.0
77.4
101.0
93.2
110.1
79.7
102.8
95.9
116.2
81.8
104.3
98.8
120.3
83.6
105.0
Intermediate manufactured products ( 1 2 /7 7 - 1 0 0 ) ....................................
Leather and furskins ...................................................................................................
Rubber m anufactures, n.e.s.......................................................................................
Cork and w o od m anufactures .................................................................................
Paper and paperboard products .............................................................................
T e x tile s ............................................................................................................
N onm etallic m ineral m anufactures, n.e.s..............................................................
Iron and steel (9 /7 8 = 100) .......................................................................................
N onferrous m etals (1 2 /81 — 100) ...........................................................................
M etal m anufactures, n.e.s....................................................................................
6
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
132.4
133.3
138.6
121.2
157.2
127.5
151.7
120.1
82.3
117.8
133.6
137.0
137.3
123.4
157.8
126.5
157.6
119.1
83.7
119.5
133.4
141.3
138.1
124.0
156.5
128.1
162.2
118.3
80.4
121.6
134.0
141.6
136.5
130.8
157.1
131.2
164.2
117.3
79.4
124.4
135.6
143.0
137.7
134.3
157.1
132.9
169.6
118.1
78.9
127.8
138.8
147.4
138.1
137.4
157.5
135.1
178.2
119.0
83.5
129.1
139.4
143.3
138.1
142.7
164.8
135.3
180.2
118.5
81.6
129.1
142.2
149.5
140.8
144.3
165.2
138.8
183.1
122.3
82.4
133.4
147.4
156.6
140.5
151.6
165.0
140.4
190.3
127.1
90.9
134.5
Machinery and transport equipment (6 /8 1 -1 0 0 )................................
M achinery specialized fo r particular industries ( 9 /7 8 - 1 0 0 ) ........................
M etalw orking m achinery ( 3 /8 0 — 100) .................................................
G eneral industrial m achinery and parts, n.e.s. (6 /8 1 = 1 0 0 ) ....................
O ffice m achines and a utom atic data processing e quipm ent
( 3 / 8 0 - 1 0 0 ) ..........................................................................
T elecom m unications, sound recording and reproducing apparatus
( 3 / 8 0 = 1 0 0 ) .................................................................................................
E lectrical m achinery and e quipm ent (12 /81 = 100) ...................................
Road veh icles and parts ( 6 / 8 1 = 1 0 0 ) ..................................................................
7
72
73
74
102.6
97.0
90.5
91.1
103.5
101.4
94.2
94.3
107.2
104.9
98.1
98.0
111.5
112.1
105.0
103.8
115.3
115.4
107.7
109.0
118.1
120.1
110.7
112.8
120.2
121.0
115.7
113.9
123.9
127.5
122.4
120.5
126.1
129.5
126.1
123.0
Mise, manufactured articles ( 3 / 8 0 = 1 0 0 ) ..........................................................
Plum bing, heating, and lighting fixtures ( 6 / 8 0 - 1 0 0 ) ....................................
Furniture and parts (6 /8 0 = 1 0 0 ) ...........................................................
C lothing (9 /7 7 = 1 0 0 ) .......................................................................................
F o o tw e a r............................................................................................
P rofessional, scientific, and co ntrolling instrum ents and
apparatus ( 1 2 /7 9 = 1 0 0 ) .......................................................................
P hotographic apparatus and supplies, optical goods, w atches, and
clo cks ( 3 / 8 0 = 1 0 0 ) ..................................................................................
Mise, m anufactured articles, n.e.s. ( 6 / 8 2 = 1 0 0 ) ................................
Gold, non-monetary (6 /8 2 = 1 0 0 )........................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
75
89.4
90.3
93.7
96.9
101.3
102.5
102.4
103.2
106.4
76
77
78
88.8
83.9
112.1
88.3
81.4
112.7
88.6
83.1
117.8
89.4
84.5
123.4
91.6
87.5
127.1
93.7
89.5
129.8
93.9
91.7
133.2
94.6
93.6
137.0
95.5
94.8
139.2
8
81
82
84
85
98.0
114.1
136.7
133.9
136.7
99.6
117.8
142.1
134.5
142.1
100.8
115.0
142.7
134.5
142.7
103.3
120.1
147.0
133.4
147.0
104.8
123.5
142.2
135.3
142.2
109.5
125.5
145.8
137.8
145.8
109.6
125.5
146.9
139.1
146.9
114.3
125.5
148.9
145.5
148.9
118.1
130.6
153.3
150.9
153.3
87
92.3
98.8
102.4
106.4
112.5
118.3
118.0
125.6
129.5
88
89
89.5
95.2
91.1
96.4
94.5
97.9
99.3
102.1
103.2
103.4
106.9
112.3
107.6
111.0
111.8
116.9
114.4
121.8
971
98.3
101.1
101.0
106.7
107.3
126.9
123.3
128.0
141.5
91
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
38.
October 1987 •
Current Labor Statistics:
Price Data
U.S. exp o rt price in dexes by end-use c ateg o ry
(S eptem ber 1983 = 100 u nless otherw ise indicated)
Category
Foods, feeds, and beverages .........................
Raw m a te ria ls ..................................................
R aw m aterials, nondurable ......................................................................
R aw m aterials, d u ra b le ..............................................................................
C apital goods ( 1 2 / 8 2 = 1 0 0 ) .......................................................................
A utom o tive vehicles, parts and e ngines (1 2 /8 2 = 100) ...................
C onsum er g o o d s ..............................
Durables ...........................................................
N o n d u ra b le s ................................................
39.
Per
centage
o f 1980
trade
value
16.294
30.696
21.327
9.368
30.186
7.483
7.467
3.965
3.501
1985
June
1986
Sept.
80.9
97.2
99.5
91.6
106.6
108.0
101.1
99.2
103.0
Dec.
76.2
96.5
98.7
91.1
106.6
108.1
101.9
100.4
103.3
77.5
95.9
97.9
91.0
106.6
109.2
101.4
99.5
103.3
Mar.
June
75.5
96.0
97.5
92.5
107.4
109.5
103.7
101.8
105.5
1987
Sept.
74.7
94.9
96.1
91.9
107.5
110.4
104.5
101.8
107.2
Dec.
66.0
93.3
93.7
92.5
107.7
110.8
104.5
102.1
106.9
Mar.
68.4
94.8
95.4
93.2
108.3
111.8
105.7
102.7
108.5
June
67.1
98.2
99.5
95.1
108.9
111.9
106.9
103.9
109.8
71.3
103.1
104.7
99.2
109.5
112.1
107.1
103.6
110.5
U.S. im port price in dexes by end-use c a te g o ry
(D ecem ber 1982 = 100)
Category
Foods, feeds, and beverages ............................
Petroleum and petroleum products, excl. natural gas ..
R aw m aterials, excluding petroleum ...............................
Raw m aterials, nondurable .............................
Raw m aterials, d u ra b le .........................................
Capital g o o d s ..............................................
A utom o tive vehicles, parts and e n g in e s ................................................
C onsum er g o o d s ...............................
D u ra b le ..................................................
N o n d u ra b le ..........................................
40.
Per
centage
o f 1980
trade
value
1985
June
7.477
31.108
19.205
9.391
9.814
13.164
11.750
14.250
5.507
8.743
Sept.
100.4
82.1
95.8
93.9
97.8
96.3
105.9
99.4
97.0
102.5
Dec.
99.0
80.9
95.4
93.5
97.4
97.6
106.4
101.0
98.9
103.9
Mar.
106.0
80.5
93.9
91.8
96.2
100.0
111.4
102.4
100.7
104.7
June
115.8
55.4
94.5
91.1
98.1
102.8
115.6
104.5
103.4
106.0
1987
Sept.
108.2
36.8
94.0
89.7
98.7
106.7
119.0
106.5
106.5
106.6
Mar.
Dec.
112.3
32.6
95.3
89.5
101.4
109.4
121.0
110.1
111.2
108.6
109.2
38.3
94.9
89.7
100.3
110.7
123.9
110.6
111.6
109.2
June
104.7
50.5
96.9
91.8
102.3
115.3
126.2
114.3
114.8
113.7
106.6
55.8
100.5
94.5
106.8
117.8
128.0
117.5
117.5
117.6
U.S. e x p o rt price in dexes by S tandard Industrial C lassification 1
1985
Industry group
Sept.
M anufacturing:
Food and kindred pro d u cts (6 /8 3 = 100) ......
Lum ber and w ood products, e xce p t furniture
(6 /8 3 = 1 0 0 ) ..........................................................
Furniture and fixtures (9 /8 3 = 100) ..................
Paper and allied pro d u cts (3/81 = 1 0 0 ) ..........
C hem icals and allied pro d u cts (1 2 /8 4 = 1 0 0 )
Petroleum and coal pro d u cts (1 2 /8 3 = 100) ..
Prim ary m etal pro d u cts (3 /8 2 = 100) ...............
M achinery, e xce p t electrical ( 9 / 7 8 = 1 0 0 ) ......
E lectrical m achinery (1 2 /8 0 = 1 0 0 ) ..................
T ransportation e quipm ent (1 2 /7 8 = 1 0 0 ) ........
