The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
O c to b e r 1995 N fS E A l^ H LltJfARV T U.S. Department of Labor Articles on: Foreign wages and jobs Improving unemployment and productivity d ata Productivity in retail stores Health insurance https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis H U.S. Department of Labor Robert B. Reich, Secretary Bureau of Labor Statistics Katharine G. Abraham, Commissioner The Monthly Labor Review is published by the Bureau o f Labor Statistics o f the U.S. Department o f Labor. Communications on editorial matters should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief, Regional Offices and Commissioners Monthly Labor Review, Bureau o f Labor Statistics, Washington, dc 20212. Phone (202) 606-5900. Subscription price per year— $25 domestic; $31.25 foreign. Single copy— $7 domestic; $8.75 foreign. Subscription prices and distribution policies for the Monthly iMbor Review ( issn 0098-1818) and other Government publications are set by the Government Printing Office, an agency o f the U.S. Congress. Send correspondence on circulation and subscription matters (including address changes) to: Superintendent o f Documents Government Printing Office Region 1 Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont Anthony J. Ferrara Region II New Jersey New York Puerto Rico Virgin Islands John Wieting 10th Floor One Congress Street Boston, MA 02114-2023 Phone (617)565-2327 Fax: (617) 565-4182 Room 808 201 Varick Street New York, NY 10014-4811 Washington, DC 20402 Phone: (212) 337-2400 Fax: (212) 337-2532 Make checks payable to Superintendent o f Documents. The Secretary o f Labor has determined that the publication o f this periodical is necessary in the transaction o f the public business required by law Region III Delaware District of Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia Alan Paisner 3535 Market Street P.O. Box 13309 Philadelphia, PA 19101-3309 Phone:(215)596-1154 Fax: (215) 596-4263 o f this Department. Second-class postage paid at Washington, dc, and at additional mailing addresses. Information from the Monthly IMbor Review is available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: (202) 606-STAT. Region IV Alabama Florida Georgia Kentucky Mississippi Janet Rankin North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Phone: (404) 347-4416 Fax: (404) 347-0067 idd phone: (202)606-5897. tod message referral phone: 1-800-326-2577. M O N T H L Y - L A B O R REVI EW 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30367-2302 Region V Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota Ohio Wisconsin Lois L. Orr 9th Floor Federal Office Building 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604-1595 Phone: (312)353-1880 Fax: (312) 353-1886 Region VI Arkansas Louisiana New Mexico Oklahoma Texas Robert A. Gaddie Room 221 Federal Building 525 Griffin Street Dallas, TX 75202-5028 Phone: (214) 767-6970 Fax: (214) 767-3720 October cover: "Standing Leaf Figures, ” by Henry Moore, an etching from the collection of Lessing J. Rosenwald, Jenkintown, Pennslyvania Cover design by Melvin Moxley https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Region VII Iowa Kansas Missouri Nebraska Region IX American Samoa Arizona California Guam Hawaii Nevada Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands Region VIII Colorado Montana North Dakota South Dakota Utah Wyoming Region X Alaska Idaho Oregon Washington Gunnar Engen 1100 Main St. Suite 600 Kansas City, MO 64105-2112 Phone: (816) 426-2481 Fax: (816) 426-6537 Sam M. Hirabayashi 71 Stevenson Street P.O. Box 3766 San Francisco, CA 94119-3766 Phone: (415) 744-6600 Fax: (415) 744-7138 Monthly Labor Review Customer Satisfaction Survey (Please detach your completed survey and follow the mailing instructions on the back, or FAX to (202) 606-5899 1. Are you a regular subscriber to Monthly Labor Review? □ yes □ no If not, where/how did you obtain this issue of the Review? □ Office copy that is circulated □ School or college library □ Public library □ Purchased single copy for own use □ Other—Please specify_______________________________________ _ 2. What other publications do you read to obtain information similar to that found in the Review? 3. Compared to these magazines, how would you rate Monthly Labor Review! (Circle one answer.) Worst in Class 1 2 About Average 3 Best in Class 5 4 4. Every month, the Review contains several different departments and publishes a variety of articles. Please let us know how useful you find these features. (Circle one answer. If you don't read an item, mark Never Useful.) Sometimes Useful Often Useful Always Useful 1 2 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Never Useful Labor Month in Review.................................... Articles on: employment and unemployment....... consumer prices and price trends..... employment projections.................... compensation and benefits................ producer prices and price trends....... productivity and technology............. Workplace Performance................................... The Law at W o rk .............................................. Industrial R elations........................................... Book Reviews..................................................... Publications Received....................................... Current Labor Statistics.................................... 5. Which of these topics or features would be most useful to you? (Please check only the 3 most interesting.) □ □ Interviews □ Emerging Industries Regional Economics □ MLR on CD-ROM Conference Reports □ Technical/Statistical Notes □ □ □ On-line MLR □ Safety & Health International Economics □ Training & Education □ Executive Summaries 6. Do you have any other suggestions about how we can make this publication more useful to you? 7. To help us better interpret your responses, please provide the following information: Your Title_____________________________ Occupation_________________________Industry: This is a voluntary survey authorized by law 29 U.S.C. 2. The information that you supply will be held in confidence only and be used in statistical summaries. Approved O.M.B. No. 1225-0058. Expires 1/97. We estimate that it will take no more than 9 minutes to complete the survey. If you have comments regarding this estimate or any other aspect of the survey, send them to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Division of Management Systems (1225-0058), 2 Massachusetts Ave. NE., Washington, DC 20212 and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (1225-0058), Washington, DC 20503. PLEASE DO NOT SEND THE COMPLETED FORM TO EITHER OF THESE OFFICES BLS-652-1 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MAILING INSTRUCTIONS: Please detach this page, fold so that your answers are covered and the Business Reply Address is on the outside, tape the form closed, and return to us by mail. ANSWERING BY FAX: If you would prefer to have your input recorded more promptly, please detach the form and FAX without cover sheet to (202) 606-5899. OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300 NO POSTAGE NECESSARY IF MAILED IN THE UNITED STATES BUSINESS REPLY MAIL _________ FIRST-CLASS MAIL PERMIT NO. 12707 WASHINGTON DC_________ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR US DEPT OF LABOR BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS ROOM 2850 2 M ASSACHUSETTS AVENUE NE WASHINGTON DC 20277-2707 Foreign wages and jobs Editor-in-Chief International comparisons of manufacturing compensation costs Deborah P. Klein Hourly compensation costs in 1994 were higher in Japan and many Western European economies than in the United States Janet Kmitch, Pedro Laboy and Sarah Van Damme Executive Editor Richard M. Devens, Jr. Managing Editor Anna Huffman Hill Editors Brian I. Baker Leslie Brown Joyner MaryK. Rieg Stephen Singer Editorial Assistant Ernestine Patterson Leary Part-time and temporary employment in Japan 3 10 Contingent employment is pushed up by the need for less costly labor and protection against fluctuations in labor demand Susan Houseman and Machiko Osawa Data im provem ent BLS introduces new range of alternative unemployment measures 19 Several new measures make use of data heretofore unavailable from the Current Population Survey John E. Bregger and Steven E. Haugen Production Manager Dennis L. Rucker Improvements to the quarterly productivity measures Production Assistants Annually weighted output measures for productivity calculations eliminate a source of bias and reduce revisions Edwin Dean, Michael Harper, and Phyllis Flohr Otto Catherine D. Bowman Phyllis L. Lott Edith W. Peters Catherine A. Stewart Contributors Michael H. Cimini Constance B. DiCesare Polly A. Phipps https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 27 Other articles Productivity in retail miscellaneous shopping goods stores 33 The change toward more chain-owned stores has helped boost the industry's productivity Ziaul Z. Ahmed and Patricia S. Wilder Employer-sponsored health insurance: what's offered, what's chosen? 38 Over the 1992-93 period, employers provided a variety of plans from which employees could choose Michael Bucci and Robert Grant Departments Labor month in review Industrial relations The law at work Book reviews Current labor statistics 2 45 48 50 53 Labor month in review The October Review Fully 85 percent of economists polled by the National Association of Business Economists expect international trade to continue to increase at double the growth rate of world gross domestic product. Blue Chip Economic Indica tors reports that both imports and ex ports are growing at double digit rates. And the World Economic Forum again rated the United States the most com petitive of the world’s economies. The articles in our international focus sec tion report on labor market trends that influence these developments. Janet Kmitch, Pedro Laboy, and Sarah Van Damme disentangle the impacts of wages, salaries, benefits, bonuses, and other costs on the key com petitive variable of hourly compensation for factory workers. In 24 foreign countries, 1994 compensation costs averaged 88 percent of those in the United States, equaling the high set in 1992. Of course, analysts often focus on smaller groups of countries, or even individual nations, to compare trends. For example, while the newly industrializing economies of Asia have employment costs averaging about a third of those in U.S. manufacturing, their over-the-year growth rate was in double digits. In contrast, U.S. costs rose 2.2 percent, while in Japan, where currency fluctuations had a massive impact, costs rose 3.6 percent in yen and 12.7 percent in dollars. Another factor affecting com pe titiveness and living standards is the institutional setting of the labor force. While the Review has featured several articles on part-time and temporary jobs in the American labor market, we have only recently had the opportunity to extend such analyses to other economies. Susan Houseman and Machiko Osawa’s article describes the part-time, temporary, “arubaito,” dispatched, and other non regular work arrangements adopted increasingly in Japan to reduce labor cost and buffer fluctuations in demand. One provocative finding is that part-time 2 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis workers may not necessarily work fewer hours than full-timers. In 1990, about a fifth of workers classified as part time worked as many hours as regular employees. However, they often did not receive the lifetime job commitment and seniority-based promotions offered fulltimers. In the section on data improvement, John E. Bregger and Steven E. Haugen outline the range of improved unemploy ment measures made possible by the re cent redesign of the Current Population Survey. In their article, Edwin Dean, Michael Harper, and Phyllis Flohr Otto explain, among other things, how annu ally-weighted output measures eliminate a source of statistical bias in quarterly measures of productivity. Other features include an analysis of productivity in specialty retail stores, a description of the variety of health plans offered by employers, a summary of developments in industrial relations and recent cases in labor law, and a review of Labor Economics and Industrial Re lations: Markets and Institutions. Industry productivity updates Measures of output per hour for more than 170 selected industries have been updated to 1992,1993 or 1994, depend ing upon the particular industry. Indus try labor productivity statistics for 1988-91 have been revised with the in corporation of data from the 1992 eco nomic censuses. The updated series are available from the Bureau of Labor Sta tistics at (202) 606-5618 for data print outs, (202) 606-7789 for data diskettes, or on the Internet (World Wide Web) at stats.bls.gov/blshome.html Labor costs and foreign trade According to the economists surveyed by the Blue Chip Economic Indicators, the fastest growing markets for Ameri can exports are Korea, Hong Kong, and Brazil. The biggest growth in imports to the United States are expected to come from Mexico, China, and Malaysia. In October 1995 the minds of some observers, the fact that these economies have relatively low wage rates raises the question of maintaining a competitive trade position. According to Stephen Golub, a professor at Swarthmore College and Visiting Scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Fran cisco, these concerns may be overblown. In Professor Golub’s analysis, the fac tor that tends to offset low relative pay in newly industrializing countries (nic’s) is low productivity relative to the United States. For example, although wages in Korea and Malaysia rose more rapidly from 1970 to 1990 than pay in the United States, workers there still received only 35 percent and 15 percent of what Ameri can workers were paid, even after allow ing for currency appreciation. In Mexico, pay actually rose more slowly than in the United States, leading to a decline in Mexico’s relative compensation. At the same time, productivity was rising faster in Korea and Mexico than in the United States, while Malaysian productivity rose somewhat more slowly. The critical measure, in Golub’s words, is “labor cost per unit of output—the ratio of wages to productivity—relative to the United States.” In the cases outlined above, the resulting movements in unit labor costs yielded increasing ratios for both Malaysia and Korea, and a declining ratio for Mexico. More significantly, in all three countries, unit costs, relative to the United States, ranged from about three-quarters to roughly one. Golub con cludes, “low wages are a symptom of low productivity, not an independent source of international competitiveness.” Give us feedback! The reader survey attached to this issue is our primary source of input from you about the editorial calendar for the com ing year. Please complete the question naire and return it to us. The November Review N ext m onth, we update our work force projections to the year 2005. International Labor Costs International comparisons of manufacturing compensation Japan and many Western European economies had higher manufacturing hourly compensation costs than the United States in 1994; the trade-weighted average for 24 foreign economies was 88 percent of the U.S. level Janet Krnitch, Pedro Laboy, and Sarah Van Damme Janet Kmitch, Pedro Leboy, and Sarah Van Damme are economists in the Division of Foreign Labor Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis n 1994, hourly compensation costs for man ufacturing production workers in Japan rose to a new high of 125 percent of the U.S. av erage. Costs in most of the 14 European coun tries for which 1994 data are available also rose relative to the United States, reaching a tradeweighted average of 115 percent of U.S. costs, about the same relative level as in 1991 but be low the 1992 peak of 123 percent. Relative com pensation costs in the Asian newly industrializ ing economies (nie’s) of Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan rose to a new high of 34 percent of U.S. costs, while those in Canada de clined to 92 percent. Costs in Mexico remained unchanged, at 15 percent of the U.S. level. For the 24 foreign economies for which 1994 data are available, trade-weighted average costs increased to 88 percent of U.S. costs, 2 percent age points above the 1993 level, and matching the previous high in 1992.1 This article presents comparative data on m anufacturing hourly com pensation costs through 1994 for the United States and 24 for eign economies, as well as the most recent statis tics for 4 additional countries for which 1994 data are not yet available. Table 1 presents hourly compensation costs for selected years for each of the 29 economies and for selected trade-weighted economic groups2indexed to the U.S. level. Table 2 shows average annual percent changes for se lected countries and economic groups, and table 3 contains data on the structure of compensation. (Measures for the “foreign economies” are com puted both including and excluding Mexico and I Israel because the rapid rates of inflation in those two countries in earlier years distort the tradeweighted average percent changes measured in national currencies.) Chart 1 shows the trend in hourly compensation in U.S. dollars over the pe riod 1975-94 for selected countries and eco nomic groups, and chart 2 shows the structure of compensation in 1994 for selected countries. Compensation cost measures The Bureau of Labor Statistics has developed comparative measures of hourly compensation costs to provide a basis for assessing international differences in employer labor costs. Compari sons based on the more readily available average earnings statistics published by many countries may be very misleading. National definitions of average earnings differ considerably; average earnings do not include all items of labor com pensation; and the omitted items of compensa tion frequently represent a large and growing por tion of total compensation. Total compensation costs are defined as (1) all payments made directly to the worker—pay for time worked (basic time and piece rates plus overtime premiums, shift differentials, other pre miums and bonuses paid each pay period, and cost-of-living adjustments), pay for time not worked (such as for vacations and holidays), sea sonal or irregular bonuses and other special pay ments, selected social allowances, and the cost of payments in kind—before payroll deductions of any kind, and (2) employer expenditures for Monthly Labor Review O ctober 1995 3 International Labor Costs A note on the measures The hourly compensation measures discussed in this ar ticle are based on statistics available to BLS as of April 18, 1995. They are prepared specifically for international com parisons of employer labor costs in manufacturing. The methods used, as well as the results, differ somewhat from those for other BLS series on U.S. compensation costs. Labor cost measures. The compensation measures are computed in national currency units and are converted to U.S. dollars at prevailing commercial market currency ex change rates. These exchange rates are appropriate meas ures for comparing levels of employer labor costs, but they do not indicate relative living standards of workers or the purchasing power of their incomes. Prices of goods and services vary greatly among countries, and commercial market exchange rates do not reliably indicate relative dif ferences in prices. Data limitations. Because hourly compensation is partly estimated, these statistics should not be considered pre cise measures of comparative compensation costs. The comparative level figures in this article are averages for all manufacturing industries, and thus are not necessarily representative of all component industries. In the United States and some countries, such as Japan, differentials in hourly compensation costs vary widely by industry. Other countries, such as Germany and Sweden, have narrow dif ferentials. legally required insurance programs and contractual and pri vate benefit plans (such as retirement plans, health insurance, unemployment insurance, and family allowances). In addi tion, for some countries (such as France and Sweden), com pensation is adjusted for other taxes on payrolls or employ ment even if they do not finance programs that directly ben efit workers, because such taxes are regarded as labor costs.3 Changes in relative compensation cost levels over time are affected by differences in underlying wage and benefit trends. They also are affected by frequent, and sometimes sharp, changes in relative currency exchange values. Hourly compensation costs, 1994 U.S. hourly compensation costs for manufacturing produc tion workers increased 2.2 percent between 1993 and 1994, the smallest annual increase since 1987. The average increase in the 24 foreign economies for which 1994 data are avail able was 4.9 percent before adjustment for exchange rate changes. Only Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Swit zerland had smaller national currency-based increases than 4 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 the United States. At the upper end, Mexico and the Asian averaged increases of over 10 percent. The tradeweighted average increase for the European economies was 3.7 percent. The trade-weighted exchange rate for the 24 foreign econo mies was almost unchanged in 1994, rising only 0.4 percent relative to the U.S. dollar. While the average trade-weighted exchange rate was little changed, there were substantial ex change rate changes for individual economies. Australia, Ja pan, New Zealand, Finland, and Switzerland had currency appreciations against the U.S. dollar of over 7 percent. Canada, Mexico, Israel, and Spain had currency depreciations of around 5 percent or more. The trade-weighted average increase for the European economies was 1.7 percent. After adjustment for exchange rate changes, hourly com pensation costs in U.S. dollars rose 5.3 percent in 1994 in the 24 economies. Two countries—Canada and Spain—had de clines in U.S. dollar-based hourly compensation costs, and three others—Mexico, Italy, and Portugal—had smaller in creases than the U.S. increase of 2.2 percent. In each case, this resulted primarily from exchange rate depreciations rela tive to the U.S. dollar. At the upper end, Japanese compensa tion costs measured in U.S. dollars rose 13 percent, with the yen appreciating nearly 9 percent, and costs in the Asian Nffi’s rose an average 12 percent, nearly all accounted for by na tional currency-based increases. European hourly compen sation costs rose an average 5.4 percent, measured in U.S. dollars. On a relative basis, Germany4 had the highest hourly com pensation costs, reaching a new peak of 160 percent of the U.S. cost level of $17.10. Switzerland had the second high est costs at 145 percent of the U.S. level, followed by Bel gium at 134 percent, Austria at 127 percent, and Japan at 125 percent. Five other European countries—Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden— also had higher hourly compensation costs than the United States. France matched the U.S. level, and three European countries—Italy, Portugal, and the United Kingdom—had lower costs. The trade-weighted average for the 14 European countries for which 1994 data are available was 115 percent of the U.S. level, up 3 percentage points over 1993, but 8 percentage points below the peak relative level of 123 percent reached in 1992. Costs in all non-European economies except Japan were below the U.S. level, ranging from 15 percent in Mexico to 80 percent in Australia. nie ’s Long-term trends In the United States, hourly compensation costs for manufac turing production workers increased an average 5.5 percent per year between 1975 and 1994. These costs grew by 9.2 percent annually between 1975 and 1980; by 5.7 percent be- C h art 1. Hourly compensation costs In U.S. dollars for production workers in manufacturing, selected countries and economic groups, 1975-94 Canada-United States tween 1980 and 1985; by 2.8 percent between 1985 and 1990; and by an average of 3.5 percent between 1990 and 1994. In most of the foreign economies studied, compensation cost increases also have abated since 1985 when measured in na tional currency terms. However, changes in relative exchange rates have substantially altered the underlying pattern in some periods. In terms of trade-weighted averages for the 14 European economies for which 1994 data are available, hourly com pensation costs measured in U.S. dollars rose 14-1/2 percent per year in the 1975-80 period, fell 4 percent per year from 1980 to 1985, rose about 16-1/2 percent per year in the 1985— 90 period, and rose 2-1/2 percent per year between 1990 and 1994. The decline over the 1980-85 period reflected the dollar’s appreciation, which resulted in a decline in the trade- https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Japan—United States weighted value of the European currencies of 11-1/2 percent per year. The sharp increase for Europe in the 1985-90 pe riod reflected the subsequent depreciation of the U.S. dollar, which resulted in an increase in the trade-weighted value of the European currencies of 10-1/2 percent per year. The U.S. dollar rose about 2 percent per year over the full 1990-94 period against the European currencies, largely because the average European currency value had fallen about 10-1/2 per cent in 1993. However, the Japanese yen, which, like the European currencies, had risen 10-1/2 percent per year be tween 1985 and 1990, continued to appreciate at an average of 9 percent per year between 1990 and 1994. In 1975, the trade-weighted average cost level in the 14 European economies was 81 percent of U.S. compensation costs; it rose to 102 percent in 1980, but began falling in 1981, Monthly Labor Review O ctober 1995 5 International Labor Costs Table 1. Indexes of hourly compensation costs for production workers in manufacturing, selected countries and econom ic groups, selected years, 1975-94 [United States = 100] Country or area 1975 1980 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 United States Canada ........ Mexico.......... Australia....... Hong Kong.... Israel............ Japan ........... K orea............ New Zealand.. Singapore...... 100 94 23 88 12 35 47 5 50 13 100 88 22 86 15 38 56 10 54 15 100 84 12 63 13 31 49 9 34 19 100 103 10 87 19 54 88 22 54 22 100 106 11 88 21 57 86 25 56 25 100 110 12 87 23 56 94 30 54 28 100 105 14 81 24 56 101 32 49 31 100 98 15 75 26 53 114 33 48 31 Sri Lanka. Taiwan.... Austria.... Belgium... Denmark . Finland .... France.... Germany1 Greece .... Ireland.... 4 6 71 101 99 72 71 00 27 48 2 10 90 133 110 83 91 125 38 60 2 12 58 69 62 63 58 74 28 46 2 25 99 108 101 118 88 124 38 67 2 26 119 129 120 141 102 147 45 79 3 28 116 127 117 136 98 146 44 78 2 32 126 138 124 123 105 157 46 83 3 31 122 128 114 99 97 154 41 73 Ita ly .................. Luxembourg..... Netherlands...... Norway............. Portugal............ Spain................ Sweden............ Switzerland...... United Kingdom 73 100 103 106 25 40 113 96 53 83 121 122 117 21 60 127 112 77 59 59 67 80 12 36 74 74 48 101 94 105 128 21 62 122 117 74 119 110 123 144 25 76 140 140 85 119 107 117 139 27 78 142 139 88 121 116 126 143 32 83 152 144 89 96 110 119 121 27 69 106 135 76 122 122 27 67 110 145 80 60 65 76 82 80 8 67 72 85 103 101 12 52 57 66 62 61 13 77 85 97 101 98 23 83 91 105 118 116 25 86 94 108 118 115 28 88 97 110 124 122 30 86 94 107 112 111 31 88 96 109 115 114 34 Trade-weighted measures: 24 foreign economies2 . less Mexico, Israel .... OECD3 ........................... Europe......................... European Union.......... Asian nie ’s .................... 1The former West Germany. 2 Twenty-nine countries or areas, less the United States, and four coun tries for which 1994 data are not available. reaching its lowest point—62 percent—in 1984-85. In 1987, European compensation costs matched the U.S. level, and in 1992 they peaked at 123 percent of U.S. costs, before declin ing to 115 percent in 1994. Japanese hourly compensation costs were less than 50 percent of U.S. costs in 1975, rose to 66 percent of the U.S. level by 1978, fell to one-half or less of U.S. costs in 1982— 85, and have risen relative to the United States in most years since—from 70 percent of U.S. costs in 1986 to 125 percent in 1994. Japan surpassed the average European compensa tion cost level in 1993, and in 1994, only four European coun tries had higher hourly compensation costs. Compensation costs in the Asian nie’s were only 5 to 12 percent of U.S. costs in 1975—about the relative level of Japanese costs in the early 1960’s. Asian nie’s relative com 6 1989 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 100 92 15 80 28 53 125 37 52 37 32 127 134 120 110 100 160 95 3 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Excludes Mexico, which joined the organization in 1994. Note: Dash indicates data not available. pensation costs then rose gradually, reaching 20 percent of the U.S. level by the end of the 1980’s—about the relative level of Japanese costs by the end of the 1960’s. The tradeweighted average cost level for the Asian nie’s reached 30 percent of the U.S. level in 1992 and 34 percent in 1994. In contrast, the Mexican compensation cost level was 23 per cent of the U.S. level in 1975, peaked at about a quarter of U.S. costs in 1981, and subsequently fell to only 8 percent by 1986, before rising to 15 percent of U.S. costs in 1993-94. Compensation structure The structure of compensation costs differs among the econo mies covered in this article. In part, this reflects differences in the fringe benefits available to workers, such as the amount of paid leave and provisions for health insurance. However, it also reflects differences in the financing of social benefits. The costs of social benefits are included in employer com pensation costs only if they are financed from taxes on pay rolls or employment; they are not included if they are financed from general revenues, as are the British national health sys tem and family allowances in Germany. Pay fo r time worked. In 1994, pay for time worked ac counted for between 80 and 85 percent of total compensation costs in Denmark and New Zealand and for between 70 and 75 percent in the United States, Canada, Australia, Ireland, Norway, and the United Kingdom. However, pay for time worked was only about 60 percent of total compensation costs in Japan and 50 to 60 percent in many European countries, including France, Germany, and Italy. The very high ratios in Denmark and New Zealand largely reflect very low employer social insurance expenditures. The ratios for Canada, Australia, Ireland, Norway, and the United Kingdom result from a combination of relatively low ratios for both other direct pay and social insurance expenditures. The ratio for the United States largely reflects a low ratio for other direct pay. Other direct pay. Other direct pay, which consists primarily of vacation and holiday pay and seasonal bonuses, accounted for nearly 30 percent of total compensation in Japan, where R ecent e x c h a n g e rate m ovem ents As of September 1995, the currencies of most of the econo mies studied had appreciated from their 1994 average lev els relative to the U.S. dollar. The major exception was the Mexican peso, which had fallen to 55 percent of its 1994 value. The average trade-weighted exchange rate for the other 23 economies was up 4 percent. The trade-weighted exchange rate for Europe was up 8 percent. Individual European exchange rate increases were 20 percent for Finland; 10 to 15 percent for Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland; about 6 to 9 percent for Portu gal, Spain and Sweden; and 2 percent for the United King dom. The only European currency exchange rate to re main almost unchanged was the Italian lira. The average value of the Canadian dollar was up 1 per cent. The Japanese yen was less than 2 percent higher than its 1994 average value as of September. However, the yen had been over 20 percent higher in April, May, and June. Among the other Pacific rim economies, the New Zealand dollar was up 11 percent relative to the U.S. dol lar in August, the Singapore dollar was up 8 percent, the Korean won was up 5 percent, the Australian dollar was up 3 percent, the Hong Kong dollar was unchanged, and the Taiwanese dollar was down 4 percent. C h a rt 2. Hourly compensation costs in U.S. dollars for production workers in manufacturing, by cost component, nine countries, 1994 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis $35 $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 Monthly Labor Review O ctober 1995 7 International Labor Costs Table 2. Annual percent changes in hourly compensation costs in U.S. dollars, hourly compensation costs in national currency, and exchange rates (U.S. dollars per national currency unit), selected countries and econom ic groups, selected periods, 1975-94 Country or area 1975-94 1975-80 1980-85 5.3 5.2 3.1 10.9 7.2 8.0 6.8 8.3 5.2 7.6 9.2 7.8 8.5 13.0 14.6 14.2 11.8 18.4 11.7 17.5 5.7 4.8 -6.4 2.8 -3.4 -4.9 -1.3 -4.6 -5.0 -3.7 8.1 8.6 7.5 7.3 13.9 12.5 13.0 11.7 14.6 18.9 5.3 6.9 38.5 4.9 8.7 5.6 12.0 13.2 8.7 9.7 1985-90 1990-94 1991 1992 2.8 7.7 .6 15.1 15.2 18.0 18.4 19.4 16.7 15.2 3.5 - .2 12.3 13.7 2.8 5.6 -2.3 .3 -2.6 1.7 4.5 8.0 17.7 14.5 .2 3.3 4.8 7.7 5.8 8.3 3.7 -.8 18.7 11.1 10.7 12.0 5.4 9.6 11.0 4.9 3.6 -3.7 11.8 16.8 -3.9 1.1 -18.4 -14.0 -28.0 -11.6 2.2 ^1.0 2.0 12.7 5.0 6.3 1.0 -.4 6.3 6.7 1.0 1.8 .7 -4.1 7.0 12.8 14.1 13.2 16.7 18.5 6.4 5.8 4.6 2.6 11.5 10.1 9.4 8.1 3.9 15.7 8.3 7.3 6.1 9.1 13.3 2.4 1.5 .5 -6.9 5.6 5.3 5.7 4.4 5.4 11.9 9.2 10.8 23.2 7.0 14.3 7.5 18.0 23.8 12.2 16.4 5.7 8.1 51.6 4.0 12.3 4.7 15.9 13.4 9.5 8.3 2.8 4.3 62.4 4.2 4.2 4.7 7.9 7.9 8.3 8.1 3.5 3.8 17.6 4.2 3.3 5.7 5.2 7.3 4.0 5.7 4.5 6.0 26.0 6.4 3.9 6.1 8.6 9.8 8.1 9.3 3.7 4.6 21.5 4.6 3.8 5.4 4.6 7.9 6.9 4.9 3.6 2.8 12.9 2.3 2.9 7.2 4.3 7.1 -3.7 4.0 2.2 1.7 10.4 3.6 2.7 4.1 3.4 4.6 5.2 4.6 11.0 8.0 6.8 7.9 14.0 13.6 11.9 10.4 12.2 19.6 14.0 7.9 7.2 8.4 11.6 11.9 6.3 5.0 5.7 13.0 6.7 5.5 4.3 4.9 11.4 9.7 7.9 6.3 6.6 15.6 7.4 5.8 4.7 4.9 11.4 5.0 4.1 3.2 4.3 8.2 4.9 4.3 3.0 3.7 10.7 _ - 1.5 -2 5 .5 5.8 - 1.4 2.2 -4 .6 -4 .4 -3.2 - 1.9 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - 2 .7 -11.5 5.6 .3 6.2 - 5 .3 - 4 .3 -.4 .9 -3.1 -3 8 .3 -1.1 -14.0 -.9 .2 - 14.8 -1 5 .9 -13.2 - 11.0 3.2 -3 8 .0 10.5 10.5 12.7 9.8 10.8 7.8 6.6 -3.9 -4 .5 9.1 -.4 -.1 -7 .1 -6 .6 -6.4 -3 .7 1.8 - 6 .8 7.7 - 3 .5 -2.6 - 3 .5 -1.9 -2.1 -.9 -5 .2 -2 .5 6.2 6.7 6.3 .7 1.6 3.9 -.1 -6 .3 -.7 14.1 -6.6 -5.6 -2 1 .7 -1 9 .7 -25.3 -1 5 .0 -5 .6 - 7 .7 8.7 2.2 2.0 - 2 .4 -4.8 1.0 2.0 -1 .9 .6 .7 -.5 .0 -.5 1.1 1.3 2.2 -.5 - 9 .4 -5 .6 - 6 .0 - 11.5 -4 .2 2.9 7.4 7.9 10.5 4.9 -.2 .3 .3 -2 .1 .2 .5 1.4 1.7 - 2 .5 .3 .9 1.4 1.3 3.9 1.9 -2 .4 -2 .5 -2 .6 -1 0 .7 -2 .3 .4 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.1 1993 1994 Hourly compensation costs in U.S. dollars United States........................... Canada .................................... Mexico...................................... Japan ....................................... France...................................... Germany’ ................................. Ita ly .......................................... Spain........................................ Sweden .................................... United Kingdom...................... Trade-weighted measures:2 24 foreign economies3 ......... less Mexico, Israel............. OECD4 ...................................... Europe.................................. Asian NlE’s .............................. Hourly compensation costs in national currency United States........................... Canada .................................... Mexico...................................... Japan ....................................... France...................................... Germany1................................. Ita ly .......................................... Spain........................................ Sweden .................................... United Kingdom...................... Trade-weighted measures:2 24 foreign economies3.......... less Mexico, Israel............ OECD4 ...................................... Europe................................... Asian n ie ’s .............................. Exchange rates United States.......................... Canada .................................... Mexico...................................... Japan ....................................... France...................................... Germany1 ................................. Ita ly .......................................... Spain........................................ Sweden.................................... United Kingdom...................... Trade-weighted measures:2 24 foreign economies3 ......... less Mexico, Israel........... OECD4 ...................................... Europe.................................. Asian n ie ’s .............................. 1 Former West Germany. 2 Trade-weighted percent changes computed as the trade-weighted average of the rates of change for the individual countries or areas. 3Twenty-nine countries or areas, less the United States, and four coun tries for which 1994 data are not available. 8 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 __ 4 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Excludes Mexico, which joined the organization in 1994. Note: Dash indicates data are not available. Rates of change are based on the compound rate method. Table 3. Pay for time worked, other direct pay, total direct pay, and social insurance expenditures as a percent of hourly compensation costs for production workers in manufacturing, 29 countries or areas, 1994 Country or area Pay for time worked Other direct pay Total direct pay Social insurance expenditures 6.3 9.6 76.9 84.1 88.7 83.5 96.8 82.5 86.4 85.2 94.0 83.6 23.1 15.9 11.3 16.5 3.2 17.5 13.6 14.8 6.0 16.4 85.7 92.6 73.1 72.6 95.1 74.0 70.8 75.8 80.2 84.3 14.3 7.4 26.9 27.4 4.9 26.0 29.2 24.2 19.8 15.7 69.4 85.8 76.7 83.1 76.2 74.6 71.5 83.4 84.5 30.6 14.2 23.3 16.9 23.8 25.4 28.5 16.6 15.5 United States...... Canada............... Mexico................ Australia............. Hong K ong......... Israel.................. Japan ................. Korea.................. New Zealand...... Singapore........... 70.5 74.5 81.6 65.3 12.4 18.2 Sri Lanka1........... Taiwan................ Austria................ Belgium.............. Denmark............ Finland............... France................ Germany2 ........... Greece3 .............. Ireland1............... 67.6 18.1 - - 49.8 52.3 82.4 56.1 54.2 55.3 61.7 74.3 23.3 20.3 12.7 17.9 16.6 20.5 18.5 Ita ly .................... Luxembourg4...... Netherlands........ Nonway............... Portugal.............. Spain.................. Sweden .............. Switzerland........ United Kingdom .. 50.3 70.2 57.0 71.5 19.1 15.6 19.7 11.7 - - - 73.5 - 9.9 - - - - 58.8 - - 59.8 65.2 72.7 27.6 - 10.0 - 11.7 18.2 11.8 1 Data relate to 1993. 2 Former West Germany. 3 Data relate to 1992. 4 Data relate to 1991. NOTE: Dash indicates data are not available. workers receive the equivalent of about 3 months of regular wages in bonuses. It accounted for about 15 to 20 percent in many European countries, where workers receive minimum vacation entitlements of 4 to 6 weeks, as well as vacation or yearend bonuses of 1 to 2 months’ wages. However, in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and most Scandinavian countries, where workers do not receive seasonal bonuses, other direct pay accounted for only a little more than 10 percent of total compensation costs. In the United States, where irregular bo nuses also account for only a small fraction of total compen sation and workers generally have shorter vacation entitle https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ments, other direct pay was about 6 percent of compensation. Social insurance expenditures. Expenditures by employers on social insurance and other labor taxes accounted for about 30 percent of compensation costs in Italy and France in 1994, and for over 25 percent in Austria, Belgium, Finland, Spain, and Sweden. In Denmark, universal old-age pensions, medical benefits, and family allowances are entirely financed and other ben efits are partly financed out of general revenues, so that em ployer social insurance expenditures accounted for only 5 percent of compensation costs. In New Zealand, old-age pen sions, sickness and maternity benefits, unemployment ben efits, and family allowances are financed out of general rev enues, with the result that employer social insurance expen ditures accounted for only 6 percent of compensation costs. In Canada, Australia, Japan, Ireland, and the United King dom, where several social insurance benefits also are financed from general government revenues, employers’ payments for such benefits accounted for 11 to 17 percent of total compen sation costs. In Mexico and in all of the Asian n i e ’s , social insurance expenditures accounted for at most 15 percent of total compensation costs. In the United States, they were 23 percent. ^ Footnotes 1 These comparisons are based on 1994 annual average market exchange rates; therefore, they do not take account of subsequent changes in relative exchange rates. 2 The trade weights used to compute the average compensation cost mea sures for the selected economic groups are the sum of U.S. imports of manu factured products for consumption (customs value) and U.S. exports of do mestic manufactured products (f.a.s. value) in 1992 for each country or area and each economic group. A description of the trade weights and tradeweighted measures was published in I n te r n a tio n a l C o m p a r is o n s o f H o u r ly C o m p e n sa tio n C o s ts f o r P r o d u c tio n W o rk ers, 1 9 9 4 , Report 893 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 1995). 3 The bls definition of hourly compensation costs is not the same as the International Labor Office ( ilo ) definition of total labor costs, bls compen sation costs do not include all items of labor costs. The costs of recruitment, employee training, and plant facilities and services— such as cafeterias and medical clinics—are not included because data are not available for the United States and most other countries. The labor costs not included account for no more than 4 percent of total labor costs in any country for which the data are available. 4 Data for Germany relate to the former West Germany. Average monthly earnings for production workers in manufacturing in the former East Ger many were 63.5 percent of earnings in the former West Germany in July 1994. Data are not yet available on other compensation costs. Monthly Labor Review O ctober 1995 9 Employment in Japan Part-time and temporary employment in Japan The need for less costly labor and protection against fluctuations in labor demand has helped push up part-time and temporary employment in Japan Susan Houseman and Machiko Osawa Susan Houseman is a senior economist at the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research in Kalamazoo, m i, Machiko Osawa is professor of economics at Asia University in Tokyo. 10 art-tim e workers represent a large and growing share of employment in Japan. Part-time employment increased more than 80 percent between 1982 and 1992, accounting for slightly more than 16 percent of paid employment in 1992 (up from 11 percent a decade earlier), according to data from Japan's Bureau of Statistics. Temporary workers also represent a large share of employment. Temporary workers hired directly by companies on short-term contract accounted for more than 11 percent of paid employment in recent years, according to Bureau of Statistics figures. Temporary help agencies, which are subject to considerable regulation, were prohibited prior to 1985. Although the number of temporary help, or dispatched, workers has grown rapidly since 1985, they still account for under 1 percent of paid employment. This article discusses recent trends in part-time and temporary employment and the characteristics of these “nonregular” workers and their employers. It also looks at the role of the Japanese industrial relations system, public policies, and other factors in the development of part-time and temporary employment. P Data definitions and sources The terms part-time and temporary employment are defined somewhat differently in Japan and the United States. Moreover, the definitions often differ by survey in Japan. Therefore, a brief discussion of the concepts of part-tim e and Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis O ctober 1996 temporary employment used in selected Japanese surveys is necessary. A number of periodic and special surveys contain information about part-time, temporary, dispatched, and other types of nonregular workers in Japan. The definitions of part-time and tem porary workers used in surveys cited in this article are summarized in exhibit 1. Most of the data used in this article are from the Employment Status Survey conducted by the Bureau of Statistics. This periodic, household survey provides detailed information about parttime, temporary, and other forms of nonregular employment. The survey has been conducted at 5-year intervals in recent years; the latest survey was in 1992. In the Bureau of Statistics Employment Status Survey and the Ministry of Labor Survey on the Status of Part-Time Workers, a part-time worker is defined as an employee whose position is classified as part time by the employer; a part-time employee does not necessarily work fewer hours than a full time employee. In 1990, 20.6 percent of workers classified as part time by their employer worked as many hours as did regular, full-time workers.1 The set of personnel practices that applies to these workers distinguishes them as part time. For example, in large- and medium-sized Japanese companies, regular full-time workers typically are given commitments of lifetime employment and the wages and promotions of these workers are determined to a large degree by seniority. Practices of lifetime employment and nenko (seniority-based) Sum m ary of d a ta definitions in s e lected J a p a n e s e surveys Survey Part-time workers Dispatched workers Temporary and day workers Comments data on part-time workers reported since 1982. Bureau of Statistics, Employment Status Survey (household survey conducted every 5 years) classified as part time in workplace; separate category for arubaito, defined as student or other person with a side job, reported te m p o r a r y : employed on a contract lasting more than 1 month but less than 1 year; d a y : employed on a contract o f less than 1 month’s duration workers hired from a dispatching (temporary help) agency Bureau of Statistics, Labor Force Survey (monthly household survey) separate category not reported; may construct category defined as work less than 35 hours per week te m p o r a r y : employed on a contract lasting more than 1 month but less than 1 year; d a y: employed on a contract of less than 1 month's duration separate category not reported; counted as temporary worker if employment contract less than 1 year Ministry of Labor, Survey of Employment Trend (biannual establishment survey) work fewer hours per day or days per week than regular workers te m p o r a ry : employed on a contract lasting at least 1 month but less than 1 year; d a y: not covered by survey separate category not reported; counted as temporary worker if employment contract less than 1 year survey excludes workers on contract for less than 1 month, establishments with fewer than five regular employees, the agricultural sector, and some components of the services sector. Data on part-time workers reported since 1978. Ministry of Labor, Survey on the Diversification of Employment (one-time survey of establishments and workers) work fewer hours per day or days per week than regular workers te m p o r a r y /d a y : hired on a temporary basis but whose hours are the same as regular workers workers hired from dispactching (temporary help) agency survey sampled establishments with 30 or more regular workers in seven major sectors. Ministry of Labor, Monthly Labor Survey (monthly establishment survey) work fewer hours per day or days per week than regular workers not reported not reported data on part-time workers reported since 1990. Ministry of Labor, Survey on the Status of Part-Time Workers (one-time survey of establishments and workers) part time: (1) work fewer hours per day or days per week than regular workers, or (2) classified as part time in workplace; arbaito: student workers not reported not reported survey sampled establishments with 5 or more regular workers in nine major sectors. wages and promotions rarely apply to part-time workers. The Employment Status Survey and the Survey on the Status of Part-Time Workers provide data on both part-time and arubaito jobs. An arubaito job is a “side” job taken by someone who is in school or who has regular employment elsewhere, while part-time jobs are held by those who do not have other employment and who are not classified by their employers as full time. Arubaito jobs typically are held by students; part https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis time jobs generally are held by married women. In practice, part-time and arubaito jobs are quite similar and the terms often are used interchangeably. Several surveys conducted by the Ministry of Labor (the Survey of Employment Trend, the Survey on the Diversification of Employment, and the Monthly Labor Survey) classify workers as part time if they work fewer hours per day or days per week than do regular workers. These surveys do not Monthly Labor Review O ctober 1995 11 Employment in Japan T ab le 1. Nonregular workers in Japan as a percent of total paid employment, 1982-92 Part time and arubaito Temporary and da y Other Year 1982 ......................................................... 1987 ......................................................... 1992 ......................................................... Total Part time 11.0 14.2 16.1 10.1 11.3 — NOTE: Self-employed and family workers are excluded from the tabulations. For definitions of part-time, arubaito, temporary, day, and dispatched workers, see exhibit 1. Dash indicates data are not available. distinguish between part-time workers and arubaito. In the Bureau of Statistics Labor Force Survey, a monthly household survey, individuals are asked their actual weekly work hours. It is thus possible to tabulate the number of workers who work fewer than 35 hours per week. However, such a tabulation would miss many part-time workers who work long hours but are nonetheless classified as part time in their workplace, and it may include workers temporarily on short-time who are classified as regular workers in their place of employment.2 Japanese data on part-time employment are available since 1978 in the Ministry of Labor Survey of Employment Trend; since 1982 in the Bureau of Statistics Employment Status Survey; and since 1990 in the Ministry of Labor Monthly Labor Survey. One can construct a longer time series from the Bureau of Statistics Labor Force Survey by selecting an hours-per-week cutoff to define part-time employment. Tem porary workers in Japanese statistics refer to employees hired for a limited duration. The Bureau of Statistics Employment Status Survey distinguishes between temporary and day workers. A temporary worker is someone employed on a contract lasting more than 1 month, but less than 1 year; a day worker is someone employed on a contract of less than 1 month's duration. In the Employment Status Survey, temporary and day workers are hired directly by a company. Dispatched workers are those on temporary contract, hired from a temporary help agency. In other government statistics, a separate category for dispatched workers is not reported— workers are counted as temporary employees if the duration of their labor contracts is for less than 1 year with the company or the temporary agency. In addition to data on part-time and temporary employ ment, some surveys provide information about other forms of nonregular employment: shukko workers (individuals who have been transferred to a subsidiary of the parent company); registered or on-call workers (individuals registered with a company as being available for work); and contract workers (individuals hired by special arrangement from another com pany). These nonregular employees represent a relatively small share of the work force and are not covered in this article. 12 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis O ctober 1995 Arubaito — 4.1 4.8 Total 11.5 12.0 11.2 Temporary 7.9 8.9 8.4 Day laborers 3.7 3.1 2.8 Total 4.8 4.2 3.9 Dispatched _ .2 .3 SOURCE: Sömuchö Tökeikyoku, Shügyöközö Kihonchösa hökoku, various issues (Bureau of Statistics, Management and Coordination Agency, Employment Status Survey). Overview of nonregular employment Despite differences in definitions, data from various sources depict similar trends in part-time and temporary employment. The percentage of Japanese employees who are part time has increased dramatically over the last decade, while the percent age of temporary workers has remained fairly constant. Ac cording to the Bureau of Statistics Employment Status Sur vey, the rate of part-time and arubaito employment increased from 11.0 percent of total paid employment in 1982 to 16.1 percent in 1992. This rise may be attributed to an increase both in part-time workers and in arubaito. More than 11 percent of paid employees have been tempo rary workers since 1982. Temporary help agencies were pro hibited in 1947 because Japanese officials believed that, be fore World War II, they had exploited workers. These agen cies were legalized in 1985, but subjected to considerable regulation. As a result, the share of temporary help, or dis patched, workers in paid employment is fairly small—0.3 per cent in 1992—although it is rapidly growing. (See table 1.) Overall, nonregular workers in Japan are disproportionately female. According to the Bureau of Statistics Employment Sta tus Survey, about half of arubaito are women, while more than 90 percent of part-time workers are women. (See table 2.) About two-thirds of temporary and day workers and 70 percent of dis patched workers are women. Male and female arubaito tend to be young and most are students. Male temporary workers tend to be either young and in school or in a first job, or old and presumably in semiretirement. Female part-time and temporary workers tend to be older; many are women who return to the labor force when their children reach school age. According to the Employment Status Survey, in the de cade from 1982 to 1992, the incidence of part-time employ ment rose dramatically as a percent of employment in virtu ally all sectors. (See table 3.) Apart from agriculture, where more than 30 percent of paid employment is part time,3 the rate of part-time employment is particulary high in wholesale and retail trade (28.1 percent in 1992), services (16.5 percent in 1992), and manufacturing (14.3 percent in 1992). Although the share of temporary employment has remained relatively stable over the last decade in the aggregate economy, the rate has increased modestly in some sectors, including transporta tion and communications and services. The highest rates of temporary employment are in agriculture, fisheries, and con struction, which is not surprising given the seasonal nature of work in these industries. As with part-time employment, tem porary employment is important in the trade, services, and manufacturing sectors. Because employment data by firm size are not available from the Bureau of Statistics Employment Status Survey, we use data from the Ministry of Labor Survey of Employment Trend. Results from this survey of 15,000 randomly chosen establishments are published annually. Data on part-time workers have been collected since 1988 in this survey and refer to those working fewer hours per day or fewer days per week than regular workers. As with the surveys conducted by Japan’s Bureau of Statistics, the Survey of Employment Trend defines temporary workers as those on a contract of employ ment for a specified duration of at least 1 month but less than 1 year. If the duration of their contracts is less than 1 year, dispatched workers are counted as temporary workers. The scope of the survey is limited in several important Table 2. Distribution of nonregular workers in Japan by a g e and gender, 1992 respects. Workers with contracts lasting less than 1 month are not covered; as a result, the survey excludes day workers. The survey also excludes establishments with fewer than five regular employees. Finally, the survey excludes the agricul ture sector and some components of the service sector (house hold services, education, and government operations in for eign countries). Because of differences in the definition of parttime and temporary employment and differences in the sectoral coverage of the two surveys, the share of part-time and tempo rary employment reported in the Ministry of Labor Survey of Employment Trend is considerably less than that reported in the Bureau of Statistics Employment Status Survey.4 The Survey of Employment Trend shows that the use of part-time and temporary employment is common, regardless of firm size, particularly in trade and services. (See table 4.) In the aggregate economy, the incidence of part-time employ ment is greater in small firms than in large ones, while the incidence of temporary employment is quite similar across firm size. The correlation between the rate of part-time or temporary employment and firm size varies considerably across industries, however. For example, the rate of part-time employment and the rate of temporary employment decline substantially with firm size in manufacturing, while the rates of part-time employment and temporary employment gener ally increase with firm size in the wholesale and retail trade sector. [In percent] A ge and gender Part time Arubaito Temporary Dispatched and day Both sexes All ages.......................... 15-19 .......................... 20-29 .......................... 30-39 .......................... 40-49 .......................... 50-59 .......................... 60 and o ld e r............... 100.0 .7 8.1 20.3 37.8 22.7 10.5 100.0 21.3 43.6 9.2 9.3 6.4 10.2 100.0 7.5 19.9 14.7 23.8 18.4 15.7 100.0 1.8 45.4 25.8 14.1 6.1 6.1 5.5 .2 .6 .3 .4 .8 3.2 51.0 10.8 24.6 3.1 2.5 2.4 7.6 33.7 3.8 9.2 2.8 3.6 4.9 9.5 30.1 .6 11.7 5.5 3.7 3.1 4.9 94.5 .5 7.5 20.0 37.4 21.8 7.3 49.0 10.4 19.0 6.1 6.8 4.1 2.5 66.3 3.7 10.8 11.9 20.2 13.6 6.2 69.9 1.2 33.7 20.2 10.4 3.1 1.2 Men All ages.......................... 15-19 .......................... 20-29 .......................... 30-39 .......................... 40-49 ......................... 50-59 ......................... 60 and o ld e r............... Women All ages.......................... 15-19 ......................... 20-29 .......................... 30-39 .......................... 40-49 ......................... 50-59 .......................... 60 and o ld e r............... NOTE: Self-employed and family workers are excluded from the tabulations. For definitions of part-time, arubaito, temporary, day, and dispatched workers, see exhibit 1. SOURCE: Sòmuchó Tókeikyoku, Shugyòkózò Kihonchòsa hókoku (Bureau of Statistics, Employment Status Survey). https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Determinants of nonregular employment A combination of supply-side and demand-side factors and public policies explains the high incidence of part-time and temporary employment in Japan. As in the United States, parttime and temporary workers in Japan are disproportionately women. Because Japanese women typically have greater household and childcare responsibilities than men have, they often seek shorter hours or temporary assignments to balance demands on their time. The typical Japanese full-time, regu lar employee traditionally has worked substantially longer hours than his or her counterpart in other industrialized coun tries, although Japan’s hours of work have recently begun to fall.5 Even though a sizable minority of regular part-time em ployees work the same number of hours as do regular full time employees, most work shorter hours. In addition, regular, full-time employees in large compa nies often are expected to accept transfers involving geo graphic relocation. Thus, certain aspects of Japanese indus trial relations likely provide strong incentives for women to seek flexible forms of employment. Public policies in Japan provide further incentives in the form of tax breaks for married women to work in part-time or temporary jobs. Secondary household earners who make less than 1.3 million yen annually (about $13,000) do not have to Monthly Labor Review O ctober 1995 13 Employment in Japan pay income tax. In addition, they retain their “dependent” status and are eligible for some health insurance coverage under their spouse's plan and are entitled to receive some pen sion from the government. Moreover, the household head receives a dependent deduction from his taxable income and typically receives a family allowance from his employer. In 1989, family allowance payments averaged 14,000 yen per month (about $140) in large firms and 6,300 yen per month (about $63) in small firms. Thus, certain aspects of Japanese industrial relations and tax law provide incentives for many women to seek part-time and temporary rather than regular positions. Business surveys T ab le 3. Incidence of part-time and arubaito and temporary and d ay em ploym ent in Japan, by sector, 1982-92 [In percent] Sector 1992 1987 1992 Total: Part time and arubaito..................... Temporary and d a y .......................... 11.0 11.5 14.2 12.0 16.1 11.2 Agriculture: Part time and arubaito..................... Temporary and d a y .......................... 16.3 36.2 23.7 36.5 30.3 36.6 Fisheries: Part time and arubaito...................... Temporary and d a y ........................... 6.9 15.4 9.7 16.8 12.1 16.1 Construction: Part time and arubaito..................... Temporary and d a y .......................... 5.8 21.1 6.9 17.8 7.5 13.7 Manufacturing: Part time and arubaito..................... Temporary and d a y ........................... 11.4 9.9 14.4 9.9 14.3 8.3 Trade: Part time and arubaito..................... Temporary and d a y ........................... 19.4 13.9 25.2 15.6 28.1 14.6 Finance, insurance: Part time and arubaito..................... Temporary and d a y ........................... 3.9 3.7 5.6 4.7 7.4 4.7 Transportation, commuications: Part time and arubaito..................... Temporary and d a y ........................... 3.4 4.3 5.4 5.6 8.2 6.3 Utilities: Part time and arubaito..................... Temporary and d a y ........................... 2.3 4.3 2.5 4.5 2.8 3.8 Services: Part time and arubaito..................... Temporary and d a y .......................... 11.1 11.6 13.7 12.6 16.5 12.8 Public administration: Part time and arubaito...................... Temporary and d a y .......................... 3.4 6.7 3.5 6.6 4.6 7.3 NOTE: Self-employed and family workers are excluded from the tabulations. For definitions of part-time, arubaito, temporary, and day workers, see exhibit 1. S o u r c e : Somuchò Tbkeikyoku, Shùgyòkòzò Kihonchòsa hòkoku (Bureau of Statistics, Employment Status Survey ), various issues. 14 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis O ctober 1995 have provided some insights into the reasons Japanese compa nies hire nonregular workers. In the Survey on the Diversifica tion of Employment, conducted by the Ministry of Labor in 1988, company officials were asked if they expected to in crease the number of nonregular workers within 3 years of the survey and, if so, why. Reduction in cost was the most frequent reason cited for hiring more part-time workers and the second most frequent reason cited for hiring more temporary and day workers and dispatched workers. (See table 5.) The need to hire workers temporarily also was an important factor in companies’ deci sions to increase hiring in each of these categories of em ployment, and, perhaps not surprisingly, was the most fre quent reason given for increasing the hiring of temporary and day workers. Only for dispatched workers was the inability to find regular workers among the five most important rea sons cited for increasing the hiring of nonregular workers. By law, dispatched workers must possess special skills that companies have difficulty finding among regular workers. In sum, two principal reasons why Japanese companies say they hire nonregular workers is to lower labor costs and to hire workers on a temporary basis. With respect to the latter, a company may wish to hire part-time and temporary workers who can be dismissed more easily than regular workers to provide a buffer against fluctuations in demand. Labor costs. Labor costs associated with part-time and tem porary workers may be less than those of regular workers for several reasons. Under the nenko system, wages and promo tions are determined to a large degree by individuals’ tenure with the company. Although the wages of nonregular work ers and regular workers may not differ substantially for those with little or no tenure, wages for nonregular workers, who are not covered by the nenko system, do not increase with tenure, or at least do not increase at the same rate, as they do for regular workers. As a result, over time, a company may reduce labor costs by hiring part-time and temporary workers if the wage savings from hiring nonregular workers more than compensate for any higher productivity that regular workers may achieve.6 Part-time and temporary workers also gener ally receive fewer company-provided fringe benefits. In addition, Japanese employers are not subject to unem ployment insurance, pension, and health insurance payroll taxes on many part-time and temporary workers. The unem ployment insurance premium in Japan is 1.15 percent of wages, excluding bonuses. Japanese employers pay 0.75 per cent for unemployment insurance and employees pay 0.40 percent. Before 1989, employers were not required to pay unemployment insurance taxes on part-time workers. Under current law, employers must pay unemployment insurance taxes for part-time workers who work more than 20 but fewer than 30 hours per week, who are expected to work at least 1 T ab le 4. Part-time and temporary em ploym ent in Japan, by sector and firm size, 1993 [In percent] Number of em ployees Industry Total 1,000 and more 300-999 100-299 30-99 5-29 Part-time employment All industries.......................................................................... Manufacturing...................................................................... Transportation, public utilities, and communications.......... Trade..................................................................................... Finance, insurance, and real estate..................................... Services................................................................................ 11.5 10.4 5.0 20.0 5.3 12.6 9.5 2.9 2.3 30.7 7.6 12.2 8.5 7.2 5.3 14.0 1.8 6.7 12.0 10.5 3.0 20.0 5.2 13.9 13.6 14.9 6.2 22.1 10.2 13.8 13.0 17.3 4.2 15.9 10.4 15.2 5.7 4.0 4.7 6.9 4.1 7.2 5.4 3.0 2.8 12.9 2.8 8.1 5.8 3.7 1.8 10.6 2.6 4.7 4.4 3.5 2.3 4.1 5.3 6.7 5.6 3.3 5.2 8.8 5.9 6.2 5.7 6.4 4.2 1.3 9.0 6.9 Temporary employment All industries.......................................................................... Manufacturing...................................................................... Transportation, public utilities, and communications........... Trade..................................................................................... Finance, insurance, and real estate..................................... Services................................................................................ NOTE: Self-employed and family workers are excluded from the tabulations. For definitions of part-time and temporary employment, see exhibit 1. year, and who earn more than 900,000 yen per year (about $9,000), although the rate is less than that assessed for full-time workers. For all part-time employees who work 30 or more hours per week, employers must pay the unemployment insurance tax rate applicable to full-time workers. The payment for the public pension in Japan is 14.5 percent of wages, subject to a ceiling.7 As in the United States, half of the tax is paid by the employer and half by the employee. How ever, employers are not obligated to make these payments on part-time workers whose weekly work hours are less than threefourths of those of regular workers. A similar exclusion occurs for health insurance. Since 1961, everyone in Japan has been enrolled in some form of health insur ance, and paid employees generally are enrolled in company-pro vided health insurance plans. Employers and employees pay taxes on both wages and bonuses to finance health insurance. The tax on wages is 0.41 percent for employers and employees; the tax on bonuses is 0.3 percent for employers and 0.5 percent for employ ees.8 However, employers are not required to cover part-time work ers who work less than three-fourths of the weekly hours of regu lar workers. Employers are required to pay social security and health in surance taxes for temporary workers except for those who are day workers; those who are engaged in seasonal work; and, those who are hired in an establishment operating temporarily (the la bor contract must not exceed 6 months). Employers also are required to pay unemployment insurance for all who work more than three-quarters of the weekly work hours of regular workers, regardless of employment status. If dispatched workers are covered by social insurance schemes, the applicable taxes are paid by the temporary help agency and https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis SOURCE: Ròdósho, Koyo Doko Chosa hòkoku (Ministry of Labor, Survey of Employment Trend). not by the company contracting for their services. Data on the coverage of nonregular workers under vari ous social insurance schemes were collected in the Ministry of Labor 1988 Survey on the Diversification of Employ ment. Although data on nonregular workers were not col lected in this survey, data on workers who had been trans ferred to a subsidiary company were collected. The cover age of these so-called shukko workers is likely to be similar to that of regular workers. According to survey figures, 90 percent of shukko workers were covered by unemployment insurance, while only 37 percent of part-time workers, 63 percent of temporary workers, and 62 percent of dispatched workers were covered. Similarly, 93 percent of shukko workers, but just 37 percent of part-time workers, 59 per cent of temporary workers, and 56 percent of dispatched workers received health insurance through their employer. Coverage under the government’s mandatory pension scheme also was relatively low for nonregular workers: 36 percent of part-time workers, 54 percent of temporary work ers, and 55 percent of dispatched workers were covered by the pension scheme, compared with 92 percent of shukko workers. Nonregular workers as a buffer. In addition to saving wage, fringe benefit, and payroll tax costs, companies may hire part-time and temporary workers to increase employ ment flexibility. Medium-sized and large Japanese compa nies typically offer implicit guarantees of lifetime employ ment to regular workers. Moreover, Japanese courts have given these core workers fairly strong protection against layoff.9 Company personnel policies and court rulings have Monthly Labor Review O ctober 1995 15 Employment in Japan not given part-time workers the same degree of protection that full-time, regular workers have received. Except in rare cir cumstances, companies may easily terminate temporary and dispatched workers by not renewing their contracts. Although it is widely believed that part-time workers help buffer regular workers during recessions, the lack of time series data makes formal analysis of this issue difficult. Annual data on part-time employment from the Survey of Employment Trend have been published since 1978. These data show that, at the aggregate and sectoral levels, part-time employment was quite cyclically sensitive, falling relative to trend during the recessions of the early and mid-1980’s and the early 1990’s. This pattern supports the view that part-time workers have helped buffer regu lar workers during recessions. Data from the Bureau of Statistics Labor Force Survey pro vide more direct evidence on the use of temporary workers as a buffer in Japanese manufacturing. The Labor Force Survey breaks down employment for regular and temporary workers; temporary workers are defined as those employed on a defi nite contract for at least 1 month but less than 1 year. Temporary employment declined sharply in response to the large drop in output during the recession in the mid-1970’s and increased sharply during the subsequent recovery. In re sponse to the decline in output during the most recent reces sion, temporary employment again fell sharply. In contrast, regular employment displayed little fluctuation throughout the period. (See chart 1.) Econometric analysis presented in the Principal reasons for increasing nonregular employm ent am ong Japanese businesses expecting to hire more nonregular workers Percent reporting factor as important Reasons Part-time workers: Reduction in cost.................................................... Increase in business............................................... Simple task............................................................. Can respond to diversified work pattern................ Need workers temporarily....................................... 40.2 32.5 32.4 19.3 17.4 Temporary and day laborers: Need workers temporarily....................................... Reduction in cost.................................................... Increase in business............................................... Simple task............................................................. Can respond to diversified work pattern................ 32.6 32.1 23.4 23.3 14.8 Dispatched workers: Workers with needed skills can work immediately Reduction in cost.................................................. Need workers temporarily..................................... Increase in business............................................. Cannot hire regular workers................................. 34.1 33.4 24.8 21.0 19.2 NOTE: Data are percent of businesses responding that the reason was important in decision to hire nonregular employees. For definitions of part time, temporary, day and dispatch workers, see exhibit 1. SOURCE: Rodosho, Shugyo Keitai no Tayoka ni kansuru Jittai Chosa hokoku, 1988 (Ministry of Labor, Survey Results on the Diversification of Employment). 16 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis O ctober 1995 appendix shows that the implied responsiveness of temporary employment to changes in production is significantly greater than that of regular employment.10 Growth in part-time employment. As evident in table 3, the rate of part-time employment has increased significantly in recent years across a broad spectrum of industries. Somewhat surprisingly, because the vast majority of part-time workers are female, there has been little increase in the female labor force participation rate to fuel the growth in the rate of parttime employment. The Japanese female labor force participa tion rate has remained relatively constant since 1970, falling somewhat during the deep recession of the mid-1970’s and rising slightly since 1976. The female labor force participa tion rate in Japan in 1991 (50.7 percent) was barely higher than the rate in 1970 (49.8 percent).11 Although the supply of potential part-time workers has in creased only modestly in recent years, several economic de velopments have provided incentives to Japanese companies to increase their use of part-time workers. Many Japanese companies were hurt by their inability to shed excess workers during the severe recession in the mid-1970’s, and in subse quent years moved to increase their use of part-time workers, who could be more easily dismissed. The sharp appreciation of the yen has provided Japanese employers with additional incentives to hire part-time work ers. In 1970, the yen traded at 360 yen per dollar; in 1994, it traded at less than 100 yen per dollar. Between 1985 and 1986 alone, the yen appreciated by about one-third against the dollar, moving from 238.5 yen per dollar to 168.5 yen per dollar. This sharp appreciation sparked a recession in Japan, and placed considerable pressure on employers, particularly those in manufacturing, to lower labor costs. The aging of the Japanese work force also has put pres sure on Japanese employers to lower labor costs. Under the nenko system, workers’ pay and promotion depend greatly on their tenure. As the Japanese population has aged and economic growth has slowed, Japanese companies have be come saddled with large numbers of well-paid, middle-aged and older workers. The problem of an aging work force will not be alleviated soon. The number of people in their twen ties is expected to decline dramatically after 1995. Many Japanese analysts believe that recent cyclical vola tility, the appreciation of the yen, and the aging of the Japa nese work force have strained Japanese industrial relations practices of lifetime employment and of nenko wages and pro motions. One way companies have sought to increase labor flexibility and reduce labor costs, short of dismantling these traditional industrial relations practices, has been to hire more part-time workers, who are more easily dismissed during downturns, whose pay is not tied to seniority, and who gener ally are not eligible for promotion.12 Chart 1. Output, regular employment, and temporary employment In Japanese manufacturing, 1970-94 Index (1982= 100) Index (1982= 100) 160 160 140 140 120 120 100 100 80 80 60 60 O utput R e g u la r e m p lo ym e n t Tem porary e m p lo ym e n t 40 40 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 I n s u m , part-time and temporary workers account for a large and integral component of the Japanese work force. Because part-time and temporary positions allow workers to avoid committing to long hours and company transfers, these forms of employment have been attractive, particularly to women. At the same time, because these types of workers are not cov ered by industrial relations practices of nenko wages and pro motion and lifetime employment, Japanese firms have long had an incentive to hire some part-time and temporary work ers to reduce labor costs and increase employment flexibility. Government policies providing tax exemptions for part-time and temporary workers also are responsible for the large share of nonregular employees in the Japanese economy. The spectacu lar growth in part-time employment may partly reflect the need for further labor flexibility in Japanese companies due to recent cyclical volatility, the appreciation of the yen, and the aging of the Japanese work force. □ Footnotes 1 “Report on the Status of Part-Time Workers,” Japanese Ministry of Labor, 1990. 2 No information on usual hours worked is collected in the Bureau of Statistics Labor Force Survey. Therefore, this monthly survey cannot be https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 used to tabulate the number of workers who usually work fewer than 35 hours per week— the definition of part-time employment used in U.S. Government statistics. Adjustment to the U.S. concept of usually working fewer than 35 hours can be made based on Japan’s Bureau of Statistics Special Survey of the Labor Force taken each February. However, such adjusted data would still miss many Japanese workers who usually work 35 hours per week or more, but are classified as part time by their companies. 3 Although a high percentage of paid employees in agriculture work part time, fewer than 10 percent o f those working in agriculture are paid employees. The rest are counted as self-employed or family workers in official statistics. 4 Although the rates of part-time and temporary employment differ across the two surveys, data from the surveys depict similar trends in parttime and temporary employment. 5 Comparisons of working time in Japan, the United States, and Germany may be found in Takatoshi Ito, The J a p a n e s e E c o n o m y (Cambridge, m a , m it Press, 1992), pp. 228-31. See J a p a n L a b o r B u lle tin , Jan. 1, 1995, for a discussion of declining working time in Japan. 6 We used microdata on married female workers to examine differences in the earnings of part-time, temporary, and full-time workers. This analysis showed that part-time and temporary workers earn significantly less than do full-time workers, even after controlling for differences in individual and job characteristics. Details are available from the authors. 7 There are two types of pensions in Japan: the national pension (kokumin nenkin) and a company-based pension (kosei nenkin). The former provides a set amount of pension to everyone (about 50,000 yen, or $500, a month). The latter varies with an individual’s contribution to the plan. All companies must pay taxes on qualified employees for the kokumin nenkin portion of the pension. For the kosei nenkin portion of the pension, Japan has a “pay or play” system of coverage in which companies contribute to a mandatory government program Monthly Labor Review O ctober 1995 17 Employment in Japan or establish their own pension that must be at least as generous as the government pension. For a description of the Japanese pension system, see Noriyasu Watanabe, John Turner, and David Rajnes, ‘“Pay or Play’ Pensions in Japan,” C o n tin g en cie s, November/December 1994, pp. 63-65. 8 Taxable wages are limited to 980,000 yen, or about $9,800, a month. 9 For discussions of legal restrictions on dismissal, see Yasuhiko Matsuda, “Job Security in Japan,” in Kazutoshi Koshiro, ed., E m p lo y m e n t S e c u r ity a n d L a b o r M a r k e t F le x ib ility : A n I n te r n a tio n a l P e r s p e c tiv e (Detroit, Mi, Wayne State University Press, 1992), pp. 183-95; and Johannes Schregle, “Dismissal Protection in Japan,” I n te r n a tio n a l L a b o u r R e v ie w , 1993, pp. 507-20. 10 Using data from the Bureau of Statistics Labor Force Survey, we also examined the relationship between movements in the employment of those working fewer than 35 hours per week and movements in output. As in the United States, the movement of part-time employment defined in this way is strongly countercyclical, increasing during downturns and falling during upturns. This pattern is probably observed because many workers who have APPENDIX: Estimates of elasticities To more formally examine the adjustment o f regular and temporary em ploym ent to fluctuations in manufacturing output, we estimated the follow ing finite distributed lag model: 4 In E i- oc + X P , I n P t - i + Qt + Q t 2 + e, i=0 1 2 where E is em ploym ent o f either regular or temporary workers, P is production, t and t2 are time trend terms, and e is the error term. Because the em ploym ent series were quite noisy, we aggregated the monthly data to quarterly. In the model, changes in production may affect em ploym ent with a lag o f up to four quarters and because the model is estimated in logarithms, the P 's represent estimates o f the elasticity o f em ploym ent with respect to changes in output. The sum of and for example, is the one-quarter employment-output elasticity estimate. The sum o f P 0 to P 4 is the four-quarter elasticity estimate. A ll data were seasonally adjusted and equations were corrected for first-order autocorrelation. Table A - 1 presents current-quarter, one-quarter, and four-quarter P0 P T ab le A - l . em ployment elasticity estim ates for regular and temporary workers. Elasticity estimates are also given for male regular and temporary workers and female regular and temporary workers. The point estimates show that the adjustment o f temporary employment to demand changes is much greater than that o f regular employment, even out to four quarters. For example, the estimated current-quarter em ployment elasticity for regular workers is 0.060, while that for temporary workers is 0.710. The estimated four-quarter employment elasticity for regular workers is only 0.349, while that for temporary workers is 1.396. To determine the statistical significance o f these differences, we estimated constrained and unconstrained versions o f the model for regular and temporary workers using seemingly unrelated regression techniques. This approach enabled us to construct chi-squared statistics for hypothesis testing. Although the standard errors o f the point estimates are often large, the differences between the employment elasticity estimates for regular and temporary workers are significant at the 5-percent level for all time horizons. Estimates o f the adjustment o f male regular and temporary employment and o f female regular and temporary employment produce qualitatively similar results. Employment adjustment of regular versus temporary workers in Japan: estimated employment-output elasticities, manufacturing, 1970-94 Type of worker Regular.................................. Temporary.............................. Male, regular........................ Male, temporary................... Female, regular.................... Female, temporary............... Current quarter ’.060 .710 .013 -.000 '.200 .949 (.095) (.320) (.102) (.692) (.162) (.273) 'Elasticity estimates for regular and temporary workers are significantly different at the .05 level. 18 regular employment status are placed on short hours during recessions and are counted as part-time workers under this definition. 11 The figures on female labor force participation rates in Japan are from the Japanese Bureau of Statistics, Labor Force Survey. In the United States, female labor force participation rose steadily, from 43.3 percent in 1970 to 57.4 percent in 1991. 12 For a discussion of these issues, see Alice C. L. Lam, W om en a n d J a p a n e s e M a n a g e m e n t: D is c r im in a tio n a n d R e fo rm (London, Routledge, 1992); Machiko Osawa, “Keizai Henka to Joshi Rodo,” [E c o n o m ic C h a n g e a n d W om en W orkers: A U .S .-J a p a n C o m p a r is o n ] (Tokyo, Nihon Keizai Hyoronsha, 1993); Atsushi Seike, “Recent Employment Situation and LongTerm Structural Change,” J a p a n L a b o r B u lle tin , Jan. 1, 1994, pp. 5-8; and Hiroki Sato, “Employment Adjustment of Middle-Aged and Older WhiteCollar Workers,” J a p a n L a b o r B u lle tin , Feb. 1, 1994, pp. 5-8. We include further discussion and presentation of evidence on the causes of the growth in part-time employment in Japan in our report, P a r t-T im e a n d T e m p o ra ry E m p lo y m e n t in J a p a n : A C o m p a r is o n w ith th e U n ite d S ta te s , prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, 1994. Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis O ctober 1995 Four quarters One quarter ‘.145 1.837 '.071 2.648 ‘.249 1.567 (.102) (.332) (.107) (.700) (.176) (.293) L349 1.396 '.250 2.003 '.558 1.223 Note : Standard errors are reported in parentheses, (.095) (.261) (.089) (.263) (.177) (.278) Unemployment Measures BLS introduces new range of alternative unemployment measures Some of the original b l s unemployment indicators, U -l through U-7, have been retained as part of the new range, U -l through U-6; several new measures make use of data heretofore unavailable from the c p s John E. Bregger and Steven E. Haugen John E. Bregger recently retired from his position of Assistant Commissioner for Current Employment Analysis, and Steven E. Haugen is an economist in the Division of Labor Force Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis n 1994, the Current Population Survey (CPS) introduced a totally revamped question naire and modernized data collection system. The principal aim of this redesign was to obtain more accurate and reliable information on the labor force activities of the population. For the most part, the basic concepts and definitions used in the measurement of employment and unem ployment remained intact. Some labor market measures, however, were fundamentally altered, either because of definitional changes or because of improved measurement of existing concepts. At the same time, several new data series were created from additional information collected in the new survey.1 The redesign of the survey and associated changes in the measurement of certain labor mar ket concepts required changes in the publication of some c p s data. In particular, publication of the range of unemployment measures based on vary ing definitions of unemployment and the labor force, better known as the alternative unemploy ment indicators, U -l through U-7, was tempo rarily suspended, pending research into the effects of the new survey on these measures and into the possibility of modifying the range by using newly collected data. This article provides a brief history of the old range of alternative m easures, U - l through U-7, and reviews the impact of the redesigned CPS on the pre-1994 series. Its principal purpose is to introduce a new set of measures. The revised set includes several of the former measures, but some important new ones are presented that take advantage of fresh data collected in the redesigned survey. I Why a range of measures? The measurement of unemployment was not markedly changed in the redesigned CPS } Indeed, since the inception of the survey in 1940, only relatively minor changes have been made to the official definition of unemployment, despite numerous outside reviews and ongoing assess ments by academicians, business and labor organizations, and various advocacy groups.3 The official measure has withstood the test of time largely because of its objectivity. As measured via the CPS, the employment status of individuals is determined solely by their work-related and jobsearch activities during a specific reference week. In essence, persons who did any work at all during the reference week are counted as employed, while those who did no work, but who searched for a job (sometime in the 4 weeks prior to the survey) and were currently available to take one had it been offered, are classified as unemployed. Those who met neither test are “not in the labor force.” The inherent objectivity of the official meas ure also explains, in part, why it and other such statistics are occasionally subject to criticism. Without question, the consequences of unem ployment are more serious for some workers than for others, and some users would like to have a more narrowly targeted measure. At the other end of the spectrum, there are those who feel that the official statistics understate the full di mensions of the unemployment problem.4 This view holds that any measure of joblessness should reflect not only those officially classified as unemployed, but also all persons who want to work, even if they are not actually looking for Monthly Labor Review O ctober 1995 19 Unemployment Measures jobs on a current basis. Some go even further, arguing for the inclusion of underemployed individuals—those who are working, but who have had their hours cut back or who have had to settle for less work than they wanted (a 1-day job, for example) or for a job that failed to make use of all their skills. More fundamentally, because unemployment statistics are used for different purposes, the official concept and meas urement may not perfectly suit the needs or interests of all people. Most analysts monitor unemployment because of its role as a cyclical indicator, a measure to be used to gauge current economic conditions and provide some insight into future economic performance. In this role, the measurement of unemployment represents the degree to which available labor resources are not being utilized in the economy. But even though there is broad support for the official statistics when used in this capacity,5 different interpretations of what is meant by “available labor resources” and “efficient utili zation” remain, so some users find the need for a variety of measures. As an example of these perceived limitations, some look upon unemployment data as measures of economic hard ship— that is, as counts of the number of persons who are suffering because their most basic economic needs are not being met. It turns out that unemployment statistics in and of themselves are not particularly useful for this purpose, in large part because, ideally, the measurement of economic hardship requires information on income, and hardship is usually perceived as a family rather than an individual con dition.6 This complexity notwithstanding, some users tend to associate specific types of joblessness with given levels of hardship and therefore focus their attention on either selected worker groups, on the one hand, or a broader array of groups, on the other. U -l through U-7 The recognition of the diversity in the uses of unemploy ment data led Julius Shiskin, former Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, to formulate and introduce the range of labor market measures U -l through U-7 (similar to the Federal Reserve series of money supply measures) in 1976. Pointing out that “no single way of measuring unem ployment can satisfy all analytical or ideological interests,”7 Shiskin designed a range of unemployment indicators to ac commodate many different needs for the data. Most of the measures presented were simply existing data series that cap tured different characteristics of unemployment, but two were constructed through the combination of several series. Shiskin made it quite clear that neither he nor the Bureau was embracing any of the value judgments inherent in the selection of alternative measures, but rather that the meas 20 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis O ctober 1995 ures were being presented simply as a variety of unemploy ment indicators that recognized varying views on who should be classified as unemployed. Shiskin’s measures are presented in exhibit 1, using 1993 annual averages. The measures are ranked from the most re strictive (U -l), which excludes many persons who would be classified as unemployed in the official measure (U-5), to the broadest definition (U-7), which adds certain groups to the official estimate. Each measure is expressed as a percentage— that is, the proportion—of an associated labor force. In all of the measures except U -l and U-2, each percentage is con structed as an unemployment rate. U -l and U-2 are not unem ployment rates per se, but represent specific types of jobless ness as a share of the entire labor force. The first four measures were predicated on the assump tion that selected subsets of persons officially classified as unemployed experience more hardship (loss of income) than tE B E S ii Range of unem ploym ent measures based on varying definitions of unemployment and the labor force (the Shiskin group) [1993 annual averages] Measure Percent U -l Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force.......................................... 2.4 U-2 Job losers, as a percent of the civilian labor force.... 3.7 U-3 Unemployed persons aged 25 and older, as a percent of the civilian labor force aged 25 and older (the unemployment rate for persons 25 years and older)........... 5.6 U-4 Unemployed persons seeking full-time jobs, as a percent of the full-time labor force (the unemploy ment rate for full-time workers)........................................... 6.5 U-5 Total unemployed persons, as a percent of the civilian labor force (the official unemployment rate).......... 6.8 U -6 Total persons seeking full-time jobs, plus one-half of persons seeking part-time jobs, plus one-half of persons employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force less one-half of the part-time labor force................................................... 9.3 U-7 Total persons seeking full-time jobs, plus one-half of persons seeking part-time jobs, plus one-half of persons employed part time for economic reasons, plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers less one-half of the part-time labor force................................... 10.2 others and should therefore warrant more attention. The first measure, U -l, was based on the duration of unemployment: the number of persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer as a percent of the civilian labor force. Its inclusion rested on the premise that unemployment should be counted only if it lasted long enough to cause severe financial loss and that any income lost from shorter spells could be readily made up from savings, unemployment insurance, or other sources. The selection of the 15-week threshold was in keeping with the informal identification of 15 weeks and longer as “long term unemployment.” Shiskin’s second indicator, U-2, was the number of un employed job losers, as a percent of the civilian labor force. He assumed that an involuntary (and likely unexpected) job loss entails a larger loss of income than does unemployment that occurs for other reasons, such as a job search initiated because a person has quit his or her current job to look for a better one or because the person recently has entered (or re entered) the job market. The third measure, U-3, originally comprised unemployed heads of households and was expressed as a percentage of all heads of households in the labor force—that is, the unemploy ment rate for household heads. The selection of this measure was based on the belief that unemployment affecting the prin cipal earner in a family was a serious matter and potentially a source of substantial hardship for the entire family, while a job loss among other workers might be associated with less dire consequences. Shortly after the initial formulation of the range of measures U -l through U-7, however, publication of data on heads of households—mostly identified in the survey as the male in the household—was discontinued. In 1978, U-3 was redefined as the unemployment rate for persons aged 25 and older, eliminating the gender bias in the original measure and still restricting, for all practical purposes, the universe to those persons most likely to be supporting households. Alternative indicator U -4 was the number of unemployed persons seeking full-time jobs, as a percent of the full-time labor force. This measure was included because it was felt that full-time workers were more likely to be primary earners than were those who worked part time. Hence, the conse quences of unemployment for full-time workers who became unemployed could be viewed as more adverse than for parttimers. The official unemployment rate was U-5. This measure was recognized as an objective assessment of the underutilization of labor resources, in that it included all persons 16 years and older who were not working, but were available for work and actively seeking employment, taken as a percent of the labor force (the employed plus the unemployed). Thus, unlike U -l through U-4, U-5 excludes no one for any personal or eco nomic reason. Beginning in 1983 and extending through 1993, U-5 was https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis expanded into two measures, with the introduction of the resident Armed Forces (those stationed in the United States) into some of the official labor force estimates. The expan sion came about as a result of a recommendation from the National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics that the resident Armed Forces be included in na tional labor force statistics, “because similarities between civilian and military employment outweigh their differ ences.”8 This resulted in official rates U-5a, which in 1983 included some 1.7 million members of the Armed Forces as employed and thus in the labor force base (the denominator of the measure), and U-5b, the civilian worker rate. Typi cally, U-5a was one-tenth of a percentage point lower than U-5b. It soon became apparent that the press and public were unimpressed, and even confused, by the distinctions between the two measures; many people thought that mem bers of the military were suddenly being counted as unem ployed, for instance. Ultimately, publication of the measures incorporating the resident Armed Forces was dropped else where, but U-5a continued to be presented in the monthly news release, The Employment Situation, along with the other measures, until the entire series was suspended at the end of 1993. The last two measures in the list of alternative unemploy ment indicators excluded a portion of certain groups counted as unemployed in the preceding measures, but added a greater number of persons from the other employment status categories. Hence, these measures included a larger segment of the population among the unemployed than the official figure did, thereby producing higher “unemployment” rates. lternative measure U -6 added involuntary part-time workers to the unemployed and also introduced the no tion of weighting workers. U -6 defined the unemployed as all persons seeking full-time jobs, plus one-half of all per sons seeking part-time jobs, plus one-half of all persons at work part time involuntarily. Underlying this measure was the argument that those persons who had to settle for a parttime job or whose full-time schedules had been cut back to part time should be considered unemployed. (The propor tion one-half was chosen because part-timers work, on aver age, about half as long per week as full-timers.) Also, per sons who were looking for part-time work were given half weight among the unemployed, as those voluntarily work ing part time put in about half as many hours as full-time workers. In order to express this measure in a way that was conceptually similar to the unemployment rate, the denomi nator of U -6 was defined as the civilian labor force less onehalf of the part-time labor force. This construction also put the measure on essentially a full-time equivalent basis. The last of Shiskin’s measures, U-7, built on U-6 by add ing the number of discouraged workers to both the numera- A Monthly Labor Review O ctober 1995 21 Unemployment Measures Chart 1. Alternative unemployment indications, U -l through U-7, seasonally adjusted quarterly averages, 1948-93 Percent Percent 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 tor and denominator.9 Shiskin assumed that people classi fied as discouraged workers—those who wanted work, but who were not currently looking because they believed that their search would be futile10—very much resembled the unemployed and therefore should be counted as such. (Be cause these persons were not looking for work at the time of the survey, they were officially classified as not in the labor force.) Over the years, the possibility of counting this group as unemployed has been broached; indeed, an important minority of the last presidentially appointed commission to examine the concepts of employment and unemployment supported the notion of including a redefined measure of discouragement in the count of the unemployed.11 Note that, whereas U -6 and U-7 had a certain additivity with U-5, this was not the case for U-5 with respect to U -l through U-4. The “lower four” measures were totally inde pendent, not only of one another, but also of the official mea sure. This may have created some confusion, but it served to emphasize the variability in the uses of these measures. U -l through U-7 prior to the redesign The Bureau began regular publication of data on the range of alternative unemployment measures U -l through U-7 in 22 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis O ctober 1995 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 The Employment Situation in January 1977. Since then, the most popular of the measures among both researchers and the media, other than the official unemployment rate (U-5), has been U-7, the highest numerically.12 The Bureau generally did not use the range U -l through U-7 in its analyses, nor has there been much in the way of published research using it outside the Bureau. Aside from the fact that the proper focus is on the official statistics, it is impor tant to note that there is little “value added” analytically in tracking the alternative measures over time. While it is true that each indicator provides a different point estimate of “un employment,” all seven measures have essentially moved in lockstep across the business cycle. (See chart 1.) Many of the individual labor force measures reflected in the range U -l through U-7 have, however, been routinely examined in The Employment Situation and have frequently been the subject of more indepth study. Also, several of the component series contained in the range have evidenced meaningful long-term trends—such as the upward trend in the incidence of involuntary part-time employment—but these developments typically have been analyzed quite ef fectively outside the U -l through U-7 framework. Several other countries have introduced their own ranges of alternative unemployment indicators. Canada, for example, 133in SUM R anae of alternative m e a sures of u n em p lo y m e n t a n d other forms of labor resource underutilization [1994 annual averages] M e a s u re P ercen t U -l Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force......................................... 2.2 U -2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor fo rce......................... 2.9 U-3 Total unemployed persons, as a percent of the civilian labor force (the official unemployment rate)......................................................................................... 6.1 U^t Total unemployed persons plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers...................................................... 6.5 U-5 Total unemployed persons, plus discouraged workers, plus all other “marginally attached” workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all “marginally attached” workers................................ 7.4 U -6 Total unemployed persons, plus all “marginally attached” workers, plus all persons employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all “marginally attached” workers................................................................................... The new set: U -l through U-6 10.9 publishes a range that is roughly comparable to the United States’, while Mexico has developed perhaps the broadest range of indicators, with several measures linking employ ment status with levels of compensation.13 The Bureau has compiled data that have facilitated international compari sons of the range of indicators U -l through U-7 across nine foreign countries.14 Im pact of the redesign on the measures The 1994 redesign had an impact on the data derived from the CPS, and hence the series used in the range U -l through U-7, in two ways: first, a number of changes made to the questionnaire and overall survey methodology affected the measurement of employment, unemployment, and persons not in the labor force; and second, several definitional changes were introduced. (The appendix gives a more complete discussion of the effects of the redesign on the indicators.) As regards measurement, the most significant change oc curred in estimating the number of persons classified as employed part time for economic reasons. The figure was https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis sharply lower under the redesigned survey, as respondents were explicitly asked about their desire and availability for full-time work. In the past, this information was inferred indirectly from other survey questions. The most substantive definitional change concerned persons classified as discouraged workers. Considerable tightening of the requirements for discouraged worker status reduced the number of persons so classified by about half. Estimates of the duration of unemployment, the number of job losers, and the number of unemployed persons seeking full-time jobs also were affected to varying degrees by the questionnaire and other changes in the redesigned CPS. The redesigned CPS provides new, as well as more de tailed, information on the employment status of individuals, particularly persons classified as not in the labor force. First, more extensive questions on the reasons people do not enter the labor market permit a greater understanding of the fac tors that limit labor market participation for some individu als. In addition, all respondents in the survey classified as not in the labor force are now queried about their desire and availability for work; in the past, these questions were asked of just a quarter of the monthly sample. As a result, esti mates of the number of discouraged workers are now made on a monthly, rather than quarterly, basis (although season ally adjusted data are not yet available). After evaluating the impact of the redesigned CPS on the original range of alternative unemployment measures and assessing how newly collected data could be used to con struct fresh measures that might be more relevant for today’s data users, the Bureau has developed a modified range of alternative indicators. Annual averages for 1994 for the new range, entitled “alternative measures of unemployment and other forms of labor resource underutilization,” are presented in exhibit 2. The change in the title suggests a slightly dif ferent emphasis and interpretation of the measures. Rather than implying a range of unemployment definitions, these indicators focus on different types of joblessness or incorpo rate different measures of labor resource underutilization. Several of Shiskin’s original measures have been re tained. U -l and U -2 are conceptually and definitionally identical to the first two measures in the original range, although the aforementioned survey changes have led to small “breaks in series.” Other things being equal, U -l, the percent of the labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer, is slightly higher under the redesigned survey than in the past, while U-2, the percent of the labor force that is unemployed because persons lost their last jobs or were in temporary jobs that ended, is slightly lower. These concepts are still relevant today, and it seemed reasonable to retain Monthly Labor Review O ctober 1995 23 Unemployment Measures the measures, particularly because there have been recent shifts in the unemployment picture in terms of the duration of and reasons for unemployment.15 The official unemployment rate is now U-3. The original indicators U-3 and U-4 are no longer included in the new range of alternative measures, in part because one reflected a personal (U-3, persons 25 years and older) rather than an economic characteristic, and more importantly, because both brought in the notion of reduced labor force bases.16 The new indicators U -4 through U -6 are markedly different from their counterparts in the original range of alternative unemployment measures. U -4 is the number of unemployed persons plus persons classified as discouraged workers, taken as a percent of the labor force plus discouraged workers. In order to be classified as discouraged in the redesigned survey, persons must explicitly want and be available for work and have searched for work in the prior year, even though they are not currently looking for a job because they feel their search would be in vain. The inclusion of U-4 coincides with the views of those who support a definition of unemployment that incorporates labor market discouragement. U-5 adds other “marginally attached” workers to U-4, with the denominator being the civilian labor force plus all “marginally attached” workers.17 This measure, using data not available prior to 1994, adds to the unemployed all persons who want and are available for a job and have re cently searched for work, regardless of their reason for not currently looking. Hence, it includes those who are not currently looking for work for reasons such as child-care or transportation problems. While these persons may not be as closely attached to the labor market as are discouraged workers, they do represent potential labor resources, in the sense that they have recent job search activity and are currently interested in reentering the job market under certain conditions. The highest alternative indicator, U -6, represents the number o f unem ployed persons, plus all “m arginally attached” workers, plus all persons working part time for economic reasons, as a percent of a labor force augmented to include “marginally attached” workers. This is the most comprehensive of the new range of alternative measures, effectively treating workers who are visibly underemployed and all persons who are “marginally attached” to the labor force equally with the unemployed. Hence, U—6 provides the largest conceptual break with the official measure of unemployment; it is expected to be useful to those who want a single measure to represent a general view of the degree to which existing and potential labor resources are not being utilized. As described earlier, the highest two of Shiskin’s meas ures were calculated on essentially a full-time equivalent basis, in which full-time workers and persons seeking full time jobs were treated as whole persons and persons working part time for economic reasons and those seeking part-time jobs, as well as the part-time labor force, were given half weights. This weighting was discontinued in the new U-6, principally in the interest of simplicity. Persons using the original higher level m easures were confused by the weighting and, indeed, often rejected those measures in favor of unweighted estimates. For certain purposes, however, weighting has benefits, and certain individuals may wish to continue using some form of the old U -6 and U -7 measures.18 h e b l s a l t e r n a t i v e u n e m p l o y m e n t m e a s u r e s have had some degree of popularity ever since their introduction, both in the United States and in other countries that use them (or varia tions thereof). As mentioned earlier, however, where there is interest, it has tended to be fairly narrow. That is, people who use the measures appear to limit their use to a contrast between the official measure of unemployment (in the current scheme, U-3) and the highest available measure (U-6). One does not hear much about any of the other alternative measures, either below the official unemployment rate or above it, until the top is reached. It is for this reason, in addition to the others men tioned earlier, that the new set of alternative measures is more circumscribed below the official unemployment rate. At the upper end, one additional measure is featured, and it comes about solely because of the introduction in 1994 of additional information on persons not in the labor force into monthly data collection in the c p s . The Bureau of Labor Statistics believes that the range U -l through U-6 represents a useful, though by no means fully comprehensive, set of alternative measures of unemployment and labor market underutilization. Users will want to examine this set and perhaps create some sets of their own. Indeed, the Bureau encourages such efforts. In the meantime, the new al ternative measures will be published in The Employment Situ ation beginning early in 1996.19 rn T Footnotes___________ 1 For information on the redesigned cps, see Sharon R. Cohany, Anne E. Polivka, and Jennifer M. Rothgeb, “Revisions in the Current Population Sur vey Effective January 1994,” E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s , February 1994, pp. 2 Definitionally, it was not changed at all, except for the elimination of a small group of persons, namely, those who volunteered the information that 24 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 they were waiting to start a new job within 30 days, most of whom undoubt edly meet the jobseeking tests in any case. There were, however, changes in the wording of nearly all the questions—particularly as regards persons on lay off—that affected the underlying data in limited ways. See Cohany, Polivka, and Rothgeb, “Revisions in the Current Population Survey.” 3 For a summary of the development of employment and unemployment statistics in the United States, and a review o f those statistics, see John E. Bregger, “Establishment o f a new Employment Statistics Review Commission,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v i e w , March 1977, pp. 14-20; and Steven E. Haugen and John E. Bregger, “Employment and un employment,” in Douglas Greenwald, ed., M c G r a w - H i l l E n c y c lo p e d ia o f E c o n o m ic s , 1994, pp. 345-53. 4 See, for example, “Understating Unemployment,” W ash in gto n November 1992, pp. 35-36. J o u r n a l is m R e v ie w , 5 S e e M e a s u r in g E m p lo y m e n t a n d U n e m p lo y m e n t (President’s Committee to Appraise Employment and Unemployment Statistics, 1962); and C o u n tin g th e L a b o r F o rc e (National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics, Labor Day 1979). 6There is widespread agreement that persons with incomes below the official poverty threshold, who are generally defined as “poor,” experience hardship. The hardship endured by those living in families is often gauged by looking at family income and relating it to the poverty threshold for a family of a given size, where the threshold has been adjusted for the assumption that family resources are shared. In the case of unrelated individuals, individual-level income figures and their associated poverty thresholds must be used. Estimates of the number of persons and families with poverty-level incomes are produced by the Census Bureau and published in their annual Series P-60 and P-70 reports. In addition, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates the number of poor persons with work experience. See, for example, A P ro file o f th e W orkin g P oor, 1 9 9 3 , Report 896 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, July 1995). 7 Julius Shiskin, “Employment and unemployment: the doughnut or the hole?” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , February 1976, pp. 3-10; quote on p. 4 . 8 C o u n tin g th e L a b o r F o rce, p. 49. The Bureau began to phase out publica tion of the labor force series that included the resident Armed Forces in June 1991, coincidently with the military buildup associated with the Persian Gulf conflict, because of limitations in the availability and reliability of the data. 9 Note that data on discouragement were published only on a quarterly basis over the 1967-93 period. The series was therefore placed last in the sequence, in order to have only one quarterly measure; otherwise, in all likelihood, U-6 would have been unemployment plus discouragement, and U-7 would have introduced involuntary part-time workers. !0 As will be discussed later, the definition of discouraged workers was changed in the redesigned cps introduced in January 1994. For further infor mation, see the appendix. 11 C o u n tin g th e L a b o r F o rc e , p. 56. 12 Some analysts modified U-7 by adding«// involuntary part-time workers to the unemployed and discouraged worker to ta ls , an approach that, in 1993, added roughly 4 million workers to the numerator of U-7 and raised the rate by about 2-1 /2 percentage points. >3For a description of Canada’s alternative measures of unemployment, see Mary Sue Devereaux, “Alternative measures of unemployment,” P e r s p e c tiv e s on L a b o u r a n d I n co m e, Winter 1992, pp. 35-43. For information on the range of labor underutilization rates for Mexico, see Susan Fleck and Constance Sorrentino, “Employment and unemployment in Mexico’s labor force,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , November 1994, pp. 3-31. 14 Constance Sorrentino, “International unemployment indicators, 1983— 93,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , August 1995, pp. 31-50. 15 The share of the unemployed who have been jobless for extended periods of time has remained intractably high in recent years, and there also have been shifts in the number and composition of job losers. For a discussion of these developments, see “Recent Job Losers Less Likely to Expect Recall,” Issu e s in L a b o r S ta tis tic s , Summary 92-8, July 1992; and “Long-term Unemploy ment Remains High During Recovery,” I ssu e s in L a b o r S ta tis tic s , Summary 95-11, September 1995. 16 The original indicators U -3 and U -4, the unemployment rates for persons aged 25 and older and for persons seeking full-time jobs, respec tively, were dropped from the range of alternative indicators because they focused more on the personal characteristics o f unemployed workers than on a specific type of unemployment or underemployment or on types of individuals. Moreover, a troubling, inconsistent feature of the original range was that the upward progression in the size of the numerator (the number of unemployed workers, variously defined) was accompanied in measures U -3 and U -4 by a d im in u tio n in the size of the denominator (the labor force). The new range, U -l through U -6, is more consistent in this area, in that the same base (the civilian labor force) is used in mea sures U - l through U -3, and the base is then augmented in U -4 through U -6 as the labor resource characteristics under consideration are broad ened. It should be noted that, although the original U -3 and U -4 series are not included in the new range, they are regularly published in T h e E m p lo y m e n t S itu a tio n . 17 “Marginally attached” workers are persons who want a job, are explicitly available for work, and have looked for work sometime in the prior year, but are not currently looking. This subcategory of persons classified as not in the labor force includes discouraged workers (persons who have given a job-mar ket-related reason for not currently looking for work), as well as those persons who have given other reasons for not looking. 18 The Bureau can produce a version of the original U-6 on a weighted basis for interested users. 19 As currently envisioned, alternative indicators U -l through U-3 will be published on both an unadjusted and a seasonally adjusted basis, while indica tors U-4 through U-6 will be available on an unadjusted basis only, until suf ficient data have been collected to produce a reliable seasonally adjusted series for discouraged and other “marginally attached” workers. APPENDIX: Im p a c t of the cps redesign on the original indicators, U -l through U-7 A totally redesigned Current Population Survey ( cps) was im ple mented in January 1994, the first major m odification to the survey since 1967. Although the alterations to labor force concepts were in general quite limited (the major exception being the substantial redefinition o f discouraged workers), the introduction o f a rede signed questionnaire and modernized survey m ethodology had a marked effect on many labor force measures. Altogether, these changes led to a number o f incomparabilities in various series be tween 1994 and earlier years. The impact o f the changes on the original range o f alternative indicators, U - l through U -7 , varied significantly and is summarized in what fo llo w s.1 new survey methodology. This effect is likely related to provisions that allow more flexibility in reporting the duration o f unem ploy m ent— respondents can now report duration in either w eek s, months, or years, versus only w eeks under the old questionnaire— and to the introduction o f dependent interviewing in the measure ment o f unem ploym ent duration in the redesigned survey.2 The denominator in U - l , the civilian labor force, was also somewhat higher in the redesigned survey than under the old cps , due to in creases in overall levels o f unemployment and employment. The net impact on U - l , other things remaining equal, is a slightly higher percentage o f the labor force that falls under the category o f long term unemployed. E ffe c ts o n in d i c a to r U - l , th e n u m b e r o f p e r s o n s u n e m p lo y e d 1 5 Both the numerator and denominator o f U - l were affected by the redesign o f the cps . The duration o f unemployment generally rose under the w e e k s o r lo n g e r , a s a p e r c e n t o f th e c i v i l i a n l a b o r f o r c e . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis E f f e c t s o n i n d i c a t o r U - 2 , th e n u m b e r o f j o b l o s e r s , a s a p e r c e n t o f The number o f unemployed persons clas sified as job losers— including persons on layoff who expect recall, th e c i v i l i a n l a b o r f o r c e . Monthly Labor Review O ctober 1995 25 Unemployment Measures as w ell as the newly identified category o f persons whose temporary jobs have ended— was som ewhat higher under the old survey questionnaire and m ethodology than with the redesigned survey. Research to date has not reached any definitive conclusions as to the cause o f this decline, but it seem s to be related to the combined effects o f various changes in wording in the new questionnaire. The net result, which includes the slightly higher labor force level men tioned above, is a low er proportion o f ind ividu als fallin g under U -2 in the redesigned cps than under the pre-1994 survey. E ffe c ts o n in d i c a to r U - 3 , th e n u m b e r o f u n e m p lo y e d p e r s o n s a g e d 2 5 a n d o ld e r , a s a p e r c e n t o f t h e c i v i l i a n l a b o r f o r c e a g e d 2 5 a n d The number o f unemployed adults was slightly lower under the old sur vey than with the redesigned cps , but the adult labor force expanded by about the same proportion; as a result, the overall impact o f the redesigned survey on the unemployment rate for persons aged 25 and older was minimal. o l d e r ( th e u n e m p l o y m e n t r a t e f o r p e r s o n s a g e d 2 5 a n d o l d e r ) . edly affected by changes in the measurement o f persons working part time even though they would have preferred full-time em ploy ment. Such persons are defined as those who want and are available for full-time work, but who have had to settle for part-time em ploy ment because their hours were cut back or because they could not find full-time jobs (the main two reasons). Prior to the redesign, information on a person’s desire and availability for full-tim e work was inferred from his or her responses to a question on reasons for working less than 35 hours a week. Under the redesigned survey, persons who usually work part time are asked explicitly about their desire and availability for full-tim e work. This change in m ethod ology led to substantial reductions in the number o f persons classi fied as working part time for econ om ic reasons. (The group is about 20 percent smaller than in the past.) Principally for this reason, the calculated rate for U - 6 w ould be som ewhat higher under the old cps than under the new survey. E ffe c ts o n in d i c a to r U - 7 , th e n u m b e r o f p e r s o n s s e e k in g f u ll- tim e j o b s , p l u s o n e - h a l f th e n u m b e r o f p e r s o n s s e e k i n g p a r t - t i m e j o b s , p l u s E f f e c t s o n i n d i c a t o r U —4 , t h e n u m b e r o f p e r s o n s s e e k i n g f u l l - t i m e j o b s , a s a p e r c e n t o f th e f u l l - t i m e l a b o r f o r c e ( t h e u n e m p l o y m e n t The number o f unem ployed persons seeking full-time work was affected only slightly in the redesigned cps , consistent with the sm all positive effect on overall unem ployment. However, the full-time labor force was more significantly affected. Prior to the redesign, employed persons reported as working full time (35 or more hours) during the reference week were automatically classified as full-time workers and were not asked questions about the number o f hours they usually logged. In addition, all persons working part time for economic reasons were considered part o f the full-time labor force. In the redesigned cps, all workers are asked about their usual hours directly, prior to being asked questions on the number o f hours they actually worked. Thus, usual hours, rather than actual hours, now form the basis for delineating full- or part-time status. This change, combined with numerous other changes in the questionnaire, is associated with a slight decrease in measured full-time em ploy ment in the redesigned survey (and thus in the full-time labor force), compared with the old survey. The small increase in unemployed per sons seeking full-time jobs, taken in conjunction with the slightly lower full-time labor force, yields a jobless rate for full-time workers (L M j that is slightly higher in the redesigned survey than under the old cps . r a te f o r f u ll- tim e w o r k e r s ). o n e - h a lf th e n u m b e r o f p e r s o n s e m p lo y e d p a r t tim e f o r e c o n o m ic r e a s o n s , p l u s th e n u m b e r o f d i s c o u r a g e d w o r k e r s , a s a p e r c e n t o f th e c i v i l i a n l a b o r f o r c e p l u s th e n u m b e r o f d i s c o u r a g e d w o r k e r s l e s s o n e - The most marked definitional change in the redesigned cps dealt with persons classified as discouraged workers. In the old survey, persons out o f the labor force who indicated a desire for work and a job-market-related reason for not currently looking for work were classified as discouraged workers, provided that no reasons to the contrary were also offered. This definition had been criticized in the 1979 presidential commission review as being too subjective.4 In the revised cps, discouraged workers were redefined as persons who indicate e x p l i c i t l y in the survey that they want and are available for a job, h a v e l o o k e d f o r w o r k in th e p a s t y e a r , and have given a job-market-related reason for not currently looking for work. Among such reasons are the belief that no work was available, the belief that searching for work would be unsuccessful, the belief that one lacks the requisite skills or education, and the b elief that one would face discrim ination at som e point in the job search. The definitional change dramatically reduced the number o f discouraged workers measured in the redesigned survey. (The group is about 50 percent smaller.) This, plus the aforem entioned reduction in the number o f persons working part time for economic reasons, led to a rate for U -7 that would be markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one. h a l f th e p a r t - t i m e l a b o r f o r c e . E f f e c t s o n i n d i c a t o r U - 5 , th e n u m b e r o f u n e m p l o y e d p e r s o n s , a s a p e r c e n t o f th e c i v i l i a n l a b o r f o r c e ( t h e o f f i c i a l u n e m p l o y m e n t r a te ) . The numerator o f U -5 , the overall number o f unemployed persons, as officially defined, showed a m odest increase in the redesigned cps . At the same time, the denominator, as indicated above, also rose only slightly. The net result is that, other things remaining equal, the official unemployment rate is only marginally higher— an estimated 0.2 percentage point— under the redesigned cps than under the survey prior to 1994.3 E ffe c ts o n in d ic a to r U -6 , th e n u m b e r o f p e r s o n s s e e k in g fu ll- tim e j o b s , p l u s o n e - h a l f th e n u m b e r o f p e r s o n s s e e k i n g p a r t - t i m e j o b s , p l u s o n e - h a l f th e n u m b e r o f p e r s o n s e m p lo y e d p a r t tim e f o r e c o n o m i c r e a s o n s , a s a p e r c e n t o f th e c i v i l i a n l a b o r f o r c e l e s s o n e - h a l f o f th e p a r t-tim e la b o r fo r c e . 26 Alternative indicator U -6 was mark Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis O ctober 1995 Footnotes to the appendix 1While it is difficult to make precise comparisons, enough is now known about the impact of the redesigned cps on the various labor force series used in the original range of unemployment indicators, that qualitative comparisons can be made with a high level of confidence. (See Anne E. Poli vka and Stephen M. Miller, “The cps After the Redesign: Refocusing the Economic Lens,” in National Bureau of Economic Research, conference volume, forthcoming. 2Under dependent interviewing, the duration of unemployment is automati cally updated by 4 or 5 weeks if a person who is in the survey in one month is found to be unemployed in the next. 3Poli vka and Miller, “The cps After the Redesign.” 4 C o u n tin g the L a b o r F o rc e (National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics, Labor Day 1979), pp. 44-49. Productivity Measures Improvements to the quarterly productivity measures The use of annually-weighted output measures for productivity calculations will eliminate a source of bias and reduce revisions Edwin Dean, Michael Harper, and Phyllis Flohr Otto Edwin Dean is Associate Commissioner for Productivity and Technology, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Michael Harper is chief of the Division of Productivity Research, and Phyllis Flohr Otto is an economist in the Office of Productivity and Technology. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis conomists in research and public policy have given considerable attention to iden tifying the sources of long-term produc tivity growth and the relationship between pro ductivity and wages. Productivity statistics also play an important role in short-run analysis of trends in prices and in the competitiveness of a Nation’s exports. This article discusses methodological im provements to the quarterly productivity series published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that will improve the accuracy and usefulness of the data and reduce the size of revisions in the future. Since 1976, b l s has issued eight press releases a year presenting annual and quarterly measures of productivity, hourly compensation, and unit labor costs for business, nonfarm business, manu facturing (durable, nondurable, and total), and nonfinancial corporate sectors in the United States. E • The primary data source for output and com pensation has been the national income and product accounts produced by the Bureau of Economic Analysis ( b e a ) of the U.S. Depart ment of Commerce; • quarterly data on manufacturing output are based on the industrial production indexes published by the Federal Reserve System Board of Governors; • data on employment and average weekly hours are derived primarily from the Current Employment Statistics and Current Popula tion Survey programs of b l s ; and • establishm ent data are adjusted from an “hours paid” basis to an “hours worked” ba sis using the b l s Hours at Work Survey. The national income and product accounts include aggregate measures of gross domestic product ( G D P ) in current and constant prices. Several components of constant-dollar g d p are subtracted from total constant-dollar g d p to de rive the measure of business sector output used by b l s to compute its productivity series. The components subtracted are: the product of gen eral government, private households, and non profit institutions; the rental value of owneroccupied dwellings; and the statistical discrep ancy. Nonfarm business output further excludes farm output. b l s measures of manufacturing output (and its durable and nondurable components) are based on annual measures of constant-dollar gross product originating in manufacturing, pub lished by b e a . Quarterly rates of change in manu facturing are computed using the industrial pro duction indexes. The b l s measure of the output of nonfinancial corporations is precisely the measure of con stant-dollar g d p of nonfinancial corporate busi ness, published by b e a . Uses of productivity measures Aggregate measures of output per hour worked have risen over the long term for several rea sons. Among the most important sources of la bor productivity change are the incorporation of Monthly Labor Review October 1995 27 Productivity Measures technological improvements in production processes, in creases in capital per worker, improvements in workers’ skills, improvements in the efficiency of production, and increases in the proportion of output in “more productive” industries, such as electronic and other electric equipment. Over the long-term, these productivity gains have led to steady in creases in buying power and, as a consequence, average liv ing standards. In the shorter run, productivity measures mirror the busi ness cycle: productivity grows more slowly, or falls, dur ing a recession and rises rapidly during a recovery. While this pattern complicates the interpretation of productivity sta tistics, its predictability makes quarterly productivity mea sures useful in explaining the relationships between short term changes in output, employment, and average weekly hours. Regular revisions in measures b l s revises productivity measures when source data on out put or hours are revised to incorporate more information. Estimates of hours are regularly revised when the b l s Cur rent Employment Statistics are updated, when their seasonal factors are revised, and when information becomes available about the ratio of hours worked to hours paid. Revisions to hours, including changes to seasonal factors, are usually con fined to the most recent 5 years, although historical revi sions occasionally occur. b e a revises output on a regular schedule as additional in formation becomes available. Recent quarters are revised regularly to reflect more complete data on inventory changes, corporate profits and tax returns, b e a makes historical revi sions about every 5 years after analyzing the quinquennial censuses. The industrial production index also is regularly revised, affecting the quarterly manufacturing productivity series published by b l s . Two other sources of output revisions have little to do with the availability of new information. The first has been regular changes in the base year— b e a has changed the base year once every 5 years—to compute “constant dollar” out put measures. Changes in the base year have been a signifi cant source of historical revisions to productivity measures. The second has been the exclusion of one particular compo nent of g d p (statistical discrepancy) from the b l s definitions for business and nonfarm business output. This has led to revisions in quarterly productivity that are different and fre quently larger than published revisions to g d p . Summary of changes In late 1995 or early 1996, b l s will switch to annuallyweighted output indexes for computations underlying its 28 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 Productivity and Costs news releases. This change will par allel plans by b e a to replace its constant-dollar series as the featured measure of real g d p with an annually-weighted in dex by the end of 1995. Also, b l s will no longer exclude the statistical discrepancy from its output measures. These changes are more fully explained in this article; in addition, the new data for the business and nonfarm business sectors are presented and compared with existing data. Improved output indexes computes the present fixed-weighted measure of con stant-dollar g d p by dividing current-dollar output data for detailed types of goods and services by corresponding price indexes. Price indexes are time series that measure price change relative to specific year. The resulting detailed mea sures of constant-dollar output are added to produce an ag gregate measure. The constant-dollar aggregates effectively weight items based on their prices in the base year. The base year for computing constant-dollar output measures, cur rently 1987, has generally been moved forward every 5 years. Aggregates of “constant dollars” are a reasonably good measure of output if the prices of various goods are fairly stable relative to one another. However, when relative prices change, constant dollars tend to place too much weight on goods or services for which relative prices have fallen and too little emphasis on items for which relative prices have risen. This is because constant-dollar aggregates effectively weight items based on their prices in the base year. The growth rate of a constant-dollar aggregate depends on which base year is used to compute it; as a result, the growth rate is subject to revision when the base year is changed. These re visions can be systematic because consumers and investors tend to buy more of those goods and services that have be come relatively cheaper. Computers have continued to be a major source of bias in the featured fixed-weighted measures. Although the prices of most goods have risen moderately, the prices of comput ers, adjusted for quality change, have fallen dramatically. In 1995, computer prices are much lower than in 1987, and in 1987 they were much lower than in the 1970’s. Rapid growth in production of computers during the 1990’s has been given too much weight in total output growth in aggregates based on constant 1987 dollars. Therefore, growth of g d p and of business and nonfarm business output have been overstated since 1987. Similarly, growth of these aggregates has been understated in earlier years. The problem is more acute for measures of manufacturing output because computers are made in that sector. The bias in computer prices is a special case of a more general problem in constructing economic indexes: How to construct an aggregate quantity (or price) measure of two or bea more components when their relative prices (or quantities) are changing. Much has been written in the economics lit erature about how to address this “index number problem.” While a unique formula does not exist to handle all sets of data perfectly, a family of formulas and techniques has been shown to approximate the precise solution very closely. Any of these techniques avoids the most important sources of systematic bias embodied in the constant-dollar method. The improved techniques involve the use of Fisher Ideal or Tomqvist index number formulas, which are examples of “superlative” index number formulas, to compute aggregate output between pairs of years. To compute time series, “chain indexes” or similar techniques are used to combine aggre gate growth rates between pairs of years to create index num bers for longer time periods, b l s research, and that of other experts, show that the different improved techniques gener ally yield empirical results that are similar. These improved aggregation techniques were developed in numerous scholarly books and articles. Years ago, Irving F ish e r1 of Yale University, and, more recently, Erwin Diewert2 of the University of British Columbia and his co authors, studied the criteria that a superlative index number should meet. Dale Jorgenson and Zvi Griliches3of Harvard University pioneered the use of these techniques in measur ing productivity. Other scholars have further developed the theory of index numbers and the techniques of applying in dex numbers to specific economic problems, including the application of superlative index numbers to the measurement of trends in productivity.4 The properties of alternative in dex number formulas are discussed in a technical note by Brian Sliker of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.5 In 1983, b l s became the first Government statistical agency to use these techniques to develop an aggregate U.S. performance measure when it introduced measures of multi factor productivity.6 These measures divided output by an index of “combined inputs” of labor and capital. Annually chained Tomqvist indexes were used to combine inputs of capital and labor, and subcategories of capital. In 1993, b l s began using Tomqvist indexes to combine subclasses of la bor inputs in its work estimating the effects of labor compo sition change on aggregate productivity.7 Since 1987, b l s has developed multifactor productivity measures for 19 two-digit manufacturing industries and for selected three- and four-digit industries that use Tomqvist indexes for combining outputs and inputs. This summer, b l s began using Tomqvist indexes to aggregate outputs for its 180 labor productivity measures for selected industries.8 Annually weighted output indexes bea examined the use of annually-weighted indexes in the calculation of national income and product account data in a series of articles in the Survey o f Current Business begin https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ning in 1989.9 Since 1993, b e a has regularly published its quarterly measure of g d p based on the “chain-type annuallyweighted” indexes as alternative indexes. As one of the con clusions emerging from b e a ’ s “Mid-Decade Review,” b e a re cently announced its planned replacement of the fixedweighted index as its featured measure with a chain-type index.10 b e a and b l s have designed specifications for output mea sures that are suitable for various b l s publications about major sector productivity. In July 1994, b l s published an nual multifactor productivity measures that used chain-type annually-weighted indexes of output produced by b e a . Since December 1994, b e a has been preparing quarterly measures of output for business and nonfarm business for b l s in a time frame nearly suitable for use in quarterly Productivity and Cost news releases published by b l s . b l s soon will be using annually-weighted indexes of out put in all of its quarterly and annual measures of output per hour and unit labor costs, b e a will compute quarterly data for business and nonfarm business for b l s using the same conventions it uses to compute quarterly g d p in its chaintype annually-weighted indexes. Starting with its chain-type measure of real g d p , b e a will remove those g d p components that b l s excludes from its definitions of the business and nonfarm business sectors. n annually-weighted index for nonfinancial corporate output is not yet available, b e a is considering the best way to construct this series. It is possible that b l s will tem porarily discontinue its nonfinancial corporate productivity series pending completion of this work. When and if this improved series is available, b l s will use it for measuring productivity and costs. b l s currently uses two data sources for its output series on manufacturing and durable and nondurable manufacturing. The source of the annual series is the 1987 constant-dollar national income and product account manufacturing data, based on a value-added (strictly, gross product originating) concept. This source provides manufacturing data from 1977 to the most recent year for which the data are available. As noted earlier, quarterly data on manufacturing output are based on the industrial production indexes published by the Federal Reserve Board. The industrial production data also are used to extend the manufacturing series forward from the most recent year for which the national income and prod uct account data are available; this means, in practice, that the production data provide the annual output data for ap proximately the most recent 2 years. When b l s switches to annually-weighted national income and product account data for the business and nonfarm busi ness sectors, changes also will be made in the manufactur ing output data. The new series will be prepared using a superlative index number method, b l s is studying several A Monthly Labor Review October 1995 29 Productivity Measures sources of manufacturing data that use such a method; most of these sources are described in a recent article in the Monthly Labor Review.11 The use of annually-weighted out put measures, in place of constant-dollar measures, is par ticularly important in manufacturing, where computers are produced. When this change is made, it may prove possible to provide data for years before 1977. The quarterly output movements and the extensions of the data forward from the most recent annual data will continue to be based on the industrial production indexes. Statistical discrepancy As mentioned earlier, b e a provides the data for g d p and its components that b l s uses to compute productivity. Working with nominal, or expenditures, data, the “statistical discrep ancy” and other items are subtracted from nominal g d p to arrive at business sector output. Subtraction of the statistical discrepancy has had the effect of placing the b l s measures of output on the “income side” of the g d p estimates rather than the “product side.” In nominal terms, the product side adds up values of goods and services, while the income side adds up the disposition of the income generated by production in the form of wages, salaries, supplements, profits, net inter est, and business taxes. In theory, the nominal income and product sides are equal; in practice they differ because they are measured, in large part, from different sources. Finally, the nominal data are converted to constant-dollar data, with a deflated number for statistical discrepancy forming the dif ference between product side and income side constant-dol lar business sector output. The difference between product side and income side busi ness sector output has been negligible over the long run. However, this difference has been significant over shorter time spans. When b l s changes its output data from constant-dollar output to an annually weighted index for the business and nonfarm business sectors, it also will no longer remove the statistical discrepancy. This decision is based on conceptual and practical considerations. The concept of productivity is to compare the outputs of production with the inputs used to create them. These out puts are the goods and services that are directly measured on the product side. The costs associated with the inputs are measured on the income side. Up until now, an income side output measure has been used because it is statistically more closely related to labor costs. However, the product side out put measure is conceptually more closely related to what the economy produces. Also, b l s has determined that the income side definition has led to larger revisions of b l s productivity measures be tween the “preliminary” and “revised” press releases than would a product side definition. This is because b e a ’ s source 30 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 data on th e in c o m e sid e are in c o m p le te at the tim e th e sta tistics are first issu e d e a c h quarter, bls gdp has, in e ffe c t, u sed a p ro d u ct sid e m e a su r e o f ou tp u t g r o w th in its first p ress r e le a se o f e a ch quarter, and then an in c o m e sid e d efin itio n at the tim e o f th e se c o n d p ress relea se. Effects of the changes Table 1 presents comparisons of productivity trends calcu lated with the new methods with the trends as they have been published. Measures are compared for the business and nonfarm business sectors. Measures for these two sectors that use the new methods are not yet available for the period 1947 to 1958. Data for these years may be available from b e a in the near future. Table 1 shows that revisions to output growth rates for the periods before 1990 will be upward. Growth rates for business and nonfarm business will be revised downward for the period 1990 to 1994. In table 2, compound annual rates of growth of the cur rently published b l s output measure (a) is compared with rates of growth of the improved measure (b). The published measure is based on constant 1987 dollars and the income side of national income and product accounts. The improved measure is based on an annually chained Fisher Ideal Index and the product side. Columns (c) and (e) make the corre sponding comparison for productivity growth. Column (d) shows the growth rate of a measure of productivity based on constant 1987 dollars and on the product side of the product accounts. This allows the computation of column (f), which illustrates how much the measures would be affected if b l s were to shift from the income side of the product accounts to 1 O u tp u t p e r hour, business a n d n o n fa rm business sectors. C o m p o u r i d a v e r a g e a n n u a l rates of gro w th , in p e rc e n t Year Business sector 1959-94 ................................. 