S cientific instrum ents: optical goods; clo cks
( 6 / 7 7 = 1 0 0 ) ...........................................................
1 SIC - based classification.
92
1986
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1986
Dec.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
99.5
96.7
98.1
97.0
95.0
95.2
97.6
99.0
104.1
99.5
106.5
94.7
99.6
102.7
87.5
140.5
112.4
161.8
98.3
107.1
93.2
99.7
102.0
140.6
111.9
162.6
101.2
108.4
92.1
99.2
99.1
87.9
140.5
111.2
164.1
101.5
109.2
95.7
98.9
93.5
89.8
140.6
112.6
165.1
101.2
109.7
101.5
98.3
83.1
89.8
140.3
112.3
167.1
102.1
110.1
106.1
96.2
83.1
90.7
140.5
112.6
167.4
105.7
110.4
108.7
95.9
82.2
89.9
140.7
113.6
169.4
109.8
113.4
113.7
100.3
83.5
91.7
141.0
115.2
170.0
113.0
114.0
116.7
106.5
86.8
97.4
141.4
115.3
171.2
156.6
156.2
156.7
159.7
161.2
161.5
162.3
163.3
164.6
88.1
41.
U.S. im port price in dexes by S tandard Industrial C lassification 1
1987
1986
1985
Industry group
Sept.
June
M anufacturing:
Food and kindred products (6 /7 7 = 1 0 0 ) ........................................
T e xtile mill pro d u cts ( 9 / 8 2 = 1 0 0 ) .......................................................
A pparel and related pro d u cts (6 /7 7 = 1 0 0 ) .....................................
Lum ber and w ood products, exce p t furniture
(6 /7 7 = 1 0 0 ) .............................................................................................
Furniture and fixtures ( 6 / 8 0 = 1 0 0 ) .....................................................
Paper and allied pro d u cts ( 6 /7 7 — 1 0 0 ) ...........................................
C hem icals and allied p roducts ( 9 /8 2 — 100) ..................................
R ubber and m iscellaneous p lastic products
(1 2 /8 0 = 1 0 0 ) ..........................................................................................
Leather and leather products ..............................................................
Prim ary m etal p roducts (6/81 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................
F abricated m etal pro d u cts (1 2 /8 4 = 1 0 0 ) ........................................
M achinery, exce p t electrical (3 /8 0 — 100) .......................................
E lectrical m achinery ( 9 / 8 4 - 1 0 0 ) .......................................................
T ransportation equipm ent (6/81 — 100) ...........................................
S cientific instrum ents; optical goods; clo cks
( 1 2 / 7 9 = 1 0 0 ) ..........................................................................................
M iscellaneous m anufactured com m odities
( 9 / 8 2 - 1 0 0 ) .............................................................................................
Mar.
Dec.
Sept.
June
Mar.
Dec.
June
115.0
101.0
133.0
114.2
100.4
133.9
115.1
101.8
134.4
117.7
104.7
133.4
115.6
106.4
135.1
118.0
107.1
137.8
122.4
108.0
139.3
122.7
111.7
146.0
125.9
113.6
150.9
120.6
96.1
139.8
93.9
117.5
97.7
138.7
93.3
115.8
98.2
137.4
95.8
122.1
101.2
137.6
98.6
124.8
103.5
139.4
102.1
127.9
105.4
142.2
103.8
127.9
105.6
150.3
102.4
134.5
109.6
154.0
104.7
135.0
110.2
155.7
105.7
96.7
138.9
84.1
99.1
93.4
95.8
114.2
96.6
142.3
84.3
101.0
96.6
94.5
114.8
97.5
144.0
82.6
102.6
100.0
95.8
119.6
100.9
145.8
82.0
104.9
105.5
97.0
123.9
100.6
144.6
82.4
108.5
109.0
100.2
128.0
101.9
147.7
84.9
110.3
112.5
102.6
130.4
102.1
148.7
84.0
111.1
114.2
104.0
133.2
104.4
151.8
85.4
115.5
119.1
105.7
136.5
105.8
156.2
91.3
116.2
121.9
106.9
138.4
91.7
94.6
98.8
103.9
109.1
113.7
113.7
119.1
122.1
106.9
108.1
110.3
113.8
95.1
96.6
98.7
99.9
101.7
1 SIC - based classification.
42.
In dexes o f p rodu ctivity, hourly com pensation, and unit costs, q u arterly data seasonally adjusted
(1977 = 100)
Q uarterly Indexes
Item
1984
IV
1985
I
III
IV
107.2
174.6
98.6
162.8
160.4
162.0
108.2
177.0
99.4
163.6
161.8
163.0
107.9
179.3
99.7
166.1
160.2
164.0
109.5
180.7
100.1
165.0
163.1
164.3
105.2
172.2
98.4
163.6
159.5
162.2
105.7
174.1
98.3
164.7
161.5
163.6
106.4
176.2
98.9
165.7
163.4
164.9
105.9
178.3
99.2
168.3
160.8
165.7
106.4
168.1
96.8
162.8
158.0
176.8
134.2
161.9
159.4
107.0
169.9
97.0
163.6
158.9
177.5
132.0
161.6
159.8
107.7
171.8
97.0
164.3
159.5
178.7
132.2
162.5
160.5
109.2
173.8
97.6
163.7
159.1
177.5
142.5
165.2
161.2
120.0
171.1
98.5
142.5
121.5
173.3
99.0
142.7
124.0
176.1
99.5
142.0
125.2
178.0
99.9
142.1
Business:
O utput per hour o f all p e r s o n s ....................................
C om pensation per h o u r .................................................
Real com p en sa tio n per h o u r .......................................
Unit labor c o s t s ................................................................
Unit non la bo r paym ents ................................................
Im plicit price d eflator ......................................................
105.9
170.3
98.1
160.8
157.9
159.8
106.5
172.4
98.5
161.9
158.7
160.8
Nonfarm business:
O utpu t per hour o f all p e r s o n s ....................................
C om pensation per h o u r .................................................
Real com p en sa tio n per h o u r .......................................
Unit labor co sts ................................................................
Unit n onlabor paym ents ................................................
Im plicit price d eflator ......................................................
104.8
170.2
98.0
162.4
158.5
161.0
Nonfinancial corporations:
O utpu t per hour o f all e m p lo y e e s ..............................
C om pensation per h o u r .................................................
Real com p en sa tio n per h o u r .......................................
T otal unit c o s t s .................................................................
Unit labor co sts .............................................................
Unit n onlabor c o s t s ......................................................
Unit p r o fits ..........................................................................
Unit n onlabor paym ents ................................................
Im plicit price d eflator ......................................................
Manufacturing:
O utput per hour o f all p e r s o n s ...................................
C om pensation per h o u r .................................................
Real com pensation per h o u r .......................................
Unit labor costs ................................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
II
1987
1986
I
II
I
II
III
IV
109.7
182.2
101.3
166.2
163.9
165.4
109.6
183.6
101.4
167.5
165.7
166.9
109.6
185.2
101.6
169.0
162.4
166.7
109.7
185.8
100.7
169.4
166.0
168.2
110.0
187.3
100.3
170.2
169.1
169.8
107.7
180.0
99.7
167.2
164.7
166.4
107.7
181.3
100.8
168.4
165.2
167.3
107.5
182.6
100.9
169.8
167.0
168.8
107.5
184.4
101.2
171.5
163.9
168.8
107.6
184.9
100.2
171.8
167.4
170.3
107.9
186.3
99.7
172.6
169.3
171.4
108.9
175.7
97.7
166.0
161.4
179.4
128.7
161.6
161.5
109.8
177.2
98.2
166.3
161.5
180.7
129.7
162.8
161.9
109.7
178.4
99.1
167.2
162.6
180.6
129.5
162.7
162.7
109.9
179.5
99.2
168.5
163.2
184.2
130.6
165.4
164.0
110.5
181.0
99.3
168.7
163.8
183.2
127.7
163.7
163.8
109.7
180.8
98.0
169.7
164.8
184.1
132.2
165.9
165.2
110.0
182.0
97.4
170.7
165.4
186.4
131.8
167.3
166.0
126.0
180.2
100.2
143.0
127.6
181.0
100.3
141.9
128.3
182.1
101.2
142.0
129.4
183.1
101.2
141.5
129.9
184.3
101.2
141.9
131.0
183.9
99.6
140.4
132.6
184.7
98.9
139.3
93
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
43.
October 1987 •
Current Labor Statistics:
Productivity Data
Annual in dexes o f m u ltifacto r p rodu ctivity and related m easures, s elected years
(1977 = 100)
Item
1960
1970
1973
1975
1977
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Private business
Productivity:
O utput per hour o f all p e r s o n s ......................
O utput per unit o f capital s e rv ic e s .........................
M ultifa cto r p ro d u c tiv ity .........
O u tp u t......................................
Inputs:
Hours o f all p e rs o n s .......................
Capital services ...............................
C om bined units of labor and capital in p u t..........
Capital per hour o f all p e rs o n s .....................
67.3
102.4
78.2
55.3
88.4
102.0
92.9
80.2
95.9
105.3
99.1
93.0
95.7
93.8
95.0
89.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.5
99.8
99.7
107.9
99.2
94.2
97.4
106.6
100.6
92.4
97.7
108.9
100.3
86.6
95.2
105.4
103.0
88.3
97.6
109.9
105.4
92.4
100.6
118.9
106.5
91.5
101.0
122.8
82.2
54.0
70.7
65.7
90.8
78.7
86.3
86.7
96.9
88.3
93.8
91.1
93.2
95.1
93.9
102.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
108.4
108.0
108.2
99.7
107.5
113.1
109.4
105.3
108.2
117.8
111.5
108.8
105.2
121.7
110.7
115.7
106.7
124.4
112.6
116.7
112.8
128.7
118.1
114.1
115.3
134.1
121.6
116.3
70.7
103.7
80.9
54.4
89.2
102.8
93.7
79.9
96.4
106.0
99.6
92.9
96.0
93.8
95.3
88.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.2
99.0
99.1
107.9
98.7
93.4
96.9
106.6
99.6
91.1
96.7
108.4
99.1
85.1
94.1
104.8
102.4
87.3
97.0
110.0
104.3
90.9
99.6
118.9
104.8
89.7
99.4
122.5
77.0
52.5
67.3
68.2
89.6
77.7
85.3
86.8
96.3
87.6
93.3
91.0
92.6
94.8
93.4
102.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
108.8
109.0
108.9
100.1
108.0
114.1
110.0
105.6
108.8
119.0
112.2
109.4
105.7
123.2
111.4
116.5
107.4
126.1
113.5
117.4
114.0
130.8
119.4
114.7
116.9
136.6
123.3
116.8
62.2
102.5
71.9
52.5
80.8
98.6
85.2
78.6
93.4
111.4
97.9
96.3
92.9
90.1
92.0
84.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.4
99.7
101.0
108.1
101.4
91.2
98.7
103.2
103.6
89.2
99.8
104.8
105.9
81.8
99.2
98.4
112.0
86.9
105.1
104.7
116.6
94.4
110.7
116.0
121.7
96.0
114.7
120.4
84.4
51.2
73.0
60.7
97.3
79.7
92.2
82.0
103.1
86.4
98.4
83.8
91.4
94.2
92.2
103.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
106.5
108.4
107.0
101.7
101.7
113.1
104.5
111.2
101.1
117.5
105.0
116.2
92.9
120.3
99.2
129.4
93.5
120.6
, 99.7
129.0
99.5
122.9
104.8
123.6
98.9
125.4
105.0
126.7
Private nonfarm business
P roductivity:
O utput per hour o f all p e r s o n s ........................
O utput per unit o f capital s e r v ic e s .........................
M ultifa cto r p ro d u c tiv ity .......................
O u tp u t...............................................
Inputs:
Hours o f all p e rs o n s .......................................
Capital services .......................................
C om bined units of labor and capital in p u t........
Capital per hour o f all p e rs o n s ...............................
Manufacturing
Productivity:
O utput per hour o f all p e r s o n s .............
O utput per unit o f capital s e rv ic e s ...................
M ultifa cto r p ro d u c tiv ity ..............................
O u tp u t.....................................
Inputs:
Hours o f all p e rs o n s ..........................
Capital services ...........................
C om bined units o f labor and capital In p u ts ........
Capital per hour of all p e rs o n s .............
44.
A nnual in dexes o f p rodu ctivity, hourly com pensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years
(1 9 7 7 = 1 0 0 )
Item
94
1960
1970
1973
1975
1977
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
Business:
O utpu t per hour o f all p e rs o n s ....................................
C om pensation p er h o u r .................................................
Real com p en sa tio n p er h o u r .......................................
Unit labor co sts .......................................................
Unit non la bo r paym ents ................................................
Im plicit price deflator ......................................................
67.6
33.6
68.9
49.7
46.4
48.5
88.4
57.8
90.2
65.4
59.4
63.2
95.9
70.9
96.7
73.9
72.5
73.4
95.7
85.2
95.9
89.0
88.2
88.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.6
119.1
99.4
119.5
112.5
117.0
99.3
131.5
96.7
132.5
118.7
127.6
100.7
143.7
95.7
142.7
134.6
139.8
100.3
154.9
97.3
154.5
136.6
148.1
103.0
161.5
98.2
156.7
146.4
153.0
105.6
168.0
98.0
159.1
156.5
158.2
107.5
175.9
99.1
163.6
160.3
162.4
109.5
182.8
101.0
166.9
163.8
165.8
Nonfarm business:
O utput per hour o f all p e rs o n s ...................................
C om pensation per h o u r .................................................
Real co m pensation p er h o u r .......................................
Unit labor co sts ................................................................
Unit n onlabor paym ents ................................................
Im plicit price d eflator ......................................................
71.0
35.3
72.3
49.7
46.3
48.5
89.3
58.2
90.8
65.2
60.0
63.4
96.4
71.2
97.1
73.9
69.3
72.3
96.0
85.6
96.4
89.2
86.7
88.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.3
118.9
99.2
119.7
110.5
116.5
98.8
131.3
96.6
132.9
118.5
127.8
99.8
143.6
95.7
144.0
133.5
140.3
99.2
154.8
97.2
156.0
136.5
149.2
102.5
161.5
98.2
157.6
148.3
154.3
104.6
167.8
97.9
160.4
156.4
159.0
105.8
175.2
98.7
165.6
161.3
164.1
107.5
182.0
100.6
169.3
165.2
167.8
Nonfinancial corporations:
O utput per hour o f all e m p lo y e e s ..............................
C om pensation per h o u r .................................................
Real com pensation per h o u r .......................................
Total unit c o s t s ...........................................................
Unit labor costs .............................................................
Unit nonlabor c o s t s ......................................................
Unit p ro fits ..........................................................................
Unit n onlabor paym ents ................................................
Im plicit price d eflator ......................................................
73.4
36.9
75.5
49.4
50.2
47.0
59.8
51.5
50.7
91.1
59.2
92.4
64.8
65.0
64.2
52.3
60.1
63.3
97.5
71.6
97.6
72.7
73.4
70.7
65.6
68.9
71.9
96.7
85.9
96.7
90.3
88.8
94.9
77.0
88.6
88.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.8
118.7
99.1
118.2
119.0
115.8
94.5
108.4
115.4
99.1
131.1
96.4
133.4
132.3
136.7
85.2
118.6
127.6
99.6
143.3
95.5
147.7
143.8
159.1
98.1
137.8
141.7
100.4
154.3
96.9
159.5
153.8
176.4
78.5
142.1
149.8
103.5
159.9
97.3
159.5
154.5
174.3
110.9
152.1
153.7
106.0
165.8
96.7
160.8
156.5
173.6
136.5
160.6
157.9
108.2
172.8
97.4
164.4
159.7
178.3
133.9
162.7
160.7
109.9
178.9
98.9
167.7
162.8
182.2
129.3
163.7
163.1
Manufacturing:
O utpu t per hour o f all p e rs o n s ....................................
C om pensation per h o u r .................................................
Real com pensation per h o u r .......................................
Unit labor co sts ................................................................
Unit nonlabor paym ents ................................................
Im plicit price d eflator ......................................................
62.2
36.5
74.8
58.7
60.0
59.1
80.8
57.4
89.5
71.0
64.1
69.0
93.4
68.8
93.8
73.7
70.7
72.8
92.9
85.1
95.9
91.7
87.5
90.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.4
118.6
99.1
117.0
98.9
111.7
101.4
132.4
97.4
130.6
97.8
121.0
103.6
145.2
96.7
140.1
111.8
131.8
105.9
157.5
98.9
148.7
114.0
138.6
112.0
162.4
98.8
145.0
128.5
140.2
118.1
168.0
98.0
142.2
138.6
141.2
124.2
176.9
99.6
142.4
134.7
140.2
128.8
182.7
100.9
141.8
137.9
140.7
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
45. U nem p loym ent rates, approxim ating U.S. concepts, in nine countries, qu arterly data
seasonally adjusted
A nnual average
1987
1986
1985
C ountry
1985
1986
IV
IV
III
II
I
II
I
Total labor force basis
U nited S ta te s .............................................
Canada ........................................................
A ustralia ......................................................
Japan ...........................................................
7.1
10.4
8.2
2.6
6.9
9.5
8.0
2.8
7.0
10.1
7.8
2.8
7.0
9.7
7.9
2.7
7.0
9.5
7.7
2.8
6.8
9.6
8.2
2.9
6.8
9.4
8.3
2.9
6.6
9.6
8.3
3.0
6.1
9.0
8.1
3.1
France .........................................................
G e rm a n y ......................................................
Italy ', 2 ........................................................
S w eden .......................................................
United K in g d o m ........................................
10.2
7.7
5.9
2.8
11.2
10.4
7.4
6.2
2.6
11.1
10.2
7.7
6.1
2.7
11.0
10.2
7.6
6.1
2.7
11.1
10.4
7.5
6.2
2.6
11.2
10.6
7.4
5.9
2.6
11.1
10.6
7.2
6.5
2.6
10.9
11.0
7.3
6.6
2.0
10.6
11.0
7.4
United S ta te s .............................................