1960-73 ................................. 1973-79 ................................. 1979-90 ................................. 1990-94 ................................. Nonfarm business sector 1959-94 ................................. 1960-73 ................................. 1973-79 ................................. 1979-90 ................................. 1990-94 ................................. Annuallyweighted output Base-year weighted output 2.0 3.4 1.8 2.9 1.2 1.1 1.3 .7 1.0 1.9 1.8 3.0 1.0 .9 1.2 1.5 2.5 .6 .8 1.8 I The effects of improved measurement techniques on output and productivity Nonfarm business sector, compound average annual rates of change, in percent Productivity Output Year Base-year weighted income side (a) Annually weighted product side (improved measure) (b) Base-year weighted incom e side (c) Base-year weighted product side (d) Annually weighted product side (improved measure) Difference (d) - (c) (e) Difference (e) - (c) (0 <g> 0.3 Trends: 1960-94 ............................................................. 3.1 3.4 1.5 1.5 1.8 0.0 1960-73 ............................................................. 4.2 4.7 2.5 2.6 3.0 .1 .5 1973-79 ............................................................. 2.5 2.9 .6 .7 1.0 .1 .4 1979-90 ............................................................. 2.4 2.6 .8 .7 .9 -.1 .1 1990-94 ............................................................. 2.7 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.2 -.2 -.6 Single years: 1990-91 ............................................................. -1.0 -1.3 1.5 1.3 1.2 -.2 -.3 1991-92 ............................................................. 2.4 2.3 2.7 2.8 2.6 .1 -.1 1992-93 ............................................................. 4.1 3.2 1.3 1.2 .5 -.1 -.8 1993-94 ............................................................. 5.3 4.1 1.9 1.3 .7 -.6 -1.2 Recent quarters: 1993, 2nd quarter............................................... 4.7 2.3 .4 -1.2 -1.9 -1.6 -2.3 1993, 3rd quarter................................................ 4.9 2.8 2.9 1.9 .8 -1.0 -2.1 1993, 4th quarter................................................ 7.9 5.7 4.2 3.3 2.1 -.9 -2.1 1994, 1st quarter................................................ 5.2 3.5 1.7 .2 .1 -1.5 -1.6 1994, 2nd quarter............................................... 3.2 4.5 -1.4 -.5 -.3 .9 1.1 1994, 3rd quarter................................................ 4.3 4.2 2.7 2.5 1.4 .3 -.2 1994, 4th quarter................................................ 7.7 4.8 4.3 3.0 2.7 -1.6 -2.9 1995, 1st quarter................................................ 4.5 2.2 2.5 1.3 .2 -1.2 -2.3 1995, 2nd quarter............................................... 2.3 .5 4.8 3.8 2.9 -1.0 -1.9 1973, 4th quarter to 1975, 1st quarter............... -5.6 -4.7 -1.5 -.5 -.6 .9 .9 1975, 1st quarter to 1980, 1st quarter............... 4.4 4.9 1.1 1.2 1.6 .1 .5 1980, 1st quarter to 1980, 3rd quarter............... -6.1 -6.2 -1.6 -2.8 -1.7 -1.2 -.1 1980, 3rd quarter to 1981,3rd quarter............... 3.8 4.3 2.0 1.9 2.4 -.1 .4 1981, 3rd quarter to 1982, 4th quarter............... -2.5 -3.4 .4 -.3 -.6 -.6 -.9 Cyclical movements: 1982, 4th quarter to 1990, 3rd quarter.............. 3.8 4.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 .1 .2 1990, 3rd quarter to 1991,1st quarter............... -2.7 -3.9 1.4 .2 .2 -1.2 -1.2 1991, 1st quarter to 1995, 2nd quarter.............. 3.8 2.9 2.2 2.0 1.4 -.3 -.8 the product side. Finally, column (g) shows the total effect of switching from the current measures to the improved measures. The data in table 2 are grouped to permit various types of comparisons. Over the entire period 1960 to 1994, the improvements increased measured productivity growth by 0.3 percent a year (column g). However, the increase is lar ger before 1979, and the productivity estimates for the 1990’s decrease by 0.6 percent a year. Each year since 1990 is https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis revised downward. It is important to note that similar revi sions to the growth rates of the 1990’s would occur if bls were to switch to 1992 constant dollars from 1987 constant dollars. The improved measures have the advantage that future revisions due to the change of base year will be elimi nated. The effects of the improvements on quarterly data are larger, with some quarterly growth rates revised downward between 2 percent and 3 percent, while that of one quarter is Monthly Labor Review October 1995 31 Productivity Measures Table 3. Output per hour, output, and unit labor costs in the U.S. business and nonfarm business sectors, 1959-94, based on annually weighted indexes [1982=100 ] Business sector Nonfarm business sector Output per hour Output Unit labor costs 1959........ 1960........ 1961 ........ 1962........ 1963........ 1964........ 1965........ 59.0 59.9 62.2 65.2 67.7 71.0 73.6 46.9 47.7 48.7 51.9 54.2 57.7 61.7 34.3 35.2 35.3 35.2 35.2 35.3 35.4 63.3 63.8 65.9 69.0 71.4 74.6 76.8 46.6 47.3 48.3 51.6 54.0 57.7 61.7 33.6 34.8 34.8 34.6 34.6 34.7 34.8 1966........ 1967........ 1968........ 1969........ 1970........ 1971 ........ 1972........ 1973........ 1974........ 1975........ 76.7 78.4 81.1 81.6 82.9 86.4 89.2 92.1 90.6 93.3 65.8 67.1 70.3 72.5 72.3 75.0 79.9 85.4 84.2 83.1 36.3 37.5 39.2 41.8 44.3 45.2 46.6 49.0 54.7 58.4 79.5 81.0 83.7 83.8 84.8 88.1 91.1 94.0 92.4 94.6 66.0 67.2 70.7 72.8 72.6 75.2 80.3 86.1 84.8 83.1 35.6 37.0 38.6 41.2 43.6 44.7 46.1 48.3 54.0 58.0 1976........ 1977........ 1978........ 1979........ 1980........ 1981 ........ 1982........ 1983........ 1984........ 1985........ 96.7 98.7 99.4 99.0 98.7 100.7 100.0 102.8 105.6 107.0 88.4 93.7 99.0 101.7 100.5 103.2 100.0 104.6 113.4 117.4 61.5 65.2 70.4 77.6 86.1 92.3 100.0 101.0 102.6 105.8 97.9 99.6 100.6 99.7 99.5 100.9 100.0 103.4 105.6 106.3 88.8 94.0 99.7 102.3 101.2 103.4 100.0 105.4 113.9 117.6 60.9 64.6 69.7 76.9 85.4 92.2 100.0 100.6 102.6 106.1 1986........ 1987........ 1988........ 1989........ 1990........ 1991 ........ 1992........ 1993........ 1994........ 109.7 110.1 111.1 111.2 112.2 113.3 116.6 117.1 118.2 121.2 125.3 130.5 133.9 135.1 133.4 136.9 140.8 146.8 108.3 111.8 115.6 119.6 125.4 130.1 132.9 136.7 139.2 108.9 109.1 110.1 110.0 110.6 111.9 114.8 115.3 116.1 121.5 125.6 131.1 134.4 135.4 133.6 136.8 141.1 146.9 108.7 112.3 116.0 120.0 125.9 130.7 133.9 137.3 140.0 Year Output per hour Output Unit labor costs revised upward by about 1 percent. It is important to note that much of this quar terly volatility comes from the switch from income to product side data (column f). The switch to the product side has neg ligible effects on longer term growth rates. Because the improved measures are on the product side, b l s expects that fu ture revisions to its preliminary estimates of quarterly business and nonfarm busi ness productivity will be smaller. While these two sources of revisions will be reduced, it should be noted that some data will continue to be revised as additional information about recent years becomes available. Data also will be oc casionally revised as measurement pro cedures are adjusted. The bottom panel of table 2 presents comparisons over periods defined by business cycle peaks and troughs. In each pair of rows, the first row represents a peak to trough comparison, while the sec ond row examines trough to peak. Empirical comparisons of the new an nually-weighted “sectoral output” mea sures with constant-dollar gross product originating and other manufacturing se ries were discussed in more detail earlier this year.12 Table 3 presents new “annuallyweighted” indexes of productivity, output, and unit labor costs for business and non farm business. □ Footnotes 1Irving Fisher, 1921). The M a k in g o f In d e x N u m b e r s (Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 2 W. Erwin Diewert, “Exact and Superlative Index Numbers,” J o u r n a l May 1976, pp. 115-145. of E c o n o m e tric s , 3 Dale W. Jorgenson and Zvi Griliches, “The Explanation of Productivity Change,” R e v ie w o f E c o n o m ic S tu d ie s, July 1967, pp. 249-283. 4 Important contributions include François Divisia, L ’In d ic e M o n é ta ire e t (Paris, Société Anonyme du Recueil Sirey, 1926); L. Tômqvist, “The Bank of Finland’s Consumption Price I n d ex .” B a n k o f F in la n d M o n th ly B u lletin , 1936, pp. 1-8; Charles R. Hulten, “Divisia Index Num bers,” E c o n o m e tric a , 1973, pp. 1017-25; W. Erwin Diewert, “Functional Forms for Profit and Transformation Functions,” J o u r n a l o f E co n o m ic Theory, 1973, pp. 284-316; Douglas W. Caves, Laurits R. Christensen and W. Erwin Diewert, “The Economic Theory of Index Numbers and the Measurement of Input, Output, and Productivity,” E c o n o m e tr ic a , November 1982, pp. 13931414; and Jack E. Triplett, “Economic Theory and BEA’s Alternative Quan tity and Price Indexes,” S u rv e y o f C u r re n t B u sin ess, April 1992, pp. 49-52. la T h eo rie d e la M o n n a ie 5Brian K. Sliker, “Technical Note on Index Number Formulas” (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Productivity and Technology), October 1995. This note is available from the Office (202) 606-5606. 32 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 6 These measures were first published in Trends in M u ltif a c to r P r o d u c tiv Bulletin 2178 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1983). The aggregate framework used in this work is similar to that originally proposed by Robert M. Solow, “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function,” R e v ie w o f E c o n o m ic s a n d S ta tis tic s , August 1957, pp. 312-20. 7 See L a b o r C o m p o sitio n a n d U.S. P r o d u c tiv ity G ro w th , 1 9 4 8 - 9 0 , Bulle tin 2426 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1993). 8See Kent Kunze, Mary Jablonski, and Virginia Klarquist, “bls modernizes industry labor productivity program,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , July 1995. 9 These articles by Allan H. Young, appear in the S u rv e y o f C u r re n t B u s i n e ss: “Alternative Measures of Real gnp ,” April 1989, pp. 27-37; “Alterna tive Measures of Change in Real Output and Prices,” April 1992, pp. 32-48; and “Alternative Measures of Change in Real Output and Prices, Quarterly Estimates for 1959-92,” March 1993, pp. 31-41. 10 bea ’s plans were explained in “Mid-Decade Strategic Review of bea ’s Economic Accounts: Maintaining and Improving Their Performance,” S u rv e y o f C u r re n t B u sin ess, February 1995, pp. 36-66; and its update published in ,” S u rv e y o f C u r re n t B u s in e ss , April 1995, pp. 48-56. 11William Gullickson, “Measurement of productivity growth in U.S. manu facturing,” M o n th ly L a b o r R eview , July 1995, pp. 13-28. 12Gullickson, “Measurement of productivity growth.” ity, 1 9 4 8 - 8 1 , October 1995 Productivity in retail miscellaneous shopping goods stores Productivity is expected to increase as more stores computerize their retail operations; also, the industry's change toward more chain-owned stores has helped boost productivity because of chain stores ’ significant advantages over their independent rivals Ziaul Z. Ahmed and Patricia S. Wilder Ziaul Z. Ahmed and Patricia S. Wilder are economists in the Office of Productivity and Technology, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis roductivity growth in the miscellaneous shopping goods stores industry is moder ate, compared with other retail industries, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Among 22 retail industries, 15 had higher pro ductivity rates and 7 had lower rates between 1977 and 1992. As measured by output per hour of all workers, productivity rose at an average annual rate of 1.7 percent between 1977 and 1992. Output grew at 4.5 percent annually and hours of all persons rose by 2.8 percent.1 (See table 1.) The industry recorded its largest productivity gain of 8.4 percent in 1978. Output grew 15.3 percent and hours of all persons rose 6.3 percent that year. The sharpest decline in productivity— 2.0 percent—occurred in 1979; output and hours grew 0.9 and 2.9 percent. Output rose 7.0 per cent in 1992 as productivity rose 5.5 percent and hours of all persons rose 1.4 percent. Also in 1992, output and productivity attained their peak levels, while hours reached a high for the period in 1989. (See table 2.) P Industry structure The miscellaneous shopping goods stores indus try comprises a variety of retail stores.2(See table 3.) Nine sub-industries include stores that sell sporting goods; books; stationery; jewelry; hobby supplies, toys, and games; camera and photo graphic supplies; gifts, novelties and souvenirs; luggage and leather goods; and sewing equip ment, needlework supplies, and piece goods. In 1992, 56 percent of the industry’s retail sales and employment were accounted for in sporting goods stores and bicycle shops, book stores, and jewelry stores. The miscellaneous shopping goods stores in dustry is characterized by small, single-unit, spe cialty shops, each retailing a narrow line of fullpriced, high-quality merchandise. Customers pay more for a wider array of services and for a complete line of goods.3Employees are trained on the job to present a personal style that fits each store’s image. These specialty shops build a regular clientele by knowing their customers’ names, tastes, and interests.4 Miscellaneous shopping goods stores have relatively few employees. In 1977, the industry comprised 164,635 establishments with an av erage work force of about five employees in each store. By 1992, the number of establishments rose to 311,182 with an average of six employ ees in a store. Most retail miscellaneous shopping goods stores are not affiliated with chains. However, the number of stores associated with chains and their proportion in the industry increased dur ing the 15-year study period. In 1977, 10 perMonthly Labor Review October 1995 33 Productivity in Retail Stores cent of miscellaneous shopping goods stores were affiliated warehouse stores. This is particularly the case in book stores, with chains and accounted for 32 percent of sales, compared sporting goods and bicycle stores, sewing and needle work with 27 percent of the number of stores and 51 percent of stores, and toy and game stores. These stores are growing as sales in 1992. a response to changing buying habits, better technology, and Generally, stores associated with chains tend to have intensified competition. The super stores are very large and higher sales per store than independent stores. In 1992, av offer selections of all brands in narrowly focused categories. erage independent miscellaneous shopping goods store had This saves consumers’ shopping time. The stores are highly annual sales of $353,371 per establish ment, while the average chain affiliate had sales of $959,928 per establishment. Table 1. Annual percent changes in productivity, output, and hours of all persons For some components of the industry, in the miscellaneous shopping goods stores industry, 1977-92 the trend toward affiliating with chains has been faster. For example, stores as Output per Output Hours All Years Output hour of sociated with chains in the sporting per of all persons all persons person persons goods stores industry represented only 4 percent of the number of stores and 20 1977- 78. 8.4 percent of sales in 1977. By 1992, these 6.5 15.3 6.3 8.2 1978- 79. - 2. 0 -4.1 .9 2.9 5.1 ratios had risen to 15 percent and 39 per 1979- 80. - 1.1 -2.3 -.3 .9 2.1 1980- 81. -1.7 cent. Book stores went through a revolu -1.3 2.9 4.6 4.2 1981- 82. 2.4 .9 1.8 -.5 .9 tion, changing from independent stores 1982- 83. - 1.1 to chain affiliates during the period stud -.2 3.3 4.4 3.5 1983- 84. 5.1 5.4 10.2 4.9 4.5 ied. The proportion of stores associated 1984- 85. 1.7 .6 2.6 .9 2.0 1985- 86. 3.0 with chains rose from 16 percent in 1977 1.8 7.3 4.1 5.3 1986- 87. 3.1 3.6 9.1 5.8 5.3 to 40 percent in 1992, while their share 1987- 88. -1.5 of sales increased from 40 percent to 61 - 2.1 6. 0 7.6 8.3 1988- 89. 3.4 2.9 2. 0 5.5 2.5 percent. Among jewelry stores, chain af 1989- 90. .2 .0 -.3 -.5 -.3 1990- 91 ., .8 filiates represented 12 percent of the -.1 -1.9 -2.7 - 1.8 1991- 92.. 5.5 6.5 7. 1.4 .6 number of stores and 34 percent of sales 1977-92.. 1.7 in 1977. By 1992, chains had captured 1.2 4.5 2.8 3.3 31 percent of the number of stores and 44 percent of sales. Output per hour of ail perso ns and related indexe:5 in the miscellaneous shopping go ods stores industry, 19!77-92 Factors affecting productivity The change in industry structure toward more chain-owned stores has helped boost productivity because of the signifi cant advantages chain stores have over their independent rivals. Chains can bet ter afford modern technology in retail operations because they have access to more capital, lower merchandise costs due to centralized purchasing, better em ployee training programs and employee benefits, and sufficient size to afford ex pensive media advertising. Chains also are in a stronger financial position to se cure shopping mall locations that are bet ter than those of independents.5 Another important trend in the mis cellaneous shopping goods stores indus try is the growth of “ super stores” or 34 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis [1987=100] Output per hour of all persons Output per person Output Hours of all persons All persons 1977....................................... 1978...................................... 1979.......................................... 1980..................................... 1981...................................... 84.2 91.3 89.5 88.5 87.0 90.1 96.0 92.1 90.0 88.8 60.3 69.5 70.1 69.9 71.9 71.6 76.1 78.3 79.0 82.6 66.9 72.4 76.1 77.7 81.0 1982 ..................................... 1983........................................... 1984..................................... 1985......................................... 1986..................................... 89.1 88.1 92.6 94.2 97.0 89.6 89.4 94.2 94.8 96.5 73.2 75.6 83.3 85.5 91.7 82.2 85.8 90.0 90.8 94.5 81.7 84.6 88.4 90.2 95.0 1987...................................... 1988....................................... 1989.......................................... 1990 ........................................... 1991 ......................................... 1992.......................................... 100.0 98.5 101.8 102.0 102.8 108.5 100.0 97.9 100.7 100.7 100.6 107.1 100.0 106.0 111.8 111.5 109.4 117.1 100.0 107.6 109.8 109.3 106.4 107.9 100.0 108.3 111.0 110.7 108.7 109.3 Year October 1995 Table 3 . 1 Relative importance of industries, miscellaneous shopping goods stores, 1987 Establishments with payroll SIC code 594 5941 5942 5943 5944 5945 5946 5947 5948 5949 Industry Miscellaneous shopping goods stores........................... Sporting goods stores and bicycle shops....................... Book stores..................................................................... Stationery stores............................................................. Jewelry stores................................................................. Hobby, toy, and game shops.......................................... Camera and photographic supply stores....................... Gift, novelty, and souvenir shops.................................... Luggage and leather goods stores................................. Sewing, needlework, and piece goods stores................ organized, have huge sales volumes, and operate with com puterized systems. They generally use point-of-sale systems that keep track of inventory and help manage store opera tions. Superstores tend to focus on presenting products in a more organized fashion with improved graphics and signs, helping consumers find items quickly and learn more about the products. This reduces time in sales assistance, boosting cost efficiency and keeping prices lower than that charged by competitors.6 The major technological change in the miscellaneous shopping goods stores industry has been the widespread and increasing use of computers for retail operations. In large independent and chain stores, computers are used for inven tory control, including electronic cash registers (point of sale terminals), and electronic scanning devices. Information coded on merchandise is fed into the computers using these scanning devices. This results in accurate inventory records and reduces employee time to monitor shelf stocks. Comput erized cash registers also balance the cash register accurately, reduce audit expense, and speed up credit authorization. Computers are used to perform recordkeeping and adminis trative functions that were once performed manually. By us ing computerized information provided on sales activity, store managers can schedule staff hours more efficiently.7 Independent retailers in the miscellaneous shopping goods stores industry have not computerized their retail op erations as fully as have the larger stores. These systems are costly and are not always suited for the smaller retailers. However, most small retailers have replaced mechanical cash registers with electronic cash registers, which has saved la bor time in accounting and inventory control. Labor time also has been reduced as retailers rely more on other means of merchandise delivery instead of their own delivery trucks. Manufacturers also are offering prepackaged and prepriced merchandise. The retailer dictates the price to https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Sales (in thousands) Paid em ployees $49,459,912 10,077,322 5,115,507 1,813,533 11,994,271 7,031,359 2,294,000 7,459,217 839,091 2,835,612 706,363 120,714 72,334 26,898 162,795 75,932 21,425 150,730 11,033 64,502 Four-digit industry as a percent of three-digit industry Sales 100 20 10 4 24 14 5 15 2 6 Paid em ployees 100 17 10 4 23 11 3 21 2 9 the distribution center and the supplier prints it as part of the packaging, thus eliminating in-store marking and most display work. Use of computers to analyze sales data has increased re cently. Computers promote use of electronic data interchange to capture sales and reorder data at point of sale. Use of uni versal bar codes also is increasing. Bar code format describes characters that can replace messages contained in typewrit ten shipping documents. Bar codes ease tracking of parcels in the delivery process, resulting in fewer distribution er rors, better scheduling of trucks and warehouse space, and smoother reordering. More recent bar codes include several hundred characters in a square inch of space.8 Automated markdown is another labor saving device that is being introduced and integrated gradually in the retail market. Scanned markdown applications can save 50 per cent of the time of manual ticketing.9 Location—accessibility and exposure to shopper traffic— is a prime determinant of how well a store’s capacity and labor force are used. The rapid expansion in the number of malls and shopping centers in suburban locations contrib uted to productivity growth. Between 1972 and 1984, the number of shopping centers nearly doubled, increasing by 93 percent. Shopping centers offer greater sales exposure for a retailer than any other type of location.10 Employment The number of workers in shopping goods stores increased from a little more than 624,000 in 1977 to more than 1.0 million in 1992, a 63-percent rise, or 3.3 percent a year on average. Hours of all persons increased at an average annual rate of 2.8 percent. Employment increased faster than hours because of a steady decline in average weekly hours. This is particularly true of nonsupervisory workers, whose average Monthly Labor Review October 1995 35 Productivity in Retail Stores C h art 1. Output, hours of all workers, and productivity in miscellaneous shopping goods stores, 1977—92 Index, 1977=100 Index, 1977=100 200 180 160 140 120 100 weekly hours declined from 31.9 in 1977 to 28.1 in 1992. The decrease in average weekly hours reflects an increase in part-time salespersons, often of school age, who work week ends and evenings. Data are available for four categories of workers in the miscellaneous shopping goods stores industry: nonsupervisory workers, supervisory workers, partners and propri etors, and unpaid family workers. Nonsupervisory workers constitute the largest group, which includes salespersons, cashiers, stock workers, and nonsupervisory office workers. Nonsupervisory workers were 68 percent of the industry’s work force in 1977 and 69 percent in 1992. The number of supervisory workers—office supervisors, store managers, and assistant managers—increased from 70,500 in 1977 to 146,400 in 1992. Self-employed and un paid family workers accounted for 21 percent of the industry’s work force in 1977 and 16 percent in 1992. Miscellaneous shopping goods stores employ a signifi cantly higher proportion of women workers than other retail industries. Women in this industry accounted for 64 percent of all paid employees in 1992, higher than their proportion of 53 percent in total retail trade and 47 percent in all private nonfarm establishments in the same year. Women represented only 33 percent of all employees in manufacturing. In addi tion to school-age women, young mothers take part-time em 36 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 ployment at retail businesses as work schedules in retail op erations can be tailored to better meet their needs.11 Average hourly earnings for nonsupervisory workers in the industry were 49 percent below average hourly earn ings of all private nonfarm employees in 1992 and 62 percent below the average for all manufacturing. Low average hourly earnings is a major factor contributing to the high employee turnover rate in the industry. Some studies show that retail employee turnover is as high as 60 percent. The high turn over rate among nonsupervisory workers hinders productiv ity gains in the industry because new employees must un dergo training and are not as productive during this period.12 Outlook Productivity in the retail miscellaneous shopping goods store industry is expected to increase as more stores computerize their retail operations. The industry will benefit from the continuing diffusion of electronic data processing equipment. The availability of more affordable personal computers has brought computer technology within reach of many more small store owners. Point-of-sale technology may become more widely used in the small specialty stores; increased use of bar code and scanning devices will save labor time in in ventory control. Computerized reordering and markdown will replace manual systems and reduce labor time.13 In addition, electronic shopping will become a more im portant part of retailing as new technology becomes more widespread. Electronic marketing has made it possible for consumers to shop from their living rooms and to compare prices and order merchandise for immediate delivery.14 Chains are expected to continue to grow through mergers and acquisitions. The size of many of these specialty stores also will likely increase, approaching the scale of a “super store” or warehouse store. The super stores are likely to grow rapidly as consumers’ shopping habits change.15 Some re tailers of books, sporting goods, and toys and games already have opened such super stores, and the trend will probably continue. □ Footnotes________________________________ 1 All average annual rates of change pertaining to the industry and men tioned in the text or in tables are based on the compound interest method of computation. The indexes for productivity and related variables are updated and published annually in the bls publication, P r o d u c tiv ity M e a s u r e s f o r S e le c te d I n d u s trie s a n d G o v e r n m e n t S e r v ic e s. 2The retail miscellaneous shopping goods stores industry is designated by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget as sic 594 in the 1987 S ta n d a rd I n d u s tria l C la ss ific a tio n M a n u a l. The industry consists of the following four digit industries (because the industries are descriptive, the sic definitions are not given for each of the industries): 5941 - sporting goods stores and bicycle shops 5942 - book stores 5943 - stationery stores 5944 - jewelry stores 5945 - hobby, toy, and game shops 5946 - camera and photographic supply stores 5947 - gift, novelty, and souvenir shops 5948 - luggage and leather goods stores 5949 - sewing, needlework, and piece goods stores 3 Barry Bluestone, Patricia Hannah, Sarah Kuhn, and Laura Moore, The https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis R e ta il R e v o lu tio n (Boston, m a , Auburn House Publishing Co., 1981), p. 2 7- 28 4 Ib id ., pp. 27-28. 5 1 9 8 9 U .S I n d u s tr i a l O u tlo o k (Department of Commerce, 1989), p. 43-2. 6 W a sh in g to n B u s in e ss , “See How Big The Stores Are,” Dec. 13,1993. 7 Bluestone, and others, Th e R e ta il R e v o lu tio n , 8 1 9 9 2 U. S. I n d u s tria l O u tlo o k pp. 112-17. (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992), p. 39-2. 9 Gary Robins, “Automated Markdown,” S to re s, March 1993, p. 28. 10 Brian Friedman, “Productivity trend in department stores, 1967-86,” March 1988, pp. 17-20. 11Joan Bergman, “Who is Selling the Merchandise in Your Store,” S to re s, January 1984, p. 28. 12 Brian Friedman, “Apparel stores display above-average productivity,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , October 1984, pp. 37-42. M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , 13Gary Robins, “Technology Matters,” S to re s, November 1988, p. 20. 14 The W a sh in g to n P o s t, 15 The W a sh in g to n B u s in e ss , “A New Era of Retailing,” Dec. 6, 1993, p. D5. “See How Big the Stores Are,” Dec. 13,1993. Monthly Labor Review October 1995 37 Health Insurance Employer-sponsored health insurance: what’s offered; what’s chosen? Newly available BLS data reveal that one-third of employees who were offered health care plans in 1992-93 had a variety of plan types from which to choose Michael Bucci and Robert Grant Michael Bucci and Robert Grant were economists in the Division of Occupational Pay and Employee Benefit Levels, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 38 ncreasingly more employees can choose from a variety of health care plans, thanks to the growing prevalence of preferred provider organizations (ppo’s) and health maintenance organizations (HMO’s) offered by employers during the past 15 years. New data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that two-fifths of full-time workers in private industry were offered a choice of health plans. More than one-half of full-time private establishment employees were offered a PPO or hmo plan, and nearly one-third of those who were offered health insurance could choose from more than one type of plan. During 1992-93, 58 percent of private estab lishments offered their full-time employees at least one health plan. (See table 1.) Nearly 90 percent of those establishments offering a health plan offered only one plan, and less than 2 per cent offered more than four plans. However, ap proximately one-third of private establishment employees that were offered health care could choose from more than one type of plan. These employees selected traditional fee-for-service plans more often than ppo’s and hmo’s for nearly every combination of plan types offered. Since its inception in 1979, the Employee Benefits Survey1 has provided data on the per centage of workers who receive employer-pro vided health insurance through different types of funding arrangements. During this period, the percentage of employees covered by alternative health care “delivery systems” such as hmo’s and ppo’s has grown significantly, (hmo’s offer pre paid care from a select group of providers; ppo’s allow employees to choose their provider, but I Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 offer financial incentives when designated doc tors and hospitals are chosen.) As a result, the share of health care participants covered by feefor-service plans has declined. In the past, the Employee Benefits Survey presented data on the percentage of employees participating in each type of health care plan. However, no attempt was made to distinguish between the type of plan chosen when more than one type was offered to the employee. This article combines health choice data for employees of medium and large private establishments in 1993 with previously released data for employees of small private establishments in 1992 to produce, for the first time, data on private establishment health plans chosen by employees.2 Theories of choice When presented with a choice of health insur ance plan types, employees must determine which plan best suits their needs. To understand how this process evolves, it is helpful to first examine the theory of demand for insurance and the ways in which individuals make choices. Irving Pfeffer finds that the individual need for insurance is determined by both personal ex pectations and uncertainties.3 In determining whether to purchase insurance, individuals as sess their current situation and decide on their expected needs for coverage. In making this de cision, the individual must also allow for the potential occurrence of uncertainties. In theory, the economic well-being of the in dividual who purchases insurance is increased. The individual takes the opportunity to forecast expected and unexpected outcomes and, by purchasing insurance, in creases the likelihood that these outcomes will be favorable. S.E. Berki and Marie Ashcraft expand on Pfeifer’s hy pothesis of the demand for insurance to explain other fac tors that affect the choice among health plans.4 Accord ing to the authors, enrollees first identify the types of medical services that they expect to utilize. They then single out the plan that best addresses these areas of per ceived future need. Berki and Ashcraft classify this as risk perception. Second, enrollees account for their per ceived financial vulnerability by selecting a health care plan that best addresses their anticipated financial loss due to illness. The combination of these two factors then leads the individual to look for particular features in a health care plan. In addition to the explanations of demand for insurance, other factors are at work when choosing a health plan. Most existing models of health choice assume that the individual making the choice operates in a rational manner. First, an individual determines his or her needs. Then, information is gathered on all available options that might meet these needs. All options are considered and ranked according to their ability to fulfill the individual’s stated needs. Finally, the option that best meets these needs is selected. H.A. Simon argues that individuals do not always practice all the steps outlined in the rational decisionmaking model.5 Instead, they “satisfice.” In satisficing, the first step is again to determine one’s needs. However, the individual does not gather complete information on all available options. Instead, the first few options that appear or the first that look appealing, following a cursory review, are selected by the individual for further study. The benefits provided by these options are then compared with the individual’s needs. The first option that appears to be satisfactory is then chosen. Factors influencing the choice Regardless of the method used, there are many factors that influence the decision to enroll in a particular type of health plan. Many of these have been cited in studies of the health choice decision. Chief among these are immediacy of need, personal characteristics of the enrollee, and plan insurance and delivery characteristics. Types o f plans available. The growth of HMO and PPOenroll ment has been one result of efforts to contain health care costs. Critics of fee-for-service plans contend that such plans provide little incentive to limit costs because of their practice of reim bursing enrollees for all usual, customary, and reasonable charges, regardless of who provides these services.6 Critics also maintain that fee-for-service plans do not always take steps to https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis N u m b e r o f h e a l t h c a r e p l a n s o f f e r e d t o fu llt im e e m p lo y e e s , p r iv a t e e s ta b lis h m e n ts , 1 9 9 2 -9 3 Plans offered— Number of health care plans By establishment (percent) To em ployee (percent) All private establishments Total.......................................... 100 100 0 .................................................... 1 .................................................... 2 .................................................... 3 .................................................... 4 .................................................... 5 .................................................... 6 .................................................... More than 6 ................................. 42 50 6 1 1 (1) (1) (’) 12 47 18 8 6 3 3 3 Total.......................................... 100 100 0 .................................................... 1 .................................................... 2 .................................................... 3 .................................................... 4 .................................................... 5 .................................................... 6 .................................................... More than 6 ................................. 20 38 23 9 6 2 1 1 4 30 26 12 9 6 6 7 Total.......................................... 100 100 0 .................................................... 1 .................................................... 2 .................................................... 3 .................................................... 4 .................................................... 5 .................................................... 6 .................................................... More than 6 ................................. 43 51 5 1 O (1) (’) (’) 20 62 12 3 3 0 0 (’) Medium and large private establishments Small private establishments 1 Less than 0.5 percent. NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. | ensure that there is a verifiable need for the care that is pro vided. In recent years, fee-for-service plans have taken steps to combat these criticisms by instituting numerous cost contain ment measures, such as preadmission certification and utiliza tion review. Both hmo’s and ppo’s take steps to curb costs by emphasizing preventive medicine and by providing price re ductions for care received from designated providers.7 hmo’s provide comprehensive medical services to mem bers on a prepaid basis. Typically, hmo’s provide full cover age for inpatient care such as room and board, surgery, and medical consultations. Outpatient care, such as doctor’s of fice visits and prescription drugs, may be subject to a copayment. The majority of HMO’s require enrollees to re ceive all services from a panel of physicians and hospitals. Monthly Labor Review October 1995 39 Health Insurance PPO’S are another, more recent, alternative to fee-for-service plans and hmo’s. ppo’s contract with employer groups to provide coverage at discounted rates. Enrollees may then choose to receive care from either panel providers or nonpanel providers. In either case, providers are reimbursed on a fee-for-service basis. If panel hospitals or providers are used, however, enrollees are rewarded through lower required payments for services. Theories o f factors. David Mechanic states that the imme diacy of the individual’s need for health insurance can have a significant effect on the type of plan chosen.8 Specifically, if an individual expects to incur a certain type of expense, that individual will seek out a plan that provides the most generous coverage in that particular area.9 In short, the im mediacy of the need can affect the amount of time and effort T ab le 2. Health care plans offered to full-time employees by type of plan and contributory status, private establishments, 1992-93 [In percent] Plan offered— Plan and contributor By establishment All health plans Employee coverage Wholly employer financed........ Partly employer financed......... Family coverage Wholly employer financed........ Partly employer financed......... To em ployee 51 53 52 66 26 77 31 84 50 52 51 58 28 75 32 76 Preferred provider organizations Employee coverage Wholly employer financed........ Partly employer financed......... Family coverage Wholly employer financed........ Partly employer financed......... 52 49 43 63 19 81 22 83 Health maintenance organizations Employee coverage Wholly employer financed........ Partly employer financed......... Family coverage Wholly employer financed........ Partly employer financed......... 38 66 35 75 21 83 20 88 Fee-for-service Employee coverage Wholly employer financed........ Partly employer financed......... Family coverage Wholly employer financed........ Partly employer financed......... No t e : The percentages add to greater than 100 because one establishment could offer both a wholly employer-financed and a partly employer-financed plan, and therefore be included in both categories. The same holds true for employees. 40 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 that individuals allot towards their choice of health plan. Additionally, persons who are dissatisfied with their present plan will have a more immediate incentive to seek out a different type of plan. Features that are said to lead to high satisfaction include low plan premiums, good physi cian-patient relationships, low maximum out-of-pocket ex penses, limited administrative requirements, and preventive care coverage.10 HMO’s are known for offering the three lat ter items. Fee-for-service plans offer enrollees more freedom in securing a good doctor-patient relationship, ppo’s can pro vide lower plan premiums and out-of-pocket expenses than fee-for-service plans. If individuals are dissatisfied with any of these features in their present plan, they may look for a new plan that better addresses their needs, provided that the employer offers a choice among plans. The personal characteristics of the employee may also in fluence the employee’s health care decision. Age, type of fam ily, perceived health status, and financial status may affect an employee’s risk perception and financial vulnerability. For instance, a young, single employee who does not expect to require medical care in the future may be willing to pick a plan solely on the basis of its low monthly premium cost. Conversely, an employee who is expecting to become preg nant within the coming year may disregard monthly premium costs and instead look for a plan that provides prenatal and well baby care, hmo’s, which emphasize preventive care and typically provide unlimited hospitalization care, might have a greater appeal to this employee. Finally, an employee’s de cision to enroll in a particular health plan may be influenced by the employment status of his or her spouse. If a married employee is offered only one plan and the plan requires em ployee contributions, the employee may opt to enroll as a dependent in his spouse’s plan if his spouse’s employer pays the entire family health care premium.11 Personal attitudes and beliefs may also influence the employee’s health plan choice. Some employees may prefer the traditional fee-for-service plans, while others might be more willing to accept alternative health care plans, such as hmo’s and ppo’s. The final determinants that influence the type of health plan chosen are plan insurance and delivery characteristics.12 Insurance characteristics include such features as the types of medical services covered, the monthly premium cost of the plan, and cost-sharing aspects of the plan (such as the deductible, coinsurance, and maximum benefit payments). These features are among the more obvious items that may be studied as an individual makes an initial assessment of a plan’s relative worth. For example, if an employee is pre sented with a choice of two health care plans — an hmo and a PPO— the employee may choose solely on the basis of the difference in the monthly premiums of the two plans. A plan’s delivery characteristics are slightly less obvious. As such, they are more open to the individual decisionmaker’s perception and attitudes. Delivery characteristics can be cat egorized by: access to care, continuity of care, comprehensive ness of coverage, and clinical quality.13 Because these factors are less apparent, it is helpful to look at them in detail. In Berki and Ashcraft’s view, access to health care is made up of three separate components: spatial, psychosocial, and temporal access. Spatial access refers to the relative distance between the site where medical care is provided and the individual’s home or workplace. Psychosocial access refers to the ease of communication between patient and provider. This can be affected by a perceived difference or similarity in social standing. Temporal access can be described as the length of time that the patient must wait between the initial attempt to obtain care and the time when that service is ulti mately delivered. In assessing the health care choice made by employees, these three issues of access can provide quite different re sults depending on the type of plan chosen. Additionally, the importance attached to these variables can vary quite mark edly depending on the individual employee. For some, the location of the health care facility may be of utmost impor tance. Others may wish to see a doctor as soon as possible. Access to care, then, can be a powerful determinant of the employee’s health choice. Continuity of care may also be important. The decision to join a particular health plan can be heavily influenced by an employee’s desire to continue an existing doctor-patient relationship. To many employees, this relationship is the most important feature of the health care arrangement.14 An employee may be willing to spend more money (in the form of a higher premium) to maintain a long-standing re lationship. To maintain freedom of choice among provid ers, some individuals may opt not to join an hmo or ppo. If, however, an employee has little history of illness and has not developed a relationship with a particular doctor, the employee may be more willing to choose a plan on reasons of cost alone. Another delivery characteristic is comprehensiveness of coverage. This refers to the ability to receive all types of care at one site. For instance, a group/staff model HMO15 may provide all outpatient services under one roof, something that might not be available with a traditional fee-for-service arrangement. This convenience may have a strong appeal to some potential enrollees. Finally, clinical quality of care is another delivery charac teristic. Clinical quality pertains to the perceived or actual necessity and effectiveness of the medical services provided. This may, in large part, be based on past experiences with a health care provider. If past experiences with one type of delivery system have resulted in satisfaction with the effec tiveness of care, an employee may seek out this type of plan. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis T ab le 3. Health care plans offered to full-time employees by type of plan, private establishments, 1992-93 [In percent] Plan offered— Type of plan By establishment To em ployee All private establishments Total............................................... With health care........................... Fee-for-service........................ Preferred provider organization............................. Health maintenance organization............................. 100 58 45 100 88 60 9 26 9 32 Without health care.................... 42 12 Total............................................... With health care.......................... Fee-for-service......................... Preferred provider organization........................... Health maintenance organization............................ 100 80 52 100 96 62 25 38 30 49 Without health care.................... 20 4 Total............................................... With health care.......................... Fee-for-service........................ Preferred provider organization............................ Health maintenance organization.......................... 100 57 44 100 80 58 9 16 8 18 Without health care.................... 43 20 Medium and large private establishments Small private establishments Note : The percentages add to greater than 100 because one establish ment could offer more than one type of health plan, and therefore be included in more than one category. The same holds true for employees. Of course, a relatively healthy individual with no previous medical care history may have no basis for assessing quality of care in different fee arrangements. This person may at tach little weight to this variable or may rely on the opinions of co workers. The presence of managed care—the process of ensuring that the services provided are medically necessary and de livered in a proper setting—may also affect the enrollee’s attitude towards the clinical quality of care received. Because the major focus of managed care programs is to ensure that all care provided is necessary and prudent, HMO’s and ppo’s (which have instituted managed care programs to a greater extent than fee-for-service plans16) may attract more employ ees for whom clinical quality of care is important. On the other hand, some potential enrollees may view managed care procedures as intrusive and time-consuming. Monthly Labor Review October 1995 41 Health Insurance Ifiijla J H e a lth p la n c o m b in a tio n s o ffe r e d to fu ll- tim e e m p lo y e e s , p riv a te e sta b lish m e n ts, 1992-93 [In percent] Plan offered— Type of plan By establishment To em ployee Total............................................ 100 100 Fee-for-service o n ly ...................... Preferred provider organization (PPO) only..................................... Health maintenance organization (hmo ) only.............. Fee-for-service and p p o ............... Fee-for-service and h m o ............... PPO and h m o ................................. Fee-for-service, ppo , and h m o ..... 72 47 13 15 8 1 4 2 1 8 2 15 9 5 Total............................................ 100 100 Fee-for-service o n ly ...................... Preferred provider organization (PPO) only.................................... Health maintenance organixation (hmo ) o n ly ................................... Fee-for-service and p p o ................ Fee-for-service and h m o ............... ppo and h m o ................................. Fee-for-service, ppo , and h m o ..... 44 32 18 15 8 2 17 9 3 6 2 22 14 9 Total............................................ 100 100 Fee-for-service o n ly ..................... Preferred provider organization (PPO) only.................................... Health maintenance organization (hmo ) o n ly ................................... Fee-for-service and PPO............... Fee-for-service and h m o .............. ppo and h m o ................................ Fee-for-service, ppo , and h m o ..... 74 62 12 14 8 1 3 2 n 11 1 7 3 1 All private establishments Medium and large private establishments Small private establishments 1 Less than 0.5 percent. NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. employees were offered more than one type of plan. Approximately one-half of the private establishments in the survey paid the full cost of employee coverage for at least one health plan. (See table 2.) Barely more than one-quarter of private establishments paid for at least one family plan in full. Private establishments were more likely to pay for the entire cost of a fee-for-service plan or ppo than an hmo. Fee-for-service plans were the most common type of health plan offered by private establishments, with slightly fewer than one-half offering such plans. (See table 3.) ppo’s and hmo’s were offered by an approximately equal number of establishments, with one-tenth offering each. More than nine-tenths of establishments offering health care offered only one type of plan, with a fee-for-service plan being the most common plan type offered by itself. (See table 4.) Sev enty-two percent of establishments offered only fee-for-ser vice type plans, 13 percent offered only ppo’s, and 8 percent offered hmo’s. When establishments offered more than one type of plan, the most common combination was a fee-forservice plan in conjunction with an hmo, offered by 4 per cent of establishments. As noted earlier, larger establishments were more likely to offer health care to their employees, and were more likely to offer a greater variety of choices. For example, 58 percent of the establishments offering health care employed 88 percent of employees, and only 12 percent of employees were not offered at least one health care plan. In addition, even though less than 2 percent of establishments offered four or more health plan choices, 15 percent of employees could select from four or more health plans. Approximately seven-tenths of the employees who were offered health care plans by their employer had only one type of plan available, with the rest having a choice of at least two types of plans. The most common options open to em ployees were a fee-for-service only, a ppo only, and a fee-forservice and an HMO. Approximately 5 percent of employees could choose from all three types of plans. Employee choice Plan offerings Nearly nine-tenths of full-time employees in private estab lishments were offered at least one health care plan by their employer, but only three-fifths of private establishments of fered at least one health plan. This discrepancy results from the fact that larger establishments were more likely to offer health care than smaller establishments. Similarly, larger establishments also offered more types of health plans. Only one-tenth of private establishments offered more than one type of plan, but nearly one-third of private establishment 42 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 Regardless of the combination offered, when a fee-for-ser vice plan was offered it was the most common choice. When fee-for-service plans were offered along with hmo’s, approxi mately 60 percent of full-time employees chose a fee-forservice plan. When the combination included fee-for-service plans and ppo’s, employee choices were evenly divided. Employees were also nearly equally split between ppo’s and hmo’s when such a choice was given. When all three types were offered, fee-for-service plans were chosen by 40 per cent, while hmo’s and ppo’s were each selected by 30 per cent of employees. These data did not vary by establishment size. (See table 5.) T ab le 5. Percent of participants enrolled in health care plans, by combination of plans offered, private establishments, 1992-93 Type of plan Combination offered Total Health Preferred m ainte Fee-for- provider nance service organiza organiza tion tion (HMO) (PPO) All private establishments Total with a choice............ 100 40 24 Fee-for-service and P P O ........ Fee-for-service and h m o ..... PPO and H M O .............................. Fee-for service, PPO, and H M O ..................................... 100 100 100 51 62 49 — — — 55 38 45 100 40 30 30 36 Medium and large private establishments Total with a choice............ Fee-for-service and P P O ........ Fee-for-service and h m o ..... PPO and h m o ......................... Fee-for-service, p p o , and h m o ..................... 100 38 25 100 100 100 52 61 48 — — — 56 39 44 100 40 30 30 37 Small private establishments Total with a choice............ Fee-for-service and p p o ...... Fee-for-service and h m o ..... PPO and h m o ......................... Fee-for-service, PPO, and h m o ............................... 100 47 20 100 100 100 51 65 49 — 52 35 48 100 36 35 29 — 33 As the following tabulation shows, 14 percent of employ ees were in establishments offering a health plan, but elected no coverage. Among several possibilities for this situation, some reasons are that employees may be covered on a spouse’s health plan, may not be able to afford the premi ums, or may be ineligible due to a service requirement. P ercen t c h o o s in g T otal................................................................................................. N o p la n ....................................................................................... F ee-for-service.......................................................................... PPO................................................................................................ HMO.............................................................................................. 100 14 51 19 16 These new data indicate that despite the availability of choices among health care plans, employees frequently choose traditional fee-for-service arrangements. Also apparent is that larger establishments are more likely than smaller ones to offer choices of health care plans and alternative health care arrangements. Thus, while the percent of establishments offering choices and alternatives is small, such features are available to a sizable proportion of employees. Q https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1The Employee Benefits Survey has provided information on the incidence and provisions of employer-provided benefit plans since 1979. The survey includes details on paid leave, employer-sponsored insurance, and retirement. Three different sectors of the economy are studied. Medium and large private establishments (100 or more employees) are studied in odd years. State and local governments and small private establishments (1-99 employees) are studied in even years. Data in this article are from the 1992-93 surveys of private establishments; preliminary work on this subject has been published in “Health Insurance: Employer Offerings and Employee Choice in Small Private Establishments,” C o m p e n sa tio n a n d W orkin g C o n d itio n s (Bureau of Labor Statistics, August 1994), p. 1, and “Health Insurance: BLS Reports on Employer Offerings and Employee Choice in State and Local Governments, 1992” (Summary 94-7). 2The data used in this analysis are limited to full-time employees. 3Pfeffer, Irving, In su ra n ce a n d E c o n o m ic D. Irwin Inc., 1956) p. 113. T h eo ry (Homewood, IL, Richard 4 S.E. Berki, and Marie Ashcraft, “HMO Enrollment: Who Joins What and Why: A Review of the Literature,” M ilb a n k M e m o r ia l F u n d Q u a r te rly /H e a lth a n d S o c ie ty , vol. 58, no. 4, 1980, pp. 588-632. 5H.A. Simon, A d m in is tr a tiv e B e h a v io r (New York, N.Y., Free Press, 1976). 6Fundamentals of Employee Benefit Prorams, 4th ed. (Washington, D.C., Employee Benefits Research Institute, 1990) p. 209. 7 The following discussion of HMO’s and PPO’s is taken largely from Tho mas P. Burke and Rita S. Jain, “Trends in employer-provided health care ben efits,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , February 1991, pp. 24—30. — Note: These data are limited to full-time employees. T yp e o f p la n Footnotes 8David Mechanic, “Consumer Choice Among Health Insurance Options,” Spring 1988, p. 139. H e a lth A ffa ir s , 9 While an immediate need for a certain type of care may influence the employee’s choice of health plans, it should be noted that many plans impose both eligibility requirements and exclusions for pre-existing conditions on em ployees. For example, in 1993,52 percent of full-time employees in medium and large private establishments had to fulfill a certain length of service before being eligible for health insurance coverage. In addition, 57 percent of full time participants in plans other than HMO’s were required to be enrolled in a plan for a certain length of time before coverage would be granted for a medical condition that existed prior to initial enrollment in the plan. 10Robert Puelz, “A Selection Model for Employees Confronted With Health Insurance Alternatives,” B e n e fits Q u a r te r ly , Second Quarter 1991, p. 19. 11The Employee Benefits Survey tabulates health plan “participants,” that is, individuals who are actually covered by their employer’s plan. Employees who decline coverage, because they are covered by their spouses’ health care plan or for other reasons, are not considered health plan participants. 12 Berki and Ashcraft, p. 591 (diagram). 13 The discussion of delivery characteristics draws significantly from Berki and Ashcraft’s “HMO Enrollment: ” pp. 596-603. 14 In a study of the health choice made by new employees of a university, employees were asked to rank choice criteria. The belief that the doctor’s primary concern was your health was ranked as “very important” by 72 per cent of the respondents; 65 percent said that feeling that your doctor’s con cern for your health outweighed a concern for limiting costs was “very im portant.” The only item rated as more important was the ability to get an appointment quickly. See David Mechanic, Therese Ettel, and Diane Davis, “Choosing Among Health Insurance Options: A Study of New Employees,” I n q u ir y , Spring 1990, p. 17. 15There are two primary types of HMO’s: group/staff models and individual practice associations. Group/staff HMO’s provide services at a central facility. Individual practice associations are made up of individual providers who oper ate from their own offices. 16Both HMO’s and PPO’s have inherent managed care features. Data from Monthly Labor Review October 1995 43 Health Insurance the Employee Benefits Survey give testament to this. For example, in 1993 two-fifths of medium and large establishment employees enrolled in feefor-service plans were required to seek a second surgical opinion, while APPENDIX: nearly all HMO enrollees were required to do so. See E m p lo y e e B e n e f its in M e d iu m a n d L a r g e P r i v a t e E s ta b l is h m e n ts , 1 9 9 3 , Bulletin 2456 (Bu reau of Labor Statistics, November 1994.) D eterm ining the c h o ic e in health plans Three groups o f data were extracted from the Em ployee Benefits Survey’s database for this article: the percent o f establishments o f fering health plans,1 the percent o f em ployees offered health plans, and the percent o f em ployees participating in health plans. Data on the types o f health plans chosen by em ployees are rou tinely collected and published by the Bureau. However, for this study, the options available to the em ployee had to be determined in addi tion to their final choice. This was accom plished by placing estab lishments into groups depending on the types o f plans offered to the occupations within that establishment (fee-for-service only, fee-forservice plus HMO, and so forth), then determining the number o f em ployees in the establishment (to determine the number o f em p loyees offered that com bination), and finally determ ining what plans the em ployees actually chose. Several assumptions were made concerning the data. First, it was assumed that all plans offered by an establishment were offered to all em ployees in that establishment. However, it may be true that certain occupations or groups o f workers are not offered certain plans, and therefore workers in those groups should not be counted as being offered these plans. For exam ple, an establishment may offer two separate plans, an HMO for salaried em ployees only and a fee-for-service plan for hourly em ployees only. Under the assump tion on counting workers in certain occupations, both the salaried and hourly em ployees would be shown as being offered a choice between a fee-for-service plan and an HMO. To determine the effect o f this assumption, the data were studied in two different ways. First, all occupations were assumed to have been offered a plan if at least one em ployee in the establishment was in the plan. The data were then tabulated using this assump tion. A second test assumed that any occupation that had no partici pants in a given plan was not offered that plan. The results o f these two tests were nearly identical, which show that making this as sumption did not significantly alter the data. The second assumption involved imputed plan participation and provisions. When an establishment is unable to provide a reliable estimate o f the number o f em ployees who participate in a health plan, the survey must estimate the number o f em ployees participat ing in the plan(s) offered by the establishment. Each o f these par ticipant values is imputed by randomly selecting a plan o f the same type from a similar establishment. The participant rate from this randomly selected plan is then used to approximate the number o f participants for the plan that is m issing a participation value.2 Sim i larly, when an establishment is unable to provide detailed plan pro vision information, provision data from similar plans are used. This assumption also presented potential problems. Although participation data are drawn from similar establishments, it is pos sible that the behavior exhibited by em ployees o f one establish ment may not be mirrored by em ployees in another comparable e s tablishment. A s a result, the data were again examined using two different hypotheses. The dataset containing both imputed and nonimputed participation data was compared with the dataset with nonimputed data only. A s with the previous test, both datasets pro vided similar findings.3 Thus, findings shown in this article in clude both imputed and unimputed data. Footnotes to the appendix 1Estimates from the Employee Benefits Survey are calculated from data on the benefits characteristics of employees in selected occupations, not the benefit characteristics of establishments. Data are collected after ran domly selecting occupations within each surveyed establishment. The availability of a certain benefit is then determined by whether or not the benefit is offered to the employees in these particular occupations. It is possible that the occupations that are selected may not have certain types o f benefits offered to them while other, nonselected, occupations may be offered such benefits. It is also possible that a plan may be offered, but no employees participate in it. When the latter situation occurs, the Employee Benefits Survey would not register the existence of this plan. The prob- 44 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 ability selection of occupations across a nationwide sample limits the effect of such an occurrence. For more information, see Appendix A: Technical Note in E m p lo y e e B en efits in M ed iu m a n d L a rg e P r iv a te E sta b lish m en ts, 1 9 9 3 , Bulle tin 2456 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 1994). 2 For more information, see the appendices in E m p lo y e e B e n e f its in S m a ll P r i v a t e E s ta b l is h m e n ts , 1 9 9 2 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 1994) and E m p lo y e e B e n e f its in M e d iu m a n d L a r g e P r i v a t e E s t a b l i s h m e n ts , 1 9 9 3 . 