Canada ........................................................
A ustralia ......................................................
Japan ............................................................
7.2
10.5
8.3
2.6
7.0
9.6
8.1
2.8
7.1
10.1
7.9
2.8
7.1
9.7
8.0
2.7
7.1
9.6
7.8
2.8
6.9
9.7
8.3
2.9
6.9
9.4
8.4
2.9
6.7
9.6
8.3
3.0
6.2
9.1
8.2
3.1
France .........................................................
G e rm a n y ......................................................
Italy1, 2 .........................................................
S w eden .......................................................
United K in g d o m ........................................
10.4
7.9
6.0
2.8
11.2
10.7
7.6
6.3
2.7
11.1
10.4
7.8
6.2
2.7
11.1
10.5
7.8
6.2
2.8
11.2
10.7
7.7
6.3
2.6
11.2
10.8
7.5
6.0
2.6
11.2
10.8
7.4
6.6
2.6
10.9
11.2
7.4
6.7
2.0
10.7
11.3
7.6
1.9
10.2
Civilian labor force basis
1 Q uarterly rates are fo r th e first m onth o f th e quarter.
2 M ajor changes in th e Italian labor fo rce survey, intro
duced in 1977, resulted in a large increase in persons enu
m erated as unem ployed. How ever, m any persons reported
th a t they had n ot actively sought w o rk in th e past 30 days,
and they have been provisionally excluded fo r com parability
w ith U.S. concepts. Inclusion o f such p ersons w ould about
1.9
10.3
double the Italian unem ploym ent rate shown.
- Data n ot available.
NO TE: Q uarterly figures fo r France, G erm any, and th e
United Kingdom are ca lcu lated by applying annual adju st
m ent fa cto rs to cu rre n t published data and th e refore should
be view ed as less precise indicators o f u nem ploym ent under
U.S. co n ce pts than th e annual figures.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
Current Labor Statistics:
International Comparisons Data
46. Annual data: E m ploym ent status o f the civilian w o rkin g -ag e population, approxim ating U.S. concepts,
10 countries
(N um bers in thousands)
E m ploym ent status and country
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
Labor force
United S ta te s .....................................................................
Canada ................................................................................
A u s tra lia ..............................................................................
Japan ................................................................................
F ra n c e ..................................................................................
G e rm a n y ..............................................................................
Ita ly ........................................................................................
N e th e rla n d s ........................................................................
S w e d e n ................................................................................
United K in g d o m ................................................................
99,009
10,500
6,358
53,820
22,300
25,870
20,510
4,950
4,168
26,050
102,251
10,895
6,443
54,610
22,460
26,000
20,570
5,010
4,203
26,260
104,962
11,231
6,519
55,210
22,670
26,250
20,850
5,100
4,262
26,350
106,940
11,573
6,693
55,740
22,800
26,520
21,120
5,310
4,312
26,520
108,670
11,904
6,810
56,320
22,930
26,650
21,320
5,520
4,327
26,590
110,204
11,958
6,910
56,980
23,160
26,710
21,410
5,570
4,350
26,740
111,550
12,183
6,997
58,110
23,130
26,740
21,590
5,600
4,369
26,790
113,544
12,399
7,133
58,480
23,290
26,890
21,670
5,620
4,385
27,180
115,461
12,639
7,272
58,820
23,340
27,090
21,800
5,710
4,418
27,370
117,834
12,870
7,562
59,410
23,480
27,280
21,990
Participation rate1
United S ta te s .....................................................................
Canada ................................................................................
A u s tra lia ...............................................................................
Japan ...................................................................................
F ra n c e ..................................................................................
G e rm a n y ..............................................................................
Ita ly ........................................................................................
N e th e rla n d s ........................................................................
S w e d e n ................................................................................
U nited K in g d o m ................................................................
62.3
61.6
62.7
62.5
57.6
53.4
48.2
49.0
65.9
62.7
63.2
62.7
61.9
62.8
57.5
53.3
47.8
48.8
66.1
62.8
63.7
63.4
61.6
62.7
57.5
53.3
48.0
49.0
66.6
62.6
63.8
64.1
62.1
62.6
57.2
53.2
48.2
50.2
66.9
62.5
63.9
64.8
61.9
62.6
57.1
52.9
48.3
51.4
66.8
62.2
64.0
64.1
61.7
62.7
57.1
52.7
47.7
51.2
66.8
62.3
64.0
64.4
61.4
63.1
56.6
52.5
47.5
50.9
66.7
62.1
64.4
64.8
61.5
62.7
56.6
52.6
47.3
50.5
66.6
62.6
64.8
65.2
61.8
62.3
56.2
52.8
47.2
50.7
66.9
62.7
65.3
65.7
63.0
62.1
56.2
53.2
47.5
Employed
United S ta te s .....................................................................
Canada ................................................................................
A u s tra lia ...............................................................................
Japan ....................................................................................
F ra n c e ..................................................................................
G e rm a n y ..............................................................................
Ita ly ........................................................................................
N e th e rla n d s ........................................................................
S w e d e n ................................................................................
United K in g d o m ................................................................
92,017
9,651
6,000
52,720
21,180
24,970
19,670
4,700
4,093
24,400
96,048
9,987
6,038
53,370
21,250
25,130
19,720
4,750
4,109
24,610
98,824
10,395
6,111
54,040
21,300
25,470
19,930
4,830
4,174
24,940
99,303
10,708
6,284
54,600
21,330
25,750
20,200
4,980
4,226
24,670
100,397
11,006
6,416
55,060
21,200
25,560
20,280
5,010
4,219
23,800
99,526
10,644
6,415
55,620
21,240
25,130
20,250
4,980
4,213
23,710
100,834
10,734
6,300
56,550
21,170
24,750
20,320
4,890
4,218
23,600
105,005
11,000
6,490
56,870
20,980
24,800
20,390
4,930
4,249
24,000
107,150
11,311
6,670
57,260
20,900
24,960
20,490
5,110
4,293
24,300
109,597
11,634
6,952
57,740
20,970
25,210
20,610
Employment-population ratio2
United S ta te s .....................................................................
Canada ................................................................................
A u s tra lia ...............................................................................
Japan ....................................................................................
F ra n c e ..................................................................................
G e rm a n y ..............................................................................
Ita ly ................................................................................
N e th e rla n d s ................................................................
S w e d e n .........................................................
United K in g d o m ..................................................
57.9
56.6
59.2
61.2
54.7
51.6
46.3
46.5
64.8
58.7
59.3
57.5
58.0
61.3
54.4
51.5
45.9
46.3
64.6
58.8
59.9
58.7
57.8
61.4
54.0
51.7
45.9
46.4
65.3
59.2
59.2
59.3
58.3
61.3
53.5
51.7
46.1
47.0
65.6
58.1
59.0
59.9
58.4
61.2
52.8
50.8
45.9
46.6
65.1
55.7
57.8
57.0
57.3
61.2
52.3
49.6
45.2
45.8
64.7
55.3
57.9
56.7
55.3
61.4
51.8
48.6
44.7
44.5
64.4
54.7
59.5
57.4
56.0
61.0
51.0
48.5
44.5
44.3
64.5
55.3
60.1
58.4
56.6
60.6
50.4
48.7
44.4
45.7
65.0
55.7
60.7
59.4
57.9
60.4
50.2
49.1
44.6
Unemployed
United S ta te s .....................................................................
Canada ................................................................................
A u s tra lia ...............................................................................
Japan ....................................................................................
F ra n c e ..................................................................................
G e rm a n y ..............................................................................
Ita ly ...............................................................
N e th e rla n d s ........................................................................
S w e d e n ................................................................................
United K in g d o m ...........................................................
6,991
849
358
1,100
1,120
900
840
250
75
1,660
6,202
908
405
1,240
1,210
870
850
260
94
1,650
6,137
836
408
1,170
1,370
780
920
270
88
1,420
7,637
865
409
1,140
1,470
770
920
330
86
1,850
8,273
898
394
1,260
1,730
1,090
1,040
510
108
2,790
10,678
1,314
495
1,360
1,920
1,580
1,160
590
137
3,030
10,717
1,448
697
1,560
1,960
1,990
1,270
710
151
3,190
8,539
1,399
642
1,610
2,310
2,090
1,280
690
136
3,180
8,312
1,328
602
1,560
2,440
2,130
1,310
600
125
3,070
8,237
1,236
610
1,670
2,510
2,070
1,380
Unemployment rate
United S ta te s ..................................................
Canada ................................................................
A u s tra lia .......................................................
Japan ...................................................
F ra n c e ................................................................
G e rm a n y ........................................................
Ita ly .....................................................................................
N e th e rla n d s .......................................................................
S w e d e n ...........................................................
United K in g d o m ................................................................
7.1
8.1
5.6
2.0
5.0
3.5
4.1
5.1
1.8
6.4
6.1
8.3
6.3
2.3
5.4
3.3
4.1
5.2
2.2
6.3
5.8
7.4
6.3
2.1
6.0
3.0
4.4
5.3
2.1
5.4
7.1
7.5
6.1
2.0
6.4
2.9
4.4
6.2
2.0
7.0
7.6
7.5
5.8
2.2
7.5
4.1
4.9
9.2
2.5
10.5
9.7
11.0
7.2
2.4
8.3
5.9
5.4
10.6
3.1
11.3
9.6
11.9
10.0
2.7
8.5
7.4
5.9
12.7
3.5
11.9
7.5
11.3
9.0
2.8
9.9
7.8
5.9
12.3
3.1
11.7
7.2
10.5
8.3
2.6
10.4
7.9
6.0
10.5
2.8
11.2
7.0
9.6
8.1
2.8
10.7
7.6
6.3
1 Labor fo rce as a p ercent o f th e civilian w orking-age population.
2 E m ploym ent as a p ercent o f the civilian w orking-age population.
96
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
- D ata not available.
-
4,437
27,460
_
67.2
62.5
-
4,319
24,400
-
65.4
55.6
-
118
3,060
_
2.7
11.1
47. Annual indexes o f m anufacturing produ ctivity and related m easures, 12 countries
(1977 = 100)
Item and country
1960
1970
1973
1974
1975
1976
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
Output per hour
U nited S ta te s .....................................................................
C anada ................................................................................
Japan ...................................................................................
B e lg iu m ................................................................................
D e n m a rk ..............................................................................
F ra n c e ..................................................................................
G e rm a n y ..............................................................................
It a ly ........................................................................................
N e th e rla n d s ........................................................................
N o rw a y .................................................................................
S w e d e n ................................................................................
U nited K in g d o m ................................................................
62.2
50.7
23.2
32.8
37.2
36.4
40.3
36.5
32.4
54.6
42.3
55.5
80.8
75.6
64.8
59.9
65.5
69.6
71.2
72.7
64.3
81.7
80.7
79.7
93.4
90.3
83.1
78.2
83.2
82.2
84.0
90.9
81.5
94.6
94.8
95.6
90.6
91.7
86.5
82.6
86.0
85.2
87.4
95.3
88.1
97.7
98.8
97.4
92.9
88.6
87.7
85.9
94.6
88.5
90.1
91.1
86.2
96.8
100.2
95.2
97.1
94.8
94.3
95.1
98.2
95.0
96.5
98.9
95.8
99.7
101.7
99.5
101.5
101.1
108.0
106.3
101.5
105.7
103.1
103.0
106.4
101.8
102.8
101.5
101.4
102.0
114.8
112.3
106.5
110.3
108.2
110.5
112.3
107.1
110.9
102.4
101.4
98.2
122.7
119.7
112.3
112.0
108.6
116.9
113.9
106.7
112.7
101.7
103.6
102.9
127.2
128.1
114.2
116.4
111.0
121.0
116.9
107.0
113.2
107.0
105.9
100.4
135.0
135.7
114.6
123.5
112.6
123.4
119.4
109.8
116.5
113.6
112.0
106.9
142.3
144.7
120.2
128.8
119.1
126.6
127.5
117.2
125.5
123.0
116.6
110.2
152.5
149.8
118.9
133.8
123.5
134.7
141.2
123.9
131.0
129.5
121.7
112.7
163.7
153.3
117.2
138.3
128.9
136.8
145.6
125.2
134.5
134.2
126.0
112.1
168.2
116.6
140.9
131.4
138.4
Output
U nited S ta te s .....................................................................
C anada ................................................................................
Japan ....................................................................................
B e lg iu m ................................................................................
D enm ark ..............................................................................
France ..................................................................................
G e rm a n y ..............................................................................
Ita ly ........................................................................................
N e th e rla n d s ........................................................................
N o rw a y .................................................................................
S w e d e n ................................................................................
United K in g d o m ................................................................
52.5
41.3
19.2
41.6
49.2
35.4
50.0
37.4
44.8
55.1
52.6
71.2
78.6
73.5
69.9
78.0
82.0
73.3
86.6
78.0
84.4
86.9
92.5
95.0
96.3
93.5
91.9
95.7
95.9
88.6
96.1
90.5
95.8
99.5
100.3
104.8
91.7
96.3
91.7
99.5
97.4
91.8
95.4
96.3
100.0
104.0
105.7
103.5
84.9
89.9
86.2
92.0
95.0
90.0
91.0
86.9
92.7
101.0
106.1
96.3
93.1
96.5
94.8
99.4
99.6
96.1
98.0
97.9
99.0
101.4
106.1
98.2
106.0
104.6
106.7
101.6
99.7
103.4
101.8
101.8
102.8
98.2
97.3
100.6
108.1
108.5
113.9
104.4
105.4
106.1
106.6
108.6
106.1
100.3
103.6
100.5
103.2
103.6
124.1
107.3
110.1
106.6
106.6
115.4
106.6
98.8
104.0
91.7
104.8
107.4
129.8
106.0
106.6
105.9
104.9
114.3
106.7
97.7
100.6
86.2
98.4
95.6
137.3
110.5
108.3
106.0
102.4
111.6
105.0
97.4
100.1
86.4
104.7
101.0
148.2
112.1
115.6
107.4
103.6
109.2
107.0
97.2
105.2
88.9
116.0
108.4
165.4
114.1
120.0
108.4
106.4
113.7
112.9
102.6
111.5
92.4
120.4
113.6
179.3
115.1
123.6
108.6
111.7
115.5
115.3
105.2
113.8
95.2
124.4
115.4
182.1
Total hours
United S tates ....................................................................
C anada ................................................................................
Japan ...................................................................................
B e lg iu m ................................................................................
D enm ark ..............................................................................
France ..................................................................................
G e rm a n y ..............................................................................
Ita ly ........................................................................................
N e th e rla n d s ........................................................................
N o rw a y .................................................................................
S w e d e n ................................................................................
U nited K in g d o m ................................................................
84.4
81.4
82.7
127.1
132.4
97.2
123.8
102.3
138.4
101.0
124.4
128.3
97.3
97.2
107.9
130.2
125.1
105.3
121.7
107.4
131.2
106.4
114.6
119.1
103.1
103.6
110.7
122.3
115.2
107.8
114.4
99.6
117.6
105.1
105.7
109.5
101.2
105.0
106.1
120.4
113.2
107.8
109.2
101.0
113.5
106.5
107.0
106.3
91.4
101.5
98.2
107.1
100.4
101.7
101.0
95.4
107.6
104.3
105.9
101.2
95.9
101.8
100.6
104.6
101.4
101.2
101.6
99.0
103.3
101.7
104.3
98.7
104.4
103.4
98.8
95.5
98.3
97.8
98.7
98.8
96.6
96.5
94.6
99.1
106.5
106.3
99.3
93.0
99.0
96.2
98.5
98.2
94.4
93.6
93.4
98.1
101.7
105.5
101.2
89.6
98.1
95.2
98.1
98.7
93.6
92.6
92.3
90.2
101.1
104.3
102.0
82.8
93.4
91.0
94.6
94.5
91.2
91.3
88.9
80.6
92.9
95.1
101.7
81.4
94.5
85.8
91.0
90.4
88.0
88.6
85.9
76.1
93.5
94.5
104.2
77.5
96.2
83.4
87.0
86.2
83.9
82.9
83.9
72.3
99.5
98.3
108.5
76.2
101.0
81.0
86.2
84.4
79.9
82.8
85.1
71.3
98.9
100.8
109.6
75.1
105.5
78.5
86.7
84.4
79.2
84.0
84.6
71.0
98.7
103.0
108.3
108.9
76.7
87.2
86.2
Compensation per hour
United S ta te s ....................................................................
C anada ................................................................................
Japan ...................................................................................
B e lg iu m ................................................................................
D e n m a rk ..............................................................................
France ..................................................................................
G e rm a n y ..............................................................................
Ita ly ........................................................................................
N e th e rla n d s ........................................................................
N o rw a y .................................................................................
S w e d e n ................................................................................
United K in g d o m ................................................................
36.5
27.5
8.9
13.8
12.6
15.1
18.8
8.3
12.5
15.8
14.7
15.2
57.4
47.9
33.9
34.9
36.3
36.6
48.0
26.1
39.0
37.9
38.5
31.5
68.8
60.3
55.1
53.5
56.1
52.3
67.5
43.7
60.5
54.5
54.2
48.3
76.2
69.1
72.3
65.2
67.9
62.0
76.9
54.5
71.9
63.6
63.8
57.7
85.1
78.9
84.2
79.0
81.0
76.7
84.5
70.2
82.2
77.2
77.3
77.3
92.1
90.3
90.7
89.5
90.4
88.9
91.3
84.2
91.9
88.8
91.5
89.3
108.2
107.6
106.6
107.8
110.2
113.5
107.8
114.5
108.4
110.0
111.4
116.4
118.6
118.6
113.4
117.5
123.1
129.3
116.1
134.7
117.0
116.0
120.1
138.8
132.4
131.3
120.7
130.4
135.9
148.2
125.6
160.2
123.6
128.0
133.6
168.3
145.2
151.1
129.8
144.5
149.6
171.5
134.5
197.1
129.1
142.8
148.1
192.5
157.5
167.3
136.6
150.7
162.9
202.3
141.0
237.3
137.5
156.0
158.9
212.3
162.4
177.4
140.7
159.8
174.2
227.0
148.4
276.4
144.0
173.5
173.3
227.7
168.2
188.0
144.9
173.1
184.3
246.9
155.5
307.4
151.0
188.3
189.7
243.9
176.7
195.9
152.0
183.7
194.4
262.5
162.8
339.5
159.0
204.8
208.9
261.3
181.9
202.2
157.3
Unit labor costs: National currency basis
United S ta te s .....................................................................