3 This may be expected because the imputed data are created from the nonimputed data. Industrial Relations Early retirem ent incentives a t Electric Boat Six-year p a c t a t N ew York hotels Some 6,400 welders, electricians, ship yard clerks, m achinists, painters, pipefitters, drivers, and carpenters rep resented by member unions of the Metal Trades Council at the Electric Boat company’s shipyard in Groton, CT, will be working under a new 3-year agree ment that provides incentives for em ployees to retire early as the company downsizes. Given the cutbacks in de fense spending, the unions said the early retirement incentives were impor tant because their members were “faced with the certainty of 4,500 layoffs in the next two and a half years.” During a 2-month window in 1995, employees retiring at age 55 or older with 10 or more years of service will be credited with 5 additional years of ser vice in the calculation of pension ben efits, which were increased to $32 (was $29) a month for each year of credited service. They also will receive 2 years of free health care coverage. The contract calls for an immediate $1,000 signing bonus; wage increases of 2 percent each in January of 1996 and 1997, and 2.5 percent in January 1998; and a $500 bonus in July 1996. Other changes increase maximum ac cident and sickness benefits from $260 to $300 per week over the term of the agreement; introduce a managed health care program; and enhance dental ben efits. The unions also beat back management’s proposals to consolidate job classifications, cut vacation and sick leave, take back 2 paid holidays, and eliminate health insurance cover age for employees who are on work ers’ compensation or sickness and ac cident leave. With a strike threat hanging over their heads, the Hotel Association of New York City and the New York City Hotel and Motel Trades Council, bargaining for nine local unions, negotiated a 6year agreement covering some 22,000 workers at 79 hotels in New York City. A fter union members authorized a walkout, the parties extended their ex pired agreement for 4 days, giving them enough time to reach a settlement. The major sticking points in negotiations centered on the Hotel Association’s pro posals to change the bargaining unit sta tus of concessionaires’ employees— workers employed by independent busi nesses operating within a hotel—and to convert some full-time bargaining unit positions to part-time status. Under terms of the settlement, the Hotel Association agreed to language that makes concessionaires “joint em ployers” with the hotels and makes em ployees of future concessionaires part of the bargaining unit. The unions also turned down employer proposals that would have affected job security, in cluding one to eliminate a successor clause that requires a new owner of any hotel covered under the agreement to adopt the labor contract, and another to combine various job classifications. The hotels, however, gained some concessions from the union, including a longer term agreement than the 3-year pact the unions sought. Other language changes gave management more flex ibility in scheduling, including the right to lay off or change the work schedules of workers after a 5-day notice (was 7 days), and to give a day off instead of double time for work on holidays. Other rule changes require extend ing the contract of member hotels un dergoing renovations by the amount of time it takes to complete the renova tions, so as to prevent the hotels from circumventing union jurisdiction; stipu late that management must give newly “ Industrial Relations" is prepared by Michael H. Cimini of the Division of Devel opments in Labor-M anagement Rela tions, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is largely based on information from sec ondary sources. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis recalled employees a 3-day notice be fore laying them off again; and limit layoffs to three per month per em ployee, or give recalled employees time and one-half for all work after the third layoff during the month. The parties also agreed to study several issues not resolved in negotiations, including elim ination of roll-call for banquet waiters, tip-related issues for “front ser vice” employees, establishment of a multiemployer credit union, and devel opment of a prescription drug plan. Terms call for general wage in creases of 4 percent in the first year, fol lowed by annual raises of $18 a week for nontipped employees and $9 a week for tipped employees. In addition, the agreement increases hotel payments to employees providing services for tour groups—by 25 cents per bag (to $1.37 per bag) for bellhops, by 10 cents per person (to 67.5 cents per person) for doormen, and by 1 percent (to 15 per cent) for waiters and captains working banquets at larger hotels. According to a union spokesperson, bargaining unit employees currently earn about $450 a week. The pact introduces several benefit changes. It reduces the age requirement to qualify for normal pension benefits, from 65 to 55 years, for employees with at least 25 years of service; increases the minimum monthly pension benefit from $600 to $750; and boosts maximum life insurance benefits from $3,000 to $10,000 and maximum disability insur ance benefits from $170 to $300 a week over the term contract. N ew Jersey public e m p lo y e e settlem ents Some 8,400 State employees repre sented by 15 locals of the American Federation of State, County and Mu nicipal Employees ( a f s c m e ) will be working under a 4-year agreement that freezes salaries for the first 2 years of the contract, and maintains full State Monthly Labor Review October 1995 45 Industrial Relations funding of health care benefits for em ployees participating in managed care plans. The a f s c m e unit consists of non professional workers in State hospitals, nursing homes, day training facilities for the developmentally disabled, and other institutions. Governor Christine Todd Whitman stated, “I am pleased that we have been able to come to terms with the union and that the collective bargaining system has produced a fair settlement—fair to the workers and to the taxpaying public.” The most contentious issue in nego tiations centered on employee cost shar ing for workers participating in tradi tional indemnity health care plans. In an attempt to curtail escalating health care costs, the State insisted that these employees assume a portion of their plan’s costs. No workers had contrib uted towards health care costs in the past 20 years. Under terms of the settlement, in demnity plan participants must pay be tween $240 and $600 per year depend ing on their salary, beginning in 1996. Plan participants earning less than $35,000 per year must contribute $20 per month, but not more than 1 percent of their base salary; those earning $35,000 to $40,000 annually must pay up to 1.5 percent of their base salary; and those earning more than $40,000 must pay the difference between the tra ditional plan’s cost and the average cost of approved health maintenance orga nization (HMO) and preferred provider organization (PPO) plans. The accord also requires retirees enrolled under in demnity plans to contribute towards plan costs beginning in 1997. The con tract continues fully paid health care for active employees and retirees enrolled in a State-approved h m o or the New Jersey Plus PPO. Concerned about the State’s proposal to privatize many government func tions, union negotiators won inclusion of contract language providing assis tance to employees facing layoff as a result of privatization. Provisions es 46 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis tablished preferential hiring lists with private employers who take over State government operations, instituted hir ing freezes to create openings for laidoff employees or those targeted for lay off, continued State-paid health care coverage for a limited transition period, and provided training for laid-off em ployees to enable them to qualify for job openings. The State also agreed to make a “good faith” effort to maintain certain bargaining unit jobs when it privatizes work. Although the contract does not pro vide base salary increases during the first 2 years, employees will continue to receive annual step increases for each additional year of service, which typi cally have yielded raises of between 2 and 4 percent. In addition, employees will receive a lump-sum payment of $250 on April 1, 1997, and salary in creases of $750 on July 1, 1997, $250 on January 1, 1998, $750 on July 1, 1998, and $350 on January 1, 1999. At the expiration of the prior pact, employ ees, on average, reportedly earned $25,500 per year. New Jersey also reached agreement with the negotiating committee repre senting carpenters, electricians, me chanics, plumbers, motor vehicle in spectors, and security personnel— some 5,600 members of Local 195 of the In ternational Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers and about 600 members of Local 518 of the Service Employees International Union. Terms of the pact were virtually identical to those in the a f s c m e contract. C ontinental p a c t re a c h e d after 18 months With the assistance of a Federal media tor, Continental Airlines and the Inde pendent Association of Continental Pi lots ( i a c p ) reached a 2-year agree ment—the first in 12 years—for some 3,800 pilots in the Houston-based air carrier’s system. C. D. McLean, Conti- October 1995 nental senior vice president of opera tions stated, “(T)his is the mutually ben eficial agreement we’ve been working toward since negotiations began more than a year ago.” Mark Benton, secre tary-treasurer of the union said that the wage changes called for in the contract are a “fairly substantial increase for the pilots . . . we’ll no longer be the bot tom-feeders in the industry.” In July 1993, ia c p won an election conducted by the National Mediation Board ( n m b ) — the Federal agency charged with administering labor law in the industry—to represent pilots work ing at Continental, the now-defunct Continental Lite, Continental Express, and Air Micronesia. The pilots had been without representation since 1983, when former CEO Frank Lorenzo de clared the airline bankrupt and termi nated all labor contracts, including one with the pilots’ former representative, the Air Line Pilots Association. Negotiations for a first agreement between Continental and the ia c p be gan in August 1993. In the fall of 1994, the union requested n m b assistance af ter direct negotiations yielded little progress. Continental originally sought a 6-year pact calling for a 38-percent general wage increase over the contract term, a ratification bonus averaging $1,750 for captains, improvements in the profit-sharing plan, and numerous work rule changes. The union proposed a 2-year deal with wage increases total ing 28 percent over the term. The new settlement calls for a com bination of wage increases and lump sum payments designed to bring pilots’ salaries closer in line with industry stan dards. It provides general wage in creases of 13.5 percent retroactive to July 1, 1995, and 5 percent on June 30, 1997. The pact also includes a longev ity “snap-back” of 2.5 percent on Janu ary 1, 1996, restoring pilots to full ser vice credit on the wage scale. Due to financial difficulties, the carrier froze annual longevity increases in 1990, and has only partially restored longevity pay since then. With the snap-back, pilots collectively will receive about $20 mil lion upon ratification and $10 million on April 1, 1996—with the actual dis tribution among individual pilots yet to be determined. Continental’s pilots cur rently average approximately $82,000 a year, about 55 percent of the average at other major carriers. Pilots now will be included under the airline’s “on-time” bonus program, be gun during the period in which Conti nental was negotiating with the IACP. The program provides payments of $65 per employee in any month that the car rier is among the top five airlines in ontime performance. Continental initi ated the bonus program in hopes of lur ing back high-paying business travel ers after years of consistently ranking last in on-time performance among all major carriers. In March and April 1995, Continen tal earned the number 1 ranking for ontime performance for the first time in its history. The performance record was ended when pilots conducted an unof ficial slowdown by flying “by the book”— strictly following all flight rules but not conducting operations as expeditiously as possible. The pilots collectively are owed about $500,000 in bonuses as a result of past on-time record performance. The new agreement was touted as the last existing hurdle for the airline’s return to profitability. Prior to the pact, Continental forecast its first profit— about $45 million—after 9 years and https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis two bankruptcy filings. The carrier lost $613 million in 1994. The turnaround is attributed to a number of cost-cutting moves that in cluded: • Terminating the carrier’s flounder ing Continental Lite branch, a lowcost, no-frills discount operation that produced losses upwards of $110 million in 1994; • Drawing back from markets with fierce competition, most notably from a Denver market dominated by United Airlines and from the east ern United States, where usAir has a strong presence; • Grounding 41 planes and slashing load capacity by 9 percent; • Eliminating some 4,200 jobs dur ing the first 6 months of 1995; • Boosting liquidity by renegotiat ing plane leases and debt; • Deferring delivery of new planes; and • Cutting annual maintenance costs from $777 million in 1992 to $475 million in 1994. The airline also initiated a number of service improvements, including an overhaul of its reservation system to ensure that 90 percent of calls are an swered within 20 seconds. Union activities The AFL-CIO Executive Council elected Thomas R. Donahue as president of the federation to serve out the remainder of the term of Lane Kirkland, who retired effective August 1. Barbara Easterling was elected to fill the secretarytreasurer’s position vacated by Donahue. This sets the stage in October for the first contested elections for top positions at the AFL-CIO since it was founded in 1955. The Donahue slate will be facing stiff competition from a ticket headed by John J. Sweeney of the Service Employ ees International Union. In another development, the presi dents of the Nation’s three largest indus trial unions—the United Automobile Workers (UAW), the United Steelwork ers of America (USA), and the Interna tional A ssociation o f M achinists ( i a m ) — signed a “unity declaration” that commits the labor organizations to merge by 2001, subject to approval by their members. The unification would take place gradually in stages, begin ning with the coordination of member ship services, such as legislation-re lated activities, organizing, collective bargaining, legal activities, communi cation, education, and training. While labor analysts feel that the merger can strengthen the unions’ bargaining and fin a n c ia l c lo u t, th e y a lso agree that the unions face numerous problem s in completing the unification. The merger would create a behe moth—the largest union in the a f l -CIO— with nearly 2 million members in the United States and Canada. The uaw cur rently has a m em bership of about 771,000; the USA, 615,000; and the ia m , 474,000. □ Monthly Labor Review October 1995 47 The Law at Work D ea d lin e for warn suits Employees who claim that they were given inadequate notice of a plant clos ing or mass layoff may sue for money damages under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining N otification Act ( w a r n ), a Federal law passed in 1988.1 But the Act provides no limitations on when an action enforcing it must be brought. Since the passage of the Act, the Courts of Appeals have split on the issue of its limitation period. Some have ruled that the time limit should be borrowed from State law; others have looked to an analogous Federal law, the National Labor Relations Act,2 for an applicable period of limitation. In a recent decision in two consoli dated cases, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled that judges should follow the practice of looking to State law for the limitation period on actions in tended to enforce WARN. (Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. v. United Steelwork ers; North Star Steel Co. v. Thomas)? The Court declined to impose the 6months time limit governing unfair la bor practice charges under the n l r a as a uniform deadline for w a r n suits. Borrowing limitation periods from analogous State law is “longstanding” and “settled” practice, said Justice David Souter, who delivered the opin ion. Although the Supreme Court has recognized the use of limitation peri ods from Federal law as an exception to this general rule, the exception is a narrow one. The Court declines to fol low a State limitation period, declared Souter, only when the Federal policies at stake or practicalities of litigation dictate using a rule from another Fed eral law. Souter described this case as falling “squarely inside the rule, not the excep tion.” None of the time limits under "The Law a t Work" is p re pa re d by Constance B. DiCesare of the Office of Publications and Special Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is largely based on information from secondary sources. 48 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis O ctober the potentially applicable State laws (from 2 to 6 years) would interfere with w a r n ’s purpose or operation, he said. The consolidated cases are the first to reach the Supreme Court under the 1988 Act. The ruling makes it easier for work ers to file lawsuits claiming that they were not given adequate notice of plant closings or layoffs. B ac k p a y , d a m a g e s c a n b e ta x e d The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that backpay and liquidated damages recov ered under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ( a d e a ) may not be ex cluded from income under the Internal Revenue Code ( Commissioner v. Schleier).4 The ruling reversed a lower court decision that damages recovered under the a d e a are received on account of personal injury and therefore do not count as income for Federal tax liability. Erich Schleier, a former United Air lines pilot forced to retire at age 60, received $72,800 in backpay and an equal sum in liquidated damages as part of a June 1986 class action settle ment with United. Schleier claimed that he could exclude both sums from his gross incom e under Section 104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code because they represented “damages re ceived . . . on account of personal in jury or sickness.”5 The U.S. Tax Court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Schleier. The Internal Revenue Service appealed to the Su preme Court. Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion of the High Court that a tax payer must meet two independent re quirements in order to exclude a recov ery under Section 104(a)(2) of the code. The taxpayer must show, first, that his or her underlying cause of action is “based upon tort or tort type rights,” and second, that he or she received the damages “on account of personal inju ries or sickness.” Schleier failed to meet either requirement. 1995 Writing for a divided court, Stevens said that Schleier’s damages were not tortlike, because they addressed only injuries of an economic character—loss of wages. Furthermore, even if Schleier had established that his injuries were tortlike, he would still have needed to demonstrate that the amounts he was awarded were received on account of personal injury or sickness in order for them to be excluded from the tax code. Satisfying the tortlikeness test is a nec essary condition for excluding recovery under the a d e a from income, noted Judge Stevens, but it is not a sufficient condition. Both tests must be satisfied. Justice Sandra Day O ’Connor was joined by Justices Souter and Clarence Thomas in dissenting from the opinion in Schleier. Age discrimination does in flict personal injury, declared O’Connor: “The injuries from discrimination that the a d e a redresses—like the harm to repu tation and loss of business caused by a dignitary tort like defamation . . . may not always manifest themselves in physi cal symptoms, but they are no less per sonal . . . and thus no less worthy of ex cludability under Section 104(a)(2).” Furloughs unconstitutional Does a public employer violate the con stitutional prohibition against impairing contracts when it mandates unpaid fur loughs for employees covered by a col lective bargaining agreement? The an swer to this question is yes, according to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s recent ruling that a 1991 fur lough of State employees was an uncon stitutional interference with collective bargaining agreements. (,Massachusetts Community College Council v. Com monwealth).6 The furlough program applied to all State employees who earned $20,000 or more a year, except judges. Under the plan, employees had to take between 2 and 15 days of unpaid leave, depending on their salaries. Employees had two other options: work without pay and receive bonus vacation days the follow ing year, or work without pay and re ceive a lump-sum payment upon leav ing State employment. Several unions representing State workers challenged the furlough plan, winning a series of arbitration awards that were upheld by a lower Massachusetts court last year. The Commonwealth then appealed to the State Supreme Judicial Court. Implementation of the furlough plan substantially impaired the rights of the affected employees, in violation of the “contracts clause” of the United States Constitution, wrote Justice Herbert P. Wilkins in his decision. No circum stances existed that would have justi fied such an impairment. Justice Wilkins’ analysis noted that the “contracts clause” should not be read as literally prohibiting every im pairment of a contractual obligation. The relevant question is whether the impairment is substantial. In holding that the impairment in this case was in deed substantial, Justice Wilkins re ferred to the reasoning in a line of cases dealing with mandatory State furloughs or delayed compensation plans. Al though these opinions differed on some points, they agreed that a unilateral re duction in contractually established, State em ployee salary obligations amounted to substantial impairment. Wilkins concluded that an impair ment of a State’s contractual obliga tions could be constitutional if the State could show that “the impairment was both reasonable and necessary to serve an important State purpose.” But in the M assachusetts furlough case, said Wilkins, this was not so. Religious discrim ination Allowing spontaneous prayers and iso lated references to Christian belief does not place an undue hardship on the con duct of a public employer’s business, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has ruled. The decision, which reversed a lower court ruling, revived a government supervisor’s claim that re ligious discrimination played a part in his firing. The case, Brown v. Polk County, Iowa,1 arose in m id-1990, when the county adm inistrator reprim anded Isaiah Brown, director of the informa tion services department, for participat ing in activities at work that could be construed as promoting a religious or ganization. The reprimand directed Brown to cease using county resources in any way that could be perceived as supporting a religious activity or orga nization. Subsequently, the administra tor told Brown to remove from his of fice all items having a religious conno tation. Later that year, the administra tor reprimanded Brown for a “lack of judgment” concerning financial con straints in the county’s budget. Two weeks after that, Brown was asked to resign; when he refused, he was fired. Brown sued, alleging that the county had violated his constitutional guaran tees of free exercise of religion, free speech, and equal protection.8 The district court found for the county, and a divided panel of the ap peals court affirmed the decision. The same appeals court then granted a rehearing, en banc.9 Circuit Judge Morris Sheppard Arnold delivered the opinion of the court that religious ac tivities had played a part in the deci sion to fire Isaiah Brown. Even though Brown did not explicitly ask that his religious activities be accommodated, they were still protected under Title VII, declared Judge Arnold. But because the county did not attempt to accommodate them, it had to show that allowing Brown’s religious activities would not have been possible without the govern ment suffering “undue hardship.” Judge Arnold said the county claimed that allowing spontaneous prayers and isolated references to Christian doctrine would be an undue hardship on the con duct of government business because of its potential effect on other employees in the work unit. The county asserted that this might give rise to a perception that Brown would favor persons having reli gious beliefs similar to his own in mak ing personnel decisions. The appeals court rejected this rea soning, characterizing the fear of favor itism and possible polarization of the staff over religion as not sufficiently “real” to satisfy the standard of undue hardship. With respect to Brown’s con stitutional claims, the court conceded that the county had a right to ensure that its workplace be free from religious ac tivity that “harasses or intimidates” em ployees. But, said Judge Arnold, any interference with religious activity must be narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s objective. To direct Mr. Brown, as Polk County did, to cease ac tivities that merely could be considered proselytizing demonstrated a hostility to religion forbidden by the Constitution. Footn otes 1The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Noti fication Act ( warn ), 102 Stat. 890,29u.s.c. § 2101 et seq., obliges covered employers to give employ ees or their union 60 days’ notice of a plant closing or mass layoff. 2 The National Labor Relations Act ( nlra ), 49 Stat. 449,29 u.s.c. § 160 (b). 3 32 F. 3d 53. 4 26 F. 3d 1119. 5 26 u.s.c. § 104 (1988 ed. and Supp. V). 6 649 n .e . 2d 708 (Mass. 1995). 737 F. 3d 404 (8th. Cir. 1994). 8 Brown, an African American, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the first reprimand and the order to remove religious items from his office violated his constitutional guarantees of free exer cise of religion, free speech, and equal protection. He also alleged, under 42 u.s.c. § 2000e-2(a)(l) (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) and the Iowa civil rights statute, that he was fired because of his race and his religion. 9 In the United States, the Circuit Courts of Ap peal usually sit in panels of judges. When they ex pand the bench to a larger number, they are said to be sitting en banc. Monthly Labor Review O ctober 1995 49 Book Reviews C ollectin g their thoughts Labor Economics and Industrial Rela tions: Markets and Institutions. Clark Kerr and Paul D. Staudohar, eds. Cambridge, m a , Harvard University Press, 1994, 752 pp., $35. This is not light, weekend reading. It is a meaty, thought-provoking, rewarding collection of 23 essays by top labor rela tions specialists surveying the develop ment and current state of labor econom ics and industrial relations theory and practice. If these subjects turn you on, you should buy this book and read it— slowly and carefully. What will you find? Former Secretary of Labor George Shultz tells of persuading President Ri chard M. Nixon to abstain from inter vening in a “national em ergency” strike, and uphold free collective bar gaining. Shultz, also Secretary of State in the Reagan Administration, extends to international relations his view of collective bargaining as a way to solve problems. George Hildebrand reviews labor econom ics from “classical” Adam Smith to Karl Marx, and “neo-classi cal” Alfred Marshall, A.C. Pigou, and John R. Hicks. The Wisconsin Institutionalists— John Commons, Selig Perlman, and three generations of economists who followed these scholars— share with their forerunners “the view of the la bor problem as a moral question, the research method of ‘go and see,’ and a preference for problem-solving over theory-m aking.” Jack Barbash de scribes them as “activist advocates and administrators in behalf of their case.” Barbash also credits scholars at Johns Hopkins University who “put together a sort of political science of trade unionism in the early years of the twen tieth century.” The neoclassical and institutional ist approaches were brought together from the 1930’s to the 1960’s by “so cial econom ics rev isio n ists— Paul 50 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Douglas (who later was elected a U.S. senator from Illinois); Sumner Slichter; John Dunlop, Secretary of Labor in the Ford Administration; Albert Rees; and George Shultz— according to Clark Kerr, who sees himself as one of the revisionists. “We saw not equilibrium but disequilibria. We saw not determi nate solutions but indeterminate ranges for solutions. We saw not a market for labor but many markets with distin guishing characteristics. We saw col lective action as well as atomistic de cision-making. We saw systems of be liefs, including justice and benevo lence, affecting people as well as selflove.” Human capital theory has enlarged the field of labor economics, according to Jacob Mincer. He explains the con tributions of human capital analysis to wage structure and distribution of la bor income, labor mobility and its wage and unemployment consequences, and the effects of technological change on labor markets. He also finds human capital theory a powerful tool in new fields such as the economics of health, education and demography, linking these areas to labor economics. To what extent are labor markets competitive? Bruce Kaufman finds in stitutionalists on the negative side and the Chicago school on the positive side. He surveys a range of factors and finds the net impact “uncertain,” but becom ing more competitive. However, lower pay for women and minority workers and the absence of compensating wage differentials for workplace injuries in dicate a need for institutional interven tion in labor markets in equal employ ment, affirmative action, and occupa tional safety and health legislation. Kaufman deplores “the divorce of theory from reality” under the influ ence of the Chicago school for which “theory development has become an end in itself.” Richard Lester, who has challenged neoclassical minimum wage-employ ment theory for 50 years, reports on re- O ctober 1995 cent minimum wage studies by David Card, Lawrence Katz, Alan Krueger, and Lawrence Summers. Lester writes that his essay may require many text books “to have their treatment of wage differentials and minimum wage effects altered.” Lloyd Reynolds challenges “dualistic models” of third world labor markets. Dual labor market theories “do not stand up well in the light of the evidence,” he says, adding that evidence does not exist to support the idea of wage rigidity. “In stead of a single rural and urban wage, the studies reveal a great variety of wage rates for particular kinds of labor. The whole wage structure moves generally upward, as rising productivity is trans lated into higher incomes.” As a result, “labor markets in the less developed countries bear a distinct family resem blance to our own.” The so-called “natural rate of unem ploym ent,” also known as the non accelerating inflation rate of unem ploym ent, is challenged by Robert Solow, a Nobel laureate in economics. Exploring equilibrium in the labor mar ket, he writes that the field “is open to plausible scenarios in which many equilibrium unemployment rates are possible.” He adds that the equilibrium rate itself, and therefore eventually the observed amount of unemployment, can be changed by policies affecting the structure and institutions of the la bor market.” Richard Freeman examines union/ nonunion wage differentials in the United States and other countries, find ing that unions in the United States raise wages by 20 to 25 percent, push up the wages of nonunion workers, but reduce wage dispersion am ong organized workers. In addition, union workers are less satisfied with their jobs than non union workers in similar industries who are paid the same wage. Unions also reduce the number of workers who quit; increase the time a worker spends at a firm; and reduce employer profitabil ity, according to Freeman. Thus, he finds that “the voice com ponent of unionism is more universal and less de pendent on the system of labor relations than are monopoly wage effects. From this I conclude that voice factors must be intrinsic in any general theory of trade unionization.” Freeman refers to “union voice factor” to describe union effects that produce less wage disper sion, more fringe benefits, fewer quits, longer job tenure, and less job satisfac tion— in contrast to union economic ef fects on wage levels and profits. Paul Osterman”s essay on internal labor markets is itself worth the price of the book. From his own survey of 875 establishments he finds firms that are most likely to have some kind of “high-performance work system” are those “that competed in international markets, that were part of larger orga nizations, that used high skill technol ogy, that followed a market strategy based on quality and variety rather than price competition, and that espoused values that emphasized employee well being.” This last item shows that “in ternal firm customs, norms, and poli tics modify . . . market forces.” But Osterman warns that in a firm repre sented by a union, senior management may find it difficult to accept the de gree of cooperation that is typically necessary. In the absence of a union, management is likely to fear that em powering the labor force is the first step toward unionization.” Despite the growth in human re source management among nonunion companies in the 1960’s, “even heavily unionized firms eventually jumped on the human resource management band wagon,” writes Sanford Jacoby. Pro fessionalism in this field is difficult to achieve because “today’s human re source managers still risk ostracism by their fellow managers if they veer too much toward advocacy of the employ ees’ rights,” according to Jacoby. Dunlop widens his theory of indus trial relations systems by identifying eight categories of “structured” inter- https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis nal labor markets: small enterprises (31 million workers), participants in labor pools such as construction workers and banquet waiters (7 million), owner-op erators (2 million), civil service (18 million), multitier internal labor mar kets in many large-scale establishments (15 million), short-tier internal labor markets in retail stores and supermar kets (15 million), clerical-oriented or ganizations in banking and insurance with a predominance of women work ers (12 million), and technical-profes sional groupings such as high-tech and consulting firms and higher education institutions where employees (10 mil lion) offer their loyalty more to the pro fession than to the employer. Multitier labor markets get much of the attention from industrial relations specialists, but cover only 1 of 7 workers in the United States, according to Dunlop. About 25 percent of workers in the United States are covered by explicit in dividual employment contracts, a larger proportion of the work force than those who are covered by collective bargain ing contracts, according to David Lewin. He is uncertain that this prac tice will expand because employers who seek high commitment from their employees may prefer implicit, rather than explicit, contracts. In contrast, Lewin believes that employers and em ployees may prefer explicit contracts to gain more certainty about inherently unstable employment conditions when they are jointly involved in contingent, nonpermanent relations, variable pay systems based on output, productivity, or profit-sharing, production or finan cial information-sharing, employersponsored worker training, and worker self-monitoring without supervision. As a result, “it is plausible to expect that explicit contracting will become the now dominant institutional arrange ment in U.S. labor markets during the 1990’s,” Lewin writes. Contract negotiations that forced concessions from unions in the 1980’s marked a structural change in collec- tive bargaining, says D aniel J.B. Mitchell. “Once the initial manage ment probes succeeded, union vulner ability was exposed and the concession movement spread.” But he finds two continuing features of union bargain ing: long-term contracts and “a relative insensitivity of union wages to short term business-cycle in flu en ces.” Mitchell also examines the bargaining process itself. “The union side’s behav ior can be viewed as the outcome of an internal political process” that reflects the preferences and perceptions of union members. However, from the management point of view, “information on union vulner ability is something of a public good. A firm obtaining information— through conflict with a union—pays the cost but does not capture most of the benefit.” He concludes that macroeconomic determi nants of real wage trends, such as pro ductivity growth, trade competition from abroad, and immigration cannot be re sisted indefinitely and that collective bar gaining needs safety valves such as profitsharing to prevent excessive wage pressures from building, as occurred in the 1970’s. Peter Feuille reviews post-World War II developments in the resolution of dis putes between management and workers represented by unions and those who were not represented. “In the unionized private sector, disputes have become much less likely to occur as disruptions to the normal workflow, whether as strikes, slowdowns, lockouts, boycotts, and so on,” he writes. But in the union ized public sector since the mid-1960’s, “strikes have become more ‘normal’ bar gaining events (whether they are legal or illegal) and public employers have real ized that the sky does not fall when such strikes occur.” Disputes in the nonunion sector are becoming much more important, says Feuille. “Whether these claims are based on anti-discrimination or on com mon law exceptions to the employ ment-at-will principle, their unifying Monthly Labor Review O ctober 1995 51 Book Reviews thread is a quest for fair treatment.” Feuille believes that this trend will con tinue with the growth of implicit and explicit contracts between management and individual workers. As a result, an increasing number of nonunion firms will develop formal grievance proce dures, he writes. Unions must develop new strategies to survive, says Michael Piore. Instead of the alternatives of unions as politi cal institutions as proposed by Arthur M. Ross, or unions as economic insti tutions, as proposed by Dunlop, Piore calls for a fuzzy “transformative vi sion” of unions “mediating between the economic and social structures” by pushing simultaneously for political action on social legislation and work place democracy and for collective bar gaining and other economic actions to 52 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis advance worker’s direct economic in terests. The Service Employees Inter national Union offers a model for this approach to unionism, says Piore. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor in the Carter Administration, calls for re structuring the Nation’s learning systems, supporting a high-wage economic devel opment strategy, and more worker par ticipation in company decisions. His es say follows the argument of his 1992 book, Thinking for a Living: Education and the Wealth o f Nations, and the 1990 report of the Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce of which Marshall was co-chairman. In the final essay, Thomas Kochan calls for active government policy to en courage “mutual-gains strategies” to supplement rules governing adversarial labor-management relations. Kochan O ctober 1995 also calls for labor law reform s to strengthen workers’ rights to bargain ef fectively with “a labor organization that best suits their circumstances.” All these essays are more subtle and sophisticated than my remarks and quo tations indicate. Jonathan Leonard is par ticularly effective in his essay about af firmative action. More predictable and less interesting essays are those by Albert Rees about occupational wage differen tials; M elvin Reder, who discusses “labor’s bargaining disadvantage,” and J.K. G albraith, who writes about countervailing power. This book is a treasure for those whose interest is in la bor economics and industrial relations. —Markley Roberts Economic Research Department AFL-CIO Current Labor Statistics Notes on Labor Statistics.................. 54 Labor compensation and collective bargaining data—Continued 64 27. Average specified compensation and wage rate changes, bargaining agreements covering 1,000 workers or m ore........................................................... 28. Specified changes in cost o f compensation in private industry settlements covering 5,000 workers or m ore........................................................................ 29. Specified compensation and wage adjustments, State and local government bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or m ore......................................... 30. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or m ore...... . Comparative indicators 1. Labor market ind icators............................................................. 2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in compensation, prices, and productivity............................ 3. Alternative measures o f w ages and compensation c h a n g e s........................................................... 65 65 Labor force data 4. Employment status o f the population, seasonally adjusted................................................................. 5. Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted................................................................. 6. Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted................................................................. 7. Duration o f unemployment, seasonally adjusted................................................................. 8. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted................................................................. 9. Unemployment rates by sex and age, seasonally adjusted................................................................. 10. Unemployment rates by States, seasonally adjusted................................................................. 11. Employment o f workers by States, seasonally adjusted................................................................. 12. Employment o f workers by industry, seasonally adjusted................................................................. 13. Average w eekly hours by industry, seasonally adjusted................................................................. 14. Average hourly earnings by industry, seasonally adjusted................................................................. 15. Average hourly earnings by ind ustry.................................... 16. Average w eekly earnings by industry................................... 17. Diffusion indexes o f employment change, seasonally adjusted................................................................. 18. Annual data: Employment status o f the p op ulation ........ 19. Annual data: Employment levels by industry..................... 20. Annual data: Average hours and earnings levels by industry.......................................... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 86 87 87 66 67 68 68 69 69 70 70 71 73 73 74 75 76 76 77 77 Labor compensation and collective bargaining data 21. Employment Cost Index, compensation, by occupation and industry g r o u p ...................................... 22. Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry g r o u p ...................................... 23. Employment Cost Index, benefits, private industry workers, by occupation and industry g r o u p ................... 24. Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and area s i z e ..................... 25. Participants in employer-provided benefit p la n s ............. 26. Specified compensation and wage rate changes from contract settlements, and effective wage rate changes, agreements covering 1,000 workers or m ore........................................................................ 85 78 80 81 82 83 Price data 31. Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average, by expenditure category and com modity and service groups.................. 88 32. Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and local data, all it e m s ................................................................ 91 33. Annual data: Consumer Price Index, all items and major g r o u p s..................................................................... 34. Producer Price Indexes by stage o f p rocessin g.................. 35. Producer Price Indexes for the net output o f major industry g r o u p s......................................................................... 36. Annual data: Producer Price Indexes by stage o f processing............................................................. 37. U.S. export price indexes by Standard International Trade C lassification................................................................ 38. U.S. import price indexes by Standard International Trade C lassification................................................................ 39. U.S. export price indexes by end-use category.................. 40. U.S. import price indexes by end-use c a te g o r y ................. 41. U.S.international price indexes for selected categories o f services.............................................................. 92 93 94 94 95 96 97 97 98 Productivity data 42. Indexes o f productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs, data seasonally a d ju sted ......................... 98 43. Annual indexes o f multifactor productivity......................... 99 44. Annual indexes o f productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and p r ic e s.............................................................. 99 45. Annual indexes o f output per hour for selected in d u str ies.................................................................................... 100 International comparisons data 46. Unemployment rates in nine countries, data seasonally adjusted........................................................ 102 47. Annual data: Employment status o f the civilian working-age population, 10 countries............................. 103 48. Annual indexes o f productivity and related measures, 12 c o u n tr ies............................................................................... 104 Injury and Illness data 84 49. Annual data: Occupational injury and illness incidence r a tes.......................................................................... 105 Monthly Labor Review October 1995 53 Notes on Current Labor Statistics This section o f the Review presents the prin cipal statistical series collected and calcu lated by the Bureau o f Labor Statistics: series on labor force; employment; unem ploym ent; labor com pensation; collective bargaining settlements; consumer, producer, and international prices; productivity; inter national 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 o f additional in formation are cited. General notes The follow ing notes apply to several tables in this section: Seasonal adjustment. Certain monthly and quarterly data are adjusted to eliminate the effect on the data o f such factors as cli matic conditions, industry production sched ules, opening and closing o f schools, holi day 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 o f past experi ence. When new seasonal factors are com puted each year, revisions may affect sea sonally adjusted data for several preceding years. Seasonally adjusted data appear in tables 1 -1 4 , 1 6 -1 7 , 42, and 46. Season ally ad justed labor force data for 1994 in tables 1 and 4 - 9 were revised in the February 1995 issue o f the Review. Seasonally adjusted es tablishment survey data shown in tables 1 2 14 and 16-17 were revised in the July 1995 Review and reflect the experience through March 1995. A brief explanation o f the sea sonal adjustment m ethodology appears in “Notes on the data.” R ev isio n s in the productivity data in table 42 are usually introduced in the Sep tember issue. Seasonally adjusted indexes and percent changes from month-to-month and quarter-to-quarter are published for nu merous Consumer and Producer Price Index series. H ow ever, season ally adjusted in dexes are not published for the U.S. aver age All-Items c p i . Only seasonally adjusted percent changes are available for this series. Adjustments for price changes. Some data— such as the “real” earnings shown in table 14— are adjusted to eliminate the e f fect o f changes in price. These adjustments are made by dividing current-dollar values by the Consumer Price Index or the appro- 54 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis priate component o f the index, then multi plying by 100. For exam ple, given a current hourly wage rate o f $3 and a current price index number o f 150, where 1982 = 100, the hourly rate expressed in 1982 dollars is $2 ($3/150 x 100 = $2). The $2 (or any other resulting values) are described as “real,” “constant,” or “ 1982” dollars. Sources of information Data that supplement the tables in this sec tion are published by the Bureau in a vari ety o f sources. Definitions o f each series and notes on the data are contained in later sec tions o f these Notes describing each set o f data. For detailed descriptions o f each data series, see b l s Handbook o f Methods, Bul letin 2414. Users also may wish to consult M ajor Programs o f the Bureau o f Labor Sta tistics, Report 871. N ew s releases provide the latest statistical information published by the Bureau; the major recurring releases are published according to the schedule ap pearing on the back cover o f this issue. More information about labor force, em ployment, and unemployment data and the household and establishment surveys under lying the data are available in the Bureau’s m on th ly p u b lica tio n , E m ploym en t and Earnings. Historical unadjusted data from the household survey are published in La bor Force Statistics Derived From the Cur rent Population Survey, B LS Bulletin 2307. H isto rica l se a so n a lly adjusted data are available from the Bureau upon request. Historically comparable unadjusted and sea sonally adjusted data from the establishment survey are published in Employment, Hours, and Earnings, United States, a B LS annual bulletin. Additional inform ation on labor force data for sub-States are provided in the b l s annual report, Geographic Profile o f More detailed data on consumer and pro ducer prices are published in the monthly periodicals, The CPI D etailed R eport and Producer Price Indexes. For an overview o f the c p i reflecting 1 982-84 expenditure pat terns, see The Consumer Price Index: 1987 Revision, B L S Report 736. Additional data on international prices appear in monthly news releases. For a listing o f available industry pro ductivity indexes and their components, see Productivity Measures fo r Selected Indus tries and Government Services, B L S B ulle tin 2440. For additional information on interna tional comparisons data, see International Comparisons o f Unemployment, b l s B ulle tin 1979. Detailed data on the occupational injury and illness series are published in Occupa tional Injuries and Illnesses in the United States, by Industry, a B LS a n n u a l b u l l e t i n . Finally, the Monthly Labor Review car ries analytical articles on annual and longer term developm ents in labor force, em ploy ment, and unemployment; em ployee com pensation and collective bargaining; prices; productivity; international comparisons; and injury and illness data. Symbols n.e.c. = n.e.s. = p = not elsew here classified, not elsewhere specified. preliminary. To increase the time liness o f some series, preliminary figures are issued based on repre sentative but incom plete returns. r = revised. Generally, this revision reflects the availab ility o f later data, but may also reflect other ad justm ents. Employment and Unemployment. More detailed information on em ployee co m p en sation and c o lle c tiv e bargaining settlements is published in the monthly pe riodical, Compensation and Working Con ditions. For a comprehensive discussion o f the Employment Cost Index, see Employ ment Cost Indexes and Levels, 1975-93, B LS Bulletin 2447. The most recent data from the Em ployee Benefits Survey appear in the follow ing Bureau o f Labor Statistics bulle tins: Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Firms; Employee Benefits in Small Private Establishments; and Employee Benefits in State and Local Governments. H istorical data on the collective bargaining settlements series appear in the March issue o f Com pensation and Working Conditions. October 1995 Comparative Indicators (Tables 1 -3 ) Com parative indicators tables provide an overview and comparison o f major b l s sta tistical series. Consequently, although many o f the included series are available monthly, all measures in these comparative tables are presented quarterly and annually. Labor market indicators include em ploym ent measures from two major surveys and information on rates o f change in com pensation provided by the Employment Cost Index (E C l) program. The labor force partici pation rate, the em ploym ent-to-population ratio, and unem ploym ent rates for major demographic groups based on the Current Population (“household”) Survey are pre sented, while measures o f em ploym ent and average w eekly hours by major industry sec tor are given using nonfarm payroll data. The Employment Cost Index (compensation), by major sector and by bargaining status, is chosen from a variety o f b l s compensation and wage measures because it provides a com prehensive measure o f 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. D ata on changes in compensation, prices, and productivity are presented in table 2. Measures o f rates o f change o f com pensation and wages from the Employment C ost Index program are provided for all civilian nonfarm workers (excluding Federal and household workers) and for all private nonfarm workers. M easures o f changes in consum er prices for all urban consum ers; producer prices by stage o f processing; over all prices by stage o f processing; and overall export and import price indexes are given. Measures o f productivity (output per hour of all persons) are provided for major sectors. Alternative measures of wage and compensation rates of change, which re flect the overall trend in labor costs, are summarized in table 3. D ifferences in con cep ts and sco p e, related to the sp e c ific purposes o f the series, contribute to the variation in changes among the individual measures. Notes on the d a ta Definitions o f each series and notes on the data are contained in later sections o f these notes describing each set o f data. Em ploym ent a n d U nem ploym ent D ata (Tables 1; 4 -2 0 ) H o u s e h o ld su rvey d a t a Description of the series m p l o y m e n t d a t a in this section are ob tained from the Current Population Survey, a program o f personal interviews conducted monthly by the Bureau o f the Census for the Bureau o f Labor Statistics. The sample con sists o f about 60,000 households selected to represent the U.S. population 16 years o f age and older. H ouseholds are interviewed on a rotating basis, so that three-fourths o f the sample is the same for any 2 consecutive months. E https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Definitions tio is em ploym ent as a percent o f the civil ian noninstitutional population. Employed persons include (1) all those w ho worked for pay any time during the w eek which includes the 12th day o f 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 o f illness, vaca tion, industrial dispute, or similar reasons. A person working at more than one job is counted only in the job at which he or she worked the greatest number o f hours. Unemployed persons are those who did not work during the survey week, but were available for work except for temporary ill ness and had looked for jobs within the pre ceding 4 weeks. Persons who did not look for work because they were on layoff are also counted among the unemployed. The unem ployment rate represents the number unem ployed as a percent o f the civilian labor force. The civilian labor force consists o f all em ployed or unemployed persons in the c i vilian noninstitutional population. Persons not in the labor force are those not classi fied as em ployed or unemployed. This group includes discouraged workers, defined as persons who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the the past 12 months (or since the end o f their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but are not currently look ing, because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they w o u ld q u a lify . The civilian nonin stitutional population com prises all per sons 16 years o f age and older who are not inmates o f penal or mental institutions, sani tariums, or homes for the aged, infirm, or needy. The civilian labor force participa tion rate is the proportion o f the civilian nonin-stitutional population that is in the la bor force. The employment-population ra- Revisions to household d ata Data relating to 1994 and subsequent years are not directly comparable with data for 1993 and earlier years because o f the introduction o f a major redesign o f the survey questionnaire and collection m eth od ology, and the introduction o f 1990 census-based population controls, adjusted for the estimated undercount. An explanation o f the changes and their e f fect on labor force data appears in the February 1994 issue o f Employment and Earnings, a monthly publication o f the Bureau o f Labor Statistics. S ea so n a lly adjusted data for 1994 were revised at the end o f 1994. Addi tional information on the revisions ap pears in the January 1995 issue o f Em ployment and Earnings. Notes on the d ata From time to time, and especially after a de cennial census, adjustments are made in the Current Population Survey figures to correct for estimating errors during the intercensal years. These adjustments affect the compa rability o f historical data. A description o f these adjustments and their effect on the various data series appears in the Explana tory N otes o f Employment and Earnings. Labor force data in tables 1 and 4 - 9 are season ally adjusted. Since January 1980, national labor force data have been season ally adjusted with a procedure called X - l l a r i m a w hich was develop ed at Statistics Canada as an extension o f the standard X11 method previously used by b l s . A de tailed description o f the procedure appears in the X - l l a r i m a Seasonal A djustm ent Method, by Estela B ee Dagum (Statistics Canada, Catalogue N o. 12-564E , January 1983). At the end o f each calendar year, season ally adjusted data for the previous 5 years usually are revised, and projected seasonal adjustment factors are calculated for use during the January-June period. Because o f the changes introduced into the CPS in Janu ary 1994, only seasonally adjusted data for 1994 were revised at the end o f 1994. In July, n ew sea so n a l adju stm ent factors, which incorporate the experience through June, are produced for the July-D ecem ber period, but no revisions are made in the his torical data. F o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on national household survey data, contact the D ivision o f Labor Force Statistics: (202) 6 0 6-6378. E stablishm ent su rvey d a ta Description of the series E m p l o y m e n t , h o u r s , a n d e a r n i n g s d a t a in this se c tio n are c o m p ile d from p ayroll records reported monthly on a voluntary ba sis to the Bureau o f Labor Statistics and its cooperating State agencies by about 390,000 establishm ents representing all industries except agriculture. Industries are classified in accordance with the 1987 Standard In dustrial Classification (SIC) Manual. In most industries, the sam pling probabilities are based on the size o f the establishment; most large establishm ents are therefore in the sample. (An establishment is not necessar ily a firm; it may be a branch plant, for e x ample, or warehouse.) Self-em ployed per sons and others not on a regular civilian pay roll are outsid e the scop e o f the survey Monthly Labor Review October 1995 55 Current Labor Statistics because they are excluded from establish ment records. This largely accounts for the difference in em ploym ent figures between the household and establishment surveys. Definitions An establishment is an e c o n o m ic unit which produces goods or services (such as a factory or store) at a single location and is engaged in one type o f econom ic activity. Employed persons are all persons who received pay (including holiday and sick pay) for any part o f the payroll period in cluding the 12th day o f the month. Persons holding more than one job (about 5 percent o f all persons in the labor force) are counted in each establishment which reports them. Production workers in manufacturing include working supervisors and nonsupervisory workers closely associated with pro duction operations. T hose workers m en tioned in tables 1 1 -16 include production workers in manufacturing and mining; con struction workers in construction; and nonsupervisory workers in the follow in g indus tries: transportation and pu blic utilities; w holesale and retail trade; finance, insur ance, and real estate; and services. These groups account for about four-fifths o f the total em ploym ent on private nonagricultural payrolls. Earnings are the payments production or nonsupervisory workers receive during the survey period, including premium pay for overtime or late-shift work but exclud ing irregular b on u ses and other sp ecial payments. Real earnings are earnings ad justed to reflect the effects o f changes in consumer prices. The deflator for this series is derived from the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Work ers (CPI-W). Hours represent the average w eek ly hours o f production or nonsupervisory work ers for which pay was received, and are dif ferent from standard or scheduled hours. Overtime hours represent the portion o f average w eekly hours which was in excess o f regular hours and for which overtime pre miums were paid. The Diffusion Index represents the per cent o f industries in which em ploym ent was rising over the indicated period, plus onehalf o f the industries with unchanged em ployment; 50 percent indicates an equal bal ance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment. In line with Bureau practice, data for the 1-, 3-, and 6-month spans are seasonally adjusted, w hile those for the 12-month span are unadjusted. Data are centered within the span. Table 17 pro vides an index on private nonfarm em ploy ment based on 356 industries, and a manu facturing index based on 139 industries. These indexes are useful for measuring the 56 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis dispersion o f econom ic gains or losses and are also econom ic indicators. Notes on the d a ta Establishment survey data are annually ad justed to comprehensive counts o f em ploy ment (called “benchmarks”). The latest ad justment, which incorporated March 1994 benchmarks, was made with the release o f M ay 1995 data, published in the July 1995 issue o f the Review. C oincident w ith the benchmark adjustment, seasonally adjusted data were revised to reflect the experience through March 1995. Comparable revisions in State data (table 11) occurred with the publication o f January 1995 data. U nad justed data from April 1994 forward and seasonally adjusted data from January 1991 forward are subject to revision in future benchmarks. The b l s also uses the X -l 1 a r i m a meth odology to seasonally adjust establishment survey data. Beginning in June 1989, pro jected seasonal adjustment factors are cal culated and published tw ice a year. The change makes the procedure used for the establishm ent survey data m ore parallel to that used in adjusting the h ou seh old survey data. Revisions o f data, usually for the most recent 5 -year period, are made once a year c o in c id e n t w ith the b enchm ark revisions. In the establishment survey, estimates for the most recent 2 months are based on in com plete returns and are published as pre liminary in the tables (1 2 -1 7 in the Review). When all returns have been received, the es timates are revised and published as “final” (prior to any benchmark revisions) in the third month o f their appearance. Thus, D e cember data are published as preliminary in January and February and as final in March. For the same reasons, quarterly establish ment data (table 1) are preliminary for the first 2 months o f publication and final in the third month. Thus, fourth-quarter data are published as prelim inary in January and February and as final in March. A comprehensive discussion o f the dif ferences between household and establish ment data on em ployment appears in Gloria P. G reen, “Com paring em ploym en t e sti mates from household and payroll surveys,” Monthly Labor Review, D ecem ber 1969, pp. 9 -2 0 . F o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on estab lishment survey data, contact the D ivision o f M onthly Industry Employment Statistics: (202) 606 -6 5 5 5 . lation Survey (CPS) and the Local Area Un em p lo y m en t S ta tistic s (L A U S) program , which is conducted in cooperation with State em ploym ent security agencies. M onthly estim ates o f the labor force, em ploym ent, and unemployment for States and sub-State areas are a key indicator o f local econom ic conditions, and form the ba sis for determining the eligibility o f an area for benefits under Federal econom ic assis tance programs such as the Job Training Partnership Act. Seasonally adjusted unem ploym ent rates are presented in table 10. Insofar as possible, the concepts and defini tions underlying these data are those used in the national estimates obtained from the CPS. Notes on the d ata Data refer to State o f residence. M onthly data for 11 States— California, Florida, Illi nois, M assachusetts, M ichigan, N ew York, N ew Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsyl vania, and T exas— are obtained directly from the c p s because the size o f the sample is large enough to meet BLS standards o f reliability. Data for the remaining 39 States and the District o f Colum bia are derived using standardized procedures established by BLS. O nce a year, estim ates for the 11 States are revised to new population con trols, usually with publication o f January estimates. For the remaining States and the District o f Columbia, data are benchmarked to annual average CPS levels. Data for 1994 are not directly comparable with those for 1993 as a result o f the redesign o f the c p s and other methodological changes. See “R e visions in State and Area Estimates Effec tive January 1994,” Employment and Earn ings, March 1994. Fo r a d d it io n a l in f o r m a t io n (202) 6 0 6 -6 3 9 2 (202) 6 0 6 -6 5 8 9 ( t a b le 11). t h i s s e r ie s , c a l l or o n d a ta in ( t a b le 10) C om pensation a n d W a g e D ata (Tables 1-3; 2 1 -3 0 ) C o m p e n s a t i o n a n d w a g e d a t a are gathered by the Bureau from business establishments, State and local governments, labor unions, c o lle c tiv e bargaining agreem ents on file with the Bureau, and secondary sources. E m p lo y m e n t C o st In d e x U n e m p lo y m e n t d a ta b y S tate Description of the series Description of the series The Employment Cost Index (E C l) is a quarterly measure o f the rate o f change in com pensation per hour worked and includes wages, salaries, and em ployer costs o f em- Data presented in this section are obtained from two major sources— the Current Popu- October 1995 p lo y e e b e n e fits. It u ses a fix e d m arket basket o f labor— similar in concept to the Consumer Price Index’s fixed market bas ket o f g o o d s and se r v ic e s— to m easure change over time in em ployer costs o f em ploying labor. Statistical series on total com pensation costs, on w ages and salaries, and on benefit costs are available for private nonfarm work ers excluding proprietors, the self-em ployed, and household workers. The total com pen sation costs and w ages and salaries series are also available for State and local g o v ernment workers and for the civilian non farm econom y, w hich con sists o f private industry and State and local governm ent w orkers com bined. Federal w orkers are excluded. The Employment Cost Index probability sample consists o f about 4,400 private non farm establishments providing about 23,000 occupational observations and 1,000 State and local governm ent establishm ents pro viding 6,000 occupational observations se lected to represent total em ploym ent in each sector. On average, each reporting unit pro vides wage and com pensation information on five w ell-specified occupations. Data are collected each quarter for the pay period in cluding the 12th day o f March, June, Sep tember, and December. B egin ning with June 1986 data, fixed em ployment weights from the 1980 Census o f P o p u lation are u sed each quarter to calculate the civilian and private indexes and the index for State and local govern ments. (Prior to June 1986, the em ployment weights are from the 1970 Census o f Pop ulation.) These fixed weights, also used to derive all o f the industry and occupation series indexes, ensure that changes in these indexes reflect only changes in com pensa tion, not em ploym ent shifts among indus tries or occupations with different lev els o f wages and compensation. For the bargain ing status, region, and m etropolitan/nonmetropolitan area series, however, em ploy ment data by industry and occupation are not available from the census. Instead, the 1980 em ploym ent w eights are reallocated within these series each quarter based on the current sam ple. Therefore, these ind exes are not strictly com parable to th ose for the aggregate, industry, and o ccu p ation series. Definitions Total compensation costs include w ages, salaries, and the em ployer’s costs for em ployee benefits. Wages and salaries consist o f earnings before payroll deductions, including produc tion bonuses, incentive earnings, com m is sions, and cost-of-living adjustments. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Benefits include the cost to employers for paid leave, supplemental pay (includ ing nonproduction bonuses), insurance, re tirement and savings plans, and legally re quired benefits (such as Social Security, workers’ compensation, and unemployment insurance). Excluded from wages and salaries and em ployee benefits are such items as pay ment-in-kind, free room and board, and tips. Notes on the d ata The Employment Cost Index for changes in w ages and salaries in the private nonfarm econom y was published beginning in 1975. Changes in total compensation cost— wages and salaries and benefits combined— were published beginning in 1980. The series o f changes in wages and salaries and for total compensation in the State and local govern ment sector and in the civ ilia n nonfarm econ om y (exclud in g Federal em p loyees) were published beginning in 1981. Histori cal indexes (June 1981 = 100) o f the quar terly rates o f change are presented in the March issue o f the B LS periodical, Compen sation and Working Conditions. F o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on the Employment Cost Index, contact the D ivi sion o f E m ploym ent C ost Trends: (2 0 2 ) 6 0 6 -6 1 9 9 . E m p lo y e e Benefits S urvey Description of the series Employee benefits data are obtained from the E m ployee Benefits Survey, an annual survey o f the incidence and provisions o f selected benefits provided by em ployers. The survey collects data from a sample o f approximately 6,000 private sector and State and local government establishments. The data are presented as a percentage o f em ployees who participate in a certain benefit, or as an average b en efit p rovision (for example, the average number o f paid holi days provided to em ployees per year). S e lected data from the survey are presented in table 25. The survey covers paid leave benefits such as lunch and rest periods, holidays and vacations, and personal, funeral, jury duty, military, parental, and sick leave; sickness and accident, long-term disability, and life insurance; medical, dental, and vision care plans; defined benefit and defined contribu tion plans; flexible benefits plans; reimburse ment accounts; and unpaid parental leave. A lso , data are tabulated on the in c i d ence o f several other b en efits, such as severance pay, child-care assistance, w ell n ess program s, and em p loyee assistance programs. Definitions Employer-provided benefits are benefits that are financed either w holly or partly by the employer. They may be sponsored by a union or other third party, as long as there is som e em ployer financing. However, som e benefits that are fully paid for by the em ployee also are included. For exam ple, long term care insurance and postretirement life insurance paid entirely by the em ployee are included because the guarantee o f insurabil ity and availability at group premium rates are considered a benefit. Participants are workers who are co v ered by a benefit, whether or not they use that benefit. If the benefit plan is financed w holly by em ployers and requires em ploy ees to com plete a minimum length o f ser vice for eligibility, the workers are consid ered participants whether or not they have met the requirement. If workers are required to contribute towards the cost o f a plan, they are considered participants only if they elect the plan and agree to make the required contributions. Defined benefit pension plans use pre determined formulas to calculate a retire ment benefit, and obligate the em ployer to provide those benefits. Benefits are gener ally based on salary, years o f service, or both. Defined contribution plans generally specify the level o f em ployer and em ployee contributions to a plan, but not the formula for determining eventual benefits. Instead, individual accounts are set up for partici pants, and benefits are based on amounts credited to these accounts. Tax-deferred savings plans are a type o f defined contribution plan that allow par ticipants to contribute a portion o f their sal ary to an em ployer-sponsored plan and de fer incom e taxes until withdrawal. Flexible benefit plans allow em ployees to choose among several benefits, such as life insurance, m edical care, and vacation d ays, and am ong several le v e ls o f care within a given benefit. Notes on the d ata Surveys o f em ployees in medium and large establishments conducted over the 1979-86 period inclu ded estab lish m en ts that em ployed at least 50, 100, or 250 workers, de p e n d in g on the ind ustry (m o st se r v ic e industries were excluded). The survey con ducted in 1987 covered only State and local governments with 50 or more employees. The surveys conducted in 1988 and 1989 included medium and large establishments with 100 workers or more in private industries. All surveys conducted over the 1 979-8 9 period Monthly Labor Review October 1995 57 Current Labor Statistics excluded establishments in Alaska and Ha waii, as w ell as part-time em ployees. Beginning in 1990, surveys o f State and local governments and small establishments are conducted in even-numbered years and surveys o f medium and large establishments are conducted in odd-numbered years. The small establishment survey includes all pri vate nonfarm establishments with fewer than 100 workers, while the State and local gov ernment survey includes all governm ents, regardless o f the number o f workers. A ll three surveys include fu ll- and part-time workers, and workers in all 50 States and the District o f Columbia. F o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on the Em ployee Benefits Survey, contact the D ivision o f Occupational Pay and Em ployee Benefit Levels: (202) 606 -6 2 2 2 . C o lle c tiv e b a rg a in in g s ettle m e n ts Description of the series Collective bargaining settlements data pro v id e sta tistic a l m ea su res o f n e g o tia te d ch an ges (in c re a se s, d e crea ses, and zero change) in wage rates alone and in com pen sation (w ages and benefits), quarterly for private nonagricultural industries and sem i annually for State and local governm ents. Wage rate changes cover collective bargain ing settlements negotiated in the reference period involving 1,000 or more workers, and com p en sation changes cover settlem en ts reached in the reference period involvin g 5,000 or more workers. These data are not seasonally adjusted and are calculated using information obtained from bargaining agree ments on file with the Bureau, parties to the agreements, and secondary sources, such as newspaper accounts. The wage and compensation rate changes are the percent difference between the aver age rate per work hour just prior to the start o f a new agreement and the average rate per work hour that would exist at the end o f the first 365 days o f the new agreement (firstyear measure) or at its expiration date (overthe-life measure). These data exclude lump sum payments. The compensation cost change is the per cent difference between the average cost o f compensation per work hour, including the hourly cost o f lump-sum payments made dur ing the term o f the expiring agreement, just prior to the start o f a new agreement and the average cost o f compensation per work hour under the settlem en t. The tim in g o f the changes in com pensation rates is reflected in the compensation cost series, but not in compensation rate series. 