C anada ................................................................................
Japan ...................................................................................
B e lg iu m ................................................................................
D enm ark ..............................................................................
France ..................................................................................
G e rm a n y ..............................................................................
It a ly ........................................................................................
N e th e rla n d s ........................................................................
N o rw a y .................................................................................
S w e d e n ................................................................................
United K in g d o m ................................................................
58.7
54.2
38.4
42.0
33.8
41.6
46.6
22.8
38.5
29.0
34.8
27.4
71.0
63.4
52.3
58.2
55.4
52.6
67.4
36.0
60.7
46.4
47.7
39.5
73.7
66.8
66.4
68.4
67.4
63.6
80.3
48.1
74.3
57.6
57.2
50.5
84.1
75.3
83.6
78.9
79.0
72.8
88.0
57.2
81.6
65.2
64.6
59.3
91.7
89.1
96.0
91.9
85.6
86.7
93.8
77.1
95.4
79.7
77.1
81.2
94.9
95.3
96.2
94.2
92.1
93.6
94.6
85.1
96.0
89.1
90.0
89.8
106.6
106.5
98.7
101.4
108.6
107.4
104.5
111.2
101.8
108.1
108.4
114.7
117.0
116.2
98.8
104.7
115.7
117.3
107.3
121.9
104.1
108.2
108.3
135.5
130.6
133.7
98.4
109.0
121.0
132.3
115.7
137.0
108.5
120.0
118.6
165.4
140.1
146.7
102.0
112.8
131.1
147.4
121.2
162.9
110.4
133.4
130.9
179.9
148.7
166.5
101.2
111.1
142.2
163.8
125.2
192.4
115.2
142.1
136.3
186.9
145.0
166.0
98.9
110.5
144.9
176.2
124.6
218.3
113.0
148.0
138.1
185.1
144.2
170.6
95.0
115.6
155.1
184.5
125.9
228.2
106.9
152.0
144.8
188.4
145.1
173.8
92.9
119.8
166.0
189.8
126.3
248.2
109.2
163.5
155.3
194.7
173.8
194.4
130.2
255.7
Unit labor costs: U.S. dolla r basis
United S ta te s ....................................................................
C anada ................................................................................
Japan ...................................................................................
B e lg iu m ................................................................................
D e n m a rk ..............................................................................
France .................................................................................
G e rm a n y ............................................................................
Ita ly .......................................................................................
N e th e rla n d s .......................................................................
N o rw a y ................................................................................
S w e d e n ...............................................................................
U nited K in g d o m ...............................................................
58.7
59.4
28.5
30.2
29.5
41.7
25.9
32.5
25.1
21.7
30.1
44.2
71.0
64.5
39.1
42.0
44.4
46.8
42.9
50.6
41.2
34.5
41.1
54.2
73.7
71.0
65.6
63.1
67.2
70.4
70.4
73.1
65.6
53.4
58.7
70.9
84.1
81.8
76.8
72.7
77.9
74.5
79.1
77.6
74.6
62.8
65.1
79.5
91.7
93.1
86.7
89.7
89.6
99.5
88.7
104.3
92.8
81.4
83.2
103.4
94.9
102.7
86.9
87.5
91.5
96.3
87.3
90.5
89.1
86.9
92.3
92.9
106.6
99.3
126.8
115.6
118.4
117.3
121.0
115.6
115.7
109.7
107.2
126.1
117.0
105.4
121.3
127.9
132.0
135.5
135.9
129.5
127.4
113.8
112.9
164.9
130.6
121.5
116.8
133.7
129.0
154.1
147.9
141.4
134.2
129.3
125.3
220.5
140.1
130.0
123.8
109.2
110.3
133.2
124.9
126.3
108.9
123.6
115.4
208.8
148.7
143.4
108.8
86.9
102.3
122.4
119.7
125.4
105.8
117.1
96.9
187.2
145.0
143.1
111.5
77.4
95.1
113.7
113.3
126.8
97.1
107.9
80.4
160.8
144.2
139.9
107.2
71.7
89.9
103.8
102.7
114.7
81.8
99.1
78.2
144.3
145.1
135.2
104.3
72.3
94.0
103.9
99.6
114.8
80.7
101.3
80.6
144.8
144.3
137.9
148.7
128.9
138.0
139.2
151.4
~
129.8
102.5
171.9
122.1
136.4
138.2
127.0
108.1
114.5
119.3
“
107.0
114.4
96.0
87.6
83.9
69.5
202.6
274.0
171.0
353.9
"
220.5
223.1
282.4
144.3
180.4
93.5
180.5
163.6
204.4
- Data n ot available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
97
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
October 1987 •
Current Labor Statistics:
Illness and Injury Data
48. O ccupational injury and illness incidence rates by industry, U nited S tates
Incidence rates per 100 full-tim e w o rkers2
Industry and type o f c a se 1
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
PRIVATE SECTOR3
Total c a s e s ..........................................
Lost w orkday c a s e s ..................................
Lost w o rk d a y s .................................
9.3
3.8
61.6
9.4
4.1
63.5
9.5
4.3
67.7
8.7
4.0
65.2
8.3
3.8
61.7
7.7
3.5
58.7
7.6
3.4
58.5
8.0
3.7
63.4
7.9
3.6
64.9
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing3
Total c a s e s ..................................................
Lost w orkday c a s e s .......................................
Lost w o rk d a y s .........................................
11.5
5.1
81.1
11.6
5.4
80.7
11.7
5.7
83.7
11.9
5.8
82.7
12.3
5.9
82.8
11.8
5.9
86.0
11.9
6.1
90.8
12.0
6.1
90.7
11.4
5.7
91.3
10.9
6.0
128.8
11.5
6.4
143.2
11.4
6.8
150.5
11.2
6.5
163.6
11.6
6.2
146.4
10.5
5.4
137.3
8.4
4.5
125.1
9.7
5.3
160.2
8.4
4.8
145.3
15.5
5.9
111.5
16.0
6.4
109.4
16.2
6.8
120.4
15.7
6.5
117.0
15.1
6.3
113.1
14.6
6.0
115.7
14.8
6.3
118.2
15.5
6.9
128.1
15.2
6.8
128.9
15.0
5.7
100.2
15.9
6.3
105.3
16.3
6.8
111.2
15.5
6.5
113.0
15.1
6.1
107.1
14.1
5.9
112.0
14.4
6.2
113.0
15.4
6.9
121.3
15.2
6.8
120.4
16.0
5.7
116.7
16.6
6.2
110.9
16.6
6.7
123.1
16.3
6.3
117.6
14.9
6.0
106.0
15.1
5.8
113.1
15.4
6.2
122.4
14.9
6.4
131.7
14.5
6.3
127.3
15.6
6.1
115.5
15.8
6.6
111.0
16.0
6.9
124.3
15.5
6.7
118.9
15.2
6.6
119.3
14.7
6.2
118.6
14.8
6.4
119.0
15.8
7.1
130.1
15.4
7.0
133.3
13.1
5.1
82.3
13.2
5.6
84.9
13.3
5.9
90.2
12.2
5.4
86.7
11.5
5.1
82.0
10.2
4.4
75.0
10.0
4.3
73.5
10.6
4.7
77.9
10.4
4.6
80.2
22.3
10.4
178.0
22.6
11.1
178.8
20.7
10.8
175.9
18.6
9.5
171.8
17.6
9.0
158.4
16.9
8.3
153.3
18.3
9.2
163.5
19.6
9.9
172.0
18.5
9.3
171.4
17.2
6.0
92.0
17.5
6.9
95.9
17.6
7.1
99.6
16.0
6.6
97.6
15.1
6.2
91.9
13.9
5.5
85.6
14.1
5.7
83.0
15.3
6.4
101.5
15.0
6.3
100.4
16.9
6.9
120.4
16.8
7.8
126.3
16.8
8.0
133.7
15.0
7.1
128.1
14.1
6.9
122.2
13.0
6.1
112.2
13.1
6.0
112.0
13.6
6.6
120.8
13.9
6.7
127.8
16.2
6.8
119.4
17.0
7.5
123.6
17.3
8.1
134.7
15.2
7.1
128.3
14.4
6.7
121.3
12.4
5.4
101.6
12.4
5.4
103.4
13.3
6.1
115.3
12.6
5.7
113.8
19.1
7.2
109.0
19.3
8.0
112.4
19.9
8.7
124.2
18.5
8.0
118.4
17.5
7.5
109.9
15.3
6.4
102.5
15.1
6.1
96.5
16.1
6.7
104.9
16.3
6.9
110.1
14.0
4.7
69.9
14.4
5.4
75.1
14.7
5.9
83.6
13.7
5.5
81.3
12.9
5.1
74.9
10.7
4.2
66.0
9.8
3.6
58.1
10.7
4.1
65.8
10.8
4.2
69.3
8.6
3.0
46.7
8.7
3.3
50.3
8.6
3.4
51.9
8.0
3.3
51.8
7.4
3.1
48.4
6.5
2.7
42.2
6.3
2.6
41.4
6.8
2.8
45.0
6.4
2.7
45.7
11.8
5.0
79.3
11.5
5.1
78.0
11.6
5.5
85.9
10.6
4.9
82.4
9.8
4.6
78.1
9.2
4.0
72.2
8.4
3.6
64.5
9.3
4.2
68.8
9.0
3.9
71.6
7.0
2.4
37.4
6.9
2.6
37.0
7.2
2.8
40.0
6.8
2.7
41.8
6.5
2.7
39.2
5.6
2.3
37.0
5.2
2.1
35.6
5.4
2.2
37.5
5.2
2.2
37.9
11.5
4.0
58.7
11.8
4.5
66.4
11.7
4.7
67.7
10.9
4.4
67.9
10.7
4.4
68.3
9.9
4.1
69.9
9.9
4.0
66.3
10.5
4.3
70.2
9.7
4.2
73.2
Mining
Total c a s e s .................................................................