58 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Data on changes in settlements exclude potential changes under cost-of-living adjust ment clauses. Averages reflect the change under each settlement weighted by the num ber o f workers covered. Estimates o f changes are based on the assumption that conditions existing at the time o f the settlem ent (for exam ple, com position o f the labor force or methods o f funding pensions) will remain constant over the term o f the agreement. Wage rate changes under all major agreements (those covering 1,000 or more workers) measure all w age increases, de creases, and zero changes occurring in the reference period, regardless o f the settle ment date. Included are changes from settle ments reached in the calendar year, changes deferred from settlements negotiated in ear lier years, and changes under cost-of-living adjustment ( c o l a ) clauses. The change in the wage rate for each agreement is the per cent difference between the average wage rate just prior to the start o f the reference period and the average wage rate at the end o f the reference period. The change for each agreem ent is w eighted by the number o f workers covered to determine the average change under all agreements. Definitions Wage rate is the average straight-tim e hourly wage rate plus shift premiums. Compensation rates include the wage rate, premium pay (for exam ple, for over time and holidays); paid leave; life, health, and sickness and accident insurance; pen sion and other retirement plans; severance pay; and legally required benefits. Compensation costs include the items covered by compensation rates plus speci fie d lu m p -su m p a y m e n ts, the c o s t o f contractually required training programs that are not a cost o f doing business, and the ad ditional costs o f changes in legally required insurance known at the time o f settlement to be mandated during the contract term. Cash payments in c lu d e w ages and lu m p - s u m p a y m e n ts . Contingent pay provisions a r e c la u s e s w h ic h c o u ld p r o v id e c o m p e n s a tio n c h a n g e s beyond th o s e C O LA c la u s e s th a t c a ll fo r s p e c ifie d and in th e lu m p - s u m a p a y m e n t o n ly s e ttle m e n t. p r o v is io n s if a com p a n y ’ s p r o f i t s e x c e e d a s p e c i f i c a m o u n t a re Professional and white-collar em ployees, for exam ple, make up a much larger propor tion o f the workers covered by government than by private industry settlements. Lump sum paym ents and c o l a clau ses, on the other hand, are rare in government but com mon in private industry settlements. A lso, State and local government bargaining fre quently excludes items such as pension ben efits and holidays, that are prescribed by law, w hile these items are typical bargain ing issues in private industry. F o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on collec tive bargaining settlements, contact the D i vision o f Developm ents in Labor-M anage ment Relations: (202) 6 0 6 -6 2 7 6 (private industry data) or (202) 6 0 6 -6 2 8 0 (State and local government data). W ork s to p p a g e s Description of the series Data on work stoppages measure the num ber and duration o f major strikes or lock outs (involving 1,000 workers or more) o c curring during the month (or year), the num ber o f workers involved, and the amount o f time lost because o f stoppage. D ata are largely from new spaper ac counts and cover only establishm ents di rectly involved in a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or secondary effect o f stoppages on other establishm ents w hose em ployees are idle ow ing to material short ages or lack o f service. Definitions Number of stoppages: T he nu m ber o f strikes and lock ou ts in v o lv in g 1,000 workers or more and lasting a full shift or longer. Workers involved: The num ber o f workers directly involved in the stoppage. Number of days idle: The aggregate number o f workdays lost by workers in volved in the stoppages. Days of idleness as a percent of esti mated working time: A ggregate work days lost as a percent o f the aggregate num ber o f standard workdays in the period m ul tiplied by total em ploym ent in the period. e x a m p le s . Notes on the d ata Notes on the d a ta Comparisons o f major collective bargaining settlements for State and local government with those for private industry should note differences in occupational mix, bargaining practices, and settlement characteristics. This series is not comparable with the one terminated in 1981 that covered strikes in volving six workers or more. F o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on work stoppages data, contact the D ivision o f De- October 1995 velop m en ts in L abor-M anagem ent R ela tions: (202) 606 -6 2 8 8 . Price D ata (Tables 2; 3 1 -4 1 ) are gathered by the Bureau o f L abor S ta tistic s from retail and pri mary markets in the United States. Price in dexes are given in relation to a base pe riod— 1982 = 100 for many Producer Price Indexes, 1 9 8 2 -8 4 = 100 for many Consumer P rice In d exes (u n less o th erw ise n oted), and 1990 = 100 for In ternational P rice Indexes. Pr ic e ters are presented in table 32. The areas listed are as indicated in footnote 1 to the table. The area indexes measure only the average change in prices for each area since the base period, and do not indicate differ ences in the level o f prices among cities. Notes on the d ata d a ta Consumer Price Indexes Description of the series The Consumer Price Index (C P I) is a mea sure o f the average change in the prices paid by urban consumers for a fixed market bas ket o f goods and services. The c p i is calcu lated monthly for two population groups, one consisting only o f urban households whose primary source o f income is derived from the em ploym ent o f wage earners and clerical workers, and the other consisting o f all ur ban households. The wage earner index (C P iW ) is a continuation o f the historic index that was introduced well over a half-century ago for use in wage negotiations. As new uses were developed for the C P I in recent years, the need for a broader and more representa tive index became apparent. The all-urban consumer index (C P I-U ), introduced in 1978, is representative o f the 198 2 -8 4 buying hab its o f about 80 percent o f the noninstitutional population o f the United States at that time, compared with 32 percent represented in the C P i-W . In addition to wage earners and cleri cal workers, the C P I-U covers professional, managerial, and technical workers, the selfem ployed, short-term workers, the unem ployed, retirees, and others not in the labor force. The c p i is based on prices o f food, cloth ing, shelter, fuel, drugs, transportation fares, doctors’ and dentists’ fees, and other goods and services that people buy for day-to-day livin g. The quantity and quality o f these item s are kept essen tially unchanged b e tw een major revisions so that on ly price changes will be measured. A ll taxes directly associated w ith the purchase and use o f items are included in the index. Data collected from more than 19,000 retail establishm ents and 5 7 ,0 0 0 housing units in 85 urban areas across the country are used to develop the “U.S. city average.” Separate estimates for 15 major urban cen https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis In January 1983, the Bureau changed the w ay in w h ich h om eow n ersh ip c o sts are measured for the C P I-U . A rental equivalence method replaced the asset-price approach to hom eow n ersh ip costs for that series. In January 1985, the same change was made in the C P I-W . The central purpose o f the change was to separate shelter costs from the investment component o f home-ownership so that the index would reflect only the cost o f shelter services provided by owneroccupied homes. An updated c p i - u and C P iw were introduced with release o f the Janu ary 1987 data. F o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on con sumer prices, contact the D ivision o f Con sum er P rices and P rice In d exes: (2 0 2 ) 6 0 6 -7 0 0 0 . Producer Price Indexes Description of the series Producer Price Indexes (P P i) measure av erage changes in prices received by dom es tic producers o f com modities in all stages o f processing. The sample used for calculating these indexes currently contains about 3,200 com m odities and about 80,000 quotations per month, selected to represent the m ove ment o f prices o f all com m odities produced in the manufacturing; agriculture, forestry, and fishing; mining; and gas and electricity and public utilities sectors. The stage-ofprocessing structure o f PPI organizes prod ucts by class o f buyer and degree o f fabrica tion (that is, finished goods, intermediate goods, and crude materials). The traditional com modity structure o f PPI organizes prod ucts by sim ilarity o f end use or material c o m p o sitio n . The industry and product structure o f p p i organizes data in accordance with the Standard Industrial Classification (S IC ) and the product code extension o f the S IC develop ed by the U .S. Bureau o f the Census. To the extent possible, prices used in cal culating Producer Price Indexes apply to the first significant com mercial transaction in the United States from the production or central marketing point. Price data are gen erally collected monthly, primarily by mail questionnaire. M ost prices are obtained di rectly from producing com panies on a vol untary and confidential basis. Prices gener ally are reported for the Tuesday o f the week containing the 13th day o f the month. Since January 1992, price changes for the various commodities have been averaged together with implicit quantity weights rep resenting their importance in the total net selling value o f all com modities as o f 1987. The detailed data are aggregated to obtain indexes for stage-of-processing groupings, com modity groupings, durability-of-product groupings, and a number o f special com pos ite groups. A ll Producer Price Index data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication. F o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on pro ducer prices, contact the D ivision o f Indus trial P r ic e s and P rice In d e x es: (2 0 2 ) 6 0 6 -7 7 0 5 . International Price Indexes Description of the series The International Price Program produces m onthly and quarterly export and import price indexes for nonmilitary goods traded betw een the United States and the rest o f the world. The export price index provides a measure o f price change for all products sold by U .S. residents to foreign buyers. (“R esidents” is defined as in the national incom e accounts; it includes corporations, businesses, and individuals, but does not re quire the organizations to be U.S. owned nor the individuals to have U .S. citizenship.) The import price index provides a measure o f price change for goods purchased from other countries by U.S. residents. The product universe for both the import and export indexes includes raw materials, agricultural products, sem ifinished manu factures, and finished manufactures, includ ing both capital and consumer goods. Price data for these items are collected primarily by mail questionnaire. In nearly all cases, the data are collected directly from the ex porter or importer, although in a few cases, prices are obtained from other sources. To the extent possible, the data gathered refer to prices at the U.S. border for exports and at either the foreign border or the U.S. border for imports. For nearly all products, the prices refer to transactions com pleted during the first week o f the month. Survey respondents are asked to indicate all d is counts, allow ances, and rebates applicable to the reported prices, so that the price used in the calculation o f the indexes is the ac tual price for which the product was bought or sold. In addition to general indexes o f prices for U .S. exports and imports, indexes are also published for detailed product catego ries o f exports and imports. These catego- Monthly Labor Review October 1995 59 Current Labor Statistics ries are d e fin e d accord in g to the f iv e digit level o f detail for the Bureau o f E co n om ic A n a ly sis E n d -u se C la ss ific a tio n (S IT C ), and the four-digit level o f detail for the Harmonized System. Aggregate import indexes by country or region o f origin are also available. bls Productivity D ata (Tables 2; 4 2 -4 5 ) Business sector and major sectors p u b l i s h e s in d e x e s f o r s e le c t e d c a t e g o r i e s o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y t r a d e d s e r v ic e s , Description of the series c a lc u l a t e d o n a n i n t e r n a t i o n a l b a s is a n d o n a b a l a n c e - o f - p a y m e n t s b a s is . Notes on the d ata The export and import price ind exes are w eighted ind exes o f the Laspeyres type. Price relatives are assigned equal im por tance within each harmonized group and are then aggregated to the higher level. The val ues assigned to each w eight category are based on trade value figures com piled by the Bureau o f the Census. The trade w eights currently used to compute both indexes re late to 1990. B ecause a price index depends on the same items being priced from period to pe riod, it is necessary to recognize when a product’s specifications or terms o f transac tion have been modified. For this reason, the Bureau’s questionnaire requests detailed de scriptions o f the physical and functional characteristics o f the products being priced, as w ell as inform ation 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 o f transaction o f a product, the dollar value o f each change is deleted from the total price change to ob tain the “pure” change. Once this value is determined, a linking procedure is em ployed which allow s for the continued repricing o f the item. For the export price in d exes, the pre ferred pricing basis is f.a.s. (free alongside ship) U.S. port o f exportation. W hen firms report export prices f.o.b. (free on board), production point inform ation is collected which enables the Bureau to calculate a ship ment cost to the port o f exportation. An at tempt is made to collect two prices for im ports. The first is the import price f.o.b. at the foreign port o f exportation, which is con sistent with the basis for valuation o f imports in the national accounts. The second is the im port price c .i.f.(c o s ts , in su ran ce, and freight) at the U .S . port o f im portation, which also includes the other costs associ ated with bringing the product to the U.S. border. It does not, however, include duty charges. For a given product, only one price basis series is used in the construction o f an index. F o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on inter national prices, contact the D ivision o f In ternational Prices: (202) 6 0 6 -7 1 5 5 . 60 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The productivity measures relate real physi cal output to real input. A s such, they en compass a family o f measures which include single-factor input measures, such as output per unit o f labor input (output per hour) or output per unit o f capital input, as well as measures o f multifactor productivity (output per unit o f combined labor and capital in puts). The Bureau indexes show the change in output relative to changes in the various inputs. The m easures cover the business, non farm b u sin e ss , m an u factu rin g, and nonfinancial corporate sectors. Corresponding indexes o f hourly com pensation, unit labor costs, unit nonlabor payments, and prices are also provided. Definitions Output per hour of all persons (labor pro ductivity) is the value o f goods and services in constant prices produced per hour o f la bor input. Output per unit of capital ser vices (capital productivity) is the value o f goods and services in constant dollars pro duced per unit o f capital services input. Multifactor productivity is the value o f goods and services in constant prices pro duced per combined unit o f labor and capi tal inputs. Changes in this measure reflect changes in a number o f factors which affect the production process, such as changes in technology, shifts in the com position o f the labor force, changes in capacity utilization, research and developm ent, skill and effort o f the work force, management, and so forth. Changes in the output per hour measures re flect the impact o f these factors as well as the substitution o f capital for labor. Compensation per hour is the w ages and salaries o f em ployees plus em ployers’ contributions for social insurance and pri vate benefit plans, and the wages, salaries, and supplementary payments for the selfem ployed (except for nonfinancial corpora tions in which there are no self-em ployed)— the sum divided by hours at work. Real compensation per hour is com pensation per hour deflated by the change in Consumer Price Index for A ll Urban Consumers. Unit labor costs are the labor com pen sation costs expended in the production o f a unit o f output and are derived by dividing com pensation by output. Unit nonlabor payments inclu de profits, depreciation , October 1995 interest, and indirect taxes per unit o f out put. They are computed by subtracting com pensation o f all persons from current-dollar value o f output and d ivid in g by output. Unit nonlabor costs contain all the com po nents o f unit nonlabor payments except unit profits. Unit profits include corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital con sumption adjustments per unit o f output. Hours of all persons are the total hours at work o f payroll workers, self-em ployed persons, and unpaid family workers. Capital services are the flow o f services from the capital stock used in production. It is developed from measures o f the net stock o f physical assets— equipment, structures, land, and inventories— w eighted by rental prices for each type o f asset. Combined units of labor and capital inputs are derived by com bining changes in labor and capital input with weights which represent each com ponent’s share o f total output. The indexes for capital services and com b in ed units o f labor and capital are based on changing weights which are aver ages o f the shares in the current and preced in g year (th e T orn q u ist in d ex -n u m b e r formula). Notes on the d a ta The output measure for the business sector is equal to constant-dollar gross national product, but excludes the rental value o f o w n er -o cc u p ied d w e llin g s, the rest-o fworld sector, the output o f nonprofit insti tutions, the output o f paid em ployees o f pri vate households, general government, and the statistical discrepancy. Output o f the nonfarm business sector is equal to busi ness sector output less farming. The mea sures are derived from data supplied by the U.S. Department o f C om m erce’s Bureau o f Econom ic A nalysis and the Federal R e serve Board. Quarterly manufacturing out put indexes are adjusted by the Bureau o f Labor Statistics to annual estimates o f man ufacturing output (gross product originat ing) from the Bureau o f Econom ic Analy sis. Com pensation and hours data are de veloped from data o f the Bureau o f Labor S ta tistic s and the Bureau o f E co n o m ic Analysis. The produ ctivity and associated cost measures in tables 4 2 -4 5 describe the rela tionship between output in real terms and the labor time and capital services involved in its production. They show the changes from period to period in the amount o f goods and services produced per unit o f input. Although these measures relate output to hours and capital services, they do not mea sure the contributions o f labor, capital, or any other sp e c ific factor o f production. Rather, they reflect the joint effect o f many influences, including changes in technology; capital investment; level o f output; utiliza tion o f capacity, energy, and materials; the organization o f production; managerial skill; and the characteristics and efforts o f the work force. FO R A D D IT IO N A L IN F O R M A T IO N on this pro ductivity series, contact the D ivision o f Pro ductivity Research: (202) 6 0 6 -5 6 0 6 . all persons (including self-em ployed) are constructed. FO R A D D IT IO N A L IN F O R M A T IO N On this se ries, contact the D ivision o f Industry Pro ductivity Studies: (202) 6 0 6-5618. Industry productivity measures Labor force and unemployment Description of the series Description of the series The b l s industry productivity data supple ment the measures for the business econom y and major sectors with annual measures o f labor productivity for selected industries at the three- and four-digit levels o f the Stan dard Industrial C lassification system . The industry m easures differ in m eth odology and data sources from the productivity mea sures for the major sectors because the in dustry m easures are d evelop ed ind ep en dently o f the National Income and Product Accounts framework used for the major sec tor measures. Tables 46 and 47 present comparative mea sures o f the labor force, em ploym ent, and unem ploym ent— approximating U.S. con cepts— for the United States, Canada, A us tralia, Japan, and several European coun tries. The unemployment statistics (and, to a lesser extent, em ployment statistics) pub lished by other industrial countries are not, in m ost cases, comparable to U .S. unem ploym ent statistics. Therefore, the Bureau adjusts the figures for selected countries, where necessary, for all known major defi nitional differences. Although precise com parability may not be achieved, these ad justed figures provide a better basis for in ternational com parisons than the figures regularly published by each country. Definitions Output per employee hour is derived by dividing an index o f industry output by an index o f aggregate hours o f all em ployees. Output indexes are based on quantifiable units o f products or services, or both, com bined with value-shared weights. W henever possible, physical quantities are used as the unit o f measurement for output. If quantity data are not available for a given industry, data on the constant-dollar value o f produc tion are used. The labor input series con sist o f the hours o f all e m p lo y ee s (produ ction and nonproduction w orkers), the hours o f all persons (paid em ployees, partners, propri etors, and unpaid fam ily workers), or the number o f em ployees, depending upon the industry. Notes on the d a ta The industry measures are com piled from data produced by the Bureau o f Labor Sta tistics, the Departments o f Commerce, Inte rior, and Agriculture, the Federal Reserve Board, regulatory agencies, trade associa tions, and other sources. For m ost industries, the produ ctivity indexes refer to the output per hour o f all em ployees. For som e transportation indus tries, only indexes o f output per em ployee are prepared. For som e trade and service industries, ind exes o f output per hour o f https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis International Com parisons (Tables 4 6 -4 8 ) Definitions For the principal U.S. definitions o f the la bor force, employment, and unemploy ment, see the Notes section on Employment and Unemployment Data: H ousehold survey data. Notes on the d ata The adjusted statistics have been adapted to the age at which compulsory schooling ends in each country, rather than to the U.S. stan dard o f 16 years o f age and older. There fore, the adjusted statistics relate to the population age 16 and older in France, S w e den, and from 1973 onward in the United Kingdom; 15 and older in Canada, Austra lia, Japan, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and prior to 1973, the United Kingdom; and 14 and older in Italy prior to 1993. The in stitutional population is included in the de nominator o f the labor force participation rates and employment-population ratios for Japan and Germany; it is excluded for the United States and the other countries. In the U.S. labor force survey, persons on layoff who are awaiting recall to their jobs are classified as unemployed. European and Japanese layoff practices are quite dif ferent in nature from those in the United States; therefore, strict application o f the U.S. definition has not been made on this point. For further information, see Monthly Labor Review, Decem ber 1981, pp. 8-11. The figures for one or more recent years for France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom are calculated us ing adjustment factors based on labor force surveys for earlier years and are considered preliminary. The recent-year measures for these countries, therefore, are subject to revision whenever data from more current labor force surveys becom e available. There are breaks in the data series for the United States (1994), Italy (1986, 1991, 1993), and Sw eden (1987). For the United States, the break in series reflects a number o f changes in the labor force survey begin ning with data for January 1994. Data for 1994 are not directly comparable with those for earlier years. See the N otes section on E m ploym ent and U nem ploym ent Data o f this Review. For Italy, the 1986 break in series reflects more accurate enumeration o f the number o f people reported as seeking work in the last 30 days. The impact was to increase the Italian unem ploym ent rates approximating U.S. concepts by about 1 percentage point. In 1991, the method o f w eighting sample data was revised. The impact was to raise the adjusted Italian unemployment rate by ap p roxim ately 0.3 p ercen tage point. In 1993, the survey m ethodology was revised and the definition o f unem ploym ent was changed to include only those who were ac tively looking for a job within the 30 days preceding the survey and who were avail able for work. In addition, the low er age limit for the labor force was raised from 14 to 15 years. (Prior to these changes, B LS ad justed Italy’s published unemployment rate dow nw ard by exclud in g from the unem ployed persons who had not actively sought work in the past 30 days.) The break in the series also reflects the incorporation o f the 1991 population census results. The impact o f these changes was to raise Italy’s adjusted unem ploym ent rate by approxim ately 1.1 percentage points. These changes did not affect em ploym ent significantly, except in 1993. Estim ates by the Italian Statistical O ffice indicate that em ploym ent declined by about 3 percent in 1993, rather than the 4.5 percent indicated by the data shown in table 47. This difference is attributable mainly to the incorporation o f the 1991 population census benchmarks in the 1993 data. Data for earlier years have not yet been adjusted to incorporate the 1991 census results. There have been two breaks in the Sw ed ish labor force survey, in 1987 and in 1993. In 1987, a new questionnaire w as intro duced. Q uestions regarding current avail- Monthly Labor Review October 1995 61 Current Labor Statistics ability for work were added, and the period o f active workseeking required for a person to be classified as unem ployed was reduced from 60 days to 4 weeks. These changes lowered Sw eden’s 1987 unem ploym ent rate by 0.4 percentage point, from 2.3 percent to 1.9 percent. In 1993, the measurement pe riod for the labor force survey was changed to represent all 52 weeks o f the year, rather than 1 week o f each month, and a new ad justm ent for population totals was intro duced. The impact was to raise the unem ployment rate by approximately 0.5 percent age point, from 7.6 percent to 8.1 percent. Statistics Sweden revised its labor force sur vey data for the years 198 7 -9 2 to take into account the break in 1993. The adjustment raised the Sw edish unem ploym ent rate by 0.2 percentage point in 1987, and gradually rose to 0.5 percentage point in 1992. Beginning with data for 1985, b l s has adjusted the Sw edish data to classify stu dents who also sought work as unemployed. The impact o f this change was to increase the adjusted unemployment rate by 0.1 per centage point in 1987, and by 1.8 percent age points, to 9.6 percent, in 1994, when unemployment was higher. The net e ffe c t o f the 1987 and 1993 changes and the B LS adjustment for students seeking work lowered Sw ed en’s 1987 un em ploym ent rate from 2.3 to 2.2 percent. F o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on this se ries, contact the D ivision o f Foreign Labor Statistics: (202) 606 -5 6 5 4 . Manufacturing productivity and labor costs Description of the series Table 48 presents comparative measures o f manufacturing labor productivity, hourly compensation costs, and unit labor costs for the United States, Canada, Japan, and nine European countries. T hese m easures are lim ited to trend com parisons— that is, in tercountry series o f changes over tim e— rather than level comparisons because reli able international comparisons o f the levels o f manufacturing output are unavailable. The hours and compensation measures re fer to all em ployed persons, including selfem poyed persons and unpaid fam ily work ers, in the United States and Canada and to all em ployees (wage and salary earners) in the other countries. Definitions Output, in general, refers to value added in manufacturing (gross product originating) in constant prices from the national accounts o f each country. However, output for Japan 62 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis prior to 1970 and the Netherlands from 1969 to 1977 are indexes o f industrial production. The national accou nts m easures for the United Kingdom are essentially identical to its indexes o f industrial production. W hile methods o f deriving national accounts mea sures differ substantially from country to country, the use o f different procedures does not, in itself, connote lack o f comparabil ity— rather, it reflects differences am ong countries in the availability and reliability o f underlying data series. Hours refer to hours worked in all coun tries. The measures are developed from sta tistics o f manufacturing em ploym ent and average hours. The series used for France (from 1970 forward), Norway, and Sw eden are official series published with the national accounts. Where official total hours series are not available. The measures are devel oped by the Bureau using em ploym ent fig ures published with the national accounts, or other com prehensive em ployment series, and estimates o f annual hours worked. Compensation (labor cost) includes all payments in cash or kind made directly to em ployees plus em ployer expenditures for leg a lly required insurance programs and contractual and private benefit plans. In ad dition, for som e countries, compensation is increased to account for other significant taxes on payrolls or em ploym ent (or reduced to reflect subsidies), even if they are not for the direct benefit o f workers, because such taxes are regarded as labor costs. However, compensation does not include all items o f labor costs. The costs o f recruitment, em ployee training, and plant facilities and ser vices— such as cafeterias and medical clin ics— are not covered because data are not available for most countries. The com pen sation measures are from the national ac counts, except those for Belgium , which are developed by the Bureau using statistics on em p loym en t, average hours, and hourly com pensation. Self-em ployed workers are included in the U.S. and Canadian com pen sation figures by assuming that their hourly com pensation is equal to the average for wage and salary em ployees. Notes on the d ata In gen eral, the m easures relate to total manufacturing as defined by the Interna tional Standard Industrial C lassification . However, the measures for France. Italy (be ginning 1970), and the United Kingdom (be ginning 1971) refer to mining and manufac turing less energy-related products; the mea sures for D enm ark in clu d e m in in g and exclu d e m anufacturing handicrafts from 1960 to 1966; and the m easures for the Netherlands exclude petroleum refining and include coal mining from 1969 to 1976. October 1995 The figures for one or more recent years are generally based on current indicators o f m anufacturing output (such as industrial production indexes), employment, average hours, and hourly compensation and are con sidered preliminary until the national ac counts and other statistics used for the long term measures becom es available. F o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on this se ries, contact the D ivision o f Foreign Labor Statistics: (202) 606 -5 6 5 4 . O c c u p a tio n a l Injury a n d Illness D ata (Table 49) Description of the series The Annual Survey o f Occupational Injuries and Illnesses is designed to collect data on injuries and illn e s s e s b ased on records which em ployers in the follow ing industries maintain under the Occupational Safety and Health A ct o f 1970: agriculture, forestry, and fishing; oil and gas extraction; construction; manufacturing; transportation and public utilities; w holesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services. Ex cluded from the survey are self-em ployed in dividuals, farmers with fewer than 11 em ployees, em ployers regulated by other Fed eral safety and health law s, and Federal, State, and local government agencies. Because the survey is a Federal-State co operative program and the data must meet the needs o f participating State agencies, an independent sam ple is selected for each State. The sample is selected to represent all private industries in the States and terri tories. The sample size for the survey is de pendent upon (1) the characteristics for which estim ates are needed; (2) the indus tries for which estimates are desired; (3) the ch a r a cte ristic s o f the p op u la tio n b ein g sampled; (4) the target reliability o f the es timates; and (5) the survey design employed. W hile there are many characteristics upon which the sample design could be based, the total recorded case incidence rate is used because it is one o f the most important char acteristics and the least variable; therefore, it requires the smallest sample size. The survey is based on stratified random sam pling with a Neym an allocation and a ratio estimator. The characteristics used to stratify the establishments are the Standard Industrial Classification (S IC ) code and size o f em ploym ent. Definitions Recordable occupational injuries and ill nesses are: (1) occupational deaths, regard less o f the time between injury and death, or the length o f the illness; or (2) nonfatal occupational illnesses; or (3) nonfatal occu pational injuries which involve one or more o f the follow ing: loss o f consciousness, re striction o f work or motion, transfer to an other job, or medical treatment (other than first aid). Occupational injury is any injury, such as a cut, fracture, sprain, amputation, and so forth, which results from a work accident or from exposure involving a single incident in the work environment. Occupational illness is an abnormal condition or disorder, other than one result ing from an occupational injury, caused by exposure to environmental factors associ ated with employment. It includes acute and chronic illnesses or disease which may be caused by inhalation, absorption, ingestion, or direct contact. Lost workday cases are cases which in volve days away from work, or days o f re stricted work activity, or both. Lost workday cases involving re stricted work activity are those cases which result in restricted work activity only. Lost workdays away from work are the number o f workdays (consecutive or not) on which the em ployee would have worked but could not because o f occupational injury or illness. Lost workdays—restricted work activ ity are the number o f workdays (consecutive or not) on which, because o f injury or illness: (1) the em ployee was assigned to another job https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis on a tem porary basis; (2) the e m p lo y ee worked at a permanent job less than full time; or (3) the em ployee worked at a permanently assigned job but could not perform all du ties normally connected with it. The number o f days away from work or days o f restricted work activity does not in clude the day o f injury or onset o f illness or any days on which the em ployee would not have worked even though able to work. Incidence rates represent the number o f injuries and/or illnesses or lost workdays per 100 full-time workers. Notes on the d ata Estimates are made for industries and em ploym ent-size classes and for severity clas sification: fatalities, lost workday cases, and nonfatal cases without lost workdays. Lost workday cases are separated into those in which the em ployee would have worked but could not and those in which work activity was restricted. Estimates o f the number o f cases and the number o f days lost are made for both categories. M ost o f the estimates are in the form o f incidence rates, defined as the number o f injuries and illnesses or lost workdays per 100 full-time em ployees. For this purpose, 200,000 em ployee hours represent 100 em ployee years (2,000 hours per em ployee). Full detail o f the available measures is pre sented in the annual bulletin, Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in the United States, by Industry. Comparable data for individual States are available from the b l s O ffice o f Safety, Health, and Working Conditions. M ining and railroad data are furnished to b l s by the Mine Safety and Health Ad ministration and the Federal Railroad A d ministration. Data from these organizations are included in b l s and State publications. Federal em ployees experience is com piled and published by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Data on State and local government em ployees are collected by about half o f the States and territories; these data are not com piled nationally. The Supplem entary Data System pro vides detailed information describing vari ous factors associated with work-related in juries and illnesses. These data are obtained from information reported by employers to State workers’ compensation agencies. The Work Injury Report program exam ines se lected types o f accidents through an em ployee survey which focuses on the circum stances surrounding the injury. These data are available from the b l s O ffice o f Safety, Health, and Working Conditions. The definitions o f occupational injuries and illn esses and lost workdays are from Recordkeeping Requirements under the Oc cupational Safety and Health Act o f 1970. F o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on occupa tional injuries and illnesses, contact the D i vision o f Safety and Health Statistics: (202) 6 0 6 -6 1 6 6 . Monthly Labor Review October 1995 63 Current Labor Statistics: Comparative Indicators 1. Labor market indicators 1993 Selected indicators 1993 1994 1994 III IV I II 1995 III IV I II E m p lo y m e n t d a ta 1 Employment status of the civilian noninstitutionalized population (household survey):2 Labor force participation rate.................................................... Employment-population ratio.................................................... Unemployment rate ................................................................. Men............................... 16 to 24 years .................................................................... 25 years and over............................................................... Women .................................... 16 to 24 years .................................................................... 25 years and over...................................... 66.2 61.6 6.8 7.1 14.3 5.8 6.5 12.2 5.4 66.6 62.5 6.1 6.2 13.2 4.8 6.0 11.6 4.9 66.1 61.7 6.7 7.1 14.2 5.8 6.4 11.7 5.3 66.2 61.9 6.5 6.7 13.5 5.5 6.3 11.6 5.3 66.7 62.3 6.6 6.7 14.1 5.2 6.4 12.1 5.3 66.5 62.4 6.2 6.2 13.3 4.8 6.2 11.9 5.0 66.5 62.5 6.0 6.0 13.1 4.7 5.9 11.6 4.8 66.6 62.9 5.6 5.6 12.2 4.4 5.6 11.0 4.5 66 9 63 2 5.5 5.5 11.9 4.2 5.6 11.2 4.4 66 6 6? fl 5.7 5.7 12.0 44 57 11 5 4.5 110,730 91,889 23,352 18,075 87,378 114,034 94,917 23,913 18,303 90,121 111,021 92,143 23,345 18,049 87,676 111,816 92,877 23,481 18,096 88,335 112,655 93,656 23,646 18,181 89,008 112,995 93,990 23,534 18,020 89,461 114,481 95,314 23,978 18,333 90,503 1-15,329 96,099 24,162 18,436 91,167 116,078 96,841 24,329 18,517 91,749 116,352 97,094 24,265 18 461 92’087 34.5 41.4 4.1 34.7 42.0 4.7 34.5 41.5 4.1 34.5 41.7 4.4 34.6 41.7 4.5 34.7 42.1 4.7 34.7 42.0 4.7 34.7 42.1 4.8 34.7 42.1 4.8 34 4 41 5 4.4 Percent change in the ECI, compensation: All workers (excluding farm, household, and Federal workers) Private industry workers ................................ Goods-producing3 ......................................... Service-producing3 ............................... State and local government workers.................... 3.5 3.6 3.9 3.6 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.1 2.9 3.0 1.0 .9 .7 1.0 1.5 .6 .6 .6 .7 .4 .9 1.0 1.0 .9 .6 .7 .8 1.0 .7 .4 1.0 .8 .7 .9 1.5 4 4 .3 .4 .5 8 8 8 g .6 .4 Workers by bargaining status (private industry): Union................................................. Nonunion ........................................... 4.3 3.5 2.7 3.1 .8 .9 .8 .6 .8 1.0 .9 .8 .7 .8 .3 .4 7 .9 .7 Employment, nonfarm (payroll data), in thousands:2 Total .................................................... Private sector .................................... Goods-producing............................................. Manufacturing ........................................ Service-producing ..................................... Average hours: Private sector .......................................... Manufacturing .................................... Overtime............................................... E m p lo y m e n t C o st Index additional information, see the box note under “Employment and Unemployment Data” in the notes to this section. 64 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 3 Goods-producing industries include mining, construction, and manufacturing. Serviceproducing industries include all other private sector industries. 2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in compensation, prices, and productivity 1994 1993 Selected measures 1993 1995 1994 III IV I II III IV I II C o m p e n s a tio n data: \ 2 Employment Cost Index-compensation (wages, salaries, benefits): Civilian nonfarm .............................................................. Private nonfarm ............................................................. Employment Cost Index-wages and salaries Civilian nonfarm .............................................................. Private nonfarm ............................................................. 3.5 3.6 3.0 3.1 1.0 .9 0.6 .6 0.9 1.0 0.7 .8 1.0 .8 0.4 .4 0.8 .8 0.6 .7 3.1 3.1 2.8 2.8 1.0 1.0 .6 .6 .6 .7 .7 .8 1.0 .8 .5 .5 .7 .8 .7 .7 Consumer Price Index (All urban consumers): All items..... 2.7 2.7 .5 .5 1.0 .5 .9 .2 1.1 .7 Producer Price Index: Finished goods................................................................ Finished consumer goods.............................................. Capital equipment .......................................................... Intermediate materials, supplies, components .................. Crude materials............................................................... .2 -.2 1.8 1.0 .1 1.7 1.6 2.0 4.4 -.5 -1.4 -1.5 -.5 .1 -3.1 .2 -.2 1.7 -.7 .0 .6 .6 .8 .7 3.1 .6 .6 .4 1.2 -.9 0 .2 -.5 1.6 -3.4 .5 .3 1.2 .8 .8 .7 .6 .8 2.4 1.8 .9 1.0 .3 1.5 1.1 1.3 1.3 2.8 2.1 1.9 2.2 2.2 2.9 3.2 5.0 4.2 3.9 1.8 1.7 2.0 -1.4 -1.4 -.8 3.2 2.7 1.6 4.3 4.3 3.4 2.1 2.5 1.7 3.0 3.0 " Price d a ta :1 P ro d u c tiv ity data:3 Output per hour of all persons: Business sector............................................................. Nonfarm business sector............................................... Nonfinancial corporations 4 ............................................. Quarterly percent changes reflect annual rates of change in quarterly in dexes. The data are seasonally adjusted. 4 Output per hour of all employees. - Data not available. 1 Annual changes are December-to-December change. Quarterly changes are calculated using the last month of each quarter. Compensation and price data are not seasonally adjusted and the price data are not compounded. 2 Excludes Federal and private household workers. 3 Annual rates of change are computed by comparing annual averages. 3. Alternative measures of wage and compensation changes Quarterly average Components Four quarters ended- 1994 I II 1995 III IV I 1994 II I II 1995 III IV I II Average hourly compensation:1 All persons, business sector............................................................ All persons, nonfarm business sector.............................................. 5.1 4.9 0.9 1.4 3.1 2.7 3.6 3.8 3.8 4.1 3.7 3.5 2.9 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.7 2.6 3.2 3.2 2.8 3.0 3.6 3.6 Employment Cost Index-compensation: Civilian nonfarm 2 ............................................................................ Private nonfarm ............................................................................ Union......................................................................................... Nonunion................................................................................... State and local governments......................................................... .9 1.0 .8 1.0 .6 .7 .8 .9 .8 .4 1.0 .8 .7 .8 1.5 .4 .4 .3 .4 .5 .8 .8 .7 .9 .6 .6 .7 .6 .7 .4 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.3 2.8 3.2 3.4 3.3 3.4 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.1 2.7 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.6 3.0 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.3 2.9 3.1 Employment Cost Index-wages and salaries: Civilian nonfarm2 ............................................................................ Private nonfarm ............................................................................ Union......................................................................................... Nonunion................................................................................... State and local governments.......................................................... .6 .7 .7 .7 .6 .7 .8 .9 .8 .2 1.0 .8 .9 .8 1.7 .5 .5 .4 .5 .5 .7 .8 .6 .8 .7 .7 .7 .7 .8 .2 2.9 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.7 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.3 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.7 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.9 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.6 3.0 3.2 .4 .1 .3 .8 .2 .6 .1 .9 .1 .7 .1 .6 .2 .3 .1 .3 .1 .2 .8 .2 .5 .1 2.9 .9 1.8 .2 2.7 .9 1.7 .2 2.9 .8 1.9 .2 2.7 .6 1.9 .2 2.6 .5 1.9 .3 2.6 .5 1.8 .3 Total effective wage adjustments3.......................................................... From current settlements................................................................ From prior settlements.................................................................... From cost-of-living provision............................................................ « (4) Negotiated wage adjustments from settlements:3 First-year adjustments ..................................................................... Annual rate over life of contract...................................................... 3.0 2.4 2.0 2.4 1.0 1.9 2.2 2.5 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.0 2.3 1.8 2.3 1.8 2.2 Negotiated wage and benefit adjustments from settlements:5 First-year adjustment...................................................................... Annual rate over life of contract...................................................... 3.0 2.6 3.4 2.9 (4) 1.4 1.5 2.1 1.4 1.7 1.8 1.8 3.0 2.3 3.1 2.4 3.1 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.1 2.3 1.2 1.7 1 Seasonally adjusted. 2 Excludes Federal and household workers. 3 Limited to major collective bargaining units of 1,000 workers or more. The most recent data are preliminary. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4 Data round to zero. 5 Limited to major collective bargaining units of 5,000 workers or more. The most recent data are preliminary, Monthly Labor Review October 1995 65 Current Labor Statistics: 4. Labor Force Data Employment status of the population, by sex, age, race and Hispanic origin, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Numbers in thousands) 1995 1994 Annual average Employment status 1993 1994 Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. TO TAL Civilian noninstitutional population'................................. Civilian labor force..................... Participation rate ................ Employed................................ Employment-population ratio2 ................................. Unemployed............................ Unemployment rate............. Not in labor force ...................... 193,550 196,814 197,043 197,248 197,430 197,607 197,765 197,753 197,886 198,007 198,148 198,286 198,453 198,615 198,801 128,040 131,056 131,086 131,291 131,646 131,718 131,725 132,136 132,308 132,511 132,737 131,811 131,869 132,519 132,211 66.5 66.5 66.4 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.8 66.9 66.9 67.0 66.2 66.6 66.5 66.6 66.7 119,306 123,060 123,197 123,644 124,141 124,403 124,570 124,639 125,125 125,274 125,072 124,319 124,485 124,959 124,779 61.6 8,734 6.8 65,509 62.5 7,996 6.1 65,758 62.5 7,889 6.0 65,957 62.7 7,647 5.8 65,957 62.9 7,505 5.7 65,784 63.0 7,315 5.6 65,889 63.0 7,155 5.4 66,040 63.0 7,498 5.7 65,617 63.2 7,183 5.4 65,578 63.3 7,237 5.5 65,496 63.1 7,665 5.8 65,412 62.7 7,492 5.7 66,476 62.7 7,384 5.6 66,583 62.9 7,559 5.7 66,096 62.8 7,431 5.6 66,590 85,907 66,069 76.9 61,865 87,151 66,921 76.8 63,294 87,248 66,817 76.6 63,271 87,321 66,909 76.6 63,517 87,439 67,177 76.8 63,820 87,529 67,345 76.9 64,051 87,617 67,450 77.0 64,281 87,528 67,539 77.2 64,133 87,572 67,552 77.1 64,478 87,622 67,643 77.2 64,465 87,664 67,563 77.1 64,224 87,691 67,250 76.7 63,841 87,750 67,232 76.6 63,994 87,818 67,258 76.6 64,066 87,905 67,077 76.3 63,871 72.0 2,263 59,602 4,204 6.4 72.6 2,351 60,943 3,627 5.4 72.5 2,377 60,894 3,546 5.3 72.7 2,293 61,224 3,392 5.1 73.0 2,329 61,491 3,357 5.0 73.2 2,377 61,674 3,294 4.9 73.4 2,410 61,871 3,169 4.7 73.3 2,390 61,743 3,406 5.0 73.6 2,512 61,965 3,074 4.6 73.6 2,519 61,946 3,178 4.7 73.3 2,384 61,840 3,339 4.9 72.8 2,242 61,599 3,410 5.1 72.9 2,344 61,649 3,238 4.8 73.0 2,327 61,739 3,192 4.7 72.7 2,288 61,583 3,206 4.8 94,388 55,146 58.4 51,912 95,467 56,655 59.3 53,606 95,544 56,747 59.4 53,722 95,658 57,031 59.6 54,044 95,729 56,951 59.5 54,090 95,821 56,984 59.5 54,129 95,873 56,725 59.2 54,037 95,961 56,951 59.3 54,134 96,020 57,096 59.5 54,334 96,037 57,042 59.4 54,242 96,099 57,360 59.7 54,403 96,141 56,819 59.1 54,097 96,204 56,773 59.0 53,915 96,265 57,471 59.7 54,519 96,327 57,346 59.5 54,498 55.0 599 51,313 3,234 5.9 56.2 809 52,796 3,049 5.4 56.2 815 52,907 3,025 5.3 56.5 847 53,197 2,987 5.2 56.5 863 53,227 2,861 5.0 56.5 850 53,279 2,855 5.0 56.4 882 53,155 2,688 4.7 56.4 877 53,257 2,817 4.9 56.6 898 53,436 2,763 4.8 56.5 913 53,329 2,800 4.9 56.6 925 53,477 2,957 5.2 56.3 828 53,268 2,722 4.8 56.0 791 53,124 2,857 5.0 56.6 787 53,732 2,952 5.1 56.6 809 53,688 2,849 5.0 13,255 6,826 51.5 5,530 14,196 7,481 52.7 6,161 14,251 7,522 52.8 6,204 14,269 7,351 51.5 6,083 14,261 7,518 52.7 6,231 14,257 7,389 51.8 6,223 14,274 7,550 52.9 6,252 14,263 7,646 53.6 6,372 14,294 7,660 53.6 6,313 14,348 7,826 54.5 6,567 14,385 7,814 54.3 6,446 14,454 7,742 53.6 6,381 14,498 7,864 54.2 6,576 14,531 7,790 53.6 6,375 14,569 7,787 53.5 6,411 41.7 212 5,317 1,296 19.0 43.4 249 5,912 1,320 17.6 43.5 244 5,960 1,318 17.5 42.6 271 5,812 1,268 17.2 43.7 302 5,929 1,287 17.1 43.6 273 5,950 1,166 15.8 43.8 240 6,012 1,298 17.2 44.7 308 6,064 1,274 16.7 44.2 245 6,068 1,347 17.6 45.8 266 6,300 1,260 16.1 44.8 285 6,160 1,369 17.5 44.1 287 6,094 1,360 17.6 45.4 316 6,261 1,288 16.4 43.9 295 6,080 1,415 18.2 44.0 265 6,146 1,377 17.7 M en, 20 ye a rs and o v e r Civilian noninstitutional population'................................. Civilian labor force..................... Participation rate ................ Employed ................................ Employment-population ratio2 ................................. Agriculture............................ Nonagricultural industries....... Unemployed............................ Unemployment rate............. W o m e n , 20 y e a rs ond o v e r Civilian noninstitutional population'................................. Civilian labor force...................... Participation rate ................ Employed ................................ Employment-population ratio2 ................................. Agriculture............................ Nonagricultural industries....... Unemployed............................ Unemployment rate............. B o th s ex es, 16 to 19 y e a rs Civilian noninstitutional population'................................. Civilian labor force...................... Participation rate ................ Employed................................ Employment-population ratio2 ................................. Agriculture............................ Nonagricultural industries....... Unemployed............................ Unemployment rate............. W h ite Civilian noninstitutional population'................................. Civilian labor force..................... Participation rate ................ Employed ................................ Employment-population ratio2 ................................. Unemployed............................ Unemployment rate............. 163,921 165,555 165,696 165,832 165,954 166,072 166,175 166,361 166,444 166,521 166,613 166,708 166,822 166,931 167,058 109,359 111,082 111,186 111,381 111,555 111,637 111,715 111,876 111,830 111,999 112,153 111,568 111,541 112,197 111,971 66.9 66.9 67.2 67.0 67.2 67.2 67.2 67.2 67.3 67.3 66.7 67.1 67.1 67.2 67.2 102,812 105,190 105,401 105,740 106,010 106,242 106,352 106,366 106,604 106,698 106,500 105,935 106,145 106,770 106,567 62.7 6,547 6.0 63.5 5,892 5.3 63.6 5,785 5.2 63.8 5,641 5.1 63.9 5,545 5.0 64.0 5,395 4.8 64.0 5,363 4.8 63.9 5,510 4.9 64.0 5,226 4.7 64.1 51301 4.7 63.9 5,653 5.0 63.5 5,633 5.0 63.6 5,396 4.8 64.0 5,427 4.8 63.8 5,404 4.8 22,329 13,943 62.4 12,146 22,879 14,502 63.4 12,835 22,917 14,429 63.0 12,795 22,955 14,477 63.1 12,927 22,990 14,649 63.7 13,022 23,023 14,578 63.3 13,054 23,052 14,541 63.1 13,119 23,089 14,697 63.7 13,192 23,117 14,868 64.3 13,362 23,142 14,818 64.0 13,370 23,169 14,938 64.5 13,337 23,192 14,803 63.8 13,336 23,221 14,707 63.3 13,142 23,249 14,656 63.0 13,033 23,284 14,715 63.2 13,049 54.4 1,796 12.9 56.1 1,666 11.5 55.8 1,634 11.3 56.3 1,550 10.7 56.6 1,627 11.1 56.7 1,524 10.5 56.9 1,422 9.8 57.1 1,505 10.2 57.8 1,505 10.1 57.8 1,448 9.8 57.6 1,601 10.7 57.5 1,467 9.9 56.6 1,565 10.6 56.1 1,623 11.1 56.0 1,666 11.3 Black Civilian noninstitutional population'................................. Civilian labor force..................... Participation rate ................ Employed ................................ Employment-population ratio2 ................................. Unemployed............................ Unemployment rate............. See footnotes at end of table. 66 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 4. Continued— Employment status of the population, by sex, age, race and Hispanic origin, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Numbers in thousands) 1995 1994 Annual average Employment status Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. 18,117 11,975 66.1 10,788 18,193 12,002 66.0 10,786 18,244 11,997 65.8 10,806 18,291 12,222 66.8 11,074 18,339 12,324 67.2 11,236 18,385 12,224 66.5 11,105 18,368 12,036 65.5 10,811 18,413 12,017 65.3 10,943 18,458 12,001 65.0 10,903 18,509 12,131 65.5 11,058 18,554 12,111 65.3 10,895 18,604 12,229 65.7 11,131 18,653 12,323 66.1 11,235 18,702 12,383 66.2 11,-158 59.5 1,187 9.9 59.3 1,216 10.1 59.2 1,191 9.9 60.5 1,148 9.4 61.3 1,088 8.8 60.4 1,119 9.2 58.9 1,224 10.2 59.4 1,073 8.9 59.1 1,098 9.1 59.7 1,073 8.8 58.7 1,216 10.0 59.8 1,098 9.0 60.2 1,088 8.8 59.7 1,225 9.9 1993 1994 15,753 10,377 65.9 9,272 58.9 1,104 10.6 H ispa nic origin Civilian noninstitutional population1................................. Civilian labor force..................... Participation rate ................ Employed................................ Employment-population ratio2 ................................. Unemployed............................ Unemployment rate............. Data” in the notes to this section. Detail for the above race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum to totals because data for the “other races” groups are not presented and Hispanics are included in both the white and black population groups. 1 The population figures are not seasonally adjusted. 2 Civilian employment as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population. NOTE: Data for 1994 are not directly comparable with data for 1993 and earlier years. For additional information, see the box note under “Employment and Unemployment 5. Selected employment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted (In thousands) 1995 1994 Annual average Selected categories 1993 1994 Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. C H A R A C T E R IS T IC Employed, 16 years and over...... 119,306 123,060 123,197 123,644 124,141 124,403 124,570 124,639 125,125 125,274 125,072 124,319 124,485 124,959 124,779 67,588 67,110 67,390 67,383 67,108 64,700 66,450 66,458 66,682 67,059 67,244 67,483 67,386 67,709 67,811 Men....................................... 54,606 56,610 56,739 56,962 57,082 57,159 57,087 57,252 57,416 57,462 57,484 57,208 57,095 57,576 57,672 Women.................................. 42,190 42,132 42,086 41,874 41,956 42,137 42,060 41,530 41,608 41,601 Married men, spouse present .. 40,869 41,414 41,487 41,557 41,511 Married women, spouse 30,512 31,536 31,593 31,905 31,764 31,775 31,723 31,705 31,893 32,135 32,108 32,022 31,918 32,309 32,226 present................................. 7,081 7,268 7,067 7,071 7,152 7,175 7,201 7,141 7,074 7,199 6,974 7,029 7,098 6,764 7,053 Women who maintain families . CLASS OF W ORKER Agriculture: Wage and salary workers....... Self-employed workers........... Unpaid family workers............ Nonagricultural industries: Wage and salary workers....... Government ........................ Private industries................. Private households............ Other................................ Self-employed workers........... Unpaid family workers............ 1,637 1,332 105 1,715 1,645 49 1,728 1,654 50 1,712 1,630 63 1,764 1,652 43 1,767 1,677 48 1,738 1,714 49 1,866 1,663 35 1,970 1,684 27 1,987 1,674 57 1,884 1,649 70 1,747 1,560 55 1,848 1,593 46 1,832 1,551 45 1,772 1,542 45 107,011 110,517 110,576 111,100 111,686 111,770 111,960 111,987 112,461 112,649 112,578 112,111 112,160 112,331 112,350 18,387 18,358 18,326 18,504 18,685 18,646 18,493 18,504 18,293 18,225 18,306 18,201 18,357 18,340 18,295 92,794 93,485 93,413 93,620 93,692 93,957 93,964 93,932 93,619 93,773 93,973 94,023 88,507 92,224 92,351 887 886 988 913 866 935 999 1,023 1,075 1,075 1,039 1,105 966 881 903 92,550 92,414 92,597 92,617 92,882 92,925 92,945 92,705 92,907 93,086 93,138 87,402 91,258 91,470 91,891 9,098 8,869 8,904 8,865 8,848 8,763 8,765 8,989 8,878 8,915 8,959 9,039 9,003 9,003 9,021 106 103 103 95 118 129 110 125 131 134 131 120 121 218 131 PE R S O N S A T W O R K P A R T T IM E 1 All industries: Part time for economic reasons . Slack work or business conditions............................. Could only find part-time work Part time for noneconomic reasons .................................. Nonagricultural industries: Part time for economic reasons . Slack work or business conditions............................. Could only find part-time work Part time for noneconomic reasons ................................. 6,348 4,625 4,348 4,333 4,411 4,411 4,422 4,693 4,460 4,530 4,469 4,476 4,442 4,402 4,526 3,140 2,908 2,432 1,871 2,396 1,618 2,404 1,697 2,394 1,791 2,394 1,736 2,384 1,734 2,504 1,777 2,372 1,739 2,333 1,902 2,517 1,686 2,502 1,720 2,304 1,785 2,497 1,672 2,586 1,567 15,062 17,638 17,955 17,609 17,644 17,756 17,576 17,940 18,041 17,627 18,121 17,666 17,745 18,299 18,113 6,106 4,414 4,173 4,154 4,226 4,246 4,254 4,430 4,187 4,347 4,171 4,289 4,185 4,234 4,316 2,977 2,832 2,311 1,824 2,272 1,583 2,290 1,646 2,257 1,756 2,282 1,689 2,272 1,690 2,359 1,737 2,216 1,687 2,226 1,854 2,328 1,624 2,364 1,698 2,158 1,747 2,385 1,613 2,448 1,533 14,637 17,007 17,314 16,982 16,992 17,101 16,917 17,307 17,381 16,991 17,232 17,034 17,056 17,660 17,473 1 Excludes persons “with a job but not at work" during the survey period for such reasons as vacation, illness, or industrial disputes. NOTE: Data for 1994 are not directly comparable with data for 1993 and earlier years. For additional information, see the box note under “Employment and Unemployment Data” in the notes to this section. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review October 1995 67 Current Labor Statistics: 6. Labor Force Data Selected unemployment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Unemployment rates) 1994 Annual average 1995 Selected categories 1993 1994 Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Total, all workers................................................. Both sexes, 16 to 19 years............................. Men, 20 years and over.................................. Women, 20 years and over............................. 6.8 19.0 6.4 5.9 6.1 17.6 5.4 5.4 6.0 17.5 5.3 5.3 5.8 17.2 5.1 5.2 5.7 17.1 5.0 5.0 5.6 15.8 4.9 5.0 5.4 17.2 4.7 4.7 5.7 16.7 5.0 4.9 5.4 17.6 4.6 4.8 5.5 16.1 4.7 4.9 5.8 17.5 4.9 5.2 5.7 17.6 5.1 4.8 5.6 16.4 4.8 5.0 5.7 18.2 4.7 5.1 5.6 17.7 4.8 5.0 White, total.................................................... Both sexes, 16 to 19 years........................... Men, 16 to 19 years ................................ Women, 16 to 19 years........................... Men, 20 years and over ............................... Women, 20 years and over........................... 6.0 16.2 17.6 14.6 5.6 5.1 5.3 15.1 16.3 13.8 4.8 4.6 5.2 14.6 15.4 13.7 4.6 4.6 5.1 14.8 16.2 13.3 4.4 4.6 5.0 14.4 15.2 13.5 4.4 4.4 4.8 13.5 14.3 12.6 4.3 4.3 4.8 14.7 16.0 13.2 4.2 4.1 4.9 14.1 15.0 13.1 4.4 4.3 4.7 14.7 16.1 13.1 4.0 4.1 4.7 13.6 14.7 12.4 4.2 4.2 5.0 14.6 15.3 13.8 4.4 4.5 5.0 14.8 15.2 14.3 4.6 4.3 4.8 13.1 14.5 11.6 4.3 4.4 4.8 14.8 14.6 15.0 4.1 4.4 4.8 14.0 15.7 12.1 4.2 4.3 Black, total .................................................... Both sexes, 16 to 19 years........................... Men, 16 to 19 years................................ Women, 16 to 19 years............................ Men, 20 years and over ............................... Women, 20 years and over........................... 12.9 38.9 40.1 37.5 12.1 10.6 11.5 35.2 37.6 32.6 10.3 9.8 11.3 36.1 39.9 31.9 10.2 9.4 10.7 32.1 30.8 33.4 9.8 9.0 11.1 37.5 35.9 39.1 9.5 9.2 10.5 33.0 32.0 34.1 9.2 8.9 9.8 34.6 34.3 35.0 8.3 8.3 10.2 35.5 34.0 37.1 9.2 8.5 10.1 35.7 38.7 32.4 7.9 9.0 9.8 31.2 31.7 30.7 7.8 9.1 10.7 35.6 35.4 35.8 8.9 9.3 9.9 35.1 40.0 30.5 8.8 7.8 10.6 37.8 38.7 36.8 9.0 8.7 11.1 39.0 41.6 36.3 9.1 9.4 11.3 42.6 46.3 38.9 9.4 9.0 Hispanic origin, total........................................ 10.6 9.9 10.1 9.9 9.4 8.8 9.2 10.2 8.9 9.1 8.8 10.0 9.0 8.8 9.9 Married men, spouse present.......................... Married women, spouse present..................... Women who maintain families......................... Full-time workers ............................................ Part-time workers ........................................... 4.4 4.6 9.5 7.4 7.4 3.7 4.1 8.9 6.8 7.1 3.5 4.1 8.8 6.0 6.2 3.4 4.0 8.9 5.8 5.8 3.3 4.0 8.9 5.8 5.6 3.2 3.9 8.7 5.6 5.4 3.2 3.7 8.8 5.3 5.9 3.4 3.7 8.9 5.5 6.2 3.0 3.6 8.1 5.3 6.0 3.2 3.9 7.6 5.4 5.8 3.4 4.2 9.0 5.6 6.3 3.4 3.9 8.0 5.6 6.1 3.4 3.8 8.4 5.5 6.3 3.4 4.1 8.5 5.5 6.6 3.3 4.1 7.0 5.6 5.9 7.0 7.3 14.3 7.2 7.1 7.3 5.1 7.8 6.3 5.4 11.8 5.6 5.2 6.0 4.8 7.4 6.1 5.0 10.7 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.8 7.4 6.0 5.1 10.7 5.3 5.3 5.4 4.5 7.0 5.9 4.7 10.7 5.1 4.8 5.6 4.4 7.2 5.9 4.5 10.7 5.1 4.3 6.0 4.6 7.0 5.6 3.9 10.9 4.9 4.6 5.4 4.2 6.7 5.7 5.1 11.7 4.7 4.2 5.4 4.7 6.6 5.5 5.2 10.5 4.4 3.9 5.0 4.5 6.4 5.5 6.1 10.8 4.5 4.2 4.9 4.5 6.2 5.9 4.3 11.8 4.8 4.4 5.4 4.6 6.8 6.0 4.9 12.6 5.5 5.3 6.0 4.0 6.7 5.7 4.4 10.6 5.2 4.2 6.6 4.5 6.2 5.9 3.4 10.9 5.2 4.8 5.8 4.7 6.6 5.8 4.1 12.2 4.8 4.0 5.9 4.4 6.4 4.1 6.5 3.3 11.6 3.6 6.1 3.4 11.3 3.7 5.7 3.6 11.1 4.3 5.5 3.2 11.1 3.4 5.3 3.2 10.3 3.6 5.4 2.7 10.4 2.9 5.2 3.1 11.1 2.9 5.2 3.2 10.7 3.5 5.2 2.8 9.1 3.3 5.3 2.7 10.5 3.4 5.6 3.1 11.3 3.7 5.5 2.8 12.5 3.3 5.5 3.2 11.9 3.5 5.8 2.8 9.7 3.4 5.7 3.0 8.3 C H A R A C T E R IS T IC IN D U S TR Y Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers .... Mining............................................................ Construction................................................... Manufacturing ................................................ Durable goods.............................................. Nondurable goods ........................................ Transportation and public utilities .................... Wholesale and retail trade.............................. Finance,insurance, and real estate.................................................... Services ......................................................... Government workers........................................... Agricultural wage and salary workers ................... NOTE: Data for 1994 are not directly comparable with data for 1993 and earlier years. For additional information, see the box note under “Employment and Unemployment Data” In the notes to this section. 7. Duration of unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Numbers in thousands) 1995 1994 Annual average Weeks of unemployment 1993 1994 Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Less than 5 weeks ....................................... 5 to 14 weeks .............................................. 15 weeks and over....................................... 15 to 26 weeks .......................................... 27 weeks and over..................................... 3,160 2,522 3,052 1,274 1,778 2,728 2,408 2,860 1,237 1,623 2,655 2,572 2,773 1,198 1,575 2,675 2,294 2,768 1,213 1,555 2,434 2,256 2,934 1,344 1,590 2,599 2,163 2,661 1,187 1,474 2,587 2,149 2,456 1,088 1,368 2,937 2,122 2,386 1,033 1,353 2,600 2,165 2,298 1,090 1,207 2,523 2,319 2,266 920 1,347 2,629 2,430 2,505 1,115 1,390 2,598 2,304 2,585 1,282 1,303 2,742 2,348 2,299 1,096 1,203 2,600 2,621 2,319 1,023 1,297 2,713 2,434 2,380 1,150 1,230 Mean duration, in weeks................................ Median duration, in weeks............................. 18.1 8.4 18.8 9.2 18.9 9.2 18.8 9.5 19.3 10.1 18.2 9.1 17.8 8.7 16.7 7.9 16.9 7.8 17.5 7.9 17.7 8.5 16.9 9.0 15.6 7.5 16.5 9.1 16.3 8.7 NOTE: In the three tables above, data for 1994 are not directly comparable with data for 1993 and earlier years. For additional information, see the box note under 68 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 “Employment and Unemployment Data” in the notes to this section, 8. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Numbers in thousands) Annual average 1994 1995 Reason for unemployment 1993 1994 Aug. Sept. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May 3,815 977 2,838 791 2,786 604 3,706 1,012 2,694 786 2,758 621 3,574 824 2,750 874 2,620 600 3,513 848 2,665 755 2,626 614 3,495 881 2,614 710 2,575 578 3,442 930 2,512 704 2,525 555 3,658 1,061 2,598 694 2,488 597 3,339 1,025 2,314 773 2,474 582 3,352 1,032 2,320 811 2,430 604 3,532 1,145 2,387 817 2,779 637 3,614 958 2,657 870 2,458 522 3,423 1,066 2,357 834 2,526 540 3,615 1,184 2,431 832 2,593 571 3,426 1,036 2,390 871 2,537 574 54.6 12.6 42.0 10.8 24.6 10.0 47.7 12.2 35.5 9.9 34.8 7.6 47.1 12.9 34.2 10.0 35.0 7.9 46.6 10.7 35.9 11.4 34.2 7.8 46.8 11.3 35.5 10.1 35.0 8.2 47.5 12.0 35.5 9.6 35.0 7.9 47.6 12.9 34.8 9.7 34.9 7.7 49.2 14.3 34.9 9.3 33.4 8.0 46.6 14.3 32.3 10.8 34.5 8.1 46.6 14.3 32.2 11.3 33.8 8.4 45.5 14.7 30.7 10.5 35.8 8.2 48.4 12.8 35.6 11.7 32.9 7.0 46.7 14.6 32.2 11.4 34.5 7.4 47.5 15.6 31.9 10.9 34.1 7.5 46.2 14.0 32.3 11.8 34.2 7.8 3.7 .7 1.7 .7 2.9 .6 2.1 .5 2.8 .6 2.1 .5 2.7 .7 2.0 .5 2.7 .6 2.0 .5 2.7 .5 2.0 .4 2.6 .5 1.9 .4 2.8 .5 1.9 .5 2.5 .6 1.9 .4 2.5 .6 1.8 .5 2.7 .6 2.1 .5 2.7 .7 1.9 .4 2.6 .6 1.9 .4 2.7 .6 2.0 .4 2.6 .7 1.9 .4 June July Job losers' .......................................................... 4,769 On temporary layoff.......................................... 1,104 Not on temporary layoff .................................... , 3,664 Job leavers ......................................................... 946 Reentrants .......................................................... 2,145 New entrants ...................................................... 874 Oct. Nov. Dec. June July Aug. P E R C E N T O F U N E M P LO Y E D Job losers' ....................................................... On temporary layoff....................................... Not on temporary layoff.................................. Job leavers....................................................... Reentrants........................................................ New entrants .................................................... PERC ENT OF C IV IL IA N LA B O R FO RC E Job losers' .......................................................... Job leavers ......................................................... Reentrants .......................................................... New entrants ...................................................... 1 Includes persons who completed temporary jobs. 9. Unemployment rates by sex and age, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Civilian workers) Annual average Sex and age 1993 Total, 16 years and over ........................................ 16 to 24 years..................................................... 16 to 19 years................................................... 16 to 17 years ................................................ 18 to 19 years ................................................ 20 to 24 years................................................... 25 years and over................................................ 25 to 54 years ................................................ 55 years and over........................................... Men, 16 years and over..................................... 16 to 24 years ................................................ 16 to 19 years.............................................. 16 to 17 years........................................... 18 to 19 years............................................ 20 to 24 years.............................................. 25 years and over........................................... 25 to 54 years............................................ 55 years and over....................................... Women, 16 years and over............................... 16 to 24 years............................................... 16 to 19 years............................................. 16 to 17 years .......................................... 18 to 19 years .......................................... 20 to 24 years ............................................. 25 years and over.......................................... 25 to 54 years .......................................... 55 years and over..................................... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 1994 1994 Aug. Sept. Oct. 1995 Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Aug. 6.8 13.3 19.0 21.3 17.5 10.5 5.6 5.8 4.3 6.1 12.5 17.6 19.9 16.0 9.7 4.8 5.0 4.1 6.0 12.6 17.5 19.9 15.6 9.9 4.7 4.8 4.2 5.8 12.1 17.2 18.8 16.0 9.4 4.6 4.8 3.8 5.7 11.8 17.1 17.8 16.8 9.0 4.5 4.7 3.9 5.6 11.4 15.8 17.2 14.7 9.1 4.5 4.5 3.9 5.4 11.6 17.2 18.1 16.6 8.6 4.3 4.4 3.5 5.7 11.4 16.7 20.0 14.2 8.5 4.5 4.6 3.9 5.4 11.7 17.6 20.7 15.3 8.5 4.2 4.3 3.4 5.5 11.6 16.1 20.0 13.0 9.1 4.2 4.3 3.5 5.8 11.8 17.5 20.6 15.7 8.7 4.6 4.7 3.8 5.7 11.8 17.6 21.5 14.7 8.6 4.5 4.6 3.8 5.6 11.7 16.4 18.5 15.2 9.0 4.4 4.5 3.8 5.7 12.5 18.2 21.4 15.4 9.3 4.3 4.5 3.9 5.6 12.7 17.7 21.2 15.0 9.9 4.3 4.4 3.8 7.1 14.3 20.4 22.8 18.8 11.3 5.8 5.9 4.7 6.2 13.2 19.0 21.0 17.6 10.2 4.8 4.9 4.3 6.1 13.3 18.8 20.7 17.1 10.5 4.7 4.8 4.2 5.8 12.6 18.5 19.4 17.5 9.5 4.5 4.6 3.9 5.7 12.4 18.1 18.2 18.1 9.4 4.5 4.6 4.1 5.5 11.8 16.5 16.5 16.5 9.5 4.4 4.4 4.0 5.5 12.2 18.5 18.8 18.2 9.0 4.3 4.3 3.5 5.7 12.0 17.4 20.9 14.5 9.1 4.5 4.6 4.0 5.4 12.1 19.4 22.6 16.7 8.2 4.0 4.2 3.6 5.4 11.7 17.0 20.2 14.6 8.9 4.1 4.2 3.7 5.7 11.8 17.8 21.7 16.1 8.6 4.5 4.5 4.3 5.8 12.3 18.4 22.6 15.2 8.9 4.6 4.7 4.0 5.5 12.0 17.4 18.4 17.4 9.0 4.3 4.3 3.9 5.5 12.5 18.7 21.9 15.9 9.0 4.2 4.3 3.9 5.6 13.8 19.7 23.1 17.0 10.5 4.2 4.3 3.6 6.5 12.2 17.4 19.6 16.0 9.6 5.4 5.6 3.8 6.0 11.6 16.2 18.7 14.3 9.2 4.9 5.0 3.9 6.0 11.7 16.1 19.0 14.0 9.3 4.8 4.9 4.1 5.8 11.6 15.9 18.2 14.2 9.3 4.7 5.0 3.6 5.7 11.2 16.0 17.4 15.4 8.6 4.6 4.8 3.7 5.6 10.9 15.0 17.9 12.8 8.7 4.6 4.7 3.8 5.4 10.9 15.8 17.4 14.9 8.1 4.3 4.4 3.4 5.6 10.7 15.9 19.1 13.9 7.8 4.6 4.6 3.7 5.5 11.2 15.6 18.7 13.7 8.7 4.3 4.5 3.2 5.5 11.5 15.2 19.8 11.3 9.4 4.3 4.4 3.4 5.9 11.9 17.2 19.4 15.2 8.8 4.7 5.0 3.3 5.5 11.4 16.7 20.4 14.0 8.2 4.4 4.6 3.6 5.7 11.3 15.2 18.6 12.8 9.0 4.5 4.7 3.7 5.9 12.6 17.6 21.0 14.9 9.7 4.6 4.6 3.9 5.6 11.5 15.5 19.2 12.8 9.2 4.4 4.5 4.1 Monthly Labor Review October 1995 69 Current Labor Statistics: 10. Labor Force Data Unemployment rates by State, seasonally adjusted July 1994 June 1995 Alabama............................ Alaska..................... Arizona .............................................. Arkansas...................................... California .................................... 59 7.9 6.6 5.5 8.8 6.7 5.2 4.1 7.6 5.3 4.7 7.9 Colorado.................................... Connecticut.................................... Delaware............................ District of Columbia......................... Florida..................................... 4.2 5.4 4.9 8.5 6.3 4.2 5.2 4.2 8.9 5.3 4.0 5.3 4.0 9.0 5.2 Georgia.................................... Hawaii.................................... Idaho....................................... Illinois............................ Indiana..................................... 5.5 6.5 5.5 5.7 5.2 5.0 5.0 4.9 4.1 4.8 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.1 4.8 Iowa..................... ......................... Kansas.......................................... Kentucky.............................................. Louisiana..............,,...................... Maine.............»..................................... 3.6 5.3 5.5 80 7.3 3.4 4.5 4.9 7n 6.1 3.1 4.7 5.1 6.2 Maryland............................................... Massachusetts.............................. Michigan........................................ Minnesota.................... Mississippi.......................................... Missouri ......................................... 5.1 6.0 5.8 5.1 5.6 6.2 5.1 5.7 5.1 6.6 4.6 6.0 4.9 5.7 5.2 State July 1995p State July 1994 June 1995 July 1995p Montana............................................ Nebraska................ Nevada .............................................. New Hampshire ................................... 49 ?Q 6.0 4.6 5.8 3.6 5.8 3.9 New Jersey.............................. New Mexico............................... New York................. •„................ North Carolina............................ North Dakota........................................ 6.5 6.1 7.0 4.6 3.9 6.6 5.6 5.9 4.4 3.1 6.8 5.9 6.2 4.0 3.0 Ohio......................................... Oklahoma .................................. Oregon ..................................... Pennsylvania .............................. Rhode Island.............................. 5.7 5.8 5.2 6.4 7.2 4.8 4.7 5.2 6.2 6.9 4.9 4.8 4.6 5.4 7.2 South Carolina .......................... South Dakota....................... Tennessee ............................. Texas ................................. Utah............................................ 6.1 3.2 4.9 67 3.8 4.7 2.3 5.0 5.2 2.7 5.2 3.5 3.3 Vermont ................................. Virginia ................................................ Washington................ West Virginia............................... Wisconsin.................................. 4.6 5.0 fi 3 8.7 4.7 4.0 4.4 4.2 4.5 7.7 3.3 8.3 3.3 Wyoming ..................................... 5.2 4.7 4.6 fi.fi • p = preliminary 11. Employment of workers on nonfarm payrolls by State, seasonally adjusted (In thousands) State July 1994 June 1995 July 1995p Alabama....................................... Alaska ....................................... Arizona..................................................... Arkansas................................... California........................................ 1,750.4 259.7 1,676.4 1,039.9 12,148.4 1,776.0 261.6 1,754.8 1,070.8 12,256.4 1,767.3 262 2 1,762.6 1,072.2 12,270.4 Colorado ..................................... Connecticut ........................... Delaware...................................... District of Columbia......................... Florida.................................. 1,762.0 1,546.1 354.9 656.4 5,805.3 1,790.3 1,546.7 357.3 642.5 6,002.1 1,800.6 1,542.8 364.2 638.8 3,396.3 533.6 476.0 5,534.9 2,750.0 3,402.1 530 0 474.1 5,536.4 2,745.2 Iowa................................. Kansas .................................................... Kentucky................................................ Louisiana.......................... Maine................................ 1,329.0 1,160.1 1,605.8 1,727.8 533.9 1,355.1 1,202.4 1,636.2 1,797.1 542.4 1.356.3 1.200.3 1,632.7 1,788.9 Pennsylvania............................ Rhode Island................................ South Carolina........................... Tennessee .:..................... Texas .................................... Vermont............................. 2,162.1 2,953.8 4,241.5 2,369.1 1.052.4 2.542.4 2,161.0 2,961.0 4,251.8 2,371.5 West Virginia........................... 2,539.9 p = preliminary NOTE: Some data in this table may differ from data published elsewhere because of the continual updating of the database. 70 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 July 1994 June 1995 341.8 796.7 740.5 528.6 349.3 3,560.3 658.5 3,603.4 688.1 7,848.3 3,370.5 295.3 Ohio ..................................... 3,262.6 534.9 464.4 5,486.4 2,705.9 2,153.0 2,914.9 4,149.9 2,319.9 1,065.9 2,478.4 Nevada ......................................... New Jersey.............................. Georgia .................................... Hawaii........................................... Idaho ....................................................... Illinois ...................................................... Indiana ............................... Maryland ............................... Massachusetts..................... Michigan................................ Minnesota.................................. Mississippi............................ Missouri....................................... State July 1995p 351.7 810.2 777.3 529.5 688.4 7,868.7 3,452.0 301.7 5.073.7 1.282.8 1,367.1 5,199.4 434.4 5,204.7 432.7 429.8 1,615.9 334.0 2,429.5 7,784.1 863.5 1.632.8 343.3 2,486.4 8.015.8 907.5 914.3 263.6 3.008.5 2.301.5 670.9 2,492.2 267.4 217.1 5.169.8 1.302.8 1,310.3 1,425.3 3,079.6 2,368.2 687.5 2,541.8 685.1 2,544.1 218.1 12. Employment of workers on nonfarm payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted (In thousands) 1994 Annual average 1995 Industry 1993 T O T A L ............................................... P R IV A T E S E C T O R .......................... G O O D S -P R O D U C IN G ........................ M in in g 1 .................................................... Metal mining ............................ Oil and gas extraction............... Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels........................................ C o n s tru c tio n ....................................... General building contractors...... Heavy construction, except building................................... Special trades contractors......... M a n u fa c tu r in g ..................................... Production workers ................ D u ra b le g o o d s .................................. Production workers ................ Lumber and wood products....... Furniture and fixtures................ Stone, clay, and glass products .. Primary metal industries............ Blast furnaces and basic steel products................................. Fabricated metal products......... Industrial machinery and equipment............................... Computer and office equipment Electronic and other electrical equipment ................ Electronic components and accessories...................... Transportation equipment......... Motor vehicles and equipment... Aircraft and parts..................... Instruments and related products Miscellaneous manufacturing industries................................. N o n d u ra b le g o o d s ............................ Production workers.................. Food and kindred products........ Tobacco products ..................... Textile mill products.................. Apparel and other textile products.................................. Paper and allied products.......... Printing and publishing .............. Chemicals and allied products .... Petroleum and coal products .... Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products..................... Leather and leather products.... S E R V IC E -P R O D U C IN G ..................... T ra n s p o rta tio n an d public u t ilitie s ................................................... Transportation.......................... Railroad transportation.............. Local and interurban passenger transit...................................... Trucking and warehousing......... Water transportation................. Transportation by air................. Pipelines, except natural gas..... Transportation services............. Communications and public utilities...................................... Communications....................... Electric, gas, and sanitary services.................................. 1994 Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July0 Aug.p 110,730 114,034 114,510 114,762 114,935 115,427 115,624 115,810 116,123 116,302 116,310 116,248 116,547 116,553 116,802 91,889 94,917 95,327 95,555 95,740 96,152 96,405 96,588 96,882 97,054 97,049 97,005 97,264 97,270 97,446 23,352 610 50 350 23,913 600 49 336 23,981 597 49 333 24,030 598 49 336 24,081 595 49 331 24,175 592 49 328 24,230 592 50 326 24,293 590 50 325 24,324 588 51 323 24,370 589 51 323 24,331 583 51 319 24,228 582 51 320 24,240 582 52 320 24,144 577 52 315 24,157 576 52 313 102 103 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 106 105 104 104 104 104 4,668 1,120 5,010 1,201 5,038 1,206 5,077 1,214 5,088 1,222 5,144 1,234 5,166 1,241 5,201 1,250 5,213 1,250 5,256 1,258 5,242 1,255 5,190 1,237 5,230 1,241 5,227 1,234 5,229 1,225 713 2,836 736 3,073 738 3,094 740 3,123 734 3,132 740 3,170 739 3,186 742 3,209 740 3,223 747 3,251 743 3,244 730 3,223 737 3,252 742 3,251 745 3,259 18,075 12,341 18,303 12,615 18,346 12,658 18,355 12,671 18,398 12,709 18,439 12,759 18,472 12,785 18,502 12,813 18,523 12,833 18,525 12,832 18,506 12,818 18,456 12,772 18,428 12,738 18,340 12,662 18,352 12,682 10,221 6,849 10,431 7,092 10,465 7,128 10,481 7,145 10,513 7,175 10,550 7,218 10,574 7,239 10,596 7,259 10,622 7,288 10,633 7,297 10,632 7,296 10,611 7,271 10,597 7,250 10,564 7,225 10,582 7,241 709 487 517 683 752 502 533 699 757 504 534 699 758 504 535 704 761 505 537 708 766 507 539 712 766 507 540 715 767 508 542 716 766 509 545 718 767 509 547 718 761 506 546 719 757 501 542 718 753 497 543 716 749 492 540 712 751 496 541 709 240 1,339 239 1,387 238 1,396 239 1,397 239 1,405 240 1,412 240 1,421 239 1,428 240 1,435 240 1,439 240 1,442 241 1,439 241 1,432 239 1,431 238 1,432 1,931 363 1,985 351 1,992 350 1,995 348 1,999 345 2,006 344 2,010 342 2,017 341 2,025 340 2,029 336 2,036 337 2,034 336 2,041 338 2,044 337 2,049 338 1,526 1,571 1,581 1,586 1,589 1,595 1,603 1,608 1,613 1,614 1,616 1,620 1,622 1,622 1,628 528 1,756 837 542 896 544 1,749 899 480 863 549 1,751 908 473 859 552 1,753 913 469 857 554 1,761 921 467 854 556 1,764 924 465 854 560 1,764 926 462 853 563 1,764 932 459 850 565 1,766 934 457 849 569 1,767 937 455 847 571 1,766 938 455 846 574 1,761 936 452 846 578 1,753 933 449 846 582 1,739 931 442 845 587 1,741 933 440 844 378 390 392 392 394 395 395 396 396 396 394 393 394 390 391 7,854 5,492 7,872 5,523 7,881 5,530 7,874 5,526 7,885 5,534 7,889 5,541 7,898 5,546 7,906 5,554 7,901 5,545 7,892 5,535 7,874 5,522 7,845 5,501 7,831 5,488 7,776 5,437 7,770 5,441 1,680 44 675 1,680 42 673 1,679 42 674 1,677 41 671 1,677 41 674 1,683 41 674 1,684 41 673 1,690 40 672 1,689 40 671 1,690 39 670 1,687 40 669 1,687 39 664 1,695 40 660 1,679 39 650 1,676 40 649 989 692 1,517 1,081 152 969 691 1,542 1,061 149 972 691 1,547 1,057 150 971 689 1,547 1,056 149 970 692 1,550 1,055 149 963 692 1,551 1,054 149 960 692 1,556 1,054 150 957 693 1,557 1,055 147 951 692 1,561 1,054 148 946 691 1,561 1,053 148 940 692 1,557 1,051 146 931 690 1,555 1,048 145 921 689 1,561 1,045 144 911 687 1,557 1,042 144 905 688 1,551 1,042 143 909 117 952 114 956 113 960 113 965 112 970 112 975 113 982 113 983 112 982 112 981 111 976 110 968 108 962 105 969 107 87,378 90,121 90,529 90,732 90,854 91,252 91,394 91,517 91,799 91,932 91,979 92,020 92,307 92,409 92,645 5,829 3,615 248 6,006 3,775 241 6,045 3,810 237 6,048 3,813 240 6,061 3,821 240 6,092 3,846 242 6,121 3,870 241 6,129 3,886 241 6,156 3,900 242 6,175 3,914 242 6,184 3,919 242 6,177 3,910 240 6,192 3,920 238 6,194 3,927 236 6,211 3,946 236 379 1,698 168 740 18 363 410 1,797 169 748 18 392 425 1,819 168 746 18 397 418 1,824 168 746 18 399 417 1,828 167 748 18 403 421 1,843 165 750 18 407 425 1,857 164 754 18 411 428 1,864 166 754 17 416 431 1,871 165 756 17 418 433 1,877 164 760 17 421 437 1,879 164 759 17 421 439 1,872 161 758 17 423 443 1,878 158 762 17 424 458 1,875 157 761 16 424 462 1,882 159 765 16 426 2,214 1,269 2,231 1,305 2,235 1,314 2,235 1,314 2,240 1,320 2,246 1,325 2,251 1,331 2,243 1,327 2,256 1,343 2,261 1,351 2,265 1,355 2,267 1,359 2,272 1,366 2,267 1,365 2,265 1,363 944 927 921 921 920 921 920 916 913 910 910 908 906 902 902 W h o le s a le t r a d e ................................ 5,981 6,140 6,163 6,181 6,195 6,210 6,229 6,251 6,275 6,287 6,300 6,298 6,320 6,332 6,334 R e ta il t r a d e .......................................... 19,773 20,437 20,497 20,565 20,580 20,703 20,759 20,760 20,794 20,760 20,762 20,747 20,798 20,855 20,840 Building materials and garden supplies.................................. General merchandise stores....... Department stores .................... Food stores............................... 779 2,488 2,140 3,224 828 2,545 2,212 3,289 835 2,551 2,219 3,297 838 2,555 2,225 3,296 840 2,563 2,232 3,298 844 2,598 2,268 3,308 846 2,585 2,256 3,320 851 2,562 2,236 3,325 851 2,545 2,223 3,328 849 2,530 2,207 3,332 852 2,539 2,218 3,345 849 2,532 2,213 3,343 849 2,532 2,215 3,353 847 2,533 2,218 3,357 848 2,533 2,217 3,374 See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review October 1995 71 Current Labor Statistics: Labor Force Data 12. Continued—Employment of workers on nonfarm payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted (In thousands) Annual average 1994 1995 Industry Automotive dealers and service stations.................................... New and used car dealers........ Apparel and accessory stores.... Furniture and home furnishings stores....................................... Eating and drinking places......... Miscellaneous retail establishments.......................... Finance , insurance , an d real e s ta te ..................................................... Finance ..................................... Depository institutions ............... Commercial banks................... Savings institutions.................. Nondepository institutions......... Security and commodity brokers ................................... Holding and other investment offices.................... Insurance .................................. Insurance carriers...................... Insurance agents, brokers and service............................. Real estate................................ S e rv ic e s ’ ............................................... Agricultural services ................... Hotels and other lodging places........................... Personal services ...................... Business services...................... Services to buildings................. Personnel supply services ......... Help supply services ............... Computer and data processing services................. Auto repair services, and parking .............................. Miscellaneous repair services..... Motion pictures .......................... Amusement and recreation services ................................... 1994 Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June 2,014 908 1,144 2,123 964 1,134 2,135 971 1,132 2,145 975 1,135 2,154 979 1,136 2,165 984 1,130 2,173 989 1,126 2,182 993 1,122 2,191 996 1,118 2,202 998 1,110 2,205 1,000 1,103 2,205 1,000 1,095 2,206 998 1,097 2,206 999 1,092 2,218 1,003 1,085 828 6,821 890 7,069 899 7,084 906 7,103 915 7,086 926 7,134 927 7,182 933 7,188 936 7,221 943 7,191 945 7,170 944 7,169 946 7,209 947 7,262 953 7,230 2,476 2,560 2,564 2,587 2,588 2,598 2,600 2,597 2,604 2,603 2,603 2,610 2,606 2,611 2,599 6,757 3,238 2,089 1,497 324 455 6,933 3,323 2,075 1,492 308 499 6,948 3,329 2,074 1,492 305 499 6,942 3,324 2,072 1,492 303 494 6,935 3,320 2,072 1,496 300 490 6,937 3,319 2,071 1,498 296 485 6,931 3,317 2,070 1,498 295 481 6,927 3,312 2,067 1,497 293 478 6,929 3,312 2,066 1,497 291 475 6,938 3,313 2,066 1,499 289 475 6,924 3,305 2,063 1,494 288 473 6,925 3,307 2,060 1,492 285 476 6,930 3,304 2,054 1,488 284 480 6,935 3,306 2,052 1,491 282 484 6,950 3,314 2,053 1,491 281 489 472 518 524 525 525 528 530 530 532 532 528 528 528 526 531 223 2,197 1,529 231 2,237 1,551 232 2,238 1,549 233 2,236 1,546 233 2,236 1,544 235 2,236 1,542 236 2,232 1,537 237 2,233 1,535 239 2,233 1,534 240 2,238 1,536 241 2,239 1,536 243 2,237 1,534 242 2,240 1,534 244 2,242 1,538 241 2,246 1,540 668 1,322 686 1,373 689 1,381 690 1,382 692 1,379 694 1,382 695 1,382 698 1,382 699 1,384 702 1,387 703 1,380 703 1,381 706 1,386 704 1,387 706 1,390 30,197 519 31,488 565 31,693 571 31,789 574 31,888 578 32,035 584 32,135 588 32,228 575 32,404 580 32,524 584 32,548 589 32,630 577 32,784 582 32,810 586 32,954 586 1,596 1,137 5,735 823 1,906 1,669 1,618 1,139 6,239 855 2,254 2,002 1,620 1,139 6,314 860 2,296 2,040 1,617 1,139 6,358 861 2,321 2,061 1,612 1,140 6,392 861 2,337 2,077 1,605 1,140 6,457 869 2,373 2,107 1,612 1,138 6,487 870 2,386 2,118 1,614 1,148 6,513 868 2,408 2,138 1,614 1,160 6,555 870 2,427 2,152 1,616 1,158 6,570 871 2,399 2,138 1,611 1,152 6,538 866 2,368 2,097 1,615 1,146 6,567 866 2,371 2,096 1,628 1,145 6,589 867 2,375 2,098 1,631 1,144 6,603 870 2,374 2,096 1,632 1,139 6,684 879 2,414 2,140 cp July*3 > c 1993 893 950 958 967 974 984 991 994 1,006 1,017 1,026 1,039 1,045 1,051 1,062 925 349 412 971 334 471 979 334 481 984 334 491 989 335 505 995 337 519 1,000 338 529 1,006 340 545 1,010 342 566 1,014 344 577 1,016 342 580 1,016 341 596 1,022 340 598 1,027 340 601 1,029 342 595 1,258 1,344 1,365 1,354 1,364 1,371 1,375 1,380 1,398 1,434 1,462 1,471 1,511 1,519 1,519 Health services.......................... Offices and clinics of medical doctors....................... Nursing and personal care facilities ........................... Hospitals.................................. Home health care services........ Legal services........................... Educational services .................. Social services........................... Child day care services............. Residential care........................ Museums and botanical and zoological gardens.................... Membership organizations.......... Engineering and management services.................................. Engineering and architectural services.................................. Management and public relations.................................. 8,756 9,001 9,037 9,055 9,074 9,096 9,121 9,141 9,168 9,197 9,211 9,223 9,253 9,266 9,294 1,506 1,541 1,549 1,548 1,553 1,557 1,562 1,563 1,570 1,576 1,578 1,580 1,585 1,585 1,591 1,585 3,779 469 924 1,711 2,070 473 567 1,649 3,774 555 927 1,822 2,181 502 602 1,657 3,776 566 927 1,831 2,205 518 606 1,659 3,779 572 928 1,840 2,211 509 610 1,661 3,781 575 928 1,843 2,216 510 613 1,663 3,785 579 930 1,851 2,226 512 617 1,667 3,790 588 930 1,854 2,233 512 620 1,672 3,792 591 931 1,843 2,244 514 623 1,676 3,796 596 932 1,864 2,254 517 626 1,679 3,802 599 933 1,863 2,264 519 629 1,682 3,810 597 932 1,866 2,265 519 631 1,683 3,810 600 930 1,875 2,275 522 634 1,689 3,811 606 929 1,887 2,274 524 636 1,693 3,812 610 927 1,882 2,247 526 636 1,697 3,826 614 929 1,885 2,269 530 641 76 2,035 79 2,059 80 2,060 79 2,065 79 2,066 80 2,066 80 2,062 80 2,062 81 2,060 81 2,059 81 2,057 81 2,060 82 2,062 83 2,066 83 2,068 2,521 2,567 2,578 2,589 2,595 2,606 2,616 2,634 2,648 2,658 2,674 2,685 2,710 2,716 2,729 757 775 780 785 785 787 790 793 795 795 799 799 801 802 806 688 716 719 725 731 737 742 752 762 773 785 790 809 812 819 G o v e rn m e n t ........................................ 18,841 2,915 2,128 4,488 1,834 19,118 2,870 2,053 4,562 1,875 19,183 2,861 2,041 4,594 1,900 19,207 2,863 2,039 4,589 1,891 19,195 2,858 2,031 4,589 1,888 19,275 2,854 2,022 4,596 1,892 19,219 2,853 2,014 4,598 1,891 19,222 2,838 2,004 4,599 1,889 19,241 2,831 1,997 4,610 1,901 19,248 2,828 1,992 4,613 1,904 19,261 2,826 1,987 4,608 1,905 19,243 2,831 1,995 4,602 1,906 19,283 2,838 1,993 4,612 1,919 19,283 2,837 1,993 4,602 1,923 19,356 2,834 1,991 4,623 1,937 2,654 11,438 6,353 2,687 11,685 6,490 2,694 11,728 6,548 2,698 11,755 6,554 2,701 11,748 6,544 2,704 11,825 6,549 2,707 11,768 6,557 2,710 11,785 6,577 2,709 11,800 6,591 2,709 11,807 6,599 2,703 11,827 6,614 2,696 11,810 6,606 2,693 11,833 6,609 2,679 11,844 6,639 2,686 11,899 6,679 5,085 5,195 5,180 5,201 5,204 5,276 5,211 5,208 5,209 5,208 5,213 5,204 5,224 5,205 5,220 Federal...................................... Federal, except Postal Service ... State......................................... Education ................................. Other State government............................. Local......................................... Education ................................. Other local government............................. 1 Includes other industries not shown separately. p = preliminary NOTE: See notes on the data for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 72 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 13. Average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted Industry Annual average 1993 1994 1994 Aug. Sept. 1995 Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June Julyp Aug.p P R IV A T E S E C TO R .................................................... 34.5 34.7 34.6 34.7 34.9 34.6 34.7 34.8 34.6 34.6 34.6 34.2 34.4 34.6 34.4 G O O D S -P R O D U C IN G ..................................................... 40.9 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.5 41.6 41.4 41.3 40.7 40.6 40.9 40.8 40.9 M IN IN G ............................................................................... 44.3 44.7 44.6 44.9 44.8 44.9 44.7 44.9 44.9 44.6 44.7 44.3 44.9 44.9 44.5 M A N U F A C T U R IN G ........................................................ 41.4 4.1 42.0 4.7 42.0 4.7 42.1 4.8 42.1 4.7 42.1 4.8 42.1 4.8 42.2 4.9 42.1 4.8 42.0 4.7 41.5 4.5 41.4 4.4 41.5 4.2 41.3 4.3 41.5 4.4 Overtime hours......................................... Lumber and wood products............................ Furniture and fixtures...................................... Stone, clay, and glass products...................... Primary metal industries.................................. Blast furnaces and basic steel products........ Fabricated metal products.............................. 42.1 4.3 40.8 40.1 42.7 43.7 44.1 42.1 42.8 5.0 41.2 40.4 43.4 44.7 44.9 42.9 42.9 5.0 41.2 40.5 43.4 44.7 45.1 42.9 42.9 5.1 41.0 40.7 43.6 44.9 45.3 42.9 42.9 5.0 41.3 40.7 43.5 44.9 45.5 42.9 43.0 5.1 41.1 40.6 43.5 45.0 45.6 43.0 43.0 5.1 41.2 40.4 43.5 45.0 45.6 43.0 43.0 5.3 41.2 40.8 43.6 44.8 45.7 43.2 43.0 5.2 40.9 40.5 43.3 44.8 45.4 43.1 42.8 5.1 40.7 39.8 43.4 44.5 45.1 42.8 42.3 4.9 40.4 38.7 42.5 43.5 45.4 42.0 42.1 4.6 40.3 39.2 42.4 43.8 44.1 42.1 42.2 4.5 40.6 39.4 43.0 43.8 43.7 42.1 41.9 4.5 40.1 39.1 42.9 43.0 43.2 42.0 42.3 4.6 40.7 39.6 43.1 43.7 44.2 42.3 Industrial machinery and equipment................ Electronic and other electrical equipment........ Transportation equipment............................... Motor vehicles and equipment..................... Instruments and related products.................... Miscellaneous manufacturing.......................... 43.0 41.8 43.0 44.3 41.1 39.8 43.7 42.2 44.3 46.0 41.7 40.0 43.6 42.2 44.4 45.9 41.8 40.0 43.8 42.0 44.3 45.9 41.8 39.9 43.7 42.2 44.4 45.8 41.9 40.1 43.8 42.1 44.7 46.4 41.8 40.0 43.8 42.0 44.7 46.2 41.7 39.9 44.0 42.1 44.6 46.1 41.8 40.1 44.0 41.9 44.7 46.1 41.7 40.2 43.9 41.8 44.5 45.8 41.7 39.9 43.3 41.5 44.3 43.1 41.5 40.1 43.4 41.4 43.4 44.2 41.3 39.8 43.2 41.5 43.6 44.3 41.2 40.0 42.9 41.3 43.3 44.3 41.3 39.5 43.2 41.6 44.0 44.7 41.2 39.9 N o n d u ra b le g o o d s ...................................................... Overtime hours ......................................... Food and kindred products ............................ Textile mill products........................................ Apparel and other textile products.................. Paper and allied products............................... 40.6 4.0 40.7 41.4 37.2 43.6 40.9 4.3 41.3 41.6 37.5 43.9 40.9 4.2 41.3 41.6 37.6 44.1 41.0 4.3 41.4 41.6 37.6 43.9 41.0 4.3 41.3 41.8 37.7 44.0 41.0 4.3 41.5 41.5 37.6 43.9 41.1 4.3 41.5 41.6 37.7 44.0 41.0 4.4 41.5 41.8 37.5 44.0 41.0 4.3 41.3 41.9 37.7 43.9 40.9 4.2 41.3 41.8 37.6 43.7 40.4 4.0 40.7 41.0 37.0 43.0 40.4 4.0 41.0 40.4 36.9 42.9 40.5 3.9 41.3 40.3 36.9 43.0 40.4 4.0 41.2 40.3 36.8 43.2 40.4 4.1 41.2 40.7 36.9 43.1 Printing and publishing ................................... Chemicals and allied products........................ Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products... Leather and leather products.......................... 38.3 43.1 41.8 38.6 38.6 43.2 42.2 38.6 38.6 43.2 42.2 38.6 38.6 43.2 42.3 38.6 38.7 43.4 42.3 39.0 38.6 43.4 42.3 38.7 38.7 43.2 42.3 38.6 38.5 43.3 42.3 38.0 38.5 43.4 42.3 38.4 38.4 43.4 42.0 38.4 38.2 43.4 41.2 38.1 38.4 43.2 41.6 38.5 38.1 43.3 41.4 38.3 38.1 43.2 41.0 36.7 37.9 43.3 41.2 38.4 S E R V IC E -P R O D U C IN G ................................................. 32.7 32.8 32.7 32.8 33.0 32.7 32.8 32.9 32.7 32.7 32.9 32.4 32.7 32.8 32.6 T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D PU B LIC U T IL IT IE S ... 39.6 39.9 39.7 40.0 40.0 39.8 39.6 39.8 39.7 39.5 39.8 39.1 39.4 39.7 39.3 W H O LE S A LE TR A D E ................................................... 38.2 38.4 38.2 38.4 38.6 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.2 38.3 37.9 38.2 38.3 38.2 R E T A IL T R A D E ............................................................... 28.8 28.9 28.9 28.9 29.2 28.9 28.9 29.0 28.8 28.8 29.1 28.7 28.8 28.9 28.8 Overtime hours ......................................... D u ra ble g o o d s ............................................................... p = preliminary NOTE: See “Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark adjustment. 14. Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls by industry, seasonally adjusted Industry Annual average 1993 P R IV A T E S E C TO R (in c u rre n t d o lla r s ) ................. 1994 1994 Aug. Sept. Oct. 1995 Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July» Aug.p $10.83 $11.13 $11.14 $11.18 $11.25 $11.24 $11.27 $11.29 $11.32 $11.34 »11.40 $11.37 $11.43 $11.49 $11.47 G o o d s -p ro d u c in g ........................................................ 12.37 12.71 12.74 12.78 12.81 12.83 12.83 12.84 12.89 12.91 12.94 12.94 13.02 13.09 13.09 Mining........................................................... Construction .................................................. Manufacturing................................................ Excluding overtime....................................... 14.60 14.38 11.74 11.18 14.89 14.72 12.06 11.42 14.85 14.74 12.09 11.44 14.95 14.82 12.12 11.47 15.04 14.90 12.14 11.49 15.04 14.84 12.17 11.52 15.08 14.81 12.18 11.53 15.08 14.74 12.21 11.56 15.12 14.88 12.24 11.60 15.15 14.90 12.25 11.61 15.17 14.95 12.28 11.72 15.18 14.99 12.28 11.67 15.30 15.10 12.32 11.71 15.45 15.10 12.40 11.80 15.42 15.09 12.41 11.80 S e rv ic e -p ro d u c in g ....................................................... 10.30 10.57 10.57 10.62 10.70 10.68 10.71 10.74 10.76 10.79 10.87 10.83 10.88 10.94 10.91 Transportation and public utilities.................... Wholesale trade............................................. Retail trade..................................................... Finance, insurance, and real estate ................. Services.......................................................... 13.62 11.74 7.29 11.35 10.78 13.86 12.05 7.49 11.83 11.05 13.87 12.05 7.51 11.81 11.06 13.88 12.08 7.53 11.90 11.11 13.99 12.22 7.56 12.05 11.20 14.02 12.15 7.56 11.99 11.17 14.01 12.20 7.60 12.01 11.21 14.03 12.23 7.59 12.06 11.26 14.00 12.24 7.60 12.09 11.28 14.05 12.27 7.61 12.16 11.30 14.15 12.41 7.63 12.28 11.39 14.13 12.31 7.65 12.19 11.34 14.21 12.36 7.67 12.30 11.38 14.26 12.44 7.71 12.43 11.44 14.28 12.41 7.73 12.33 11.39 7.39 7.41 7.37 7.38 7.42 7.40 7.40 7.39 7.39 7.38 7.40 7.36 7.39 7.43 P R IV A T E S E C TO R (in c o n s ta n t (19 8 2 ) do llars ) - Data not available. p = preliminary https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - NOTE: See “Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. Monthly Labor Review October 1995 73 Current Labor Statistics: Labor Force Data 15. Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls by industry Annual average Industry 1993 P R IV A T E S E C T O R .......................................................... 1994 1994 Aug. Sept. 1995 Oct. Nov. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July» Aug.» M IN IN G .......................................................................... 14.60 14.89 14.69 C O N S T R U C T IO N .............................................................. 14.38 14.72 14.79 14.97 15.05 14.87 14.83 14.67 14.82 14.84 14.88 14.96 14.99 15.10 15.15 M A N U F A C T U R IN G ........................................................... 11.74 12.06 12.01 12.14 12.10 12.17 12.26 12.23 12.24 12.25 12.29 12.28 12.31 12.38 12.34 D u ra ble g o o d s ................................................................. Lumber and wood products............................. Furniture and fixtures....................................... Stone, clay, and glass products....................... Primary metal industries .................................. Blast furnaces and basic steel products......... Fabricated metal products ............................... 12.33 9.61 9.27 11.85 13.99 16.36 11.69 12.67 9.84 9.55 12.13 14.33 16.85 11.93 12.62 9.87 9.56 12.19 14.34 16.95 11.87 12.76 9.95 9.69 12.27 14.40 17.05 11.99 12.70 9.96 9.70 12.22 14.37 17.08 11.92 12.77 9.93 9.67 12.21 14.44 17.13 12.03 12.87 9.97 9.76 12.21 14.53 17.16 12.09 12.81 9.95 9.67 12.19 14.54 17.30 12.04 12.83 9.94 9.66 12.23 14.43 17.09 12.03 12.83 9.95 9.67 12.25 14.41 17.03 12.05 12.80 9.98 9.75 12.43 14.72 17.50 12.03 12.83 10.01 9.71 12.31 14.50 17.23 12.07 12.85 12.90 10.11 10.22 9.77 9.83 12.35 12.46 14.58 ' 14.68 17.35 17.42 12.05 12.10 12.89 10.17 9.91 12.47 14.67 17.56 12.12 Industrial machinery and equipment................. Electronic and other electrical equipment ......... Transportation equipment................................. Motor vehicles and equipment....................... Instruments and related products ..................... Miscellaneous manufacturing........................... 12.73 11.24 15.80 16.10 12.23 9.39 12.99 11.50 16.48 16.98 12.47 9.66 12.92 11.52 16.44 16.92 12.48 9.63 13.04 11.57 16.71 17.27 12.55 9.71 13.03 11.51 16.52 16.98 12.54 9.72 13.11 11.54 16.62 17.11 12.55 9.79 13.19 11.59 16.83 17.37 12.63 9.90 13.15 11.59 16.60 17.12 12.54 9.98 13.15 11.53 16.71 17.26 12.63 9.94 13.15 11.54 16.66 17.23 12.63 9.90 13.05 11.51 16.48 17.03 12.69 9.95 13.15 11.55 16.57 17.13 12.66 9.98 13.15 11.62 16.63 17.17 12.69 9.95 13.20 11.73 16.63 17.19 12.78 10.02 13.20 11.75 16.56 17.05 12.75 9.97 10.98 Food and kindred products.............................. 10.45 Tobacco products............................................ 16.89 Textile mill products........................................ 8.88 Apparel and other textile products.................... 7.09 Paper and allied products ................................ 13.42 11.25 10.66 19.10 9.13 7.34 13.77 11.20 10.59 18.91 9.12 7.36 13.80 11.31 10.64 18.89 9.20 7.44 13.96 11.30 10.65 18.71 9.19 7.43 13.89 11.35 10.81 19.46 9.26 7.45 13.92 11.42 10.85 18.64 9.31 7.47 13.98 11.44 10.85 18.71 9.35 7.53 14.01 11.43 10.83 19.67 9.31 7.48 14.02 11.45 10.87 20.44 9.30 7.51 14.03 11.58 10.93 20.12 9.36 7.61 14.27 11.52 10.91 21.05 9.35 7.56 14.17 11.55 10.92 21.93 9.38 7.60 14.14 11.67 10.93 22.02 9.40 7.62 14.42 11.60 10.90 19.01 9.47 7.67 14.26 Printing and publishing..................................... Chemicals and allied products.......................... Petroleum and coal products........................... Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products.... Leather and leather products ........................... 11.93 14.82 18.53 10.57 7.63 12.13 15.14 19.07 10.70 7.98 12.12 15.08 18.76 10.65 7.97 12.26 15.27 19.32 10.65 7.99 12.23 15.30 19.29 10.66 8.03 12.20 15.29 19.25 10.69 8.05 12.26 15.42 19.32 10.79 8.06 12.24 15.40 19.19 10.82 8.13 12.24 15.42 19.55 10.76 8.14 12.26 15.43 19.38 10.80 8.13 12.21 15.72 19.57 10.77 8.32 12.22 15.53 19.18 10.86 8.19 12.24 15.53 19.17 10.91 8.12 12.32 15.70 19.25 11.01 8.01 12.33 15.68 19.13 10.96 8.09 T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B LIC U T IL IT IE S ..... 13.62 13.86 13.84 13.91 14.01 14.07 14.04 14.08 14.04 14.06 14.14 14.07 14.11 14.23 14.25 W H O L E S A L E T R A D E ..................................................... 11.74 12.05 12.00 12.09 12.20 12.15 12.21 12.30 12.28 12.25 12.45 12.32 12.31 12.42 12.36 R E T A IL T R A D E ................................................................ 7.29 7.49 7.44 7.54 7.57 7.57 7.59 7.64 7.63 7.63 7.65 7.65 7.65 7.66 7.65 FIN 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 ..... 11.35 11.83 11.73 11.85 12.02 11.98 12.05 12.17 12.19 12.21 12.32 12.24 12.19 12.32 12.24 S E R V IC E S ..................................................................... 10.78 11.05 10.90 11.11 11.20 11.22 11.29 11.39 11.38 11.36 11.40 11.34 11.25 11.28 11.23 N o n d u rab le g o o d s ......................................................... 14.92 14.91 14.97 p = preliminary NOTE: See “Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 74 Dec. $10.83 $11.13 $11.05 $11.22 $11.28 $11.27 $11.28 $11.36 $11.36 $11.36 $11.41 $11.38 $11.36 $11.41 $11.38 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 15.09 15.25 15.26 15.24 15.31 15.21 15.25 15.33 15.25 16. Average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls by industry Annual average 1994 1995 Industry 1993 1994 Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July* Aug.p P R IV A T E S E C TO R Current dollars.............................................. $373.64 $386.21 $386.75 $390.46 $394.80 $389.94 $392.54 $390.78 $388.51 $389.65 $391.36 $390.33 $393.06 $398.21 $396.02 Seasonally adjusted.................................... 385.44 387.95 392.63 388.90 391.07 392.89 391.67 392.36 394.44 388.85 393.19 397.55 394.57 Constant (1982) dollars ................................. 254.87 256.96 255.79 257.56 260.25 256.54 258.42 256.25 253.93 253.84 253.96 252.80 254.08 257.41 M IN IN G .................................................................................. 646.78 665.58 661.05 677.37 673.93 679.64 680.56 683.20 677.54 670.56 678.23 673.80 684.73 682.19 C O N S T R U C T IO N .............................................................. 553.63 572.61 588.64 595.98 573.92 574.46 592.11 Current dollars............................................... Constant (1982) dollars.................................. 486.04 331.54 506.52 504.42 337.01 333.61 D u ra b le g o o d s .................................................................. Lumber and wood products............................. Furniture and fixtures....................................... Stone, clay, and glass products....................... Primary metal industries.................................. Blast furnaces and basic steel products......... Fabricated metal products ............................... 519.09 392.09 371.73 506.00 611.36 721.48 492.15 542.28 538.87 549.96 547.37 552.94 405.41 410.59 412.93 414.34 409.12 385.82 389.09 399.23 399.64 396.47 526.44 536.36 542.33 540.12 533.58 640.55 636.70 648.00 642.34 652.69 756.57 764.45 780.89 772.02 779.42 511.80 508.04 517.97 514.94 523.31 563.71 414.75 406.02 528.69 662.57 787.64 531.96 Industrial machinery and equipment................. Electronic and other electrical equipment ......... Transportation equipment................................. Motor vehicles and equipment....................... Instruments and related products ..................... Miscellaneous manufacturing........................... 547.39 469.83 679.40 713.23 502.65 373.72 567.66 485.30 730.06 781.08 520.00 386.40 556.85 569.85 569.41 483.84 488.25 486.87 725.00 748.61 735.14 771.55 801.33 779.38 517.92 524.59 524.17 384.24 389.37 394.63 590.91 581.23 578.60 577.29 499.53 489.10 478.50 478.91 767.45 735.38 741.92 741.37 818.13 780.67 792.23 790.86 538.04 525.43 524.15 526.67 399.96 397.20 395.61 395.01 N o n d u ra b le g o o d s .......................................................... 445.79 425.32 631.69 367.63 263.75 585.11 460.13 440.26 750.63 379.81 275.25 604.50 460.32 442.66 746.95 382.13 278.21 605.82 598.80 572.50 553.06 546.86 565.40 559.49 684.73 604.00 601.46 M A N U F A C T U R IN G Food and kindred products.............................. Tobacco products............................................ Textile mill products........................................ Apparel and other textile products.................... Paper and allied products................................ 514.74 511.83 517.23 525.95 339.54 337.40 340.28 346.25 575.53 491.60 747.90 797.33 528.36 398.45 468.23 466.69 471.03 476.21 450.07 445.17 456.18 457.87 778.27 783.95 776.45 767.97 387.32 385.98 387.07 391.02 281.23 282.34 283.10 284.61 619.82 615.33 615.26 626.30 513.66 510.41 510.83 496.52 336.83 333.60 332.79 322.21 508.39 512.10 329.27 331.03 549.55 404.97 392.60 515.64 652.85 787.15 518.92 541.43 406.41 375.78 529.33 636.55 759.84 508.15 465.61 445.94 731.56 388.03 280.12 616.44 546.56 397.60 383.50 512.44 643.58 769.05 513.68 462.92 438.62 759.26 383.57 279.00 607.07 546.56 401.98 381.00 520.63 639.80 761.24 512.13 524.80 400.20 367.58 525.79 637.38 794.50 484.81 505.10 326.50 544.84 532.77 543.96 412.49 407.78 417.99 384.94 380.42 394.42 538.46 538.27 544.94 641.52 628.30 636.68 763.40 761.25 776.15 509.72 498.52 511.46 545.49 570.71 568.08 559.68 462.70 477.02 482.23 476.24 693.81 724.11 728.39 700.12 730.59 769.14 769.22 732.29 513.95 521.59 524.10 521.42 387.06 395.21 397.01 388.78 463.73 458.57 441.32 435.01 778.76 774.62 383.16 373.46 280.12 270.92 604.69 603.62 464.26 444.04 844.11 378.68 279.72 606.48 512.11 - 563.64 486.45 723.67 755.32 521.48 396.81 467.78 449.90 914.48 382.70 282.72 608.02 467.97 450.32 865.39 374.12 278.13 618.62 470.96 454.53 792.72 388.27 284.56 611.75 460.32 464.36 462.67 680.68 670.90 672.45 859.12 828.58 839.65 465.70 675.10 847.00 468.54 674.24 822.59 Printing and publishing..................................... Chemicals and allied products.......................... Petroleum and coal products........................... Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products........................................... Leather and leather products........................... 441.83 294.52 451.54 448.37 450.50 450.92 455.39 463.97 308.03 307.64 310.81 314.78 313.95 314.34 456.60 451.92 307.31 309.32 451.44 434.03 451.78 453.86 443.70 450.46 309.75 308.67 315.32 314.24 293.17 310.66 T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D PU B LIC U T IL IT IE S ........................................................................... 539.35 553.01 554.75 549.75 456.92 468.22 638.74 654.05 819.03 846.71 469.04 479.37 475.75 477.02 646.93 658.14 664.02 668.17 816.06 894.52 869.98 854.70 556.37 557.79 563.20 559.99 481.82 466.34 466.34 470.78 678.48 666.82 666.14 668.12 853.94 840.52 868.02 841.09 555.98 551.77 559.94 551.54 558.76 570.62 567.15 W H O L E S A L E T R A D E ..................................................... 448.47 462.72 459.60 464.26 472.14 469.86 467.87 465.50 476.84 469.39 471.47 476.93 473.39 R E T A IL T R A D E ................................................................ 209.95 216.46 220.97 218.66 220.29 217.26 222.39 215.45 214.40 215.93 219.56 222.62 227.50 226.44 F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D R E A L E S TA T E .............................................................................. 406.33 423.51 416.42 420.68 435.12 425.29 430.19 441.77 435.18 433.46 447.22 433.30 433.96 447.22 435.74 S E R V IC E S ........................................................................... 350.35 359.96 366.24 362.41 369.04 367.57 365.79 370.50 364.01 359.13 356.43 466.56 470.09 365.80 221.09 365.63 369.98 367.22 - Data not available. p = preliminary NOTE: See “Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review October 1995 75 Current Labor Statistics: 17. Labor Force Data Diffusion indexes of employment change, seasonally adjusted (In percent) Jan. Time span and year Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Private nonfarm payrolls, 356 industries Over 1-month span: 1993 .................... 1994 .................... 1995 .................... 57.6 60.0 60.3 61.5 63.3 61.7 51.4 65.9 57.6 58.3 62.4 51.3 61.4 58.0 46.2 55.1 63.8 55.3 57.7 60.5 46.3 56.3 61.5 54.6 61.4 60.7 59.7 61.1 “ “ Over 3-month span: 1993 .................... 1994 .................... 1995 .................... 64.0 68.8 66.4 61.2 70.9 64.9 61.8 69.8 57.9 58.8 67.1 49.3 61.4 66.0 50.6 61.8 66.0 47.3 59.3 68.4 51.4 61.8 68.3 62.6 67.8 Over 6-month span: 1993 ................... 1994 ................... 1995 .................. 63.2 71.2 65.9 63.8 70.2 58.8 62.8 70.5 56.3 64.2 69.5 51.8 60.8 69.8 48.5 63.9 69.1 64.5 70.5 64.7 70.9 ” “ 64.9 68.4 63.1 63.9 70.8 60.1 64.0 71.9 65.4 70.2 67.0 69.5 67.6 69.7 “ “ “ - 67.6 70.4 - Over 12-month span: 1993 ...................... 1994 ...................... 1995 ...................... 61.1 65.3 - 60.7 61.1 66.7 67.3 65.7 68.1 - 63.6 67.4 66.2 69.0 67.3 69.0 70.8 67.4 70.8 67.0 “ “ - - 67.0 70.8 - 70.2 70.4 - 69.4 70.2 - 68.8 66.0 69.4 64.0 56.5 59.0 - 54.3 57.6 56.1 64.0 - 57.6 62.2 ~ Manufacturing payrolls, 139 industries Over 1-month span: 1993 ................... 1994 ................... 1995 ................... 52.2 59.4 56.8 57.9 61.2 54.7 52.9 59.4 49.6 44.2 56.5 44.2 51.4 55.0 36.7 46.0 59.0 41.7 50.7 54.0 38.1 48.6 56.5 48.2 56.1 53.2 54.7 59.4 “ - 60.8 65.1 61.5 60.4 66.5 56.1 57.2 64.4 47.1 46.4 59.0 35.6 46.4 58.6 32.4 50.7 58.3 28.1 49.6 61.5 33.5 54.3 59.0 53.2 61.5 60.1 60.4 ” “ - Over'6-month span: 1993 .................... 1994 .................... 1995 .................... 57.6 61.9 57.2 56.5 62.9 47.1 56.1 64.4 40.3 55.0 61.5 31.7 49.3 60.8 27.3 52.2 59.0 55.4 62.2 57.9 62.6 56.8 61.5 62.9 61.5 “ “ - 57.6 64.0 - 65.1 61.5 ” Over 12-month span: 1993 ...................... 1994 ...................... 1995 ...................... 56.8 58.3 46.4 57.9 59.7 43.9 55.8 61.9 58.6 61.5 57.2 61.5 57.6 61.5 “ “ 59.0 63.3 - 61.2 61.5 - 60.4 59.7 - 59.4 49.6 “ 58.6 61.9 - 60.1 56.5 “ Over 3-month span: 1993 ...... ............. 1994 ................... 1995 ................... - Data not available. NOTE: Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent Indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing 18. employment. Data for the 2 most recent months shown in each span are preliminary. See the “Definitions” in this section. See "Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. Annual data: Employment status of the population (Numbers in thousands) Employment status Civilian noninstitutional population..................... Civilian labor force....................................... Labor force participation rate.................................................... 76 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 180,587 117,834 182,753 119,865 184,613 121,669 186,393 123,869 188,049 124,787 189,765 125,303 191,576 126,982 193,550 128,040 196,814 131,056 65.3 65.6 65.9 66.5 66.4 66.0 66.3 66.2 66.6 Employed.............................................. Employment-population ratio..................... Agriculture......................................... Nonagricultural industries...................... 109,597 60.7 3,163 106,434 112,440 61.5 3,208 109,232 114,968 62.3 3,169 111,800 117,342 63.0 3,199 114,142 117,914 62.7 3,186 114,728 116,877 61.6 3,233 113,644 117,598 61.4 3,207 114,391 119,306 61.6 3,074 116,232 123,060 62.5 3,409 119,651 Unemployed .................................... Unemployment rate................................. Not in labor force ....................................... 8,237 7.0 62,752 7,425 6.2 62,888 6,701 5.5 62,944 6,528 5.3 62,523 6,874 5.5 63,262 8,426 6.7 64,462 9,384 7.4 64,593 8,734 6.8 65,509 7,996 6.1 65,758 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 19. Annual data: Employment levels by industry (In thousands) Industry Total employment.................................................. Private sector................................................................... Goods-producing........................................................... Mining............................................................. Construction ....................... ................................. Manufacturing........................................................... 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 99,344 101,958 105,210 107,895 109,419 108,256 108,604 110,730 114,034 82,651 84,948 87,824 90,117 91,115 89,854 89,959 91,889 94,917 24,533 24,674 25,125 25,254 24,905 23,745 23,231 23,352 23,913 777 717 713 692 709 689 635 610 600 4,810 4,958 5,098 5,171 5,120 4,650 4,492 4,668 5,010 18,947 18,999 19,314 19,391 19,076 18,406 18,104 18,075 18,303 Service-producing.......................................................... Transportation and public utilities................................ Wholesale trade ...................................................... Retail trade .......................................................... Finance, insurance, and real estate............................ Services................................................................... 74,811 5,247 5,761 17,880 6,273 22,957 77,284 5,362 5,848 18,422 6,533 24,110 80,086 5,514 6,030 19,023 6,630 25,504 82,642 5,625 6,187 19,475 6,668 26,907 84,514 5,793 6,173 19,601 6,709 27,934 84,511 5,762 6,081 19,284 6,646 28,336 85,373 5,721 5,997 19,356 6,602 29,052 87,378 5,829 5,981 19,773 6,757 30,197 90,121 6,006 6,140 20,437 6,933 31,488 Government.............................................................. Federal............................................................... State................................................................... Local ................................................................... 16,693 2,899 3,893 9,901 17,010 2,943 3,967 10,100 17,386 2,971 4,076 10,339 17,779 2,988 4,182 10,609 18,304 3,085 4,305 10,914 18,402 2,966 4,355 11,081 18,645 2,969 4,408 11,267 18,841 2,915 4,488 11,438 19,118 2,870 4,562 11,685 NOTE: See “Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 20. Annual data: Average hours and earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on nonfarm payrolls, by industry Industry 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 34.8 8.76 304.85 34.8 8.98 312.50 34.7 9.28 322.02 34.6 9.66 334.24 34.5 10.01 345.35 34.3 10.32 353.98 34.4 10.57 363.61 34.5 10.83 373.64 34.7 11.13 386.21 42.2 12.46 525.81 42.4 12.54 531.70 42.3 12.80 541.44 43.0 13.26 570.18 44.1 13.68 603.29 44.4 14.19 630.04 43.9 14.54 638.31 44.3 14.60 646.78 44.7 14.89 665.58 37.4 12.48 466.75 37.8 12.71 480.44 37.9 13.08 495.73 37.9 13.54 513.17 38.2 13.77 526.01 38.1 14.00 533.40 38.0 14.15 537.70 38.5 14.38 553.63 38.9 14.72 572.61 40.7 9.73 396.01 41.0 9.91 406.31 41.1 10.19 418.81 41.0 10.48 429.68 40.8 10.83 441.86 40.7 11.18 455.03 41.0 11.46 469.86 41.4 11.74 486.04 42.0 12.06 506.52 39.2 11.70 458.64 39.2 12.03 471.58 38.8 12.26 475.69 38.9 12.60 490.14 38.9 12.97 504.53 38.7 13.22 511.61 38.9 13.45 523.21 39.6 13.62 539.35 39.9 13.86 553.01 38.3 9.34 357.72 38.1 9.59 365.38 38.1 9.98 380.24 38.0 10.39 394.82 38.1 10.79 411.10 38.1 11.15 424.82 38.2 11.39 435.10 38.2 11.74 448.47 38 4 12.05 462.72 29.2 6.03 176.08 29.2 6.12 178.70 29.1 6.31 183.62 28.9 6.53 188.72 28.8 6.75 194.40 28.6 6.94 198.48 28.8 7.12 205.06 28.8 7.29 209.95 28.9 7.49 216.46 36.4 8.36 304.30 36.3 8.73 316.90 35.9 9.06 325.25 35.8 9.53 341.17 35.8 9.97 356.93 35.7 10.39 370.92 35.8 10.82 387.36 35.8 11.35 406.33 35.8 11.83 423.51 32.5 8.18 265.85 32.5 8.49 275.93 32.6 8.88 289.49 32.6 9.38 305.79 32.5 9.83 319.48 32.4 10.23 331.45 32.5 10.54 342.55 32.5 10.78 350.35 32 5 11.05 359.13 P riv a te s e c to r Average weekly hours................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars).......................... Average weekly earnings (in dollars) ................................ Mining: Average weekly hours ................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars)............................. Average weekly earnings (in dollars)....................... C o n stru ctio n : Average weekly hours ........................................ Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ......................... Average weekly earnings (in dollars)....................... M anufacturin g: Average weekly hours ........................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars) .......................... Average weekly earnings (in dollars)............................ T ra n s p o rta tio n a nd public utilities: Average weekly hours ........................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars)..................... Average weekly earnings (in dollars)....................... W h o le s a le tra de: Average weekly hours .............................. Average hourly earnings (in dollars)...................... Average weekly earnings (in dollars)................... R e tail tra de: Average weekly hours ...................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars)........................... Average weekly earnings (in dollars)..................... Finance, Insurance , an d real estate: Average weekly hours ............................. Average hourly earnings (in dollars).......... Average weekly earnings (in dollars)................ S ervices: Average weekly hours ............................ Average hourly earnings (in dollars)...................... Average weekly earnings (in dollars)..................... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review October 1995 77 Current Labor Statistics: Compensation & Industrial Relations 21. Employment Cost Index, compensation,1 by occupation and industry group (June 1989=100) 1993 1994 1995 Percent change Series 3 months ended 12 months ended June Sept. 118.3 119.5 120.2 121.3 122.1 123.3 123.8 124.8 125.6 0.6 2.9 Workers, by occupational group: White-collar workers .............................................. Professional specialty and technical............................ Executive, administrative, and managerial..................... Administrative support, including clerical ...................... Blue-collar workers..................................................... Service occupations.................................................... 118.6 120.6 117.5 119.3 117.8 118.7 119.9 122.0 118.6 120.4 118.8 119.9 120.6 122.5 119.4 121.3 119.4 120.5 121.8 123.7 120.6 122.6 120.4 121.6 122.6 124.2 121.6 123.5 121.3 122.1 123.9 125.7 122.9 124.6 122.4 123.5 124.4 126.2 123.6 125.2 122.7 124.3 125.5 127.0 125.2 126.5 123.6 125.0 126.3 127.5 125.7 127.3 124.5 125.8 .6 .4 3.0 2.7 3.4 3.1 2.6 3.0 Workers, by industry division: Goods-producing................................................... Manufacturing .......................................................... Service-producing............................................... Services.......................................................... Health services........................................................ Hospitals................................................................ Educational services................................................... Public administration 3................................................... Nonmanufacturing.................................................... 119.1 119.7 118.0 120.6 123.2 122.6 120.2 118.0 117.9 120.0 120.6 119.3 122.2 124.4 123.9 122.6 119.3 119.2 120.6 121.3 120.0 122.9 125.4 125.0 122.9 120.0 119.8 121.9 122.5 121.0 123.8 126.1 125.9 123.2 121.5 120.9 123.0 123.5 121.7 124.2 126.6 126.4 123.6 122.2 121.7 123.9 124.4 123.1 125.8 127.8 127.5 126.0 123.7 123.0 124.4 125.1 123.6 126.4 128.5 128.4 126.4 124.2 123.4 125.3 126.2 124.6 127.2 129.4 128.8 126.9 125.4 124.4 126.0 126.9 125.5 127.8 130.2 129.7 127.4 126.1 125.2 .6 .6 2.4 2.8 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.6 3.1 3.2 2.9 Excluding sales occupations........................................ 118.0 118.5 119.1 119.5 11J).8 120.2 121.0 121.4 122.0 122.3 123.0 123.4 123.5 123.9 124.5 125.0 125.4 125.7 .7 .6 2.8 2.8 Workers, by occupational group: White-collar workers.................................................... Excluding sales occupations..................................... Professional specialty and technical occupations......... Executive, administrative, and managerial occupations Sales occupations................................................ Administrative support occupations, including clerical.......................................................... 118.3 119.2 121.3 117.2 113.8 119.4 120.2 122.2 118.1 115.6 120.2 121.0 122.9 118.9 116.5 121.5 122.4 124.6 120.3 117.2 122.5 123.3 125.3 121.3 118.8 123.5 124.4 126.3 122.6 119.2 124.1 125.1 126.8 123.3 119.6 125.3 126.3 127.7 124.9 120.2 126.2 127.0 128.4 125.4 122.4 .7 .6 .5 1.8 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.4 3.0 119.2 120.3 121.2 122.5 123.5 124.5 125.1 126.5 127.3 .6 3.1 Blue-collar workers................................................ Precision production, craft, and repair occupations...... Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors.......... Transportation and material moving occupations......... Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers .... 117.7 117.6 119.0 115.2 117.6 118.7 118.7 120.0 115.9 118.4 119.3 118.9 120.8 117.0 119.1 120.3 120.2 121.3 118.5 120.2 121.2 121.2 122.2 119.1 121.4 122.3 122.5 122.9 120.3 122.7 122.6 122.5 123.4 120.6 122.9 123.5 123.4 124.2 121.8 124.1 124.4 124.4 124.8 122.4 125.3 .7 .8 .5 .5 1.0 2.6 2.6 2.1 2.8 3.2 Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June June 1995 C ivilian w o rk e rs 2 .............................................................................. P riv a te in d u stry w o r k e r s ...................................................... .6 .6 .7 .5 .6 .7 .4 .4 Service occupations............................................ 118.0 118.9 119.5 120.6 121.0 121.8 122.9 123.4 124.0 .5 2.5 Production and nonsupervisory occupations4 ................ 117.9 119.0 119.7 120.7 121.6 122.6 123.1 124.1 125.0 .7 2.8 Workers, by industry division: Goods-producing.................................................. Excluding sales occupations.................................. White-collar occupations.......................................... Excluding sales occupations.................................. Blue-collar occupations ............................................ Service occupations................................................. Construction ............................................. Manufacturing............................................. White-collar occupations......................................... Excluding sales occupations.................................. Blue-collar occupations........................................... Service occupations ............................................... Durables.................................................. Nondurables................................................ 119.1 118.8 119.6 119.0 118.7 120.6 116.0 119.7 119.7 118.8 119.6 120.7 120.0 119.0 119.9 119.6 120.5 119.7 119.6 121.5 116.8 120.6 120.5 119.5 120.5 121.7 121.0 119.7 120.6 120.1 121.1 119.9 120.2 122.4 116.5 121.3 121.3 119.9 121.3 122.7 121.9 120.3 121.8 121.4 123.0 121.9 121.1 123.5 118.6 122.5 122.7 121.3 122.3 123.8 122.9 121.7 123.0 122.5 124.3 123.2 122.2 123.8 120.2 123.5 123.9 122.5 123.2 124.1 123.8 122.8 123.9 123.5 125.1 124.1 123.1 126.5 121.4 124.4 124.9 123.6 124:0 127.0 125.4 123.2 124.3 124.0 125.9 125.0 123.4 126.3 120.8 125.1 126.0 124.9 124.5 127.0 125.8 123.8 125.3 124.9 127.2 126.2 124.1 127.3 121.1 126.2 127.4 126.1 125.3 128.0 127.0 124.7 125.9 125.6 127.6 126.7 124.9 127.9 122.0 126.9 128.0 126.6 126.0 128.6 127.7 125.4 .5 .6 .3 .4 .6 .5 .7 .6 .5 .6 .5 .6 .6 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.2 3.3 1.5 2.8 3.3 3.3 2.3 3.6 3.2 2.1 Service-producing ...................................................... Excluding sales occupations................................. White-collar occupations............................................ Excluding sales occupations ................................... Blue-collar occupations............................................. Service occupations.................................................. Transportation and public utilities.................................. Transportation............................................................ Public utilities............................................................. Communications...................................................... Electric, gas, and sanitary services ........................... Wholesale and retail trade........................................... Excluding sales occupations ................................... Wholesale trade........................................................ Excluding sales occupations.................................. Retail trade............................................................... Food stores .......................................................... General merchandise stores.................................. 117.3 118.3 117.8 119.3 115.5 117.7 116.0 114.1 118.3 117.5 119.4 115.9 116.2 116.4 116.8 115.6 117.2 114.7 118.5 119.3 119.0 120.4 116.6 118.6 116.8 114.8 119.2 118.5 120.2 116.4 117.0 116.6 117.6 116.2 117.1 115.5 119.3 120.2 119.8 121.4 117.2 119.1 117.5 115.7 119.9 119.2 120.8 117.1 118.0 117.8 118.7 116.8 118.3 116.3 120.4 121.4 121.0 122.7 118.4 120.2 119.2 117.1 121.7 121.0 122.7 117.6 118.6 117.9 119.3 117.5 119.6 115.3 121.2 122.1 121.9 123.4 119.1 120.7 119.8 117.7 122.6 122.1 123.2 119.4 119.8 119.7 120.3 119.2 120.6 118.0 122.3 123.3 122.9 124.6 120.6 121.3 121.4 119.7 123.6 122.9 124.4 120.5 120.9 120.6 121.3 120.4 120.3 118.7 122.8 123.8 123.4 125.1 120.7 122.5 122.1 120.3 124.4 124.0 124.8 120.6 120.9 121.5 122.0 120.1 120.0 119.3 123.9 125.0 124.6 126.4 122.1 123.0 124.0 122.3 126.1 126.3 125.9 121.7 122.4 123.2 124.4 120.9 120.8 120.1 124.9 125.8 125.6 127.1 123.1 123.6 124.7 123.0 126.8 126.6 127.0 122.8 123.1 124.8 125.1 121.8 120.7 120.7 .8 .6 .8 .6 .8 .5 .6 .6 .6 .2 .9 .9 .6 1.3 .6 .7 -.1 .5 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.4 2.4 4.1 4.5 3.4 3.7 3.1 2.8 2.8 4.3 4.0 2.2 .1 2.3 See footnotes at end of table. 78 .4 .6 .7 .6 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 .4 21. Continued— Employment Cost Index, compensation,1 by occupation and industry group (June 1989=100) 1994 1993 Percent change 1995 Series June Sept. Mar. Dec. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June 3 months ended 12 months ended June 1995 Finance, insurance, and real estate.............................. Excluding sales occupations................................... Banking, savings and loan, and other credit agencies....................................................... Insurance................................................................. Services...................................................................... Business services..................................................... Health services......................................................... Hospitals ................................................................ Educational services ................................................. Colleges and universities........................................ 113.1 116.4 115.7 117.5 116.4 118.2 117.7 119.7 117.7 120.3 118.5 121.5 118.9 121.8 120.2 123.7 121.8 124.6 1.3 .7 3.5 3.6 116.0 116.1 120.9 117.4 124.0 123.4 120.6 121.5 116.9 117.4 122.3 118.1 125.0 124.5 123.8 125.0 117.8 119.7 123.1 118.6 126.0 125.6 124.1 125.3 118.7 119.9 124.4 121.3 126.7 126.7 124.5 125.7 119.4 120.5 124.9 122.1 127.1 127.1 125.4 126.0 120.8 121.5 125.9 122.4 127.9 127.7 128.2 128.5 120.5 122.3 126.6 123.0 128.7 128.6 128.4 128.8 123.5 123.5 127.5 124.5 129.7 128.9 128.8 129.3 124.1 124.6 128.2 125.3 130.3 129.7 130.3 131.3 .5 .9 .5 .6 .5 .6 1.2 1.5 3.9 3.4 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.0 3.9 4.2 Nonmanufacturing ....................................................... White-collar occupations......................................... Excluding sales occupations.................................. Blue-collar occupations........................................... Service occupations ............................................... 117.2 117.9 119.4 115.6 117.7 118.4 119.0 120.4 116.6 118.6 119.0 119.9 121.4 117.1 119.1 120.3 121.1 122.8 118.2 120.2 121.2 122.1 123.6 119.1 120.7 122.3 123.1 124.7 120.5 121.3 122.6 123.5 125.1 120.5 122.4 123.7 124.7 126.4 121.5 123.0 124.6 125.6 127.1 122.5 123.5 .7 .7 .6 .8 .4 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.3 S ta te a nd local g o v e rn m e n t w o r k e r s ...................................... 119.6 121.4 121.9 122.6 123.1 125.0 125.6 126.4 126.9 .4 3.1 Workers, by occupational group: White-collar workers.................................................... Professional specialty and technical........................... Executive, administrative, and managerial .................. Administrative support, including clerical..................... Blue-collar workers...................................................... 119.6 119.7 119.2 119.6 118.7 121.5 121.7 121.0 121.0 120.5 121.9 122.0 121.6 121.6 121.4 122.6 122.5 122.8 122.7 122.3 122.9 122.7 123.4 123.3 122.7 124.9 125.0 124.7 124.9 124.2 125.5 125.5 125.3 125.6 124.7 126.2 126.0 126.9 126.3 125.4 126.6 126.3 127.4 126.9 126.3 .3 .2 .4 .5 .7 3.0 2.9 3.2 2.9 2.9 Workers, by Industry division: Services...................................................................... Services excluding schools5 ....................................... Health services....................................................... Hospitals.............................................................. Educational services............................................... Schools................................................................ Elementary and secondary ................................. Colleges and universities.................................... Public administration3 ................................................... 120.2 120.0 120.7 120.4 120.1 120.3 120.8 118.5 118.0 122.2 121.4 122.2 122.0 122.3 122.5 123.0 120.8 119.3 122.6 121.9 123.1 123.3 122.7 122.9 123.6 120.7 120.0 123.1 122.8 124.2 123.7 122.9 123.2 123.7 121.5 121.5 123.4 123.3 125.2 124.5 123.1 123.4 123.8 122.0 122.2 125.6 124.9 127.2 127.0 125.5 125.9 126.3 124.5 123.7 126.1 125.6 127.7 127.7 126.0 126.3 126.5 125.5 124.2 126.7 126.4 128.4 128.4 126.5 126.8 127.1 126.0 125.4 127.1 127.7 129.8 129.9 126.8 127.1 127.4 126.1 126.1 .3 1.0 1.1 1.2 .2 .2 .2 .1 .6 3.0 3.6 3.7 4.3 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.4 3.2 1 Cost (cents per hour worked) measured in the Employment Cost Index consists of wages, salaries, and employer cost of employee benefits. 2 Consist of private Industry workers (excluding farm and household workers) and State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 3 Consist of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities. 4 This series has the same industry and occupational coverage as the Hourly Earnings Index, which was discontinued in January 1989. 5 Includes, for example, library, social, and health services. Monthly Labor Review October 1995 79 Current Labor Statistics: Compensation & Industrial Relations 22. Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group (June 1989=100) 1995 1994 1993 Percent change Series June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June 3 months ended 12 months ended June 1995 Civilian w o rk e rs 1 ................................................................................... 115.2 116.4 117.1 117.8 118.6 119.8 120.4 121.3 122.2 0.7 3.0 Workers, by occupational group: White-coliar workers ...................................................... Professional specialty and technical............................. Executive, administrative, and managerial.................... Administrative support, including clerical ...................... Blue-collar workers......................................................... Service occupations....................................................... 116.0 118.0 115.5 116.1 113.4 115.2 117.4 119.5 116.5 117.1 114.4 116.1 118.1 120.0 117.3 118.0 115.0 116.6 118.8 120.7 118.1 118.9 115.8 117.5 119.7 121.3 119.0 119.8 116.7 118.1 120.8 122.8 120.2 120.9 117.8 119.4 121.5 123.5 120.8 121.6 118.2 120.4 122.4 124.2 122.2 122.8 119.2 121.2 123.1 124.7 122.8 123.4 120.3 121.8 .6 .4 .5 .5 .9 .5 2.8 2.8 3.2 3.0 3.1 3.1 Workers, by industry division: Goods-producing............................................................. Manufacturing ................................................................ Service-producing........................................................... Services...................................................................... Health services ......................................................... Hospitals ................................................................ Educational services ................................................. Public administration 2 ................................................. Nonmanufacturing.......................................................... 114.6 115.5 115.5 117.8 120.3 119.5 118.0 114.9 115.1 115.4 116.3 116.8 119.5 121.4 120,7 120.4 115.9 116.4 116.2 117.3 117.5 120.0 122.2 121.7 120.7 116.6 117.0 117.0 118.0 118.2 120.9 122.8 122.4 121.0 117.9 117.7 118.0 119.0 118.9 121.3 123.4 123.0 121.3 118.5 118.5 119.0 120.0 120.2 122.8 124.4 124.0 123.8 119.9 119.7 119.6 120.8 120.7 123.5 125.4 124.9 124.3 120.6 120.2 120.5 121.9 121.7 124.4 126.1 125.5 125.0 121.9 121.1 121.4 122.9 122.5 124.8 126.6 126.0 125.1 122.3 121.9 .7 .8 .7 .3 .4 .4 .1 .3 .7 2.9 3.3 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.4 3.1 3.2 2.9 114.6 115.0 115.7 115.9 116.4 116.6 117.2 117.5 118.1 118.3 119.1 119.4 119.7 120.0 120.6 121.0 121.5 121.8 .7 .7 2.9 3.0 115.5 116.4 117.9 116.7 117.4 118.9 117.5 118.2 119.5 118.3 119.0 120.4 119.3 119.9 121.3 120.2 121.0 122.2 120.8 121.7 123.0 121.7 122.8 123.7 122.7 123.4 124.4 .8 .5 .6 2.8 2.9 2.6 115.3 111.6 116.2 113.8 117.0 114.7 117.8 114.8 118.8 116.2 120.0 116.5 120.5 116.7 121.9 116.9 122.5 119.3 .5 2.1 3.1 2.7 116.1 P riv a te in d u stry w o r k e r s ............................................................. Excluding sales occupations...................................... Workers, by occupational group: White-collar workers.................................................. Excluding sales occupations.................................. Professional specialty and technical occupations..... Executive, administrative, and managerial occupations.......................................................... Sales occupations................................................... Administrative support occupations, including clerical.................................................................. 117.1 118.0 119.0 119.9 120.9 121.6 122.9 123.5 .5 3.0 Blue-collar workers................................................... Precision production, craft, and repair occupations......................................................... Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors....... Transportation and material moving occupations...... Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers................................................................ 113.2 114.1 114.8 115.6 116.5 117.5 118.0 119.0 120.1 .9 3.1 113.2 113.8 111.2 114.2 114.7 111.7 114.7 115.6 112.6 115.5 116.2 113.5 116.5 117.2 114.0 117.8 118.0 115.2 117.9 118.8 115.6 118.8 119.6 117.0 119.9 120.9 117.8 .9 1.1 .7 2.9 3.2 3.3 114.3 114.9 115.7 116.6 117.3 117.9 118.9 120.1 121.2 .9 3.3 Service occupations.................................................. 114.1 114.9 115.3 116.3 116.8 117.6 118.8 119.4 120.0 .5 2.7 Production and nonsupervisory occupations3 .............. 114.2 115.3 115.9 116.6 117.5 118.5 119.1 119.9 121.0 .9 3.0 Workers, by industry division: Goods-producing........................................................ Excluding sales occupations.................................. White-collar occupations.......................................... Excluding sales occupations.................................. Blue-collar occupations ......................................... Service occupations......:.......................................... 114.5 114.2 116.4 115.6 113.4 114.4 115.3 114.9 117.3 116.4 114.1 115.7 116.1 115.6 118.2 116.8 114.9 116.9 116.9 116.4 119.1 117.7 115.6 116.4 118.0 117.4 120.3 118.8 116.6 117.7 118.9 118.4 121.1 119.8 117.5 120.1 119.6 119.1 122.0 120.8 118.1 119.7 120.4 119.9 .123.0 121.8 118.8 120.6 121.4 120.9 123.8 122.5 119.9 121.9 .8 .8 .7 .6 .9 1.1 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.1 2.8 3.6 Construction ............................................................. 110.4 111.3 111.1 112.2 113.6 114.6 114.7 114.8 115.7 .8 1.8 Manufacturing............................................................ White-collar occupations....................................... Excluding sales occupations............................... Blue-collar occupations........................................ Service occupations............................................. Durables................................................................ Nondurables........................................................... 115.5 116.9 115.9 114.5 114.5 115.1 116.3 116.3 117.7 116.7 115.2 116.0 115.9 116.9 117.3 118.8 117.2 116.2 117.3 117.2 117.5 118.0 119.5 118.0 116.9 116.8 117.8 118.3 119.0 120.6 119.1 117.8 118.2 118.7 119.5 120.0 121.7 120.2 118.7 120.6 119.8 120.3 120.8 122.7 121.4 119.5 120.6 120.8 120.8 121.9 123.9 122.4 120.4 121.5 121.9 121.9 122.9 124.7 123.2 121.6 122.8 122.9 122.9 .8 .6 .7 1.0 1.1 .8 .8 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.9 3.5 2.8 Service-producing....................................................... Excluding sales occupations.................................. White-collar occupations.......................................... Excluding sales occupations................................ Blue-collar occupations ............................................ Service occupations................................................. 114.7 115.6 115.2 116.8 112.9 114.1 115.9 116.6 116.5 117.8 114.1 114.9 116.6 117.4 117.3 118.7 114.6 115.2 117.3 118.3 118.0 119.6 115.5 116.3 118.2 119.0 118.9 120.4 116.2 116.7 119.2 120.2 119.9 121.5 117.5 117.3 119.7 120.7 120.4 122.1 117.6 118.7 120.7 121.8 ' 121.3 123.2 119.2 119.3 121.6 122.5 122.3 123.8 120.3 119.8 .7 .6 .8 .5 .9 .4 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 3.5 2.7 Transportation and public utilities............................ Transportation....................................................... Public utilities......................................................... Communications.................................................. Electric, gas, and sanitary services...................... 114.0 112.0 116.4 115.6 117.4 114.7 112.6 117.2 116.5 118.2 115.4 113.4 117.9 117.1 118.8 116.4 114.2 119.1 118.4 119.9 117.2 114.8 120.1 119.5 120.9 118.9 116.7 121.4 121.0 121.9 119.6 117.5 122.3 122.1 122.4 121.2 119.0 123.9 124.3 123.4 122.0 119.8 124.5 124.6 124.4 .7 .7 .5 .2 .8 4.1 4.4 3.7 4.3 2.9 See footnotes at end of table. 80 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 22. Continued— Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group (June 1989=100) Series June Sept. Mar. Dec. Sept. June Percent change 1995 1994 1993 Dec. Mar. 3 months ended June 12 months ended June 1995 Wholesale and retail trade....................................... Excluding sales occupations............................... Wholesale trade................................................... Excluding sales occupations............................. Retail trade.......................................................... Food stores....................................................... General merchandise stores............................... 114.2 114.4 115.1 115.5 113.8 115.4 113.4 114.7 115.2 115.1 116.3 114.5 114.9 114.5 115.4 116.1 116.4 117.5 115.0 115.9 115.0 115.5 116.5 116.2 117.8 115.2 117.0 114.0 117.4 117.8 118.3 118.8 117.0 117.8 116.4 118.3 118.7 118.9 119.6 118.0 117.4 116.5 118.4 118.8 119.9 120.2 117.8 117.3 117.5 119.4 120.2 120.9 122.2 118.7 117.8 117.9 120.6 120.9 122.7 122.9 119.6 117.6 118.6 1.0 .6 1.5 .6 .8 -.2 .6 2.7 2.6 3.7 3.5 2.2 -.2 1.9 Finance, insurance, and real estate......................... Excluding sales occupations............................. Banking, savings and loan, and other credit agencies................................................... Insurance................................... ......................... 109.3 113.1 112.3 114.0 112.9 114.6 113.7 115.5 113.2 116.0 113.8 117.2 114.2 117.4 115.0 119.3 117.0 120.2 1.7 .8 3.4 3.6 112.9 112.9 113.7 113.9 114.5 116.6 114.7 116.0 115.0 116.8 116.5 117.7 116.2 118.6 119.2 119.8 119.7 120.8 .4 .8 4.1 3.4 Services................................................................. Business services.................................................. Health services..................................................... Hospitals ............................................................ Educational services.............................................. Colleges and universities..................................... 117.6 114.6 120.7 119.9 117.4 117.7 118.9 115.3 121.7 121.0 120.7 121.3 119.6 115.7 122.6 122.0 120.9 121.6 120.8 118.8 123.1 122.8 121.2 122.0 121.3 119.4 123.5 123.3 122.2 122.2 122.2 119.9 124.3 123.9 124.9 124.5 123.0 120.4 125.4 124.8 125.1 124.9 123.9 122.1 126.2 125.4 125.6 125.5 124.4 122.9 126.7 125.9 125.9 125.9 .4 .7 .4 .4 .2 .3 2.6 2.9 2.6 2.1 3.0 3.0 Nonmanufacturing..................................................... White-collar occupations......................................... Excluding sales occupations.................................. Blue-collar occupations........................................... Service occupations............................................... 114.2 115.2 116.6 111.9 114.1 115.4 116.4 117.6 113.0 114.8 116.0 117.2 118.5 113.4 115.1 116.8 117.9 119.4 114.2 116.3 117.7 118.9 120.2 115.1 116.7 118.7 119.7 121.3 116.4 117.3 119.1 120.2 121.8 116.4 118.6 120.0 121.1 122.9 117.5 119.2 120.9 122.1 123.5 118.5 119.8 .8 .8 .5 .9 .5 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.0 2.7 S ta te an d local g o v e rn m e n t w o r k e r s .................................... 117.4 119.3 119.7 120.4 120.7 122.8 123.4 124.3 124.6 .2 3.2 Workers, by occupational group: White-collar workers.................................................. Professional specialty and technical........................ Executive, administrative, and managerial................ Administrative support, including clerical.................. Blue-collar workers................................................... 117.6 118.2 116.6 115.9 116.5 119.6 120.4 118.2 117.2 118.4 119.9 120.7 118.8 117.8 119.0 120.6 121.1 119.8 118.9 119.7 120.9 121.3 120.3 119.4 120.1 122.9 123.6 121.6 120.9 121.8 123.6 124.2 122.4 121.7 122.5 124.4 124.8 124.1 122.5 123.1 124.6 125.0 124.3 122.9 123.8 .2 .2 .2 .3 .6 3.1 3.1 3.3 2.9 3.1 Workers, by industry division: Services................................................................... Services excluding schools4 .................................... Health services..................................................... Hospitals........................................................... Educational services............................................... Schools................................................................ Elementary and secondary ................................. Colleges and universities.................................... Public administration 2 ............................................... 118.2 118.7 118.8 118.2 118.1 118.0 118.8 115.6 114.9 120.3 120.1 120.4 119.9 120.6 120.4 121.0 120.7 120.6 120.7 121.6 117.7 116.6 121.1 121.3 121.9 121.2 121.3 121.9 122.9 122.0 121.1 121.2 121.8 119.2 118.5 123.6 123.2 124.7 124.2 124.2 124.0 125.3 125.1 124.9 125.0 126.0 125.8 124.8 125.0 125.5 123.2 121.9 125.1 125.5 126.6 126.3 124.9 125.1 125.8 122.9 122.3 .2 .4 .5 .4 .1 .1 .2 -.2 .3 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.2 120.3 120.3 121.1 117.8 115.9 1 Consists of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers) and State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers. 2 Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities. 23. 120.9 121.0 121.7 118.6 117.9 123.6 124.2 123.8 124.5 121.5 119.9 124.3 124.9 122.5 120.6 3 This series has the same industry and occupational coverage as the Hourly Earnings Index, which was discontinued in January 1989. 4 Includes, for example, library, social and health services. Employment Cost Index, benefits, private industry workers by occupation and industry group (June 1989 = 100) Percent change 1995 1994 1993 3 months ended Series June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June 12 months ended June 1995 126.7 127.7 128.3 130.7 131.7 132.8 133.0 134.5 135.1 0.4 2.6 125.9 127.3 126.8 128.4 127.6 128.9 130.5 130.5 131.6 131.5 132.8 132.7 133.3 132.5 135.2 133.3 136.0 133.6 .6 .2 3.3 1.6 129.0 124.6 128.6 125.5 130.0 125.7 129.7 126.5 130.3 126.7 130.0 127.4 132.7 128.9 132.0 129.9 133.9 129.7 133.0 130.8 134.8 131.2 133.9 132.2 134.8 131.5 134.3 132.3 135.9 133.2 135.4 133.9 135.9 134.1 135.2 134.7 .0 .7 -.1 .6 1.5 3.4 1.7 3.0 Workers, by occupational group: Workers, by industry group: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review October 1995 81 Current Labor Statistics: Compensation & Industrial Relations 24. Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and area size (June 1989=100) 1993 1994 1995 Percent change Series June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June 3 months ended 12 months ended June 1995 C O M P E N S A T IO N W o rk e rs , b y barga ining s ta tu s 1 Union .......................................................... Goods-producing....................................... Service-producing...................................... Manufacturing........................................... Nonmanufacturing..................................... 119.1 120.0 117.7 121.1 117.4 120.0 121.0 118.6 121.9 118.5 120.9 121.9 119.6 123.0 119.3 121.9 122.5 121.0 123.6 120.5 123.0 123.8 121.8 124.8 121.5 123.8 124.4 122.9 125.3 122.6 124.2 124.7 123.6 125.8 123.0 125.1 125.2 124.8 126.3 124.0 125.8 125.9 125.6 126.6 125.0 0.6 .6 .6 .2 .8 2.3 1.7 3.1 1.4 2.9 Nonunion.................................................... Goods-producing....................................... Service-producing...................................... Manufacturing........................................... Nonmanufacturing..................................... 117.7 118.6 117.2 119.0 117.2 118.8 119.4 118.4 120.0 118.3 119.5 119.9 119.2 120.6 119.0 120.7 121.5 120.3 122.0 120.2 121.7 122.6 121.1 122.9 121.1 122.7 123.6 122.2 124.0 122.2 123.2 124.1 122.7 124.8 122.5 124.3 125.2 123.8 126.1 123.6 125.2 125.9 124.8 126.9 124.5 .7 .6 .8 .6 .7 2.9 2.7 3.1 3.3 2.8 119.1 117.0 119.3 116.4 120.2 118.1 120.1 117.8 120.7 118.8 121.2 118.1 121.6 1200 122.8 119.4 122.8 120.8 123.6 120.5 124.0 121.8 124.6 121.3 124.3 122.5 125.0 121.7 125.6 123.7 125.8 122.6 126.6 124.3 126.9 123.4 .8 .5 .9 .7 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.4 118.1 117.8 119.1 118.7 119.8 119.7 120.9 121.3 121.9 122.5 122.9 123.2 123.4 123.5 124.5 124.8 125.4 125.3 .7 .4 2.9 2.3 Union .......................................................... Goods-producing....................................... Service-producing....................................... Manufacturing............................................ Nonmanufacturing........................ ............. 113.9 113.0 115.1 113.9 113.9 114.8 113.8 116.0 114.6 114.9 115.7 114.8 116.8 115.9 115.5 116.5 115.4 118.0 116.6 116.4 117.6 116.7 118.7 117.8 117.3 118.6 117.5 120.1 118.5 118.6 119.1 117.9 120.6 119.2 119.0 ) 19.8 118.4 121.6 119.8 119.9 120.6 119.3 122.3 120.5 120.6 .7 .8 .6 .6 .7 2.6 2.2 3.0 2.3 2.8 Nonunion..................................................... Goods-producing........................................ Service-producing....................................... Manufacturing............................................ Nonmanufacturing...................................... 114.8 115.2 114.6 116.1 114.3 115.9 116.0 115.9 117.0 115.5 116.6 116.7 116.6 117.9 116.1 117.4 117.6 117.2 118.6 116.9 118.3 118.6 118.1 119.5 117.8 119.2 119.5 119.0 120.5 118.7 119.8 120.3 119.5 121.5 119.1 120.8 121.3 120.5 122.7 120.0 121.8 122.2 121.5 123.8 121.0 .8 .7 .8 .9 .8 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.6 2.7 115.7 114.3 114.6 113.7 116.8 115.3 115.2 115.3 117.3 116.0 116.5 115.7 117.8 116.6 117.5 116.6 118.8 117.4 118.3 117.9 120.0 118.5 119.5 118.1 120.2 119.1 120.1 119.0 121.3 120.0 120.9 119.9 122.1 120.8 122.2 120.9 .7 .7 1.1 .8 2.8 2.9 3.3 2.5 114.7 114.4 115.8 115.0 116.5 115.8 117.2 117.0 118.1 118.1 119.1 118.6 119.7 119.0 120.6 120.5 121.6 121.3 .8 .7 3.0 2.7 W o rk e rs , b y reg io n 1 Northeast..................................................... South.......................................................... Midwest (formerly North Central).................. . West........................................................... W o rk e rs , b y a re a size 1 Metropolitan areas................................. Other areas........................................... W A G E S A N D S A LA R IE S W o rk e rs , b y b arga ining s ta tu s 1 W o rk e rs , b y reg io n 1 Northeast..................................................... South........................................................... Midwest (formerly North Central)................... West............................................................ W o rk e rs , b y a re a s iz e 1 Metropolitan areas................................ Other areas.......................................... 1 The indexes are calculated differently from those for the occupation and industry groups. For a detailed description of the index calculation, see the 82 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 Monthly Labor Review Technical Employment Cost Index," May 1982. Note, “Estimation procedures for the 25. Percent of full-time employees participating in employer-provided benefit plans, 1980-91 Small private establish ments2 Medium and large private establishments’ Item 1980 1981 1982 Tlme-off plans Participants with: 10 10 Paid lunch time ........................................... Average minutes per day........................... 75 75 Paid rest time .............................................. Average minutes per day........................... Paid funeral leave........................................ Average days per occurrence.................... 99 99 Paid holidays ............................................... Average days per year............................... 10.1 10.2 20 23 Paid personal leave..................................... Average days per year............................... Paid vacations............................................. 100 99 62 65 Paid sick leave............................................ Unpaid maternity leave................................ Unpaid paternity leave................................. _ 9 25 76 25 99 10.0 24 3.8 99 67 1983 1984 11 25 74 25 99 9.8 25 3.7 100 67 9 26 73 26 99 9.8 23 3.6 99 67 1985 1989 1988 1986 Participants in life insurance plans................... Participants with: Accidental death and dismemberment insurance............................................. Survivor income benefits ........................... Retiree protection available........................ Participants in long-term disability insurance plans........................................................ Participants in sickness and accident insurance 1990 10 27 72 26 88 3.2 99 10.0 25 3.7 100 70 11 29 72 26 85 3.2 96 9.4 24 3.3 98 69 10 26 71 26 84 3.3 97 9.2 22 3.1 97 68 8 30 67 26 80 3.3 92 10.2 21 3.3 96 67 8 37 48 27 47 2.9 84 9.5 11 2.8 88 47 4 17 34 4 58 29 56 3.7 81 10.9 38 2.7 72 97 11 36 56 29 63 3.7 74 13.6 39 2.9 67 95 37 18 37 26 17 8 57 30 51 33 _ - _ - _ - - " ~ 33 16 97 97 96 97 96 95 90 92 83 69 93 93 58 98 - 60 99 - 62 99 50 37 37 58 99 53 43 46 62 99 61 52 56 67 99 63 61 66 70 99 70 66 76 79 98 80 74 75 80 97 97 96 81 80 98 97 96 79 83 98 97 94 76 78 98 87 86 82 79 99 99 98 26 46 - 27 49 - 51 44 47 43 36 36 27 33 - $10.13 $11.93 $12.05 $12.80 $19.29 $25.31 $26.60 64 66 69 56 63 54 58 51 - $32.51 $35.93 $38.33 $41.40 $60.07 $72.10 $96.97 42 $25.13 67 $109.34 35 $15.74 71 $71.89 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 92 94 94 64 85 88 69 - 72 64 72 64 72 66 74 64 73 13 62 72 10 59 76 8 49 71 7 42 71 6 44 78 1 19 67 1 55 67 1 45 40 41 43 45 47 48 48 42 45 40 19 31 27 54 50 51 49 51 52 49 46 43 45 26 14 21 84 84 84 82 82 80 76 63 63 59 20 93 90 55 98 53 45 - 56 98 50 43 - 58 97 52 45 - 64 97 51 54 55 - 63 97 47 54 56 - 67 97 41 57 61 7 53 64 98 35 57 62 760 59 98 26 55 62 45 62 97 22 64 63 48 55 98 7 56 54 48 54 95 7 58 49 31 92 90 33 100 18 9 89 88 16 100 8 9 - - - - - 26 33 36 41 44 17 28 45 - “ “ “ “ - 2 5 5 12 9 23 10 36 1 8 5 5 5 31 97 - R e tire m e n t plans Participants in defined benefit pension plans'.... Participants with: Normal retirement prior to age 65.............. Early retirement available.......................... Ad hoc pension increase in last 5 years..... Terminal earnings formula......................... Benefit coordinated with Social Security..... Participants in defined contribution plans......... Participants in plans with tax-deferred savings arrangements ........................................... 1987 1990 10 27 72 26 88 3.2 98 10.1 26 3.7 99 67 In s u ra n c e plans Participants in medical care plans................... Participants with coverage for: Home health care..................................... Extended care facilities.............................. Mental health care.................................... Alcohol abuse treatment............................ Drug abuse treatment............................... Participants with employee contribution required for: Self coverage ........................................... Average monthly contribution .................. Family coverage........................................ Average monthly contribution5 ................. 1991 State and local governments3 38 $25.53 65 $117.59 O th e r b en efits Employees eligible for: Flexible benefits plans ................................ Reimbursement accounts............................ ' From 1979 to 1986, data were collected in private sector establishments with a minimum employment varying from 50 to 250 employees, depending upon industry. In addition, coverage in service industries was limited. Begin ning in 1988, data were collected in all private sector establishments employing 100 workers or more in all industries. 2 Includes private sector establishments with fewer than 100 workers. 3 In 1987, coverage excluded local governments employing fewer than 50 workers. In 1990, coverage included all State and local governments. 4 Data exclude college teachers. 5 Data for 1983 refer to the average monthly employee contribution for dependent coverage, excluding the employee. Beginning in 1984, data refer https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis .. to the average monthly employee contribution for family coverage, which includes the employee. 6 Prior to 1985, data on participation in defined benefit pension plans included a small percentage of workers participating in money purchase pension plans. Beginning in 1985, these workers were classified as participating in defined contribution plans. 7 Includes employees who participated in Payroll-based Employee Stock Ownership Plans. Beginning in 1987, these plans were no longer available. NOTE: Dash indicates data were not collected in this year. Monthly Labor Review October 1995 83 Current Labor Statistics: Compensation & Industrial Relations 26. Specified compensation and wage rate changes from contract settlements, and wage rate changes under all agreements, private Industry collective bargaining agreements covering 1,000 workers or more (In percent) Annual average Quarterly average Measure 1993 1993 1994 1995 1994 III IV I II III IV P IP Rate changes under settlements: Specified total compensation changes, settlements covering 5,000 workers or more: First year of contract........................................ Annual average over life of contract................. 3.0 2.4 2.3 2.4 1.0 1.4 3.8 2.5 3.0 2.6 3.4 2.9 0.0 1.4 1.5 2.1 1.4 1.7 1.8 1.8 Specified wage changes, settlements covering 1,000 workers or more: First year of contract........................................ Annual average over life of contract................. 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.3 1.1 1.7 2.8 2.0 3.0 2.4 2.0 2.4 1.0 1.9 2.2 2.5 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.2 3.0 2.7 .8 .7 .4 .8 .9 .6 .3 .8 .9 1.9 .2 .6 1.9 .2 .1 .6 (*) .5 .2 i2) .1 .3 .2 .6 .1 .1 .7 .1 .2 .3 .1 .1 .2 .0 .2 .5 .1 Wags rate changes under all agreements: Average wage change 1...................................... Source: Current settlements..................................... Pnor settlements......................................... COLA provisions......................................... 1 Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts. * More than zero but less than 0.05 percent. 84 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 p « = preliminary. 27. Specified compensation and wage rate changes from contract settlements, and wage rate changes under all agreements, private industry collective bargaining agreements covering 1,000 workers or more during 4-quarter periods (In percent) Average for four quarters ending-Measure 1995 1994 1993 Rate changea under settlements: Specified total compensation changes, settlements covering 5,000 workers or more, all industries: First year of contract........................................................ Annual average over life of contract................................. Specified wage changes, settlements covering 1,000 workers or more: All industries: First year of contract........................................................... Contracts with COLA clauses ............................................ Contracts without COLA clauses........................................ Contracts with either lump sums, COLA, or both................ Contracts with neither lump sums nor COLA................. ..... Annual average over life of contract..................................... Contracts with COLA clauses ............................................ Contracts without COLA clauses........................................ Contracts with either lump sums, COLA, or both................ Contracts with neither lump sums nor COLA...................... Manufacturing: First year of contract........................................... Contracts with COLA clauses ............................ Contracts without COLA clauses....................... Contracts with either lump sums, COLA, or both . Contracts with neither lump sums nor COLA...... Annual average over life of contract..................... Contracts with COLA clauses ............................ Contracts without COLA clauses....................... Contracts with either lump sums, COLA, or both . Contracts with neither lump sums nor COLA...... Nonmanufacturing: First year of contract........................................... Contracts with COLA clauses............................ Contracts without COLA clauses....................... Contracts with either lump sums, COLA, or both . Contracts with neither lump sums nor COLA...... Annual average over life of contract..................... Contracts with COLA clauses............................ Contracts without COLA clauses....................... Contracts with either lump sums, COLA, or both . Contracts with neither lump sums nor COLA...... 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.3 3.1 2.1 1.9 2.5 1.8 2.9 1.7 2.5 1.6 2.3 1.5 2.4 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.4 1.8 1.8 2.7 2.5 1.7 2.0 1.8 1.1 2.2 1.8 2.6 2.1 2.1 1.0 2.8 2.7 1.5 1.6 1.6 2.1 2.2 1.5 2.4 1.7 2.3 2.5 2.0 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.7 2.9 2.3 2.7 2.9 1.5 1.3 2.5 2.7 1.9 2.4 2.7 3.0 1.9 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.2 2.2 1.3 1.0 1.5 1.3 2.3 2.5 2.1 1.9 2.0 1.3 2.5 1.0 2.3 2.0 2.1 2.3 1.4 2.3 1.7 1.5 1.9 1.5 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.1 1.8 2.1 2.3 1.9 2.3 2.0 2.0 1.8 2.5 2.8 2.0 2.6 2.2 1.8 2.6 1.6 1.6 2.2 2.4 2.9 1.9 2.9 1.3 2.4 2.7 2.4 2.7 1.4 2.5 1.9 2.5 1.8 2.5 2.3 2.5 1.8 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.5 Construction: First year of contract...................... Annual average over life of contract. Wage rate changes under all agreements: Average wage change2 .............................. Source: Current settlements.................................. Prior settlements...................................... COLA provisions...................................... 2.0 2.3 2.9 2.5 2.8 2.1 2.6 2.0 2.1 2.1 1.7 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.3 1.7 2.3 1.2 2.3 2.4 2.7 2.3 2.0 1.8 2.1 3.0 1.9 2.2 3.0 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.8 1.4 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.3 2.4 3.0 1.8 2.4 2.1 1.6 1.8 2.2 1.8 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.6 1.8 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.7 2.2 2.0 2.3 1.7 2.3 1.7 2.3 1.5 2.3 1.4 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.3 1.9 2.3 1.8 1.5 2.4 2.3 2.7 2.5 2.6 1.5 2.3 2.4 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0 .6 1.9 .5 1.9 .5 1.8 .3 1 Data do not meet publication standards. 2 Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts. p = preliminary. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review October 1995 85 Current Labor Statistics: Compensation & Industrial Relations 28. Specified changes in the cost of compensation and components annualized over the life of the contract in private industry collective bargaining settlements covering 5,000 workers or more, by quarter, and during 4-quarter periods (In percent) 1994 1993 Measure III IV I II 1995 III IV I II 1.2 1.5 1.5 .6 1.1 1.2 1.0 .9 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Quarterly average All industries: 0.9 .8 .7 1.1 1.8 1.4 1.4 2.4 2.0 1.9 1.7 2.1 1.9 1.4 1.4 2.7 0.8 .9 .9 .5 Average for four quarters All industries: 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.3 2.1 1.6 1.3 1.3 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.3 2.2 1.7 1.4 1.4 2.2 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.8 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.1 1.2 1.1 .8 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.2 1.4 2.0 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.8 1.7 1.3 1.4 2.3 1.9 1.4 1.6 2.5 2.2 1.8 1.7 3.0 2.1 1.7 1.6 2.8 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.3 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.4 2.2 1.6 1.3 1.1 2.1 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.8 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 .8 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.2 .8 1.1 1.6 1.1 .7 .9 1.5 1.3 .9 1.1 1.9 1.5 1.0 1.2 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.6 2.3 1.7 1.6 1.4 2.0 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.8 1.9 1.6 1.5 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 2.3 1.8 1.5 1.4 2.4 1.8 1.6 1.5 2.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.0 1.1 1.1 .8 1.6 1.4 1.5 2.1 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.9 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.8 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.8 1.5 1.5 2.3 1.8 1.6 1.5 2.2 2.0 1.6 1.5 2.7 2.0 1.6 1.6 2.6 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.9 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.7 .8 1.0 1.0 .4 With contingent pay provisions: Without contingent pay provisions: Manufacturing: Nonmanufacturing: Goods-producing: Service-producing: 86 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 29. Specified compensation and wage rate changes from contract settlements, and wage rate changes under all agreements, State and local government collective bargaining agreements covering 1,000 workers or more (In percent) Annual average Measure 1992 1993 1994 0.6 1.9 0.9 1.8 2.8 3.1 1.1 2.1 1.1 2.1 2.7 3.0 1.9 * 2.8 3.3 .8 1.1 <4) 1.6 1.1 <4) 1.4 1.9 <4) Changes under settlements: Total compensation ' changes,2 settlements covering 5,000 workers or more: Wage changes, settlements covering 1,000 workers or more: Wage changes under all agreements: Source: ' Compensation includes wages, salaries, and employers’ cost of employee benefits when contract is negotiated. * Changes are the net result of increases, decreases, and zero change in compensation or wages, 3 Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts. 4 Less than 0.05 percent. 30. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more 1995 1994 Annual totals Measure 1993 1994 Sept. Aug. Nov. Oct. Jan.P Dec. Apr.P Mar.P Feb.P JuneP Mayp JulyP Number of stoppages: Beginning in period................... In effect during period............... 35 36 45 45 5 11 7 14 4 9 1 6 0 4 1 4 1 4 4 7 2 5 1 3 2 3 3 5 Workers involved: Beginning in period (in thousands).............................. In effect during period (in thousands).............................. 18.2 322.2 58.6 32.0 8.0 2.6 .0 37.7 3.0 17.6 32.0 14.0 2.0 8.0 18.4 322.2 88.2 59.4 32.7 26.8 17.2 52.9 18.2 32.8 56.9 28.2 13.0 20.0 3,981.0 5,020.5 678.5 638.5 505.9 420.8 342.2 368.5 306.8 367.8 529.7 336.2 262.0 279.6 .02 .02 .02 .02 .01 .01 .01 .02 .01 ■01 Days idle: Number (in thousands).............. Percent of estimated working time1 ............................. ......... .01 .02 .02 .02 1 Agricultural and government employees are included in the total employed and total working time: private household, forestry, and fishery employees are excluded. An explanation of the measurement of idleness as a percentage of the total time https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis worked is found in ‘“Total economy’ measure of strike idleness,” Monthly Labor Re view, October 1968, pp. 54-56. p = preliminary. Monthly Labor Review October 1995 87 Current Labor Statistics: Price Data 31. Consumer Price Indexes for All Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: U.S. city average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group (1982-84=100, unless otherwise Indicated) Annual average Series 1994 1995 1993 1994 Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. 144.E 432.7 148.2 444.0 149.C 446.4 149.4 447.5 149.5 448.C 149.7 448.6 149.7 448.4 150.C 450.3 150.9 452.C 151.4 453.5 151.9 455.0 152.2 455.8 152.5 456.7 152.5 457.C 152.9 458.0 Food and beverages...................................... Food......................................................... Food at home........................................ Cereals and bakery products......................... Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs..................... Dairy products............................................. Fruits and vegetables............................... Other foods at home............................... Sugar and sweets...................................... Fats and oils......................................... Nonalcoholic beverages............................. Other prepared foods.................................. Food away from home ............................... Alcoholic beverages............................. 141.6 140.9 140.1 156.6 135.5 129.4 159.0 130.5 133.4 130.0 114.6 143.7 143.2 149.6 144.9 144.3 144.1 163.0 137.2 131.7 165.0 135.6 135.2 133.5 123.2 147.5 145.7 151.5 145.3 144.8 144.7 164.7 137.1 131.8 162.8 138.9 135.1 134.1 131.3 148.4 145.9 151.3 145.6 145.6 145.G 145.0 145.0 144.8 164.8 164.6 137.3 136.8 131.3 131.5 163.2 162.9 139.4 139.5 135.4 135.6 134.2 135.0 132.1 132.7 148.8 148.5 146.2 146.4 151.4 151.6 145.9 145.3 145.1 163.7 136.9 131.7 165.7 139.0 134.5 134.3 132.4 148.1 146.8 151.9 147.2 146.8 147.3 164.2 136.4 131.6 180.3 138.8 134.5 134.2 131.7 148.1 147.1 151.8 147.9 147.5 148.2 164.6 137.3 132.7 180.4 140.3 135.5 136.4 133.3 149.4 147.4 152.0 147.8 147.4 147.9 165.8 137.6 132.1 177.1 140.6 135.8 136.8 133.7 149.7 147.6 152.4 147.9 147.4 147.6 165.3 138.4 132.2 174.0 140.7 136.4 136.8 132.9 150.5 148.1 153.1 148.9 148.4 149.2 166.9 137.7 132.1 183.1 140.9 136.7 137.2 132.9 150.6 148.3 153.6 148.7 148.3 148.7 166.6 137.3 132.8 181.0 140.8 137.3 137.1 131.7 151.3 148.6 153.9 148.4 147.S 148.1 167.5 137.1 132.2 177.5 140.6 137.3 136.4 131.5 151.2 148.8 154.0 148.5 148.1 148.2 168.2 137.3 132.9 176.7 140.7 138.1 138.0 130.8 151.4 149.1 153.8 148.9 148.4 148.4 168.8 138.7 132.8 174.0 141.3 138.7 137.5 131.3 152.2 149.4 154.5 Housing .................................... Shelter ............................................... Renters’ costs (12/82=100)............................ Rent, residential.................................... Other renters’ costs .......................... Homeowners’ costs (12/82=100)................ Owners’ equivalent rent (12/82=100)..................... Household insurance (12/82=100)................. Maintenance and repairs............................ Maintenance and repair services ................. Maintenance and repair commodities..................... Fuel and other utilities.......................................... Fuels ..................................................... Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas........................... Gas (piped) and electricity .............................. Other utilities and public services............................ Household furnishings and operations............... Housefurnishings..................................... Housekeeping supplies........................ Housekeeping services.......................... 141.2 155.7 165.0 150.3 190.3 160.2 160.5 146.9 130.6 135.0 124.6 121.3 111.2 90.3 118.5 147.0 119.3 109.5 130.7 135.8 144.8 160.5 169.4 154.0 196.3 165.5 165.8 152.3 130.8 134.5 125.8 122.8 111.7 88.8 119.2 150.2 121.0 111.0 132.3 138.5 145.9 161.7 172.1 154.5 205.9 166.1 166.4 154.0 131.2 135.4 125.6 124.3 114.0 86.8 122.2 150.6 121.4 111.5 132.2 138.9 145.8 161.6 169.4 155.0 193.5 167.1 167.3 154.3 131.6 135.8 126.0 124.2 113.8 86.8 122.1 150.3 121.4 111.2 132.6 139.3 145.7 145.5 145.4 162.0 162.1 161.8 169.8 168.9 168.2 155.2 155.6 155.7 194.0 189.2 186.2 167.5 167.9 167.8 167.8 168.2 168.1 154.5 155.0 155.4 130.8 131.2 132.7 135.9 136.4 137.0 123.8 124.3 126.8 122.4 121.8 122.0 110.8 109.9 110.1 87.0 87.7 88.4 118.5 117.3 117.4 150.4 150.5 150.6 121.4 121.1 120.8 110.9 110.8 110.3 133.7 132.6 132.9 139.4 139.1 139.1 146.4 147.0 147.4 162.9 163.8 164.5 170.7 172.9 174.6 156.1 156.4 156.7 195.0 202.9 208.7 168.4 168.9 169.2 168.7 169.1 169.5 155.9 156.1 157.1 133.1 133.8 134.2 137.3 137.9 138.8 127.5 128.2 128.2 122.9 122.6 122.3 110.7 110.4 109.8 89.4 89.6 89.0 118.0 117.6 117.1 152.1 151.8 151.9 121.8 122.4 122.6 110.5 111.1 111.2 133.8 134.6 135.7 142.4 142.8 142.9 147.4 164.7 174.1 157.0 206.0 169.6 169.9 157.2 134.2 139.0 127.6 122.1 109.3 88.4 116.6 152.2 122.6 111.2 135.9 142.9 147.6 164.8 173.7 157.2 203.4 170.0 170.3 157.4 134.6 139.4 128.1 122.5 109.8 88.3 117.2 152.3 122.7 111.0 136.4 143.3 148.5 165.5 174.7 157.5 206.6 170.6 170.9 158.1 135.0 139.4 129.0 125.0 113.8 87.9 121.9 152.7 122.5 110.7 136.4 143.1 149.2 166.4 176.7 157.9 213.5 171.2 171.4 158.3 135.1 139.8 128.7 125.1 113.7 87.1 121.9 153.0 123.0 111.1 137.4 143.6 149.6 166.8 176.9 158.2 213.7 171.6 171.9 158.7 135.4 140.3 128.8 125.7 114.6 86.6 123.0 153.1 123.4 111.5 138.0 143.9 Apparel and upkeep.......................................... Apparel commodities............................... Men’s and boys’ apparel............................... Women’s and girls’ apparel ...................... Infants’ and toddlers’ apparel...................... Footwear.............................................. Other apparel commodities...................... Apparel services................................... 133.7 131.0 127.5 132.6 127.1 125.9 145.6 151.7 133.4 130.4 126.4 130.9 128.1 126.0 149.5 155.4 131.1 127.8 125.7 125.5 128.6 124.5 152.4 155.9 134.2 131.2 128.4 131.1 129.5 125.1 152.3 156.3 135.2 132.3 128.9 133.4 128.6 125.5 151.4 156.4 134.2 131.1 129.2 130.5 131.2 125.7 150.8 156.3 130.5 127.2 125.3 125.7 131.3 123.6 146.5 156.4 129.4 126.0 124.0 123.0 129.0 124.0 150.1 157.0 131.1 127.7 125.6 125.9 126.8 124.8 150.4 157.3 134.4 131.3 127.2 131.5 127.1 125.9 155.0 157.6 134.8 131.7 127.0 132.2 127.1 127.2 154.4 157.7 133.4 130.2 127.9 129.6 123.6 126.6 150.3 157.7 130.5 127.1 125.5 124.4 121.6 124.6 153.6 156.9 128.3 124.8 123.4 121.1 123.0 123.3 151.8 157.2 130.1 126.7 124.5 123.5 128.0 123.6 155.4 157.3 Transportation ........................................ Private transportation.................................. New vehicles............................... New cars........................................... Used cars........................................ Motor fuel.............................................. Gasoline............................................ Maintenance and repair........................... Other private transportation........................... Other private transportation commodities.............. Other private transportation services.............. Public transportation............................ 130.4 127.5 132.7 131.5 133.9 98.0 97.7 145.9 156.8 103.4 169.1 167.0 134.3 131.4 137.6 136.0 141.7 98.5 98.2 150.2 162.1 103.5 175.8 172.0 135.9 133.0 137.3 135.6 144.0 104.1 104.1 150.7 162.0 103.3 175.7 173.2 135.9 133.1 137.5 135.7 145.4 103.7 103.6 151.2 162.1 103.2 175.8 171.7 136.1 133.6 138.4 136.6 147.7 101.8 101.7 151.7 164.1 103.1 178.4 168.4 137.1 134.8 139.4 137.7 150.1 102.7 102.6 151.8 166.2 104.0 180.7 167.2 137.1 134.9 140.1 138.5 151.5 100.4 100.2 151.9 167.6 104.3 182.4 165.6 137.3 134.9 140.6 139.0 152.4 98.7 98.4 152.0 168.8 104.2 184.0 168.4 137.5 135.0 140.7 139.1 153.3 98.0 97.7 152.5 169.4 104.6 184.6 169.9 138.0 135.2 140.7 139.0 154.8 97.5 97.2 152.7 170.2 104.6 185.6 174.5 139.1 136.2 141.1 139.3 156.7 99.5 99.3 153.2 170.9 104.5 186.5 176.7 140.3 137.5 141.1 139.3 157.7 104.2 104.2 153.8 170.5 104.7 185.9 176.7 141.1 137.9 141.0 139.1 158.3 106.1 106.3 153.6 169.9 104.6 185.2 182.5 140.1 136.9 140.3 138.3 157.5 103.6 103.7 154.0 169.6 104.8 184.8 181.8 139.2 136.3 140.0 137.9 157.0 101.1 101.0 154.5 170.3 105.0 185.7 177.1 Medical care........................................... Medical care commodities........................ Medical care services............................... Professional services.......................... Hospital and related services.......................... 201.4 195.0 202.9 184.7 231.9 211.0 200.7 213.4 192.5 245.6 212.2 201.7 214.7 193.5 247.3 212.8 201.7 215.4 194.0 248.1 214.0 202.2 216.8 195.1 249.8 214.7 202.7 217.5 195.5 250.6 215.3 202.9 218.2 196.0 251.3 216.6 203.1 219.8 197.2 253.2 217.9 203.5 221.3 198.5 254.7 218.4 203.7 221.8 199.1 254.7 218.9 203.6 222.4 199.5 255.3 219.3 203.4 223.0 200.2 255.6 219.8 203.8 223.5 200.8 255.9 220.8 204.4 224.6 201.6 257.6 221.6 204.7 225.6 202.0 259.4 Entertainment........................................ Entertainment commodities ...................... Entertainment services......................... 145.8 133.4 160.8 150.1 136.1 166.8 150.2 136.5 166.6 150.7 137.0 167.1 151.0 136.9 167.7 151.6 137.3 168.6 151.2 136.8 168.3 152.1 137.5 169.4 152.5 137.4 170.2 152.6 137.3 170.7 153.3 138.1 171.3 153.6 138.1 171.8 153.2 138.1 171.2 153.6 138.5 171.4 154 1 139.0 172.0 Other goods and services ...................................... Tobacco products ........................................ Personal care.................................................... Toilet goods and personal care appliances........................... Personal care services .................................. Personal and educational expenses................................... School books and supplies....................................... Personal and educational services............................. 192.9 228.4 141.5 139.0 144.0 210.7 197.6 211.9 198.5 220.0 144.6 141.5 147.9 223.2 205.5 224.8 199.4 221.7 145.0 141.9 148.3 223.9 205.8 225.5 201.4 220.8 145.1 141.8 148.7 228.0 208.4 229.7 201.9 221.3 145.3 142.0 148.7 228.8 207.7 230.6 202.3 221.4 145.7 142.3 149.2 229.2 207.7 231.1 202.4 222.0 145.8 142.6 149.2 229.2 207.4 231.1 203.0 222.2 145.7 142.2 149.4 230.2 211.9 231.8 204.1 222.7 146.2 142.6 150.1 232.0 212.5 233.6 204.0 222.5 146.0 142.2 150.2 232.0 212.6 233.6 204.3 223.0 146.3 142.2 150.7 232.1 212.7 233.8 204.9 205.3 225.3 226.4 146.6 146.7 142.9 142.8 150.6 151.0 232.3 232.5 212.2 212.7 234.0 234.2 205.7 226.2 146.9 142.7 151.4 233.3 212.9 235.1 207.7 227.4 147.3 143.2 151.7 236.3 213.1 238.2 CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR ALL URBAN CONSUMERS: All Items.............................................. All items (1967=100) ...................................... See footnotes at end of table. 88 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 31. Continued— Consumer Price Indexes for All Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: U.S. city average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group (1982-84=100, unless otherwise indicated) Series Special indexes: Purchasing power of the consumer dollar: 1995 1994 Annual average L Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. 149.4 134.8 145.6 128.1 130.3 131.2 132.8 125.1 149.5 134.9 145.6 128.3 130.2 132.3 132.2 125.7 149.7 135.2 145.9 128.6 130.1 131.1 132.5 126.5 149.7 135.1 147.2 127.6 128.1 127.2 131.5 126.9 150.3 135.1 147.9 127.4 127.5 126.0 131.2 127.2 150.9 135.4 147.8 127.9 128.1 127.7 131.3 127.6 151.4 135.9 147.9 128.6 129.2 131.3 131.1 127.7 151.9 136.6 148.9 129.2 129.9 131.7 132.0 128.1 152.2 136.9 148.7 129.7 130.8 130.2 134.2 128.1 152.5 136.6 148.4 129.4 130.4 127.1 135.1 128.0 152.5 136.2 148.6 128.5 129.1 124.8 134.3 127.8 152.9 136.3 148.9 128.6 129.3 126.7 133.6 127.7 164.2 168.2 138.0 168.9 214.7 185.8 164.4 168.2 137.9 168.8 215.4 187.8 164.6 168.6 136.3 169.5 216.8 188.5 164.7 168.6 135.8 170.5 217.5 189.0 164.7 168.3 135.9 171.1 218.2 188.9 165.9 169.4 137.2 172.6 219.8 189.7 166.7 170.4 137.0 173.4 221.3 190.9 167.3 171.2 136.9 175.0 221.8 191.1 167.5 171.3 136.7 176.1 222.4 191.4 167.7 171.5 137.1 175.9 223.0 191.7 168.6 172.2 139.5 176.8 223.5 191.5 169.2 173.2 139.7 176.5 224.6 192.1 169.8 173.6 140.3 176.0 225.6 193.7 149.0 144.8 149.5 144.7 127.9 129.7 131.6 136.8 170.7 158.4 104.6 154.1 156.5 137.1 97.6 167.6 149.8 145.5 150.4 145.5 128.4 130.4 133.7 137.4 171.7 159.4 108.5 154.6 157.0 136.8 102.4 168.5 150.2 146.0 150.6 145.8 129.0 131.4 133.7 138.1 172.2 159.6 108.2 155.0 157.5 137.7 102.0 168.8 150.4 146.1 150.7 145.9 129.3 131.4 133.2 138.1 172.2 159.7 105.8 155.5 158.0 138.3 100.4 169.3 150.6 146.3 150.9 146.1 129.5 131.2 133.5 138.2 172.4 159.8 105.7 155.7 158.2 138.4 101.2 169.6 150.2 150.8 146.3 146.8 150.8 151.5 146.0 146.6 128.5 128.3 129.5 128.9 132.6 132.4 137.8 137.8 172.7 174.0 159.7 160.9 104.7 104.2 155.7 156.5 157.9 158.7 137.6 137.7 97.9 99.2 169.6 170.8 151.5 152.1 147.2 147.7 152.1 152.7 147.1 147.6 128.8 129.5 129.5 130.5 132.5 132.4 138.1 138.7 174.7 175.1 161.6 162.2 103.7 103.2 157.2 157.8 159.6 160.4 138.4 139.4 96.7 97.2 171.7 172.4 152.5 148.3 153.2 148.1 130.1 131.3 133.3 139.6 175.5 162.4 103.9 158.3 160.7 139.7 98.4 172.7 152.9 148.6 153.4 148.4 130.6 132.1 135.2 139.9 175.8 162.6 106.3 158.3 160.8 139.6 102.6 172.9 153.3 153.4 148.8 148.6 153.7 153.7 148.7 148.7 130.4 129.5 131.7 130.5 136.0 135.3 139.6 139.0 176.9 177.3 163.5 164.1 109.3 108.1 158.3 158.5 160:9 161.1 138.9 138.3 104.3 101.9 173.4 174.1 153.7 148.9 154.0 149.0 129.7 130.8 134.8 139.3 177.9 164.6 107.4 159.0 161.6 138.9 99.7 174.6 69.2 23.1 67.5 22.5 67.1 22.4 66.9 22.3 66.9 22.3 66.8 22.3 66.8 22.3 66.5 22.2 66.3 22.1 66.0 22.0 65.8 22.0 65.7 21.9 65.6 21.9 65.6 21.9 65.4 21.8 142.1 423.1 145.6 433.8 146.5 436.4 146.9 437.5 147.0 437.8 147.3 438.6 147.2 438.6 147.8 440.2 148.3 441.7 148.7 443.0 149.3 444.6 149.6 445.6 149.9 446.5 149.9 446.5 150.2 447.4 141.2 140.5 139.6 156.3 135.4 129.1 158.2 130.4 133.1 129.9 115.1 143.5 143.1 149.3 144.4 143.9 143.4 162.7 137.0 131.5 164.2 135.3 135.2 133.5 122.9 147.2 145.5 151.0 144.9 144.4 144.1 164.4 136.9 131.6 162.3 138.3 135.1 134.0 130.2 148.1 145.8 150.7 145.1 144.6 144.4 164.6 137.2 131.0 162.6 138.8 135.4 134.2 130.9 148.5 146.1 150.9 145.1 144.6 144.1 164.3 136.6 131.2 162.0 139.0 135.7 135.0 131.5 148.2 146.3 151.1 145.3 144.8 144.3 163.5 136.7 131.4 164.5 138.5 134.5 134.1 131.1 147.8 146.7 151.3 146.6 146.2 146.3 163.9 136.0 131.4 178.8 138.3 134.4 134.1 130.6 148.0 147.0 151.4 147.2 146.9 147.2 164.3 137.1 132.4 178.8 139.7 135.5 136.3 132.2 149.1 147.3 151.6 147.3 146.9 147.1 165.6 137.4 131.8 175.8 140.2 135.8 136.7 132.9 149.5 147.5 152.0 147.3 146.8 146.8 165.1 138.1 131.9 172.7 140.3 136.4 136.7 132.2 150.2 147.9 152.7 148.3 147.9 148.2 166.7 137.3 131.8 182.1 140.4 136.6 137.1 132.1 150.3 148.2 153.2 148.1 147.7 147.8 166.3 136.9 132.5 179.8 140.4 137.3 136.9 131.0 151.0 148.5 153.4 147.8 147.4 147.2 167.3 136.6 131.9 176.7 140.2 137.3 136.3 130.7 151.0 148.7 153.4 148.0 147.6 147.4 167.9 137.0 132.5 176.1 140.3 138.0 137.9 130.0 151.1 149.0 153.1 148.3 147.9 147.7 168.5 138.3 132.5 173.5 140.8 138.6 137.4 130.6 151.9 149.2 153.8 138.5 151.6 144.7 150.0 190.2 146.1 146.3 134.4 130.9 138.6 120.7 121.1 110.7 90.2 118.0 147.7 118.C 108.3 131.1 137.4 142.0 156.2 148.5 153.7 196.6 150.9 151.1 139.7 130.8 138.1 121.1 122.5 111.1 88.7 118.7 150.8 119.7 109.8 132.8 140.8 143.0 157.2 150.3 154.2 206.7 151.5 151.7 141.4 131.3 139.1 120.9 124.0 113.5 86.6 121.6 151.1 120.C 110.1 132.5 140.8 143.0 157.4 148.9 154.7 194.1 152.3 152.6 141.7 131.8 139.4 121.6 123.9 113.3 86.7 121.5 150.9 120.C 109.8 132.8 141.5 142.8 157.7 149.2 154.9 194.4 152.8 153.0 141.9 131.0 139.5 120.0 122.0 110.2 86.9 117.8 150.9 120.1 109.5 133.8 141.7 142.7 157.9 148.8 155.4 189.6 153.1 153.3 142.4 131.4 140.0 120.2 121.5 109.3 87.6 116.7 150.9 119.8 109.5 133.C 141.4 142.7 157.7 148.5 155.4 187.2 153.1 153.3 142.9 132.4 140.3 121.9 121.6 109.5 88.3 116.8 151.1 119.7 109.1 133.C 141.5 143.5 158.6 149.9 155.7 195.3 153.6 153.8 143.2 132.8 140.5 122.5 122.5 110.1 89.3 117.4 152.4 120.5 109.2 134.1 145.6 144.0 144.3 159.3 159.9 151.3 152.3 156.1 156.4 202.9 208.5 154.0 154.3 154.2 154.5 143.4 144.2 133.2 133.7 140.8 141.7 123.0 123.1 122.2 121.9 109.7 109.1 88.9 89.5 116.9 116.3 152.2 152.3 121.2 121.4 109.9 109.9 134.8 135.9 146.C 146.1 144.4 160.1 152.1 156.7 205.8 154.7 154.9 144.5 133.7 141.9 122.9 121.6 108.4 88.3 115.6 152.7 121.4 109.9 136.3 145.9 144.6 160.3 152.0 156.9 203.8 155.1 155.3 144.6 134.1 142.3 123.2 122.0 109.1 88.2 116.3 152.8 121.5 109.8 136.6 146.2 145.5 160.9 152.6 157.2 206.2 155.6 155.8 145.2 134.4 142.4 123.8 124.6 113.1 87.8 121.1 153.2 121.3 109.5 136.7 146.1 146.1 161.7 153.9 157.5 213.7 156.1 156.3 145.4 134.7 142.9 124.0 124.6 113.1 87.0 121.2 153.4 121.8 109.9 137.6 146.6 146.5 162.1 154.2 157.8 214.2 156.5 156.8 145.7 134.9 143.0 124.1 125.3 114.0 86.5 122.4 153.5 122.2 110.2 138.3 146.9 October 1995 89 1993 1994 Aug. 144.5 131.5 141.6 125.3 128.1 131.0 129.6 121.3 148.2 133.8 144.9 126.9 128.4 130.4 130.3 124.8 149.0 134.3 145.3 127.5 129.2 127.8 132.8 125.1 157.9 162.0 134.2 162.9 202.9 177.0 163.1 167.0 136.3 168.6 213.4 185.4 145.1 141.4 146.0 141.2 126.3 129.3 130.7 135.1 164.8 153.6 104.2 150.0 152.2 135.2 97.3 161.9 Sept. CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR URBAN WAGE EARNERS AND CLERICAL WORKERS: See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review Current Labor Statistics: Price Data 31. Continued— Consumer Price Indexes for All Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers- U S cltv average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group 1 (1982-84=100, unless otherwise indicated) Annual average Series 1994 1995 1994 Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Apparel and upkeep................. . Apparel commodities.............. Men's and boys’ apparel....... Women's and girls’ apparel .... Infants' and toddlers’ apparel. Footwear.............................. Other apparel commodities... Apparel services...................... 132.2 129.4 125.8 129.2 129.3 126.9 148.7 154.9 130.2 127.2 125.3 124.5 129.9 125.3 151.5 155.4 133.1 130.2 127.8 129.4 131.1 126.0 151.3 155.9 133.9 131.1 128.1 131.7 130.3 126.3 149.9 156.0 133.C 130.1 128.4 129.1 133.2 126.1 149.1 155.8 129.3 126.1 124.5 124.0 132.9 124.2 144.1 155.9 128.C 125.C 123.6 121.2 130.3 124.4 149.1 156.5 130.C 126.6 125.2 124.3 127.C 125.3 149.7 156.8 133.2 130.C 126.7 129.8 127.4 126.8 154.6 157.1 133.e 130.7 126.Í 130.6 127.7 127.8 153.5 157.2 132.1 129.1 127.6 128.1 123.8 127.4 146.8 157.1 129.6 126.4 125.6 123.8 122.4 125.6 151.6 156.5 127.4 124.C 123.1 120.C 123.5 124.2 149.3 156.8 129.1 125.8 124.2 121.9 129.1 124.4 153.7 156.9 Transportation.............................................. Private transportation.................................. New vehicles........................................... New cars............................................... Used cars............................................... Motor fuel............................................... Gasoline............................................... Maintenance and repair............................ Other private transportation...................... Other private transportation commodities Other private transportation services...... . Public transportation................................... 133.4 131.4 138.3 135.7 142.4 98.4 98.2 150.9 157.9 102.8 171.5 167.7 135.2 133.3 138.2 135.3 144.7 104.2 104.3 151.4 157.8 102.6 171.5 168.7 135.3 133.5 138.4 135.4 146.1 103.7 103.7 151.9 158.0 102.4 171.8 167.6 135.6 133.9 139.2 136.3 148.4 101.7 101.5 152.4 160.0 102.4 174.3 164.8 136.7 135.1 140.1 137.3 150.8 102.6 102.5 152.5 162.0 103.2 176.6 163.8 136.7 135.2 140.9 138.1 152.1 100.2 100.0 152.6 163.4 103.5 178.4 162.5 136.9 135.2 141.2 138.6 153.0 98.5 98.3 152.7 164.7 103.4 180.0 164.8 137.1 135.4 141.4 138.7 154.0 97.8 97.5 153.3 165.4 103.8 180.9 166.5 137.6 135.7 141.5 138.7 155.5 97.3 97.0 153.5 166.3 103.8 181.9 170.1 138.7 136.8 141.9 139.0 157.4 99.5 99.3 154.0 166.9 103.7 182.8 172.3 140.1 138.3 141.9 138.9 158.4 104.2 104.3 154.6 166.5 103.9 182.2 172.5 140.8 138.7 141.8 138.7 159.1 106.2 106.4 154.5 166.0 103.8 181.6 177.2 139.8 137.7 141.3 138.1 158.4 103.5 103.6 154.9 165.6 104.0 181.1 176.6 138.9 136.9 140.9 137.6 157.9 101.0 101.0 155.3 166.1 104.2 181.5 172.6 211.5 199.5 214.2 194.4 244.4 212.0 199.3 214.9 194.9 245.2 213.4 199.9 216.4 196.0 246.9 214.0 200.6 217.1 196.5 247.7 214.6 200.8 217.7 196.9 248.5 215.9 200.9 219.3 198.1 250.5 217.3 201.3 220.9 199.4 252.1 217.7 201.5 221.4 200.0 252.2 218.2 201.3 222.0 200.5 252.8 218.7 201.0 222.6 201.2 253.1 219.2 201.5 223.2 201.9 253.4 220.2 202.2 224.3 202.7 255.0 221.1 202.6 225.3 203.2 256.8 150.1 136.8 169.2 150.4 136.8 170.1 150.6 136.7 170.6 151.3 137.5 171.2 151.5 137.5 171.8 151.2 137.4 171.2 151.5 137.7 171.4 152.0 138.2 172.0 1993 .. 102.8 Medical care............................. Medical care commodities ...... Medical care services............. Professional services........... Hospital and related services . . . 202.7 185.2 229.2 210.4 198.6 213.0 193.4 242.7 Entertainment...................... Entertainment commodities Entertainment services...... . . . 144.1 132.9 160.5 148.2 135.5 166.7 148.3 135.9 166.5 148.6 136.0 167.0 149.0 136.2 167.5 149.6 136.6 168.5 149.2 136.1 168.3 Other goods and services............................. Tobacco products....................................... Personal care.............................................. Toilet goods and personal care appliances. Personal care services............................. Personal and educational expenses............. School books and supplies....................... Personal and educational services............ . . . . 192.2 228.3 141.6 139.6 143.9 206.9 199.2 207.8 196.4 220.1 144.8 142.2 147.9 219.2 207.1 220.4 197.5 222.1 145.2 142.6 148.2 220.2 207.5 221.5 198.9 221.1 145.4 142.6 148.6 223.6 209.8 225.0 199.4 221.6 145.5 142.8 148.6 224.4 208.8 225.9 199.8 221.7 145.9 143.1 149.1 224.9 208.8 226.5 200.0 200.5 222.2 222.4 146.1 146.0 143.5 143.1 149.2 149.5 224.9 226.0 208.5 213.4 226.5 227.2 201.5 201.4 201.7 222.9 222.6 223.1 146.4 146.1 146.5 143.4 142.9 143.1 150.1 150.2 150.7 227.5 227.7 227.8 213.4 213.6 213.7 228.9 229.0 229.2 202.5 225.4 146.8 143.7 150.6 228.0 213.2 229.5 203.0 226.5 146.8 143.5 150.9 228.4 213.6 229.8 203.3 226.3 146.9 143.3 151.3 229.2 213.8 230.6 205.0 227.4 147.4 143.8 151.7 231.9 214.1 233.6 142.1 131.2 141.2 125.0 127.7 129.8 129.7 120.1 145.6 133.4 144.4 126.6 127.9 129.4 130.1 123.8 146.5 134.1 144.9 127.5 129.1 127.2 133.0 124.3 146.9 134.6 145.1 128.1 129.9 130.2 132.8 124.4 147.0 134.7 145.1 128.2 129.7 131.1 132.0 125.1 147.3 135.0 145.3 128.6 129.7 130.1 132.4 126.0 147.2 134.8 146.6 127.6 127.7 126.1 131.3 126.5 147.8 134.9 147.2 127.4 127.0 125.0 130.9 126.8 148.3 135.3 147.3 127.9 127.6 126.8 130.8 127.2 148.7 135.7 147.3 128.6 128.5 130.3 130.6 127.5 149.3 136.5 148.3 129.3 129.4 130.7 131.7 128.0 149.6 136.9 148.1 130.0 130.5 129.1 134.2 128.1 149.9 136.7 147.8 129.9 130.3 126.4 135.2 128.1 149.9 136.2 148.0 128.9 128.9 124.0 134.2 127.9 150.2 136.3 148.3 128.9 128.9 125.8 133.4 127.8 Services..................................................................... Rent of shelter (12/84=100).................................... Household services less rent of shelter (12/84=100). Transportation services............................................. Medical care services............................................... Other services .................................... 155.5 145.8 123.5 160.0 202.7 174.1 160.6 150.3 125.4 165.7 213.0 182.4 161.6 151.3 126.9 165.9 214.2 182.9 161.9 151.4 126.9 166.0 214.9 184.7 162.1 151.8 125.2 167.2 216.4 185.3 162.3 151.9 124.7 168.4 217.1 185.9 162.4 151.7 124.9 169.2 217.7 185.9 163.4 152.5 126.1 170.6 219.3 186.6 164.1 153.3 125.8 171.5 220.9 187.7 164.6 153.8 125.6 172.8 221.4 188.0 164.8 154.0 125.4 173.8 222.0 188.3 165.1 154.2 125.9 173.6 222.6 188.6 166.0 154.8 128.2 174.0 223.2 188.5 166.5 155.5 128.3 173.7 224.3 189.0 167.0 156.0 128.9 173.4 225.3 190.6 Special indexes: All items less food........................................... All items less shelter....................................... All items less homeowners' costs (12/84=100). All items less medical care............................... Commodities less food..................................... Nondurables less food..................................... Nondurables less food and apparel.................. Nondurables.................................................... Services less rent of shelter (12/84=100)........ Services less medical care............................... Energy............................................................. All items less energy........................................ All items less food and energy......................... Commodities less food and energy................... Energy commodities........................................ Services less energy......................................... 142.3 145.9 146.8 139.7 143.0 143.8 133.9 137.0 137.9 139.2 142.6 143.4 125.9 127.6 128.4 128.9 129.2 130.3 130.7 131.2 133.7 134.7 136.4 137.3 147.0 152.1 153.0 151.4 156.1 157.1 103.6 104.1 108.2 147.5 151.5 151.9 149.3 153.5 153.9 134.3 136.2 136.1 97.5 97.8 102.9 159.7 165.3 166.0 All items................................................................... Commodities........................................................... Food and beverages............................................. Commodities less food and beverages.................. Nondurables less food and beverages................ Apparel commodities........................................ Nondurables less food, beverages, and apparel Durables......................................... Purchasing power of the consumer dollar: 1982-84=$1.00.................................... 1967=$1.00......................................... 90 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 70.4 23.6 October 1995 68.7 23.1 68.3 22.9 147.2 147.4 144.2 144.3 138.1 138.2 143.8 143.8 128.9 129.1 131.1 130.9 133.6 133.0 137.8 137.7 153.5 153.4 157.3 157.4 107.8 105.3 152.4 152.9 154.4 155.0 136.9 137.5 102.4 100.6 166.4 167.0 68.1 22.9 68.0 22.8 147.7 147.4 147.9 148.5 149.0 149.5 149.9 150.3 150.3 150.6 144.6 144.6 145.0 145.5 145.9 146.5 146.9 147.1 146.8 147.1 138.4 138.4 139.0 139.4 139.9 140.4 140.7 141.0 140.9 141.2 144.1 144.0 144.6 145.0 145.5 146.0 146.3 146.6 146.6 146.9 129.4 128.5 128.3 128.8 129.5 130.2 130.9 130.8 129.9 129.9 130.8 129.0 128.4 129.0 129.9 130.7 131.8 131.6 130.3 130.4 133.3 132.4 132.0 132.0 131.9 132.9 135.1 136.0 135.1 134.5 137.8 137.4 137.4 137.7 138.2 139.1 139.6 139.4 138.8 138.9 153.7 154.0 155.2 155.8 156.1 156.4 156.7 157.7 157.9 158.6 157.6 157.6 158.6 159.3 159.7 160.0 160.2 161.1 161.5 162.1 105.3 104.2 103.6 103.1 102.5 103.3 106.0 109.0 107.6 106.8 153.2 153.3 154.0 154.6 155.2 155.7 155.7 155.7 155.8 156.3 155.3 155.1 155.8 156.6 157.3 157.7 157.8 157.9 158.0 158.5 137.7 137.1 137.1 137.9 138.8 139.3 139.1 138.6 138.1 138.6 101.5 99.4 98.0 97.3 96.8 98.7 103.1 104.8 102.3 100.0 167.4 167.5 168.5 169.3 169.9 170.3 170.5 170.9 171.5 172.0 67.9 22.8 67.9 22.8 67.7 22.7 67.4 22.6 67.2 22.6 67.0 22.5 66.8 22.4 66.7 22.4 66.7 22.4 66.6 22.3 32. Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and available local area data: all items (1982-84=100, unless otherwise indicateci) Urban Wage Earners All Urban Consumers Area’ Pricing schedule2 July U.S. city average................. 1995 1994 Aug. Apr. May June July Aug. July Aug. Apr. May June July Aug. 150.2 M 148.4 149.0 151.9 152.2 152.5 152.5 152.9 145.8 146.5 149.3 149.6 149.9 149.9 M 155.2 155.9 158.3 158.5 158.9 159.2 159.7 152.7 153.4 155.8 156.1 156.4 156.6 157.1 155.7 156.1 156.1 156.7 154.3 154.5 155.3 155.7 159.2 145.5 159.8 145.6 R e g io n an d a re a s ize3 Northeast urban.................... Size A - More than 1,200,000 ........................... Size B - 500,000 to 1,200,000 ........................... Size C - 50,000 to 500,000 ............................. North Central urban .............. Size A - More than 1,200,000 ........................... Size B - 360,000 to 1,200,000 ........................... Size C - 50,000 to 360,000 ............................. Size D - Nonmetro politan (less than 50,0000 ..................... South urban.......................... Size A - More than 1,200,000 ........................... Size B - 450,000 to 1,200,000 ........................... Size C - 50,000 to 450,000 ............................. Size D - Nonmetro politan (less than 50,000) ...................... West urban........................... Size A - More than 1,250,000 ........................... Size C - 50,000 to 330,000 ............................. 1995 1994 M 155.7 156.6 159.0 159.2 159.6 159.8 160.3 152.2 153.1 155.4 M 154.3 154.8 156.3 156.4 156.5 157.5 157.9 152.3 152.8 154.2 M M 152.9 144.3 153.8 145.2 157.0 148.1 157.1 148.3 157.2 148.7 157.8 148.8 158.5 148.9 154.4 141.3 155.2 142.2 158.6 145.0 158.8 145.2 158.9 145.6 M 145.4 146.3 149.0 149.0 149.5 149.5 149.8 141.6 142.6 145.3 145.2 145.7 145.6 145.8 144.1 144.0 M 143.6 144.4 146.9 147.3 147.7 148.0 147.8 140.1 141.0 143.4 143.9 144.2 M 145.0 145.9 149.5 150.0 149.9 149.6 149.9 142.6 143.6 146.9 147.5 147.4 147.1 147.3 M M 140.2 145.0 140.8 145.5 143.9 148.4 144.6 148.8 145.4 149.1 146.0 149.2 145.7 149.7 138.9 143.6 139.5 144.1 142.2 147.0 142.9 147.4 143.7 147.8 144.2 147.8 144.0 148.3 M 145.3 145.7 148.3 148.7 148.8 148.8 149.4 143.6 144.1 146.4 147.1 147.2 147.2 147.6 150.8 151.3 151.5 152.0 143.7 144.5 147.4 147.4 147.8 147.9 148.3 M 147.1 147.9 150.9 M 143.8 144.3 147.3 147.6 148.5 148.4 149.4 143.7 144.2 147.3 147.8 148.6 148.5 149.4 M M 142.7 149.5 142.9 150.1 147.1 153.2 148.0 153.5 147.8 153.6 148.1 153.5 147.8 153.7 142.9 146.7 143.2 147.2 147.3 150.3 148.2 150.6 148.1 150.7 148.3 150.5 148.3 150.7 M 150.9 151.3 154.0 154.2 154.1 154.0 154.1 146.5 146.9 149.6 149.7 149.8 149.5 149.6 M 150.0 151.1 155.9 156.4 156.6 156.7 157.0 147.7 148.6 152.8 153.8 153.8 153.7 153.9 M M M M 134.6 148.1 146.8 143.8 135.2 148.8 147.5 144.0 137.5 151.6 151.0 147.7 137.7 151.8 151.4 148.5 137.9 152.1 151.8 148.9 137.9 152.6 151.8 149.1 138.2 152.8 152.4 148.8 133.6 145.5 146.1 143.2 134.3 146.3 146.8 143.4 136.6 148.9 150.2 147.0 136.8 149.1 150.7 147.9 137.0 149.4 151.1 148.2 136.9 149.7 150.9 148.4 137.2 150.0 151.5 148.2 Chicago, IL-Northwestern IN ... Los Angeles-Long Beach, Anaheim, CA.......... New York, NYNortheastern NJ.................. Philadelphia, PA-NJ............... San FranciscoOakland, CA........................ M 148.3 149.8 153.1 153.0 153.5 153.6 153.8 143.7 145.1 148.3 148.2 148.5 148.7 148.8 149.3 149.2 Size classes: A (12/86-100).................. B ........................................ C ....................................... D ....................................... S e le c te d local are a s M 151.7 152.0 154.7 155.1 154.8 154.5 154.4 146.5 146.8 149.5 149.8 149.7 M M 158.2 155.3 159.1 155.7 161.4 157.8 161.8 157.8 162.2 158.4 162.3 158.9 162.8 159.6 154.4 154.9 155.3 155.3 157.5 157.4 158.0 157.4 158.4 158.1 158.3 158.5 158.9 159.2 M 148.9 149.4 151.5 151.3 151.7 151.5 151.5 146.6 147.1 149.4 149.0 149.6 149.3 149.3 Baltimore, M D ...................... Boston, MA .......................... Cleveland, OH...................... Miami, FL............................. St. Louis, MO-IL.................... Washington, DC-MD-VA ........ 1 1 1 1 1 1 148.2 153.9 143.7 143.4 141.9 151.8 150.4 157.7 147.4 148.6 144.6 154.7 _ 151.5 157.8 148.1 148.3 145.6 156.1 _ 147.3 152.9 136.3 141.4 141.4 149.4 - - - 149.4 156.5 139.9 146.8 144.2 152.3 - 150.5 156.6 140.3 146.5 145.2 153.5 " Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX.............. Detroit, M l............................ Houston, T X ......................... Pittsburgh, P A ...................... 2 2 2 2 _ 144.4 148.3 139.9 149.2 _ 145.1 148.8 140.1 150.1 - 144.4 143.7 139.5 143.0 _ - _ _ - - - - 142.2 145.3 139.2 145.7 145.0 148.1 138.0 148.9 - ” 1 Area definitions are those established by the Office of Manage ment and Budget in 1983, except for Boston-Lawrence-Salem, MA-NH, Area (excludes Monroe County); and Milwaukee, Wl, Area (includes only the Milwaukee MSA). Definitions do not include revisions made since 1983. Excludes farms and the military. 2 Foods, fuels, and several other items priced every month in all areas; most other goods and services priced as indicated:. M - Every month. 1 - January, March, May, July, September, and November. 2 - February, April, June, August, October, and December. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - - - - - - 141.6 141.0 138.8 139.4 144.5 143.6 137.6 142.6 - - - - " 144.8 144.0 139.8 143.7 " " 3 Regions are defined as the four Census regions. - Data not available. NOTE: Local area CPI indexes are byproducts of the national CPI program. Because each local Index Is a small subset of the national in dex, it has a smaller sample size and is, therefore, subject to substan tially more sampling and other measurement error than the national in dex. As a result, local area indexes show greater volatility than the na tional Index, although their long-term trends are quite similar. Therefore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics strongly urges users to consider adopting the national average CPI for use in escalator clauses. Monthly Labor Review October 1995 91 Current Labor Statistics: 33. Price Data Annual data: Consumer Price Index, U.S. city average, all items and major groups (1982-84=100) Series Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All items: Index............................ Percent change......................... Food and beverages: Index............................ Percent change...................... Housing: Index................................ Percent change........................... Apparel and upkeep: Index................................ Percent change..................... Transportation: Index.............................. Percent change........................ Medical care: Index................................ Percent change........................ Entertainment: Index............................. Percent change......................... Other goods and services: Index........................... Percent change........................ Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: All items: Index..................................... Percent change...................... 92 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 1986 1987 1988 1989 1991 1992 1993 1994 5.4 136.2 4.2 140.3 3.0 144.5 3.0 148.2 2.6 5.7 5.8 136.8 3.6 138.7 1.4 141.6 2.1 144.9 2.3 3.8 128.5 4.5 133.6 4.0 137.5 2.9 141.2 2.7 144.8 2.5 4.6 128.7 3.7 131.9 2.5 133.7 1.4 133.4 -.2 1.9 3.3 110.9 3.0 3.0 1990 .... 105.9 2.8 ... . 102.3 -3.9 3.0 5.0 120.5 5.6 123.8 2.7 126.5 2.2 130.4 3.1 134.3 3.0 122.0 7.5 6.6 7.7 9.0 177.0 8.7 190.1 7.4 201.4 5.9 211.0 4.8 111.6 3.4 3.3 5.2 4.7 138.4 4.5 142.3 2.8 145.8 2.5 150.1 2.9 121.4 6.0 5.8 171.6 7.9 183.3 6.8 192.9 5.2 198.5 2.9 108.6 1.6 3.6 134.3 4.1 138.2 2.9 142.1 2.8 145.6 2.5 4.8 129.0 5.2 34. Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing (1982 = 100) 1995 1994 Annual average G ro uping 1993 1994 Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. 124.7 123.0 125.7 125.5 123.3 126.8 125.6 123.5 126.3 125.8 123.4 126.1 126.1 123.8 126.9 126.2 123.9 128.6 126.6 124.2 127.9 126.9 124.5 128.4 127.1 124.7 128.7 127.6 125.2 128.7 128.0 125.8 127.9 128.2 126.0 127.4 128.3 126.0 128.5 128.1 125.8 128.6 Nondurable goods less food .............. Durable goods................................... Capital equipment.................................. 121.7 117.6 128.0 131.4 121.6 116.2 130.9 134.1 122.2 117.8 129.2 133.5 122.0 116.3 132.1 134.8 122.3 116.7 132.1 134.8 121.8 115.9 132.2 135.1 122.4 116.7 132.6 135.9 122.6 116.9 132.7 136.1 122.9 117.3 132.4 136.2 123.6 118.4 132.4 136.4 124.7 120.0 132.4 136.4 125.2 120.8 132.3 136.6 124.8 120.2 132.1 136.7 124.4 119.8 131.9 136.6 In te rm e d ia te m a terials, sup plies, and c o m p o n e n ts .......................................................... 116.2 118.5 120.1 120.0 120.9 121.1 122.5 123.4 124.0 124.7 125.3 125.9 126.0 126.0 130.8 116.5 136.5 136.5 126.3 131.0 117.2 137.4 136.1 126.3 131.5 119.3 137.8 131.4 120.1 137.6 126.5 126.5 Finished g o o d s .................................................... Finished consumer goods ....................... Finished consumer foods...................... Finished consumer goods excluding Materials and components for manufacturing ....................................... Materials for food manufacturing.......... Materials for nondurable manufacturing . Materials for durable manufacturing...... Components for manufacturing............. 118.9 115.6 115.5 119.1 123.0 122.1 118.5 119.2 125.2 124.3 123.7 118.5 122.3 127.4 124.5 124.5 116.8 124.3 128.5 124.6 125.5 118.0 125.4 130.6 124.8 126.2 117.5 126.7 131.8 124.9 128.1 117.8 129.7 134.6 125.7 129.3 118.4 132.1 136.1 126.0 129.9 119.0 133.2 136.6 126.1 130.7 117.2 135.9 136.9 126.3 132.0 84.7 126.4 125.0 136.6 83.1 129.7 127.0 137.5 86.6 131.6 127.2 138.0 83.0 133.9 127.5 139.1 83.5 136.2 127.9 139.4 82.3 137.4 128.4 140.5 82.3 139.9 129.5 141.0 82.5 144.6 130.0 141.7 82.7 145.9 130.6 142.2 83.5 146.9 131.2 142.2 85.7 149.0 131.3 142.0 87.9 150.6 131.8 142.6 86.5 150.8 132.5 142.9 86.0 103.4 102.2 100.2 101.9 104.7 96.2 100.2 104.6 93.6 Materials and components for Supplies................................................. C ru d e m a te ria ls fo r fu rth e r p ro ce ssin g ... Foodstuffs and feedstuffs...................... Crude nonfood materials....................... 102.4 108.4 94.7 101.8 106.5 94.8 99.7 101.3 94.8 98.2 98.9 94.0 99.1 100.4 94.5 100.5 101.6 95.9 101.5 102.2 97.2 102.6 104.1 97.7 102.3 103.2 97.8 103.6 101.8 100.7 124.4 78.0 132.9 133.5 135.8 125.1 77.0 134.2 134.2 137.1 125.3 79.6 133.6 133.6 136.4 125.6 77.1 134.5 134.4 137.8 125.8 77.7 134.7 134.7 137.8 125.5 75.9 135.4 135.5 138.1 126.2 76.6 135.7 135.6 138.7 126.4 76.6 136.0 136.0 139.0 126.6 76.8 136.2 136.3 139.2 127.2 78.2 136.4 136.4 139.4 128.0 80.4 136.3 136.3 139.7 128.4 81.5 136.3 136.2 139.8 128.1 80.0 136.7 136.7 140.0 127.8 79.2 136.7 136.7 139.9 138.5 139.0 138.2 139.6 139.7 140.0 140.5 140.8 141.1 141.3 141.7 141.8 142.0 141.9 147.5 148.2 148.5 149.0 149.1 S p ecia l groupings: Finished goods, excluding foods............. Finished energy goods............................ Finished goods less energy .................... Finished consumer goods less energy.... Finished goods less food and energy...... Finished consumer goods less food and energy ........................................... Consumer nondurable goods less food and energy........................................... 146.1 144.4 144.6 144.7 144.8 145.2 145.9 146.4 147.1 116.4 112.7 84.6 123.2 118.7 114.8 83.0 126.3 120.4 113.9 86.5 127.5 120.4 112.2 83.0 128.2 121.3 112.1 83.4 129.1 121.6 111.5 82.2 129.7 123.0 111.8 82.2 131.4 124.0 111.8 82.4 132.5 124.5 112.6 82.6 133.1 125.4 111.7 83.5 133.8 126.0 110.7 85.6 134.0 126.6 111.6 87.7 134.3 126.7 113.5 86.3 134.8 126.6 114.9 85.9 134.9 123.8 127.1 128.3 129.2 130.2 130.9 132.6 133.8 134.4 135.2 135.5 135.7 136.1 136.2 76.7 116.3 140.2 72.1 119.3 156.2 71.3 116.4 159.2 70.2 114.6 159.3 69.3 11Ï.0 164.1 69.9 119.1 168.4 69.8 121.0 174.1 69.6 123.2 177.0 69.1 123.1 179.1 72.0 122.7 181.4 74.1 120.6 179.8 71.6 122.7 180.4 67.7 123.6 176.7 65.1 122.9 174.6 Intermediate materials less foods and Intermediate foods and feeds................. Intermediate energy goods...................... Intermediate goods less energy .............. Intermediate materials less foods and energy.................................................. Crude energy materials........................... Crude materials less energy.................... Crude nonfood materials less energy...... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 132.8 103.5 99.5 102.0 Monthly Labor Review October 1995 93 Current Labor Statistics: Price Data 35. Producer price indexes for the net output of major industry groups (December 1984=100, unless otherwise indicated) Annual average SIC In d u stry 1993 T o ta l m ining In d u s tr ie s ......................... Metal mining.................................. Coal mining (12/85=100)............... Oil and gas extraction (12/85=100) Mining and quarrying of nonmetallic minerals, except fuels.................. . 10 12 13 Printing, publishing, and allied industries......................................... Chemicals and allied products............. Petroleum refining and related products Rubber and miscellaneous plastic products Leather and leather products ......... Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products .. Primary metal industries ................ Fabricated metal products, except machinery and transportation equipment................................... Machinery, except electrical................ Electrical and electronic machinery, equipment, and supplies................... Transportation equipment.................... Measuring and controlling instruments; photographic, medical, optical goods; watches, clocks................................ Miscellaneous manufacturing industries (12/85=100).................................... Sept. Oct. 1995 Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May 73.3 81.4 93.2 71.1 72.4 87.6 94.3 69.2 71.0 88.3 95.0 67.1 70.5 91.1 94.9 66.2 72.0 94.2 92.0 68.6 72.1 101.9 88.4 68.7 71.2 102.3 91.3 66.9 70.7 103.7 93.7 65.7 72.6 105.1 92.6 68.3 74.3 99.1 92.1 71.2 June 72.6 99.4 91.0 69.1 July 70.0 103.4 91.0 65.2 Aug. 67.0 101.6 90.4 61.2 14 118.8 120.5 120.5 120.7 120.8 120.9 122.4 123.3 123.6 123.5 123.1 123.3 123.7 123.9 20 21 22 119.1 118.7 218.0 113.6 120.7 120.1 187.8 113.6 121.1 119.9 187.9 113.8 121.5 119.6 187.6 113.9 121.9 119.6 188.1 114.2 121.7 119.4 187.9 114.3 122.6 120.2 188.1 114.7 123.1 120.8 188.7 115.5 123.4 121.1 190.6 115.7 124.1 120.5 190.7 116.1 124.5 120.2 195.3 116.6 124.5 120.4 195.3 116.5 124.4 121.4 195.1 116.7 124.4 T o ta l m an u factu rin g in d u s tr ie s ......... Food and kindred products............. Tobacco manufactures................... Textile mill products....................... Apparel and other finished products made from fabrics and similar materials...................................... Lumber and wood products, except furniture....................................... Furniture and fixtures...................... Paper and allied products............... 76.4 69.7 93.3 76.2 1994 1394 121.8 195.0 116.8 23 119.2 119.7 119.7 119.8 119.7 119.8 120.0 120.3 120.6 120.4 120.5 120.4 120.5 120.7 24 25 26 148.3 125.4 120.2 154.4 129.7 123.7 154.1 130.3 125.5 153.9 130.5 128.2 155.9 130.9 130.4 155.5 131.0 132.8 155.7 131.5 136.0 155.0 132.0 139.1 155.5 132.1 141.4 155.0 132.6 143.9 154.6 132.9 145.6 153.1 133.4 148.2 154.1 133.4 149.6 154.3 133.5 150.5 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 145.6 127.2 77.6 115.4 129.0 115.4 111.4 149.7 130.0 74.8 117.1 130.6 119.6 117.0 150.3 132.0 79.5 117.9 131.3 120.7 118.7 150.8 133.6 76.2 118.8 131.7 121.1 119.7 151.7 134.4 77.8 119.5 132.1 121.4 121.7 152.4 136.1 73.5 120.1 132.5 121.6 122.9 154.7 138.4 74.3 121.3 133.3 122.4 126.6 155.6 140.6 74.6 121.8 133.7 123.1 128.2 156.4 141.4 75.3 122.5 133.8 123.8 129.1 157.2 144.8 80.2 123.2 134.2 124.5 129.7 157.4 145.0 84.4 123.2 134.4 124.8 129.1 157.9 144.2 83.1 124.1 134.2 124.5 128.9 159.4 144.7 78.6 124.2 134.2 124.5 128.7 159.9 144.6 77.5 123.9 134.0 124.6 128.5 34 118.2 120.3 120.8 121.2 121.6 121.8 122.6 123.6 124.1 124.4 124.7 124.9 125.1 125.4 35 116.8 117.5 117.7 117.7 117.7 117.8 118.3 118.6 118.7 119.0 119.0 119.3 119.3 119.3 36 37 112.0 126.3 112.7 130.1 112.6 128.2 112.6 131.5 112.6 131.2 112.7 131.6 113.1 132.2 113.3 132.2 113.1 132.0 113.3 131.9 113.4 131.8 113.2 131.9 113.2 131.7 113.2 131.4 38 120.8 122.1 122.0 122.3 122.6 122.6 122.9 123.4 123.4 123.6 123.6 124.1 124.6 124.4 39 121.5 123.3 123.6 123.6 129.8 124.0 125.0 125.3 125.4 125.6 125.6 125.8 126.1 126.1 42 43 44 45 46 119.8 99.7 105.6 96.6 101.9 119.8 100.0 108.5 102.6 102.3 119.8 100.3 108.5 103.0 102.7 119.8 102.9 108.3 103.7 102.7 119.8 101.4 108.1 106.5 102.9 119.8 101.6 107.9 107.0 103.1 132.1 102.6 108.1 110.9 104.2 132.1 102.8 109.6 110.9 104.4 132.1 102.6 110.1 110.9 104.3 132.1 102.0 110.0 110.9 104.5 132.1 102.2 113.6 110.9 104.4 132.1 104.7 132.3 103.5 115.6 110.7 104.7 132.3 103.5 114.9 S e rv ic e industries: Motor freight transportation and warehousing (06/93=100)........... U.S. Postal Service (06/89=100)............. Water transportation (12/92=100)........... Transportation by air (12/92=100) .......... Pipelines, except natural gas (12/86=100) _ Data not available. 94 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 102.6 114.2 110.7 110.6 36. Annual data: Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing (1982=100) Index Finished goods: Energy......................................................... Other........................................................... Intermediate materials, supplies, and components: Energy.....................................................— Other................. ......................................... 