Lost w orkday c a s e s ..........................................
Lost w o rk d a y s ...............................
Construction
Total c a s e s .............................................................
Lost w orkday c a s e s .............................................
Lost w o rk d a y s ..................................................
G eneral building contractors:
Total c a s e s .....................................................................
Lost w orkday c a s e s ..............................
Lost w o rk d a y s .........................................
H eavy construction contractors:
T otal c a s e s ..........................................................
Lost w orkday c a s e s ..........................................
Lost w o rk d a y s .........................................
Special trade contractors:
T otal c a s e s ................................................
Lost w orkday cases ...............................
Lost w o rk d a y s ..............................................
Manufacturing
Total c a s e s ...........................................
Lost w orkday c a s e s .............................
Lost w o rk d a y s .........................................
Durable goods
Lum ber and w ood products:
Total c a s e s ............................................
Lost w orkday cases ...........................
Lost w o rk d a y s .................
Furniture and fixtures:
Total c a s e s ....................................
Lost w orkday cases ...................
Lost w o rk d a y s ..................................
Stone, clay, and glass products:
Total c a s e s .........................................
Lost w orkday cases .........................
Lost w o rk d a y s ...........................
Prim ary m etal industries:
Total c a s e s ...................................
Lost w orkday cases .................................
Lost w o rk d a y s ...............................
Fabricated m etal products:
T otal c a s e s ..............................................
Lost w orkday c a s e s ...............................
Lost w o rk d a y s .............................
M achinery, exce p t electrical:
T otal c a s e s ...........................................
Lost w orkday c a s e s ...............................
Lost w o rk d a y s ........................................
E lectric and e lectron ic equipm ent:
T otal c a s e s .........................................
Lost w orkday cases .........................
Lost w o rk d a y s .........................
T ransportation equipm ent:
T otal c a s e s ...............................................
Lost w orkday cases ...................
Lost w o rk d a y s ..............................
Instrum ents and related products:
Total c a s e s ...................................
Lost w o rkda y cases .........................
Lost w o rk d a y s ................................
.M iscellaneous m anufacturing industries:
T otal c a s e s ..........................................
Lost w orkday cases ...............................................
Lost w o rk d a y s ...................................
See fo o tn o te s at end of table.
98
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
48. C ontinued— O ccupational injury and illness incidence rates by industry, U nited S tates
Incidence rates per 100 full-tim e w o rkers2
Industry and type of c a se 1
Nondurable goods
Food and kindred products:
T o b acco m anufacturing:
T e xtile mill products:
Lost w orkday c a s e s ....................................................................................................
Lost w o rk d a y s ................................................................................................................
A pparel and o th e r textile products:
Paper and allied products:
Printing and publishing:
Lost w orkday cases ....................................................................................................
Lost w o rk d a y s ................................................................................................................
C hem icals and allied products:
Petroleum and coal products:
R ubber and m iscellaneous plastics products:
Leather and leather products:
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
16.7
19.5
8.5
130.1
19.4
8.9
132.2
19.9
9.5
141.8
18.7
9.0
136.8
17.8
8.6
130.7
16.7
8.0
129.3
16.5
7.9
131.2
16.7
8.1
131.6
138.0
9.1
3.8
66.7
8.7
4.0
58.6
9.3
4.2
64.8
8.1
3.8
45.8
8.2
3.9
56.8
7.2
3.2
44.6
6.5
3.0
42.8
7.7
3.2
51.7
7.3
3.0
51.7
10.2
2.9
57.4
10.2
3.4
61.5
9.7
3.4
61.3
9.1
3.3
62.8
8.8
3.2
59.2
7.6
2.8
53.8
7.4
2.8
51.4
8.0
3.0
54.0
7.5
3.0
57.4
6.7
2.0
31.7
6.5
2.2
32.4
6.5
2.2
34.1
6.4
2.2
34.9
6.3
2.2
35.0
6.0
2.1
36.4
6.4
2.4
40.6
6.7
2.5
40.9
44.1
13.6
5.0
101.6
13.5
5.7
103.3
13.5
6.0
108.4
12.7
5.8
112.3
11.6
5.4
103.6
10.6
4.9
99.1
10.0
4.5
90.3
10.4
4.7
93.8
10.2
4.7
94.6
6.8
2.7
41.7
7.0
2.9
43.8
7.1
3.1
45.1
6.9
3.1
46.5
6.7
3.0
47.4
6.6
2.8
45.7
6.6
2.9
44.6
6.5
2.9
46.0
6.3
2.9
49.2
8.0
3.1
51.4
7.8
3.3
50.9
7.7
3.5
54.9
6.8
3.1
50.3
6.6
3.0
48.1
5.7
2.5
39.4
5.5
2.5
42.3
5.3
2.4
40.8
5.1
2.3
38.8
8.1
3.3
59.2
7.9
3.4
58.3
7.7
3.6
62.0
7.2
3.5
59.1
6.7
2.9
51.2
5.3
2.5
46.4
5.5
2.4
46.8
5.1
2.4
63.5
5.1
2.4
49.9
16.8
7.6
118.1
17.1
8.1
125.5
17.1
8.2
127.1
15.5
7.4
118.6
14.6
7.2
117.4
12.7
6.0
100.9
13.0
6.2
101.4
13.6
6.4
104.3
13.4
6.3
107.4
11.5
4.4
68.9
11.7
4.7
72.5
11.5
4.9
76.2
11.7
5.0
82.7
11.5
5.1
82.6
9.9
4.5
86.5
10.0
4.4
87.3
10.5
4.7
94.4
10.3
4.6
88.3
9.7
5.3
95.9
10.1
5.7
102.3
10.0
5.9
107.0
9.4
5.5
104.5
9.0
5.3
100.6
8.5
4.9
96.7
8.2
4.7
94.9
8.8
5.2
105.1
8.6
5.0
107.1
7.7
2.9
44.0
7.9
3.2
44.9
8.0
3.4
49.0
7.4
3.2
48.7
7.3
3.1
45.3
7.2
3.1
45.5
7.2
3.1
47.8
7.4
3.3
50.5
7.4
3.2
50.7
8.5
3.6
52.5
8.9
3.9
57.5
8.8
4.1
59.1
8.2
3.9
58.2
7.7
3.6
54.7
7.1
3.4
52.1
7.0
3.2
50.6
7.2
3.5
55.5
7.2
3.5
59.8
7.4
2.7
40.5
7.5
2.8
39.7
7.7
3.1
44.7
7.1
2.9
44.5
7.1
2.9
41.1
7.2
2.9
42.8
7.3
3.0
46.7
7.5
3.2
48.4
7.5
3.1
47.0
2.C
.8
10.4
2.1
.8
12.8
2.1
.9
13.C
2.C
.8
12.2
1.9
.8
11.8
2.C
.9
13.2
2.C
.9
12.8
1.9
.9
13.6
.9
15.4
5.E
2.2
35.^
5.8
5.i
2.:
38.
5.2
2.2
35.8
5.C
2.C
35.9
4.S
2.:
35.8
5.1
2A
2a
5.2
2.5
41.1
Transportation and public utilities
Wholesale and retail trade
W h olesale trade:
Retail trade:
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Services
36.,
37.C
8.1
6.7
2.6
2.0
5.4
2.6
45.4
.
1 To ta l cases include fatalities.
2 The in cidence rates represent th e num ber of injuries and illnesses o r lost
w orkdays per 100 fu ll-tim e w orkers and w ere calculated as:
(N /E H ) X 200,000, where:
N = num ber o f injuries and illnesses or lost w orkdays.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
EH = to ta l hours w orked by all em ployees during ca lendar year.
200,000 = base fo r 100 fu ll-tim e equivalent w orkers (w orking 40 hours per
w eek, 50 w eeks per year.)
3 E xcludes farm s w ith fe w e r than 11 em ployees since 1976.
NEW FROM BLS
SALES P U B LIC A TIO N S
national, State, and area employment, hours, and earnings. $8.50 ($22
per year).
BLS B ulletins
Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Firms, 1986. Bulletin 2281, 100
pp. (gpo Stock No. 029-001-02927-6) $5. Presents results o f a 1986
survey o f the incidence and provisions o f employee benefits in medium
and large firms. This survey—the eighth in an annual series—provides
representative data for 21.3 million full-time employees in a crosssection o f the Nation’s private industries.
Geographic Profile o f Employment and Unemployment, 1986. Bulletin
2279, 200 pp. (gpo Stock No. 029-001-02924-1) $9.50. Includes data
from the Current Population Survey for regions, States, and selected
large metropolitan areas and central cities. Annual averages for 1986
by selected demographic and economic characteristics.
Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in the United States by Industry, 1985.
Bulletin 2278, 81 pp. (gpo Stock No. 029-001-02925-0) $4.25. Con
tains 1984 and 1985 data by industry on occupational injuries, illnesses,
and fatalities in private sector establishments.
Relative Importance o f Components in the Consumer Price Indexes,
1986. Bulletin 2280, 37 pp. (gpo Stock No. 029-001-02923-3) $2.25.
Presents data on the relative importance (value weights) o f compo
nents in the Consumer Price Indexes. The data can be used in con
junction with the cpi Detailed Report.
Area Wage Surveys. These bulletins cover office, professional, technical,
maintenance, custodial, and material movement jobs in major metropoli
tan areas. The annual series is available by subscription for $71 per
year. Individual area bulletins are also available separately.
Atlanta, Georgia, Metropolitan Area, May 1987. Bulletin 3040-18,
51 pp. (gpo Stock No. 829-001-00161-2) $2.75.
Bradenton, Florida, Metropolitan Area, June 1987. Bulletin 3040-20, 37
pp. (gpo Stock No. 829-001-00163-9) $2.25.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Metropolitan Area, May 1987. Bulletin 3040-17,
54 pp. (gpo Stock No. 829-001-00160-4) $2.75.
Phoenix, Arizona, Metropolitan Area, June 1987. Bulletin
49 pp. (gpo Stock No. 829-001-00165-5) $2.75.
3040-22,
Portland, Oregon-Washington, Metropolitan Area, June 1987. Bulletin
3040-21, 33 pp. (gpo Stock No. 829-001-00164-7) $2.
Richmond, Virginia, Metropolitan Area, June 1987. Bulletin 3040-1, 29
pp. (gpo Stock No. 829-001-00162-19) $1.75.
Selected Metropolitan Areas, 1986. Bulletin 3035-72, 148 pp. (gpo
Stock No. 029-001-02939-2) $7.50.
Industry Wage Surveys. These studies include results from the latest
bls survey o f wages and employee benefits, with detailed occupa
tional data for the Nation, regions, and selected areas. Data are use
ful for wage and salary administration, union contract negotiation,
arbitration, and Government policy considerations.
Wood Household Furniture, June 1986. Bulletin 2283, 112 pp. (gpo
Stock No. 029-001-02931-4) $5.50.
Supplement to Employment and Earnings, July 1987. 266 pp. (gpo
Stock No. 729-004-00034-1) $14. This supplement presents revised
detailed industry statistics on the Nation’s nonagricultural workers
adjusted to March 1986 benchmarks including monthly and average
annual employment data, average weekly hours, and average hourly
and weekly earnings.
Occupational Outlook Quarterly. Each issue helps guidance counselors,
people planning careers, and others keep informed o f changing career
opportunities. $2 ($5 per year).
Producer Price Indexes. This monthly report includes a comprehensive
report on price movements for the month, as well as regular tables and
technical notes. $8.50 ($21 per year).
Supplement to Producer Price Indexes Data for 1986. 345 pp. (gpo
Stock No. 029-009-00029) $13. Presents monthly indexes and annual
averages for 1986; also provides information on the relative impor
tance o f index components at the end of the year. Features an article
on update o f the Producer Price Index weight structure.
O TH ER P U B LIC A TIO N S
(Single copies available upon request while supplies last.)
A rea W age S um m aries
Alaska, July 1987. 5 pp.
Alpena-Standish-Tawas City, mi, July 1987. 4 pp.
Baton Rouge, la , June 1987. 4 pp.
Battle Creek, mi, July 1987. 6 pp.
Brunswick, ga , June 1987. 4 pp.
Cedar Rapids, ia , June 1987. 7 pp.
Charleston-North Charleston-Walterboro, sc, July 1987. 4 pp.
Columbus, m s , June 1987. 4 pp.
Fort Wayne, in , June 1987. 4 pp.
Goldsboro, n c , July 1987. 4 pp.
Greenville-Spartanburg, sc, June 1987. 4 pp.
LaCrosse-Sparta, wi, July 1987. 7 pp.
Little Rock-North Little Rock, a r , July 1987. 4 pp.
Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, va , June 1987. 7 pp.
Northern New York, June 1987. 4 pp.
Peoria, il , July 1987. 7 pp.
Portsmouth-Chillicothe-Gallipolis, o h , June 1987. 4 pp.
Providence, r i , June 1987. 6 pp.
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc, c a , July 1987. 5 pp.
Selma, a l , July 1987. 4 pp.
South Dakota, June 1987. 4 pp.
Tulsa, ok , June 1987. 4 pp.
Waco and Killeen-Temple, tx , July 1987. 4 pp.
Waterloo-Cedar Falls, ia , June 1987. 7 pp.
West Virginia, July 1987. 5 pp.
Yakima-Richland-Kennewick-Pasco-Walla Walla-Pendleton, wa -or ,
July 1987. 7 pp.
To O rder:
Sales Publications. Order bulletins by title, bulletin number, and
P eriodicals
CPI Detailed Report. This monthly publication provides a comprehensive
report on price movements for the month, as well as statistical tables,
charts, and technical notes. $6 ($16 per year).
Current Wage Developments. Each issue o f this monthly periodical in
cludes data on selected compensation changes, work stoppages, and
major agreements expiring the following month. $2.75 ($12 per year).
Employment and Earnings. This monthly report highlights employment
and unemployment developments and includes statistical tables on
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
gpo
stock number from the Superintendent o f Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, dc 20402, or from the Bureau o f Labor
Statistics, Publications Sales Center, P.O. Box 2145, Chicago, il
60690. Subscriptions, including microfiche subscriptions, are availa
ble only from the Superintendent o f Documents. All checks—including
those that go to the Chicago Regional Office—should be made payable
to the Superintendent o f Documents.
Other Publications. Request from the Bureau o f Labor Statistics, U .S.
Department o f Labor, Room 2831A, 441 G Street, nw , Washington,
dc 20212, or from the Bureau o f Labor Statistics, Chicago Regional
O ffice, P.O. Box 2145, Chicago, il 60690.
U . S. G O V E R N M E N T P R IN T IN G O F F I C E : 1 9 8 7
1 8 1 -5 1 2 /4 0 0 2 0
G eographic Profile of Em ploym ent and
U nem ploym ent, 1986
Bulletin
2279
H ere, in a single volum e, is a co m p le te p ictu re
of the labor fo rc e in fo u r C ensus regions and
nine divisions, each of the 50 States and the
D is tric t of C olum bia, 50 m e tro p o lita n areas,
and 17 ce n tra l citie s. It is the only cu rre n t
so u rce of in fo rm a tio n on d e m o g ra p h ic and
e co n o m ic c h a ra c te ris tic s fo r m e tropo litan
areas and citie s. The data report on labor
fo rc e statu s by sex, race, age, H ispanic origin,
m a rita l status, o ccu p a tio n , industry, full- and
pa rt-tim e status, reasons fo r and d u ration of
une m ploym ent, and reasons fo r part-tim e w ork.
The volum e includes nearly 30 tables,
g e o g ra p h ic boundary de fin itio n s, a d e scrip tio n
of sam pling and e stim a tio n procedu res, and
table s of sam pling errors.
Please send your order to:
O rder form
Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
or
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Publications Sales Center
P.O. Box 2145
Chicago, III. 60690
P lease s e n d ______________ copies of G eo g ra p h ic P rofile o f E m p lo ym e n t a n d
Unemployment, 1986, Bulletin 2279, Stock No. 029-001-02924-1 at $9.50 each.
□
□
C harge to GPO D eposit A c c o u n t No. ___________________________________
□
C harge to m y
E nclosed is a c h e ck or m oney o rd e r payable to the S u p e rin te n d e n t of D ocum ents.
□
A c c o u n t No..
E xpiration date
A c c o u n t No.
E xpiration d a te .
□
‘Acceptable only on orders sent to the Superintendent of Documents.
N am e
O rganization (if a p p lica b le )
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
A ddress
U.S. D epartm ent of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
W ashington D.C. 20212
S econd Class M ail
Postage and Fees Paid
U.S. D e p a rtm e n t of Labor
ISSN 0098-1818
O fficial Business
Penalty for private use, $300
RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MLR
LIBRA442L ISSDUE006R
1 f
LIBRARY
FED RESERVE BANK OF ST LOUIS
PO BOX 442
SAINT LOUIS
MO 63166
75
Years o f
Working for
Am ericas
Future
@FedFRASER