1986 1907 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 103.2 107.3 63.0 110.6 105.4 109.5 61.8 113.3 108.0 112.6 59.8 117.0 113.6 118.7 65.7 122.1 119.2 124.4 75.0 126.6 121.7 124.1 78.1 131.1 123.2 123.3 77.8 134.2 124.7 125.7 78.0 135.8 125.5 126.8 77.0 137.1 99.1 102.2 72.6 104.9 101.5 105.3 73.0 107.8 107.1 113.2 70.9 115.2 112.0 118.1 76.1 120.2 114.5 118.7 85.5 120.9 114.4 118.1 85.1 121.4 114.7 117.9 84.3 122.0 116.2 118.9 84.6 123.8 118.5 122.1 83.0 127.1 87.7 93.2 71.8 103.1 93.7 96.2 75.0 115.7 96.0 106.1 67.7 133.0 103.1 111.2 75.9 137.9 108.9 113.1 05.9 136.3 101.2 105.5 80.4 128.2 100.4 105.1 78.8 128.4 102.4 108.4 76.7 140.2 101.8 106.5 72.1 156.2 Crude materials for further processing: Energy......................................................... 'Other........................................................... 37. U.S. export price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification (1990=100, unless otherwise indicated) Category Food and live animals.................................. ..... Meat and meat preparations.............................. Cereals and cereal preparations........................ Vegetables, fruit, and nuts, prepared fresh or dry SITC Rev. 3 0 01 04 05 1995 1994 Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July 102.4 107.7 96.1 109.6 103.9 108.8 99.6 106.6 105.2 112.4 100.8 109.2 106.7 109.0 103.9 113.3 105.7 109.3 102.8 109.9 106.6 108.7 104.6 109.2 108.2 112.4 103.1 116.8 111.3 113.5 106.8 122.5 112.6 122.2 114.1 115.6 114.4 117.3 119.9 116.8 124.1 125.2 129.4 107.3 95.0 119.3 158.2 167.0 131.4 99.3 124.5 130.2 103.5 96.7 118.0 156.8 172.5 133.9 97.7 124.5 127.4 92.4 113.0 110.8 Crude materials, Inedible, except fuels............. Hides, skins, and furskins, raw.......................... Oilseeds and oleaginous fruits.......................... Crude rubber (including synthetic and reclaimed) Cork and wood ................................................ Pulp and waste paper....................................... Textile fibers and their waste............................ Crude fertilizers and crude minerals.................. Metalliferous ores and metal scrap ................... 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 108.9 103.9 96.2 99.3 149.1 105.0 101.8 96.2 100.2 108.9 107.2 87.4 102.0 149.0 108.6 100.2 95.4 104.3 112.7 109.9 89.5 104.5 151.0 118.5 103.8 96.4 108.9 116.8 110.4 91.9 104.7 151.5 126.8 110.5 96.4 116.5 120.4 111.2 91.9 109.6 154.6 135.5 116.2 97.5 119.9 124.3 110.7 92.0 115.4 157.9 145.9 122.7 97.2 124.4 127.4 109.6 93.7 115.9 157.3 156.0 132.598.4 124.9 131.0 108.6 96.3 120.8 159.5 168.3 130.7 98.2 130.2 Mineral fuels, lubricants, and related products 3 32 87.6 93.3 87.5 93.6 88.2 93.9 89.3 94.1 89.3 89.4 88.9 90.5 92.2 92.9 94.0 94.7 94.7 96.4 96.5 97.3 91.2 98.1 33 81.1 80.6 81.1 82.« 82.8 82.4 81.9 83.3 86.9 83.5 4 116.2 118.1 119.1 132.1 134.7 124.2 122.0 116.1 114.8 119.2 5 54 55 57 58 59 103.8 107.9 109.7 121.5 101.4 109.0 106.6 107.6 109.5 129.5 104.6 109.2 108.1 107.5 109.7 132.5 104.2 109.7 109.2 107.5 109.4 134.0 104.8 110.9 112.4 107.5 109.7 137.0 105.7 113.1 113.8 107.7 110.1 138.6 106.0 114.7 115.4 108.3 110.4 141.9 106.5 113.3 116.7 108.3 110.7 144.6 108.3 114.7 117.4 108.4 143.9 109.3 114.9 116.8 109.3 110.4 140.3 109.5 115.0 116.2 109.3 111.4 137.7 109.8 115.5 6 62 106.6 110.2 108.0 110.7 109.3 110.3 110.9 110.5 112.1 111.6 113.1 112.6 113.9 115.8 115.1 114.7 116.3 116.0 115.8 116.3 115.6 117.2 64 66 68 101.8 107.6 98.7 105.9 107.6 102.5 108.2 107.4 107.1 111.0 108.6 111.4 115.6 108.6 113.8 117.1 108.5 116.1 118.5 109.3 115.2 123.8 109.3 115.4 128.1 109.1 115.8 126.8 109.4 113.6 126.9 109.5 113.8 7 71 72 103.7 113.7 109.9 103.7 113.6 109.9 103.8 114.5 109.9 103.7 114.6 109.9 104.0 115.1 110.6 104.1 115.3 111.1 104.2 114.5 111.6 104.5 114.8 112.1 104.6 114.9 104.8 114.8 112.2 112.8 104.9 115.0 113.3 74 75 110.5 78.8 110.5 78.5 110.5 78.4 110.5 78.1 111.2 77.6 111.8 77.2 111.8 76.9 111.9 77.1 112.0 111.2 76.9 76.6 111.3 76.4 76 77 78 106.8 101.8 106.6 106.7 101.9 107.2 106.7 101.7 107.2 106.4 101.5 107.3 107.1 101.8 107.4 107.1 101.5 107.7 106.4 102.2 107.8 106.0 102.9 107.8 106.2 103.0 107.9 106.7 104.0 107.9 106.3 104.4 108.0 87 112.5 112.2 113.1 112.6 I 113.5 113.4 113.2 113.4 113.2 113.9 113.9 Coal, coke, and briquettes............................... Petroleum, petroleum products, and related materials..................................................... Animal and vegetable oils, fats, and waxes Chemicals and related products, n.e.s................. Medicinal and pharmaceutical products............... Essential oils; polishing and cleaning preparations Plastics in primary forms (12/92=100) ............... Plastics in nonprimary forms (12/92=100)......... Chemical materials and products, n.e.s................ Manufactured goods classified chiefly by materials...................................................... Rubber manufactures, n.e.s............................. Paper, paperboard, and articles of paper, pulp, and paperboard............................................ Nonmetallic mineral manufactures, n.e.s.......... Nonferrous metals......................................... Machinery and transport equipment............. Power generating machinery and equipment ... Machinery specialized for particular industries . General industrial machines and parts, n.e.s., and machine parts...................................... Computer equipment and office machines..... Telecommunications and sound recording and reproducing apparatus and equipment......... Electrical machinery and equipment............... Road vehicles............................................... Professional, scientific, and controlling Instruments and apparatus............. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review 110.8 October 1995 100.2 116.1 155.0 161.2 130.9 98.4 123.0 95 Current Labor Statistics: 38. Price Data U.S. import price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification (1990=100, unless otherwise indicated) C a te g o ry F o o d an d live a n im a ls .................................................... Meat and meat preparations..................... Fish and crustaceans, mollusks, and other aquatic invertebrates.............................. Cereals and cereal preparations ............... Vegetables and fruit, prepared fresh or dried ................... Sugars, sugar preparations, and honey............................... Coffee, tea, cocoa, spices, and manufactures thereof ....................................... B e v e ra g e s an d t o b a c c o .................................................... Beverages.......................................... C ru d e m a terials, Inedible, e x c e p t f u e l s ................................................ Crude rubber (including synthetic and reclaimed)..................... Cork and wood ..................................... Pulp and waste paper....................................... Crude fertilizers......................................... Metalliferous ores and metal scrap....................... Crude animal and vegetable materials, n.e.s....................................... M ineral fuels, lubrica nts , an d re la te d p r o d u c ts ................................ Petroleum, petroleum products, and related materials.................................................... Gas, natural and manufactured....................................... Electrical energy ................................... A n im al an d v e g e ta b le oils, fa ts , a nd w a x e s ................................................ C h e m ic a ls an d re la te d pro d u cts , n.e.s......................................................... Inorganic chemicals............................................. Dyeing, tanning, and coloring materials .................................... Medicinal and pharmaceutical products.......................... Essential oils; polishing and cleaning preparations ............................ Fertilizers ................................................ Plastics in primary forms (12/92=100).......................... Plastics in nonprimary forms (12/92=100) ........................ Chemical materials and products, n.e.s................................. M an u fa c tu re d g o o d s c lassified c h ie fly b y m a terial ..................................... Rubber manufactures, n.e.s............................................. Paper, paperboard, and articles of paper pulp, paper, or paperboard .......................................... Nonmetallic mineral manufactures, n.e.s............................................. Nonferrous metals................................................ Manufactures of metals, n.e.s.................................. M a c h in e ry an d tra n s p o rt e q u ip m e n t ......................................... Machinery specialized for particular industries................................. General industrial machinery and equipment, n.e.s., and machine parts.................................................... Computer equipment and office machines ........................... Telecommunications and sound recording and reproducing apparatus and equipment..................................... Electrical machinery and equipment...................... Road vehicles ..................................................... Footwear.................................................................... Photographic apparatus, equipment, and supplies, and optical goods, n.e.s.................................... 96 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 SITC Rev.3 1994 1995 Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July 0 01 120.6 91.0 118.4 90.9 118.7 91.7 120.1 90.3 116.9 89.7 120.6 88.6 115.9 86.6 117.8 85.1 116.2 85.2 116.6 85.9 03 04 05 06 126.1 102.5 99.4 97.1 126.5 101.9 100.6 96.7 127.9 101.9 112.6 97.2 125.7 101.6 120.3 98.3 125.6 101.5 110.0 98.8 127.7 102.2 114.4 98.1 127.2 91.6 104.2 99.6 126.3 96.3 111.6 98.4 126.1 101.4 110.6 103.9 126.1 100.9 120.5 104.3 07 212.0 194.5 172.3 172.2 168.6 183.7 176.6 178.3 166.4 152.8 1 11 113.6 113.6 113.7 113.8 113.5 113.6 114.0 114.2 113.4 113.6 114.4 114.5 115.0 114.7 114.6 114.7 114.9 114.8 115.4 115.4 2 23 24 25 27 28 29 110.4 134.0 151.3 86.4 86.0 92.8 117.4 113.9 135.7 157.2 90.0 86.1 94.3 126.6 114.6 143.8 149.6 90.7 86.6 97.2 139.2 118.9 159.8 152.7 97.4 87.9 98.6 142.8 121.6 164.8 150.0 97.4 87.9 101.1 166.3 121.3 165.6 143.3 104.7 90.2 106.6 140.1 123.1 168.6 141.1 108.1 92.4 105.8 155.5 123.3 166.3 139.2 109.5 97.8 105.7 159.0 123.5 156.8 131.0 116.0 100.7 106.4 163.9 124.3 146.9 138.3 115.3 100.5 108.6 158.6 3 73.9 76.9 75.3 760 77.8 79.1 82.7 85.3 82.8 75.3 33 34 35 73.1 86.0 86.2 76.1 87.5 83.3 74.5 88.3 83.5 75.4 84.8 82.3 77.5 81.7 79.9 79.0 79.5 78.0 82.9 78.1 77.4 85.6 79.2 81.1 82.8 79.7 78.8 75.0 78.2 79.8 4 141.6 144.1 155.0 152.2 145.4 152.4 154.4 157.6 159.0 164.2 5 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 106.6 105.6 102.9 120.2 111.8 105.0 101.4 102.1 103.1 107.8 106.8 103.2 121.4 112.7 107.0 102.1 105.8 103.4 108.8 107.6 102.9 120.5 113.4 107.2 102.9 107.1 103.7 109.1 108.5 102.4 120.2 114.5 108.2 107.3 110.0 102.6 110.1 109.4 103.3 120.7 115.3 109.7 107.3 112.8 103.4 110.8 113.1 106.4 121.6 116.8 112.0 106.8 115.5 103.8 111.3 112.2 110.9 124.7 120.1 113.1 109.0 116.5 105.0 112.5 113.2 109.0 129.1 124.1 112.8 110.3 117.4 105.6 112.3 114.3 108.6 128.0 123.4 111.0 109.7 117.9 106.9 112.2 112.0 109.2 128.4 123.7 109.0 109.8 117.5 108.7 6 62 103.9 102.5 105.4 102.6 106.4 102.3 107.4 102.4 108.8 102.1 109.1 102.8 110.8 103.7 112.1 105.1 111.7 105.0 113.2 105.0 64 66 68 69 99.2 109.6 95.6 106.2 101.3 109.9 99.1 107.0 105.2 110.5 103.1 106.4 108.6 110.4 105.6 106.3 109.9 110.7 110.8 107.0 114.4 110.8 105.9 108.4 119.5 111.3 106.4 110.0 125.2 111.2 106.5 110.8 125.1 111.4 103.8 110.8 128.0 111.9 105.8 111.4 7 72 108.1 112.0 108.2 112.8 108.0 112.5 107.9 112.3 108.2 113.2 108.5 114.0 109.5 116.0 110.1 117.1 110.1 117.0 110.4 116.9 74 75 110.9 85.7 111.6 84.5 111.6 84.8 112.1 84.7 112.8 84.6 113.0 84.0 115.7 84.3 116.4 84.3 116.6 84.0 117.1 84.2 76 77 78 97.6 106.9 115.0 97.7 106.7 115.3 97.7 106.5 115.1 97.4 106.4 115.0 97.6 106.6 115.3 97.6 106.9 115.8 98.5 107.6 116.3 98.9 108.9 116.8 98.7 108.9 116.8 99.0 109.0 117.2 85 101.0 101.3 101.1 100.7 101.0 101.1 101.4 101.5 101.9 102.0 88 111.1 110.8 110.6 109.9 110.7 111.0 113.5 115.1 115.3 116.1 39. U.S. export price indexes by end-use category (1990 = 100 unless otherwise indicated) 1995 1994 C a te g o ry A L L C O M M O D IT IE S ......................................................................................... Foods, feeds, and beverages ................................................... Agricultural foods, feeds, and beverages................................ Nonagricultural (fish, beverages) food products.............................................................................. June May Apr. Mar. Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. July 104.4 105.1 105.8 106.7 107.3 107.9 108.9 109.2 109.4 109.7 101.5 100.1 102.9 101.5 104.7 103.4 103.8 102.5 104.5 102.8 106.0 103.9 108.7 106.8 109.7 108.0 111.3 109.8 116.7 115.9 112.1 112.8 113.0 113.5 117.1 122.1 123.1 122.6 122.4 121.8 115.3 117.1 117.7 117.4 116.3 117.1 Industrial supplies and materials............................................... 106.0 107.9 109.9 112.5 114.1 Agricultural industrial supplies and materials...................................................................... 107.7 109.7 114.4 117.7 118.7 121.8 120.7 120.3 120.7 90.0 90.6 91.4 91.5 91.6 91.0 92.5 93.9 94.5 93.5 118.4 150.6 117.6 148.3 Fuels and lubricants.............................................................. Nonagricultural supplies and materials, excluding fuel and building materials.................................... Selected building materials..................................................... 118.8 151.1 104.9 147.3 107.1 148.6 109.2 149.7 112.2 151.4 114.2 153.3 115.6 153.4 117.9 153.5 103.6 103.7 103.6 103.9 104.0 104.3 104.7 104.8 105.1 105.2 107.9 101.5 108.2 101.8 108.9 101.9 Capital goods........................................................................... Electric and electrical generating equipment........................................................................... Nonelectrical machinery......................................................... 106.7 100.6 106.8 100.8 106.4 100.6 106.9 100.9 107.0 100.9 107.2 101.0 108.1 101.5 Automotive vehicles, parts, and engines................................... 107.2 107.2 107.3 107.4 107.7 107.4 107.4 107.4 107.6 107.7 Consumer goods, excluding automotive.................................... Nondurables, manufactured.................................................... Durables, manufactured ......................................................... Nonmanufactured consumer goods......................................... 108.2 110.1 106.5 99.3 108.3 110.2 106.6 98.9 108.2 110.0 106.3 100.7 108.3 110.3 106.3 “ 108.8 110.9 106.9 “ 109.1 111.3 106.9 99.9 109.4 112.0 106.8 .0 109.6 112.2 107.2 .0 109.5 112.0 107.3 99.4 109.6 111.9 107.6 Agricultural commodities........................................................... Nonagricultural commodities..................................................... 101.6 104.9 103.2 105.5 105.7 106.0 105.6 107.0 106.1 107.7 107.6 108.1 109.7 109.0 110.5 109.2 112.0 109.3 116.0 109.1 - Data not available. 40. U.S. import price indexes by end-use category (1990=100) 1995 1994 C a te g o ry Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July 107.7 107.2 106.6 A L L C O M M O D IT IE S ........................................................................................ 103.5 104.2 104.1 104.4 105.1 105.7 106.7 Foods, feeds, and beverages ................................................... Agricultural foods, feeds, and beverages................................ Nonagricultural (fish, beverages) food products.............................................................................. 121.8 120.2 120.1 117.7 120.2 117.6 121.1 119.4 118.7 116.2 121.9 119.9 118.8 115.7 120.2 117.9 119.1 116.5 119.3 116.7 125.3 125.7 126.7 125.1 125.0 126.7 126.5 125.7 125.6 125.7 Industrial supplies and materials............................................... 91.5 93.8 93.7 94.8 96.6 97.7 100.0 101.7 100.3 97.6 Fuels and lubricants................................................................. Petroleum and petroleum products ......................................... 74.8 72.8 77.7 75.8 76.1 74.2 77.0 75.1 78.7 77.1 80.3 78.6 83.9 82.3 86.6 84.9 84.0 82.3 76.5 74.6 Paper and paper base stocks................................................... Materials assiciated with nondurable supplies and materials ...................................................................... Selected building materials....................................................... Unfinished metals associated with durable goods...................... Nonmetals associated with durable goods ................................ 94.7 96.8 100.1 104.7 107.2 112.3 117.1 121.3 123.6 125.9 107.5 126.5 98.1 100.4 109.4 129.8 100.1 100.5 110.3 125.7 102.5 100.7 111.5 125.7 103.8 100.8 112.7 125.2 107.5 101.2 113.3 123.1 106.1 103.0 113.8 122.4 107.1 104.2 114.2 121.9 107.0 106.7 114.3 117.9 105.2 106.8 113.5 124.7 107.1 107.5 Capital goods........................................................................... Electric and electrical generating equipment ........................... Nonelectrical machinery......................................................... Transportation equipment, excluding motor vehicles and spacecraft (12/92 = 100) ............................... Automotive vehicles, parts and engines.................................... 105.1 107.7 103.9 105.0 108.3 103.7 104.9 108.1 103.6 104.7 107.9 103.4 105.1 109.2 103.7 105.2 109.6 103.8 106.3 111.0 104.9 107.1 112.3 105.7 107.1 112.5 105.7 107.3 113.4 106.9 105.7 112.9 105.8 113.2 105.3 113.0 112.9 113.2 113.6 “ 114.3 “ 114.9 “ 114.8 115.2 Consumer goods, excluding automotives.................................. Nondurables, manufactured.................................................... Durables, manufactured ......................................................... Nonmanufactured consumer goods........................................ 106.2 106.2 105.6 110.6 106.4 106.5 105.6 112.0 106.4 106.4 105.6 113.4 106.3 106.1 105.6 114.0 106.8 106.4 106.0 117.2 106.9 107.0 106.2 112.1 107.2 107.0 106.6 114.2 107.8 107.6 107.1 114.6 107.8 107.9 107.3 112.5 107.9 107.7 107.7 111.9 - Data not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review October 1995 97 Current Labor Statistics: 41. Price and Productivity Data U.S. international price indexes for selected categories of services (1990=100 unless otherwise indicated)) 1993 1994 1995 C a te g o ry June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Air freight (inbound) ............................ Air freight (outbound).................................... 106.4 96.6 106.6 95.6 106.1 96.4 105.9 96.5 108.1 96.2 108.6 96.2 110.4 97.3 115.3 98.4 118.0 98.2 Air passenger fares (U.S. carriers) .............. Air passenger fares (foreign carriers).......................... Ocean liner freight (inbound).................. 117.2 115.7 103.5 119.0 117.0 103.3 111.4 107.2 102.1 113.1 108.1 103.4 119.7 114.6 106.3 121.4 118.1 106.2 113.8 110.0 106.6 116.1 113.8 108.5 128 6 125 2 106.6 42. Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs, quarterly data seasonally adjusted (1982 = 100) Quarterly Indexes Item Business: Output per hour of all persons Compensation per hour......... Real compensation per hour ... Unit labor costs..................... Unit nonlabor payments......... Implicit price deflator............. 1995 116.8 157.7 107.1 135.1 150.2 140.1 116.2 158.7 107.0 136.6 149.5 140.8 116.3 159.9 107.0 137.5 149.6 141.4 117.0 160.6 107.0 137.3 150.5 141.6 118.4 161.3 106.6 136.2 154.0 142.1 118.9 163.3 107.4 137.3 153.4 142.6 118.5 163.6 106.9 138.1 155.6 143.8 119.5 164.9 106.8 138.0 157.8 144.5 120.7 166.4 107.2 137.8 159.0 144.8 121.3 167.9 107.3 138.4 159.3 145.3 122.7 169.5 107.4 138.1 161.3 145.7 115.0 156.4 106.2 136.1 152.1 141.2 114.3 157.2 105.9 137.4 151.5 142.0 114.5 158.1 105.8 138.1 151.8 142.5 115.3 158.7 105.7 137.7 153.6 142.8 116.5 159.3 105.3 136.8 156.3 143.1 117.0 161.2 106.0 137.8 155.5 143.5 116.6 161.8 105.7 138.8 158.3 145.1 117.3 162.9 105.5 138.8 160.9 145.9 118.6 164.4 105.9 138.7 161.8 146.1 119.3 166.1 106.2 139.2 162.1 146.6 120.7 167.5 106.2 138.8 164.2 147.0 120.6 119.9 153.9 103.7 125.0 128.3 116.8 183.7 129.4 128.7 121.2 122.2 154.4 103.3 124.1 127.3 115.8 199.4 131.5 128.7 154.8 103.1 123.6 126.7 115.8 202.5 132.1 128.5 123.4 155.0 102.5 123.8 156.8 102.4 123.4 126.7 115.2 228.7 136.6 129.9 124.3 157.9 102.3 124.0 127.1 116.2 228.8 137.4 130.5 125.3 159.1 102.5 123.8 127.0 115.9 230.3 137.4 130.4 125.8 160.5 127.5 161.8 102.6 102.6 125.7 114.8 220.9 134.8 128.7 124.0 156.5 102.9 123.5 126.2 116.6 218.2 135.7 129.4 124.2 127.5 116.0 224.0 136.3 130.4 124.0 126.9 116.6 227.6 137.5 130.4 133.6 153.3 101.4 114.7 135.4 154.3 101.4 113.9 136.8 153.6 100.3 138.0 154.5 139.3 155.9 100.4 140.5 157.7 141.4 157.9 100.0 100.8 100.1 112.2 111.9 112.0 112.3 111.7 N o n fa rm business: Output per hour of all persons Compensation per hour......... Real compensation per hour ... Unit labor costs............... 7..... Unit nonlabor payments........ Implicit price deflator............. N o n fln an cial co rp o ra tio n s: Output per hour of all employees Compensation per hour............. Real compensation per hour...... Total unit costs......................... . Unit labor costs ...................... Unit nonlabor costs................. Unit profits................................. Unit nonlabor payments............. Implicit price deflator................. 153.1 104.0 123.8 127.0 115.7 191.2 129.9 127.9 122.6 M anufacturin g: Output per hour of all persons Compensation per hour.......... Real compensation per hour... Unit labor costs.................... 98 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 129.1 150.7 102.3 116.8 130.8 149.9 101.0 114.6 131.3 151.7 101.5 115.5 132.1 152.5 101.6 115.4 43. Annual Indexes of multifactor productivity and related measures, selected years (1987 = 100) Item 1960 1970 1973 1980 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 P riv a te business: Productivity: Output per hour of all persons........................ Output per unit of capital services................... Multifactor productivity.................................... Output.............................................................. Inputs: Labor input.................................................... Capital services .............................................. Combined units of labor and capital input........ Capital per hour of all persons........................... 53.5 116.0 70.5 37.8 74.8 115.1 87.2 57.4 83.0 120.1 95.3 67.9 89.1 105.8 96.0 79.9 99.6 99.7 99.8 96.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.9 101.4 100.5 104.3 101.0 101.3 100.3 107.0 101.9 99.8 100.0 107.9 102.9 96.8 99.0 106.5 105.9 97.9 100.5 109.3 106.6 98.8 101.1 112.5 66.7 32.6 53.6 46.1 74.2 49.8 65.8 65.0 78.7 56.6 71.3 69.1 86.8 75.5 83.2 84.2 96.8 97.0 96.8 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 104.2 102.9 103.8 99.6 107.2 105.6 106.7 99.7 107.8 108.2 107.9 102.1 106.5 110.0 107.5 106.3 107.5 111.6 108.8 108.1 110.1 113.8 111.3 107.9 57.7 122.6 74.9 37.4 77.3 120.5 89.9 57.4 85.6 125.3 98.1 68.3 90.6 108.2 97.7 80.2 99.8 100.0 100.0 96.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.9 101.3 100.5 104.5 100.7 100.9 99.9 107.1 101.3 99.1 99.4 107.8 102.5 96.0 98.5 106.4 105.1 96.8 99.6 108.9 105.9 97.8 100.3 112.4 61.4 30.5 49.9 47.0 72.0 47.7 63.9 64.1 76.9 54.5 69.6 68.3 85.7 74.2 82.1 83.8 96.6 96.7 96.7 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 104.4 103.2 104.0 99.6 107.6 106.1 107.1 99.9 108.3 108.8 108.5 102.3 106.8 110.8 108.0 106.7 108.0 112.6 109.3 108.7 110.9 115.0 112.1 108.2 P riv a te n o n fa rm business: Productivity: Output per hour of all persons........................ Output per unit of capital services................... Multifactor productivity.................................... Output.............................................................. Inputs: Labor input.................................................... Capital services .............................................. Combined units of labor and capital input........ Capital per hour of all persons........................... NOTE: Productivity and output in this table have not been revised for consistency with the December 1991 comprehensive revisions to the 44. National Income and Product Accounts, Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years (1982 = 100) Item 1960 1970 1973 1983 1985 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 65.6 21.1 68.8 32.2 33.6 32.6 87.0 36.7 91.3 42.2 42.7 42.4 95.1 45.1 98.1 47.5 52.1 49.0 102.3 103.8 100.6 101.5 107.5 103.4 106.3 113.2 101.5 106.5 120.8 111.2 109.6 123.1 104.6 112.3 125.5 116.6 110.7 128.5 104.8 116.0 130.6 120.8 109.9 133.0 103.5 121.0 136.6 126.1 110.7 140.6 103.8 127.1 139.8 131.2 112.1 147.4 104.4 131.5 144.9 135.9 115.5 154.9 106.6 134.2 148.3 138.8 117.0 160.1 106.9 136.9 150.9 141.5 119.4 164.5 107.1 137.8 156.4 143.9 69.9 22.2 72.4 31.8 33.3 32.3 88.5 37.0 92.0 41.8 43.0 42.2 96.4 45.4 98.7 47.1 49.6 47.9 102.5 104.0 100.8 101.5 109.2 104.0 105.6 112.8 101.1 106.8 121.6 111.6 108.6 122.5 104.1 112.8 126.6 117.2 109.6 127.7 104.2 116.5 131.8 121.4 108.6 132.0 102.7 121.5 137.1 126.5 109.1 139.2 102.8 127.6 140.6 131.8 110.7 146.2 103.6 132.1 146.5 136.7 113.7 153.7 105.7 135.2 149.7 139.9 115.2 158.3 105.7 137.5 153.4 142.6 117.4 162.6 105.9 138.5 159.2 145.2 75.3 23.6 77.0 29.5 31.4 24.8 75.1 34.2 32.3 90.3 38.4 95.4 40.5 42.5 35.5 69.5 41.9 42.3 95.0 46.6 101.2 46.5 49.0 40.2 87.9 49.2 49.1 103.8 103.4 100.2 99,5 99.6 99.3 135.9 106.2 101.8 106.5 112.0 100.4 103.7 105.2 100.1 168.1 112.9 107.7 111.2 120.9 102.7 107.0 108.8 102.5 172.1 115.6 111.0 113.3 125.9 102.7 109.8 111.1 106.4 183.5 120.9 114.3 111.5 130.2 101.3 115.7 116.8 112.9 168.5 123.3 119.0 112.7 137.1 101.3 120.1 121.7 116.3 167.5 125.9 123.1 115.0 143.8 101.9 123.7 125.0 120.5 164.7 128.8 126.3 118.5 150.4 103.5 124.4 126.9 118.0 177.2 129.1 127.7 121.8 154.6 103.3 123.8 127.0 115.8 201.9 132.0 128.6 124.4 157.7 102.7 123.7 126.7 116.0 226.5 136.8 130.0 - - - - - - - 102.2 102.7 99.5 100.5 113.5 103.8 106.7 111.3 99.8 104.2 120.1 108.2 116.6 118.4 100.6 101.6 134.5 109.8 119.2 123.1 100.4 103.2 147.4 114.3 119.9 127.9 99.5 106.7 153.3 118.4 122.1 134.7 99.5 110.4 153.7 121.2 124.9 141.9 100.5 113.7 157.0 124.5 127.5 147.9 101.7 116.0 157.0 126.3 132.0 152.0 101.5 115.1 160.8 126.5 137.4 154.5 100.6 112.5 Business: Output per hour of all persons................. ......... Compensation per hour..................................... Real compensation per hour............................. Unit labor costs................................................ Unit nonlabor payments.................................... Implicit price deflator ........................................ N o n fa rm business: Output per hour of all persons........................... Compensation per hour..................................... Real compensation per hour............................. Unit labor costs................................................ Unit nonlabor payments .................................... Implicit price deflator........................................ N o n fln an cial c o rp o ra tio n s : Output per hour of all employees...................... Compensation per hour..................................... Real compensation per hour............................. Total unit costs................................................. Unit labor costs .............................................. Unit nonlabor costs........................................ Unit profits........................................................ Unit nonlabor payments.................................... Implicit price deflator ........................................ M anufacturin g: Output per hour of all persons........................... Compensation per hour..................................... Real compensation per hour............................. Unit labor costs................................................ Unit nonlabor payments.................................... Implicit price deflator ........................................ - - - - ’ - Data not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review October 1995 99 Current Labor Statistics: 45. Productivity Data Annual indexes of output per hour for selected industries (1987=100) Industry SIC 1973 1979 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 101 102 12 131 14 51.7 42.4 68.9 173.5 86.5 51.8 48.5 54.5 110.3 92.6 76.6 93.6 85.1 83.0 95.1 79.6 109.7 92.4 90.3 95.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 103.7 109.8 110.6 101.0 102.2 99.5 107.8 116.5 98.1 101.9 90.0 104.5 118.5 97.0 108.3 87.0 102.9 122.1 98.1 103.6 Meatpacking plants........................................ Sausages and other prepared meats.............. Poultry dressing and processing..................... Cheese, natural and processed..................... Fluid milk...................................................... Canned fruits and vegetables........................ Frozen fruits and vegetables.......................... Flour and other grain mill products................ Cereal breakfast foods.................................. Rice milling ................................................... Wet corn milling............................................ 2011 2013 2015 2022 2026 2033 2037 2041 2043 2044 2046 65.1 67.2 58.0 56.6 49.5 66.0 80.1 68.5 65.6 59.3 24.1 75.0 92.8 81.7 79.8 62.7 74.0 86.6 80.5 74.2 69.3 47.1 98.3 97.8 100.5 94.7 88.3 93.0 97.0 95.8 97.1 68.6 74.6 98.7 98.6 95.6 101.1 94.0 98.4 104.9 95.9 98.6 72.7 97.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.5 105.6 95.9 106.4 103.9 100.2 95.1 102.0 98.6 83.8 96.6 92.2 99.8 101.2 104.3 106.7 92.5 98.9 101.6 96.0 98.6 103.0 92.9 93.6 107.7 101.1 108.0 96.2 92.3 107.0 102.0 106.9 104.7 94.9 90.8 114.2 98.9 110.7 103.4 98.7 107.4 105.3 101.1 100.1 Prepared feeds for animals and fowls............ Bakery products............................................ Raw and refined cane sugar.......................... Beet sugar .................................................. Malt beverages............................................. Bottled and canned soft drinks...................... Fresh or frozen fish and seafood................... Cigarettes, chewing and smoking tobacco...... 2047,48 2051,52 2061,62 2063 2082 2086 2092 211,3 51.6 82.3 76.7 75.9 43.3 49.2 93.2 79.4 66.5 83.8 96.4 78.3 63.8 64.4 93.8 90.3 96.9 95.6 96.6 73.4 73.7 85.2 88.0 93.5 95.2 100.1 96.9 80.8 85.1 91.4 91.2 95.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 101.2 93.8 97.5 95.3 99.1 109.9 99.2 106.8 103.1 93.2 97.4 87.9 102.0 119.3 92.9 107.3 106.6 96.2 100.9 91.1 110.9 126.7 87.1 112.9 107.2 92.9 101.3 93.4 110.1 135.1 84.8 119.2 Cotton and synthetic broadwoven fabrics....... Hosiery ......................................................... Yarn spinning mills........................................ Men’s and boys’ suits and coats.................... 221,2 2251,52 2281 231 58.1 63.2 55.9 75.6 75.6 93.3 68.3 95.9 93.4 100.9 89.6 106.3 99.0 102.5 93.2 103.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.3 107.0 98.6 102.5 104.5 108.4 103.6 101.9 109.3 106.0 106.7 98.8 115.2 111.3 106.3 91.3 Sawmills and planing mills, general ............... Hardwood dimension and flooring.................. Millwork...................................................... Wood kitchen cabinets.................................. Hardwood veneer and plywood..................... Softwood veneer and plywood ...................... Wood containers........................................... Wood household furniture ............................. Upholstered household furniture..................... Metal household furniture.............................. Mattresses and bedsprings............................ Wood office furniture..................................... Office furniture, except wood......................... Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills.................. Corrugated and solid fiber boxes ................... Folding paperboard boxes............................. Paper and plastic bags................................. 2421 2426 2431 2434 2435 2436 244 2511,17 2512 2514 2515 2521 2522 261,2,3 2653 2657 2673,74 68.3 84.0 104.2 80.5 80.2 67.7 91.2 71.9 75.6 71.6 82.5 70.6 67.1 70.3 86.4 90.7 73.3 83.0 95.4 89.1 79.6 65.6 72.9 90.4 82.8 72.5 86.2 117.0 76.7 77.3 87.2 90.7 94.1 93.5 95.1 97.4 87.1 84.5 88.3 99.6 93.3 98.6 98.8 77.2 99.4 96.9 87.6 99.6 90.0 99.7 102.3 98.8 102.2 85.2 83.2 90.4 98.7 100.2 100.6 101.7 83.1 96.2 100.6 93.3 102.8 88.5 101.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 "00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 101.7 97.4 98.3 97.8 98.3 100.3 103.4 101.0 99.8 100.6 99.2 94.8 96.0 102.9 99.6 99.6 97.4 101.0 96.5 97.7 91.0 97.4 102.0 108.9 100.1 101.0 100.0 105.0 94.2 99.0 103.2 97.7 101.1 93.6 101.5 95.4 97.9 93.7 90.2 107.3 112.0 98.8 98.5 103.9 105.7 95.8 95.7 102.1 100.3 99.4 91.4 105.0 98.2 95.8' 92.6 90.7 113.0 114.2 100.2 103.4 107.3 110.3 99.1 93.0 101.5 100.0 102.8 88.6 Alkalies and chlorine..................................... Inorganic pigments ...................................... Industrial inorganic chemicals, not elsewhere classified..................................... Synthetic fibers......................................... Soaps and detergents................................... Cosmetics and other toiletries ....................... Paints and allied products............................. Industrial organic chemicals, not elsewhere classified..................................... Nitrogenous fertilizers.................................... Phosphatic fertilizers ..................................... Fertilizers, mixing only................................... Agricultural chemicals, not elsewhere classified.................................... 2812 2816 38.4 72.6 50.8 67.8 70.8 84.4 97.7 88.6 100.0 100.0 100.9 101.2 92.6 107.3 90.7 102.5 84.0 96.3 2819 pt. 2823,24 2841 2844 285 90.6 38.4 89.1 88.6 63.2 91.5 70.9 91.0 93.6 79.8 87.3 79.3 91.5 90.3 96.9 88.6 90.8 92.3 96.6 98.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.8 102.7 103.4 105.0 103.0 104.3 103.5 110.7 101.6 106.6 106.8 98.3 132.1 100.8 111.4 99.0 97.1 131.7 103.4 111.2 2869 2873 2874 2875 73.1 65.4 62.4 90.5 93.0 72.7 68.3 110.9 87.8 100.7 84.2 100.8 92.3 90.5 79.6 95.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 110.7 101.7 93.4 103.4 109.9 105.4 85.6 110.8 99.5 108.9 104.5 108.7 93.2 110.1 114.5 109.3 Iron mining, usable ore ................................. Copper mining, recoverable metal................. Coal mining............................................... Crude petroleum and natural gas.................. Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels................. Petroleum refining......................................... Tires and inner tubes .................................... Rubber and plastics hose and belting............ Miscellaneous plastic products, not elsewhere classified.................................... Footwear...................................................... Glass containers........................................... Cement, hydraulic......................................... Clay construction products............................ Clay refractories............................................ Concrete products........................................ Ready-mixed concrete .................................. Steel ............................................................ Gray and ductile iron foundries...................... Steel foundries.............................................. Primary copper.............................................. Primary aluminum.......................................... Copper rolling and drawing ............................ Aluminum rolling and drawing........................ 2879 74.3 83.6 92.9 93.2 100.0 108.4 108.9 106.2 102.8 291 301 3052 84.0 56.0 79.3 82.6 63.9 80.6 84.7 89.3 100.5 94.9 92.6 102.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 105.3 104.6 107.3 109.6 107.2 96.3 109.1 108.3 100.9 106.7 109.5 93.0 308 314 3221 324 3251,53,59 3255 3271,72 3273 72.8 89.9 75.2 71.3 78.5 80.1 92.5 99.1 74.3 94.5 83.8 68.7 79.0 93.9 91.3 96.2 88.2 99.9 93.4 91.8 94.2 94.9 99.5 93.7 88.9 101.7 98.5 97.1 95.5 100.8 104.4 96.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.4 102.4 101.1 103.3 103.9 101.3 102.3 100.3 97.5 101.4 104.8 110.1 96.7 97.3 105.2 101.0 100.4 93.0 112.5 112.5 100.5 102.2 104.6 99.7 100.9 93.3 114.9 108.3 95.1 96.2 105.9 96.1 331 3321 3324,25 3331 3334 3351 3353,54,55 64.2 91.3 105.8 32.8 73.6 77.5 79.0 65.9 92.4 104.5 41.1 74.7 82.0 84.3 85.8 96.9 99.5 73.8 97.6 86.2 85.7 89.7 99.3 104.9 88.7 102.7 92.3 95.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 113.4 106.8 95.3 103.7 102.2 100.0 96.9 108.5 104.1 96.6 96.8 104.6 94.1 91.2 110.5 104.1 95.9 86.3 106.3 93.9 92.4 108.1 99.3 93.2 84.7 110.3 96.9 92.0 See footnotes at end of table. 100 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - October 1995 45. Continued—Annual indexes of output per hour for selected industries (1987 = 100) 1973 1979 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Metal cans.................................................... Hand and edge tools, not elsewhere classified.................................................... Heating equipment, except electric................ Fabricated structural metal............................ Metal doors, sash, and trim............................ Bolts, nuts, rivets, and washers..................... Automotive stampings................................... Metal stampings, not elsewhere classified.................................................... 3411 59.2 75.2 99.2 95.9 100.0 107.4 109.0 119.1 126.0 3423 3433 3441 3442 3452 3465 108.6 78.0 98.1 90.5 75.8 74.9 111.6 86.2 86.0 92.6 78.9 81.4 98.8 91.9 98.6 104.8 88.8 94.5 97.1 96.2 98.8 102.0 91.0 95.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.9 112.7 98.9 102.4 97.0 104.5 102.1 103.2 94.7 101.5 93.8 104.7 96.4 111.2 96.8 97.0 93.7 100.8 95.0 115.4 98.3 94.7 96.2 104.2 3469 96.8 100.2 88.6 93.9 100.0 99.6 98.3 95.1 96.3 Valves and pipe fittings.................................. Fabricated pipe and fittings............................ Internal combustion engines, not elsewhere classified.................................... Farm machinery and equipment..................... Lawn and garden equipment.......................... Construction machinery.................................. Mining machinery.......................................... Oil and gas field machinery............................ 3491,92,94 3498 93.6 140.8 95.7 116.0 94.4 120.0 93.9 121.4 100.0 100.0 101.3 99.2 101.0 101.7 101.9 106.5 101.2 113.3 3519 3523 3524 3531 3532 3533 83.1 108.6 70.0 87.9 102.2 105.9 86.4 112.6 83.3 91.5 89.3 100.6 92.0 101.6 82.4 92.2 93.7 92.3 98.5 95.7 93.2 99.1 95.1 95.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 105.1 112.5 97.2 107.2 102.2 99.3 110.9 123.1 91.9 109.7 107.3 104.6 105.0 130.6 93.4 108.9 99.0 107.4 98.9 123.6 94.5 98.2 90.7 109.2 Metal-cutting machine tools ........................... Metal-forming machine tools.......................... Machine tool accessories.............................. Pumps and pumping equipment..................... Ball and roller bearings.................................. Air and gas compressors............................... Refrigeration and heating equipment.............. Carburetors, pistons, rings, and valves........... 3541 3542 3545 3561,94 3562 3563 3585 3592 101.4 112.5 105.9 84.0 108.0 87.6 100.3 102.9 100.9 98.5 100.6 91.4 110.2 86.1 98.8 82.0 89.9 93.1 92.3 91.9 91.6 92.2 98.1 98.9 92.0 93.7 95.0 92.7 94.1 96.0 95.8 95.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.1 113.8 99.3 105.8 102.4 104.1 103.5 108.8 101.2 109.9 104.6 101.5 98.2 106.1 105.7 117.1 103.1 100.6 107.4 103.5 92.1 109.2 104.6 110.9 100.2 91.9 109.2 102.7 88.3 111.8 102.6 110.7 Transformers, except electronic ............... ..... Switchgear and switchboard apparatus.......... Motors and generators.................................. Household cooking equipment....................... Household refrigerators and freezers ............. Household laundry equipment........................ Household appliances, not elsewhere classified.................................................... Electric lamps............................................... Lighting fixtures and equipment..................... Household audio and video equipment .......... Motor vehicles and equipment....................... Aircraft.......................................................... Instruments to measure electricity.................. Photographic equipment and supplies............ 3612 3613 3621 3631 3632 3633 100.2 88.2 89.0 61.8 70.1 72.3 109.8 87.5 89.7 79.1 86.8 84.7 97.0 95.1 94.9 90.3 104.1 93.8 99.3 95.9 96.8 104.6 101.2 97.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 102.9 109.5 103.3 116.4 103.1 106.6 103.9 106.6 103.8 99.4 106.9 100.8 107.8 107.8 102.4 100.1 107.4 104.8 111.4 105.7 106.4 106.2 112.3 111.4 3639 3641 3645,46,47,48 3651 371 3721 3825 386 63.7 61.3 84.1 22.3 68.7 79.2 63.7 58.9 76.1 76.1 86.2 39.1 77.7 98.6 70.8 79.0 86.3 94.2 96.7 96.3 95.3 94.2 95.4 86:1 89.1 91.5 103.0 106.9 95.1 93.5 90.4 94.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 101.0 101.1 98.3 107.3 103.2 104.8 106.6 106.8 98.4 86.2 97.2 122.3 103.3 108.2 109.6 115.7 91.9 91.4 96.5 128.4 102.5 109.8 108.2 111.7 81.1 97.0 94.7 142.0 96.9 126.7 111.5 115.6 Railroad transportation, revenue traffic........... 4011 Bus carriers, class 1 ...................................... 411,13,14 pts. Trucking, except local ................................... 4213 Air transportation .......................................... 4512,13,22 pts. Petroleum pipelines ....................................... 4612,13 481 Telephone communications............................ Electric utilities .............................................. 491,493 pt. Gas utilities................................................... 492,493 pt. Scrap and waste materials............................ 5093 49.3 116.8 69.5 54.3 93.2 46.2 88.4 145.5 - 54.0 108.3 83.9 75.5 96.9 68.7 95.3 141.4 81.1 79.8 96.1 93.8 92.0 99.9 92.6 93.0 111.9 93.4 86.1 95.6 96.8 93.8 102.0 98.1 95.2 102.1 97.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 109.3 107.9 105.2 99.5 104.8 107.8 104.9 105.5 94.3 115.4 104.6 109.4 95.1 103.2 113.4 107.7 103.6 87.8 122.6 128.1 92.2 102.5 115.1 110.0 95.0 92.2 92.5 99.1 121.8 113.3 94.2 93.1 Hardware stores............................................ Department stores......................................... Variety stores ............................................... Grocery stores............................................... Retail bakeries............................................... New and used car dealers ............................ Auto and home supply stores........................ Gasoline service stations............................... Men's and boys' clothing stores..................... Women’s clothing stores............................... Family clothing stores ................................... Shoe stores .................................................. Furniture and homefurnishings stores............. Household appliance stores........................... Radio, television, and computer stores......................................................... 525 531 533 541 546 551 553 554 561 562 565 566 571 572 83.3 60.8 148.9 109.1 125.6 85.1 71.1 59.5 77.6 58.9 76.2 81.3 83.9 59.8 97.5 74.0 123.3 106.8 112.3 86.3 80.1 73.7 82.3 72.8 75.4 90.9 91.0 72.9 95.6 92.6 129.2 105.7 87.6 99.8 94.5 93.5 98.3 99.8 103.1 97.6 94.8 94.9 101.6 97.4 106.7 103.8 93.6 101.6 94.3 101.8 100.7 107.0 103.3 105.5 101.2 106.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 108.7 99.4 97.3 98.6 94.2 102.7 106.5 102.4 102.6 99.4 101.3 102.7 99.5 101.1 115.4 97.4 113.7 95.8 87.3 103.8 108.9 104.0 102.3 102.9 103.2 107.3 102.6 108.7 110.5 94.8 132.1 94.8 84.8 107.1 114.2 101.0 101.6 106.7 101.5 106.3 104.3 111.2 102.5 99.2 130.2 94.0 90.0 105.6 114.6 102.0 102.0 110.1 102.3 105.5 104.2 117.4 573 45.6 53.0 89.3 94.1 100.0 122.2 122.0 131.4 146.2 Eating and drinking places ............................ Drug and proprietary stores............................ Liquor stores................................................. Commercial banks........................................ Hotels and motels......................................... Laundry, cleaning, and garment services........ Beauty shops................................................ Automotive repair shops................................ 581 591 592 602 701 721 723 753 110.3 92.2 95.0 81.2 102.4 110.8 85.9 109.3 106.6 101.8 90.2 84.1 109.7 109.9 89.4 105.0 96.2 102.5 101.9 94.3 101.2 103.3 96.1 99.4 99.3 101.6 93.8 96.2 98.9 100.8 96.9 96.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 102.6 102.0 99.9 103.4 95.8 97.1 93.3 105.6 101.9 102.8 104.7 102.2 91.4 98.6 96.0 107.8 103.1 104.1 110.6 108.6 90.6 99.0 91.3 106.3 104.5 105.5 112.3 112.3 91.3 96.6 87.6 99.9 Industry SIC - - - Data not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review October 1995 101 Current Labor Statistics: International Comparisons Data 46. Unemployment rates, approximating U.S. concepts, in nine countries, quarterly data seasonally adjusted Annual average 1993 1994 1995 Country 1993 1994 I II III IV I II United States1 .................................. Canada ............................................. Australia........................................... Japan ............................................... 6.8 11.2 10.9 2.5 6.1 10.4 9.7 2.9 6.5 11.2 10.8 2.8 6.6 11.0 10.4 2.8 6.2 10.6 10.0 2.9 6.0 10.2 9.5 3.0 5.6 9.8 9.1 2.9 5.5 9.7 8.9 3.0 France.............................................. Germany.......................................... Italy2 ................................................. Sweden............................................ United Kingdom ................................ 11.9 5.8 10.3 9.3 10.5 12.7 6.5 11.4 9.6 9.6 12.3 6.2 11.0 9.8 10.2 12.7 6.4 11.0 9.8 10.0 12.7 6.5 11.6 9.7 9.8 12.7 6.5 11.1 9.7 9.6 12.6 6.5 11.8 9.3 9.0 12.5 6.5 12.2 9.3 8.8 1 Data for 1994 are not directly comparable with data for 1993 and earlier years. For additional information, see the box note under “Employment and Unemployment Data” in the notes to this section. 2 Quarterly rates are for the first month of the quarter. Break in series beginning in 1993. - Data not available. 102 IV Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 5.7 9.5 8.4 3.2 _ 12.2 9.4 8.8 NOTE: Quarterly figures for France, Germany, and the United Kingdom are calculated by applying annual adjust ment factors to current published data and therefore should be viewed as less precise indicators of unemployment under U.S. concepts than the annual figures. See "Notes on the data” for information on breaks in series. 47. Annual data: Employment status of the working-age population, approximating U.S. concepts, 10 countries (Numbers in thousands) Employment status and country Civilian labor force United States1 ..................................................... Canada ............................................................... Australia.............................................................. Japan ................................................................. France ................................................................ Germany............................................................. Italy.................................................................... Netherlands......................................................... Sweden............................................................... United Kingdom................................................... Participation rate2 United States1 .................................................... Canada............................... ............................... Australia.............................................................. Japan..................................... ............................ France ................................................................ Germany............................................................. Italy ................. .................................................. Netherlands......................................................... Sweden............................................................... United Kingdom................................................... Employed United States1 ..................................................... Canada ............................................................... Australia.............................................................. Japan ................................................................. France ................................................................ Germany............................................................. Italy.................................................................... Netherlands......................................................... Sweden............................................................... United Kingdom................................................... 1985 1986 1988 1987 1991 1992 1993 1994 115,461 117,834 119,865 121,669 123,869 124,787 125,303 126,982 128,040 131,056 14,329 14,408 14,482 14,663 14,832 13,900 14,151 13,123 13,378 13,631 8,776 8,562 8,619 8,490 8,444 8,228 7,974 7,588 7,758 7,300 58,820 59,410 60,050 60,860 61,920 63,050 64,280 65,040 65,470 65,780 24,970 24,600 24,710 24,300 24,490 23,980 24,170 23,890 23,760 23,620 28,020 28,240 28,390 28,610 28,840 29,410 29,760 30,040 29,960 29,840 21,800 22,290 22,350 22,660 22,530 22,670 22,940 22,910 22,570 22,450 6,970 7,070 6,870 6,770 6,640 6,530 6,500 6,250 6,380 4,443 4,418 4,520 4,591 4,597 4,494 4,552 4,437 4,443 4,418 27,210 27,380 27,720 28,150 28,420 28,540 28,450 28,400 28,310 28,310 64.8 65.8 61.6 62.3 56.9 54.7 47.2 55.5 66.9 62.1 65.3 66.3 62.8 62.1 56.9 54.9 47.8 56.0 67.0 62.1 65.6 66.7 63.0 61.9 56.7 55.0 47.6 56.3 66.4 62.5 65.9 67.2 63.3 61.9 56.4 55.1 47.4 56.1 66.9 63.2 66.5 67.5 64.0 62.2 56.1 55.2 47.3 56.5 67.3 63.6 66.4 67.3 64.6 62.6 55.6 55.0 47.2 56.8 67.0 63.7 66.0 66.7 64.1 63.2 55.6 55.4 48.6 57.5 66.6 63.3 66.3 65.9 63.9 63.4 55.9 55.1 48.5 57.9 65.3 62.9 66.2 65:5 63.6 63.3 55.7 54.5 48.3 58.6 64.2 62.8 66.6 65.3 63.9 63.1 56.0 “ 48.0 63.6 62.7 107,150 109,597 112,440 114,968 117,342 117,914 116,877 117,598 119,306 123,060 11,742 12,095 12,422 12,819 13,086 13,165 12,916 12,842 13,015 13,292 7,680 7,921 7,637 7,676 7,720 7,859 7,398 6,974 7,129 6,697 57,260 57,740 58-320 59,310 60,500 61,710 62,920 63,620 63,810 63,860 21,810 21,780 21,150 21,240 21,320 21,520 21,850 22,100 22,140 22,010 26,010 26,380 26,590 26,800 27,200 27,950 28,480 28,660 28,220 27,900 20,490 20,610 20,590 20,870 20,770 21,080 21,360 21,230 20,240 19,890 6,450 6,380 6,470 6,260 6,070 5,850 5,920 5,740 5,650 3,992 4,028 4,447 4,265 4,513 4,480 4,340 4,410 4,326 4,293 25,590 25,340 25,520 26,550 25,930 26,350 25,730 24,150 24,300 24,860 Employment-population ratio3 United States1 .................................................... Canada ............................................................... Australia.............................................................. Japan ................................................................. France ................................................................ Germany............................................................. Italy.................................................................... Netherlands......................................................... Sweden............................................................... United Kingdom................................................... 60.1 58.9 56.5 60.6 51.0 50.7 44.4 50.1 65.0 55.1 60.7 59.9 57.7 60.4 50.8 51.3 44.2 - 50.3 65.2 55.1 61.5 60.8 57.9 60.1 50.6 51.5 43.8 50.7 65.0 56.1 62.3 62.0 58.7 60.4 50.6 51.6 43.7 50.8 65.7 57.8 Unemployed United States1 ..................................................... Canada ............................................................... Australia.............................................................. Japan ................................................................. France ................................................................ Germany............................................................. Italy.................................................................... Netherlands......................................................... Sweden............................................................... United Kingdom................................................... 8,312 1,381 603 1,560 2,470 2,010 1,310 600 125 3,060 8,237 1,283 613 1,670 2,520 1,860 1,680 640 117 3,080 7,425 1,208 629 1,730 2,570 1,800 1,760 650 97 2,860 6,701 1,082 576 1,550 2,460 1,810 1,790 610 84 2,420 Unemployment rate United States1 ..................................................... Canada ............................................................... Australia.............................................................. Japan ................................................................. France ................................................................ Germany............................................................. Italy .................................................................... Netherlands......................................................... Sweden............................................................... United Kingdom................................................... 7.2 10.5 8.3 2.6 10.5 7.2 6.0 9.6 2.8 11.2 7.0 9.6 8.1 2.8 10.6 6.6 7.5 10.0 2.6 11.2 6.2 8.9 8.1 2.9 10.8 6.3 7.9 10.0 2.2 10.3 5.5 7.8 7.2 2.5 10.3 6.3 7.9 9.3 1.9 8.6 1 Data for 1994 are not directly comparable with data for 1993 and earlier years. For additional information, see the box note under "Employment and Unemployment Data” in the notes to this section. 2 Labor force as a percent of the working-age population. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1990 1989 62.7 61.9 60.1 61.3 50.5 52.2 43.9 52.5 65.8 59.2 61.6 59.8 57.9 61.8 50.3 53.0 45.3 53.4 64.5 57.7 61.4 58.4 57.0 62.0 50.0 52.6 44.9 53.8 61.7 56.5 61.6 58.2 56.6 61.7 49.1 51.3 43.3 53.4 58.2 56.2 62.5 58.5 57.7 61.3 48.9 “ 42.5 57.4 56.7 6,528 1,065 508 1,420 2,320 1,640 1,760 570 72 2,070 6,874 1,164 585 1,340 2,200 1,460 1,590 510 84 1,990 8,426 1,492 814 1,360 2,350 1,280 1,580 490 144 2,520 9,384 1,640 925 1,420 2,590 1,380 1,680 500 255 2,880 8,734 1,649 939 1,660 2,930 1,740 2,330 620 415 2,970 7,996 1,541 856 1,920 3,160 1,940 2,560 426 2,720 5.3 7.5 6.2 2.3 9.6 5.7 7.8 8.6 1.6 7.3 5.5 8.1 6.9 2.1 9.1 5.0 7.0 7.5 1.8 7.0 6.7 10.4 9.6 2.1 9.6 4.3 6.9 7.1 3.1 8.9 7.4 11.3 10.8 2.2 10.5 4.6 7.3 7.2 5.6 10.1 6.8 11.2 10.9 2.5 11.9 5.8 10.3 8.8 9.3 10.5 6.1 10.4 9.7 2.9 12.7 6.5 11.4 9.6 9.6 63.0 62.4 60.1 60.8 50.7 52.0 43.6 51.7 66.2 59.0 3 Employment as a percent of the working-age population. - Data not available. NOTE: See “Notes on the data” for information on breaks in series for Italy and Sweden. Monthly Labor Review October 1995 103 Current Labor Statistics: 48. International Comparisons Data Annual indexes of manufacturing productivity and related measures, 12 countries (1982 = 100) Item and country Output per hour United States........................................................................... Canada ............................................................................. Japan ..................................................................................... Belgium............................................................ Denmark.......................................................................... France .......................................................................... Germany......................................................................... Netherlands........................................................................ Norway ....................................................................... Sweden..................................................................................... United Kingdom...................................................................... Output United States.................................................................................. Canada .......................................................................................... Japan ............................................................................................. Belgium............................................................................. Denmark............................................................................ France ................................................................................. Germany................................................................................... Netherlands............................................................................ Norway .................................................................................. Sweden................................................................................... United Kingdom.............................................................................. Total hours United States......................................................................... Canada .......................................................................................... Japan ............................................................................................. Belgium.......................................................................................... Denmark................................................................................ France ........................................................................................ Germany........................................................................................ Netherlands.................................................................................... Norway .................................................................................. Sweden...................................................................................... United Kingdom.............................................................................. Compensation per hour United States.............................................................................. Canada .......................................................................................... Japan ............................................................................................. Belgium................................................................................. Denmark.................................................................................... France ............................................................................ Germany........................................................................... Netherlands...................................................................... Norway ............................................................................ Sweden........................................................................... United Kingdom................................................................. Unit labor costs: National currency basis United States................................................................... Canada ............................................................................. Japan ......................................................................... Belgium.......................................................................... Denmark....................................................................... France .................................................................... Germany................................................................ Netherlands...................................................... Norway ................................................................... Sweden............................................................................ United Kingdom.............................................................. Unit labor costs: U.S. dollar basis United States........................................................................ Canada .......................................................................................... Japan .................................................................................... Belgium.................................................................. Denmark........................................................................... France ........................................................................................... Germany................................................................................ Netherlands.............................................................................. Norway .............................................................................. Sweden.......................................................................................... United Kingdom............................................................................ - Data not available. 104 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 1960 1970 1973 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 51.6 18.5 26.2 32.4 29.6 37.1 29.3 27.3 46.4 36.0 50.3 76.9 50.3 47.9 57.2 58.6 66.4 54.9 54.4 73.0 68.9 72.1 91.9 64.4 62.5 72.7 69.4 77.9 65.1 69.2 85.4 81.1 86.2 103.5 116.3 107.9 117.5 104.3 103.9 109.0 115.7 118.5 112.2 111.8 112.4 106.7 119.8 114.9 119.6 105.0 107.9 113.4 122.3 123.4 115.8 113.8 116.4 109.5 117.9 113.0 121.4 98.9 109.7 114.2 123.7 125.3 114.7 115.7 120.6 116.6 119.0 122.4 123.7 98.4 111.6 112.7 127.2 126.2 120.4 117.7 126.9 119.2 119.5 129.6 128.6 102.1 119.3 116.7 130.0 128.9 119.5 118.6 133.5 119.9 120.0 138.7 134.4 105.6 125.4 120.5 134.0 133.7 119.5 122.5 138.4 122.1 122.0 149.1 134.1 105.5 127.6 125.6 139.3 135.4 124.5 124.0 140.1 124.9 122.9 156.9 138.1 107.5 127.1 130.1 143.8 136.8 123.8 124.0 145.3 127.5 128.0 156.6 143.6 109.6 131.1 128.5 151.0 137.4 128.9 130.6 152.3 132.0 130.9 159.5 149.5 111.2 132.3 130.5 158.0 140.0 131.6 139.2 159.2 44.1 15.1 40.8 45.4 35.1 51.0 28.1 42.8 56.0 51.8 82.9 78.5 55.1 76.5 75.7 72.7 87.0 58.8 80.5 88.4 91.0 110.5 100.0 71.8 93.9 88.5 87.0 96.4 70.5 91.5 101.3 98.6 121.9 111.3 120.2 113.2 109.9 111.7 98.7 104.6 105.4 109.1 105.0 113.4 105.9 114.0 127.0 121.2 111.8 115.3 99.1 108.4 108.9 112.1 108.8 115.9 108.9 115.2 127.9 117.9 111.9 115.3 99.1 110.1 111.5 114.8 108.8 117.4 110.3 123.5 134.1 126.5 112.2 110.6 98.9 108.1 116.3 116.4 110.8 120.1 115.5 130.0 140.9 138.2 117.7 112.3 104.6 111.5 125.0 120.8 105.5 122.9 123.6 131.2 142.1 149.3 124.9 113.6 110.3 115.4 129.7 126.3 99.0 124.5 129.1 130.6 136.8 160.6 126.5 112.4 112.4 121.7 132.3 130.5 99.8 123.3 128.9 128.2 127.5 170.8 126.9 112.3 110.4 126.2 132.1 131.1 96.5 115.4 121.9 130.1 128.3 167.4 127.0 113.4 110.2 123.3 132.6 130.3 99.6 111.5 121.1 136.6 134.7 163.2 123.1 109.9 105.2 113.8 129.2 127.4 101.3 113.2 122.7 94.1 85.5 81.7 156.2 140.0 118.5 137.2 96.2 156.8 120.9 143.7 164.9 106.5 102.1 109.6 159.9 132.3 123.9 131.1 107.0 148.1 121.1 132.0 153.3 112.6 108.8 111.5 150.3 121.8 125.3 123.7 108.3 132.2 118.7 121.6 141.4 107.6 103.3 104.9 93.6 107.1 95.0 96.0 91.1 92.0 93.5 101.5 94.2 106.8 106.0 105.5 93.5 109.8 91.8 95.6 89.0 90.8 94.0 101.9 93.5 105.2 108.5 104.3 92.2 116.6 90.3 96.4 90.1 91.7 94.8 101.5 91.5 106.0 112.7 103.4 90.7 112.4 88.6 95.9 91.4 92.2 92.0 102.0 91.0 109.0 117.9 106.7 91.5 110.0 87.7 95.6 96.1 93.7 88.3 103.6 92.6 109.4 118.4 107.6 93.0 107.6 88.0 95.7 96.8 94.5 82.8 101.6 93.3 107.0 112.2 107.7 94.3 106.6 88.1 96.9 95.0 96.3 80.2 99.4 92.0 102.7 103.7 108.8 91.9 104.5 86.8 97.0 91.8 95.8 77.9 93.1 83.9 102.0 100.3 106.9 88.4 103.5 84.1 96.0 87.8 94.9 77.3 85.4 79.5 103.5 102.9 102.3 82.3 98.8 79.5 87.3 81.7 91.0 77.0 81.4 77.1 16.4 6.6 9.1 7.7 7.6 13.5 3.9 9.1 9.9 9.3 7.1 28.7 25.0 23.2 22.3 18.5 34.5 11.6 28.5 24.6 24.4 14.7 35.9 40.7 35.5 34.5 26.2 48.2 17.7 44.5 35.3 34.3 22.6 106.0 111.1 105.8 114.8 113.0 119.6 110.0 134.3 108.4 120.9 119.6 114.6 111.3 116.8 110.1 122.0 120.6 129.6 116.3 150.9 114.1 132.2 131.8 125.1 115.8 121.3 115.8 127.0 123.1 135.1 121.2 157.1 118.6 145.0 142.4 135.4 118.4 125.0 118.6 130.0 134.6 140.0 126.9 166.0 122.4 165.6 151.9 149.8 123.1 130.5 120.6 132.7 139.4 145.4 131.8 172.5 122.0 175.7 161.8 159.4 127.9 135.4 128.2 139.7 147.3 153.2 138.2 189.5 123.1 183.9 179.0 174.7 134.7 143.0 138.3 147.5 156.5 161.3 147.9 210.8 126.4 194.7 197.5 180.6 141.9 152.3 146.2 156.8 162.6 169.1 157.8 233.1 132.3 205.6 215.1 199.4 147.9 158.2 152.4 164.9 169.1 174.9 166.2 250.4 139.2 210.9 225.0 219.6 152.0 158.7 159.3 171.2 175.7 181.5 178.5 267.1 145.6 212.9 221.6 235.6 31.9 35.5 34.9 23.8 25.7 36.4 13.4 33.3 21.3 25.8 14.2 37.3 49.7 48.4 39.0 31.5 51.9 21.1 52.5 33.7 35.4 20.4 39.1 63.2 56.8 47.4 37.7 61.9 27.2 64.3 41.4 42.2 26.3 102.4 95.5 98.1 97.7 108.3 115.2 101.0 116.1 91.5 107.8 107.0 101.9 104.2 97.6 95.8 102.0 114.9 120.2 102.6 123.4 92.5 114.2 115.8 107.5 105.8 102.9 102.4 104.7 124.5 123.2 106.2 127.1 94.6 126.4 123.1 112.3 101.6 105.0 96.8 105.1 136.8 125.5 112.6 130.5 97.0 137.5 129.0 118.0 103.2 109.2 93.1 103.1 136.5 121.8 113.0 132.6 94.6 147.1 136.4 119.4 106.7 112.8 92.4 103.9 139.5 122.2 114.6 141.4 92.1 154.0 146.1 126.2 110.4 117.2 92.7 110.0 148.3 126.4 117.8 151.3 93.3 156.5 159.2 128.9 113.7 123.9 93.2 113.5 151.2 133.0 121.3 162.1 96.7 166.1 173.4 137.2 116.0 123.6 97.3 114.8 154.3 133.4 129.4 165.8 101.4 163.7 172.3 144.2 115.1 121.2 99.8 114.5 158.0 137.2 136.8 169.0 104.0 161.8 159.3 148.0 40.6 24.6 32.0 28.8 34.4 21.2 29.3 23.6 19.3 31.4 22.8 44.1 34.6 44.6 43.4 37.5 34.6 45.7 38.8 30.4 42.9 28.0 48.2 58.1 67.0 65.7 55.9 56.8 63.2 61.8 46.5 61.0 36.8 102.4 91.0 102.9 77.5 87.3 86.7 86.2 89.5 76.2 85.3 81.3 77.9 104.2 88.2 100.1 78.7 90.4 88.0 84.7 87.5 74.5 85.8 84.6 79.8 105.8 91.4 151.5 107.3 128.3 117.0 118.8 115.4 103.3 110.3 108.5 94.3 101.6 97.8 166.8 128.8 166.7 137.3 152.1 136.3 127.9 131.7 127.7 110.7 103.2 109.5 180.9 128.4 169.0 134.5 156.1 137.9 127.8 145.5 139.7 121.6 106.7 117.6 166.7 120.7 159.0 126.0 148.0 139.5 115.9 143.8 142.2 118.3 110.4 124.0 159.3 150.6 200.0 152.7 176.9 170.9 136.9 161.5 168.9 131.6 113.7 133.5 172.5 152.0 197.1 155.0 177.3 176.8 138.0 165.2 180.1 138.7 116.0 126.2 191.2 163.5 213.3 165.8 201.2 182.1 154.0 170.1 185.8 145.7 115.1 116.0 223.8 151.6 203.3 159.3 200.8 145.4 149.5 147.2 128.4 127.1 49. Occupational injury and illness incidence rates by industry,1 United States Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers3 Industry and type of case2 1985 1986 1987 1988 19891 1990 1992 1991 1993* PRIVATE SECTOR5 Agriculture, forestry, and fishing5 7.9 3.6 64.9 7.9 3.6 65.8 8.3 3.8 69.9 8.6 4.0 76.1 8.6 4.0 78.7 8.8 4.1 84.0 8.4 3.9 86.5 8.9 3.9 93.8 8.5 3.8 11.4 5.7 91.3 11.2 5.6 93.6 11.2 5.7 94.1 10.9 5.6 101.8 10.9 5.7 100.9 11.6 5.9 112.2 10.8 5.4 108.3 11.6 5.4 126.9 11.2 5.0 8.4 4.8 145.3 7.4 4.1 125.9 8.5 4.9 144.0 8.8 5.1 152.1 8.5 4.8 137.2 8.3 5.0 119.5 7.4 4.5 129.6 7.3 4.1 204.7 6.8 3.9 15.2 6.8 128.9 15.2 6.9 134.5 14.7 6.8 135.8 14.6 6.8 142.2 14.3 6.8 143.3 14.2 6.7 147.9 13.0 6.1 148.1 13.1 5.8 161.9 12.2 5.5 15.2 6.8 120.4 14.9 6.6 122.7 14.2 6.5 134.0 14.0 6.4 132.2 13.9 6.5 137.3 13.4 6.4 137.6 12.0 5.5 132.0 12.2 5.4 142.7 11.5 5.1 14.5 6.3 127.3 14.7 6.3 132.9 14.5 6.4 139.1 15.1 7.0 162.3 13.8 6.5 147.1 13.8 6.3 144.6 12.8 6.0 160.1 12.1 5.4 165.8 11.1 5.1 15.4 7.0 133.3 15.6 7.2 140.4 15.0 7.1 135.7 14.7 7.0 141.1 14.6 6.9 144.9 14.7 6.9 153.1 13.5 6.3 151.3 13.8 6.1 168.3 12.8 5.8 10.4 4.6 80.2 10.6 4.7 85.2 11.9 5.3 95.5 13.1 5.7 107.4 13.1 5.8 113.0 13.2 5.8 120.7 12.7 5.6 121.5 12.5 5.4 124.6 12.1 5.3 10.9 4.7 82.0 11.0 4.8 87.1 12.5 5.4 96.8 14.2 5.9 111.1 14.1 6.0 116.5 14.2 6.0 123.3 13.6 5.7 122.9 13.4 5.5 126.7 13.1 5.4 18.5 9.3 171.4 18.9 9.7 177.2 18.9 9.6 176.5 19.5 10.0 189.1 18.4 9.4 177.5 18.1 8.8 172.5 16.8 8.3 172.0 16.3 7.6 165.8 15.9 7.6 15.0 6.3 100.4 15.2 6.3 103.0 15.4 6.7 103.6 16.6 7.3 115.7 _ 15.9 7.2 14.8 6.6 128.4 14.6 6.5 13.9 6.7 127.8 13.6 6.5 126.0 14.9 7.1 135.8 16.0 7.5 141.0 15.5 7.4 149.8 15.4 7.3 160.5 14.8 6.8 156.0 13.6 6.1 152.2 13.8 6.3 12.6 5.7 113.8 13.6 6.1 125.5 17.0 7.4 145.8 19.4 8.2 161.3 18.7 8.1 168.3 19.0 8.1 180.2 17.7 7.4 169.1 17.5 7.1 175.5 17.0 7.3 16.3 6.9 110.1 16.0 6.8 115.5 17.0 7.2 121.9 18.8 8.0 138.8 18.5 7.9 147.6 18.7 7.9 155.7 17.4 7.1 146.6 16.8 6.6 144.0 16.2 6.7 10.8 4.2 69.3 10.7 4.2 72.0 11.3 4.4 72.7 12.1 4.7 82.8 12.1 4.8 86.8 12.0 4.7 88.9 11.2 4.4 86.6 11.1 4.2 87.7 11.1 4.2 6.4 2.7 45.7 6.4 2.7 49.8 7.2 3.1 55.9 8.0 3.3 64.6 9.1 3.9 77.5 9.1 3.8 79.4 8.6 3.7 83.0 8.4 3.6 81.2 8.3 3.5 9.0 3.9 71.6 9.6 4.1 79.1 13.5 5.7 105.7 17.7 6.6 134.2 17.7 6.8 138.6 17.8 6.9 153.7 18.3 7.0 166.1 18.7 7.1 186.6 18.5 7.1 5.2 2.2 37.9 5.3 2.3 42.2 5.8 2.4 43.9 6.1 2.6 51.5 5.6 2.5 55.4 5.9 2.7 57.8 6.0 2.7 64.4 5.9 2.7 65.3 5.6 2.5 9.7 4.2 73.2 10.2 4.3 70.9 10.7 4.6 81.5 11.3 5.1 91.0 11.1 5.1 97.6 11.3 5.1 113.1 11.3 5.1 104.0 10.7 5.0 108.2 10.0 4.6 9.6 10.0 11.1 11.4 11.6 11.7 11.5 11.3 10.7 Mining Construction General building contractors: Heavy construction, except building: Special trade contractors: Manufacturing Durable goods: Lumber and wood products: Furniture and fixtures: Stone, clay, and glass products: 16.1 7.2 16.9 7.8 _ Primary metal industries: Fabricated metal products: _ Industrial machinery and equipment: Electronic and other electrical equipment: Transportation equipment: Instruments and related products: Miscellaneous manufacturing industries: Nondurable goods: See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Monthly Labor Review - - - - - - . - - - . - - . - - - - - October 1995 105 Current Labor Statistics: Injury and Illness Data 49. Continued— Occupational injury and illness incidence rates by industry,1 United States Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers3 Industry and type of case2 1985 Lost workday cases ......................................................... Lost workdays................................................................. 1987 1988 19891 1990 1991 1992 19934 4.4 77.6 4.6 82.3 5.1 93.5 5.4 101.7 5.5 107.6 5.6 116.9 5.5 119.7 5.3 121.8 5.0 - 16.7 8.1 138.0 16.5 8.0 137.8 17.7 8.6 153.7 18.5 9.2 169.7 18.5 9.3 174.7 20.0 9.9 202.6 19.5 9.9 207.2 18.8 9.5 211.9 17.6 8.9 7.3 3.0 51.7 6.7 2.5 45.6 8.6 2.5 46.4 9.3 2.9 53.0 8.7 3.4 64.2 7.7 3.2 62.3 6.4 2.8 52.0 6.0 2.4 42.9 5.8 2.3 7.5 3.0 57.4 7.8 3.1 59.3 9.0 3.6 65.9 9.6 4.0 78.8 10.3 4.2 81.4 9.6 4.0 85.1 10.0 4.4 88.3 9.9 4.2 87.1 9.7 4.1 6.7 2.6 44.1 6.7 2.7 49.4 7.4 3.1 59.5 8.1 3.5 68.2 8.6 3.8 80.5 8.8 3.9 92.1 9.2 4.2 99.9 9.5 4.0 104.6 9.0 3.8 10.2 4.7 94.6 10.5 4.7 99.5 12.8 5.8 122.3 13.1 5.9 124.3 12.7 5.8 132.9 12.1 5.5 124.8 11.2 5.0 122.7 11.0 5.0 125.9 9.9 4.6 - 6.3 2.9 49.2 6.5 2.9 50.8 6.7 3.1 55.1 6.6 3.2 59.8 6.9 3.3 63.8 6.9 3.3 69.8 6.7 3.2 74.5 7.3 3.2 74.8 6.9 3.1 ■5.1 2.3 38.8 6.3 2.7 49.4 7.0 3.1 58.8 7.0 3.3 59.0 7.0 3.2 63.4 6.5 3.1 61.6 6.4 3.1 62.4 6.0 2.8 64.2 5.9 2.7 5.1 2.4 49.9 7.1 3.2 67.5 7.3 3.1 65.S 7.0 3.2 68.4 6.6 3.3 68.1 6.6 3.1 77.3 6.2 2.9 68.2 5.9 2.8 71.2 5.2 2.5 13.4 6.3 107.4 14.0 6.6 118.2 15.9 7.6 130.8 16.3 8.1 142.9 16.2 8.0 147.2 15.1 7.2 150.9 14.5 6.8 153.3 13.9 6.5 10.3 4.6 88.3 10.5 4.8 83.4 12.4 5.8 114.5 11.4 5.6 128.2 13.6 6.5 130.4 16.2 7.8 151.3 t 12.1 5.9 152.3 12.5 5.9 140.8 12.1 5.4 128.5 12.1 5.5 - 8.6 5.0 107.1 8.2 4.8 102.1 8.4 4.9 108.1 8.9 5.1 118.6 9.2 5.3 121.5 9.6 5.5 134.1 9.3 5.4 140.0 9.1 5.1 144.0 9.5 5.4 - 7.4 3.2 50.7 7.7 3.3 54.0 7.7 3.4 56.1 7.8 3.5 60.9 8.0 3.6 63.5 7.9 3.5 65.6 7.6 3.4 72.0 8.4 3.5 80.1 8.1 3.4 7.2 3.5 59.8 7.2 3.6 62.5 7.4 3.7 64.0 7.6 3.8 69.2 7.7 4.0 71.9 7.4 3.7 71.5 7.2 3.7 79.2 7.6 3.6 82.4 7.8 3.7 7.5 3.1 47.0 7.8 3.2 50.5 7.8 3.3 52.9 7.9 3.4 57.6 8.1 3.4 60.0 8.1 3.4 63.2 7.7 3.3 69.1 8.7 3.4 79.2 8.2 3.3 Finance, Insurance, and real estate Total cases................................................................... Lost workday cases...................................................................... Lost workdays...................................................................... 2.0 .9 15.4 2.0 .9 17.1 2.0 .9 14.3 2.0 .9 17.2 2.0 .9 17.6 2.4 1.1 27.3 2.4 1.1 24.1 2.9 1.2 32.9 2.9 1.2 Services Total cases........................................................................ Lost workday cases........................................................................ Lost workdays................................................................................... 5.4 2.6 45.4 5.3 2.5 43.0 5.5 2.7 45.8 5.4 2.6 47.7 5.5 2.7 51.2 6.0 2.8 56.4 6.2 2.8 60.0 7.1 3.0 68.6 6.7 2.8 - Food and kindred products: Total cases................................................................................. Lost workday cases ................ ................................................. Lost workdays................................................................. Tobacco products: Total cases......................................................................... Lost workday cases ......................................................................... Lost workdays.................................................................................. Textile mill products: Total cases...................................................................... Lost workday cases ........................................................................ Lost workdays................................................................................. Apparel and other textile products: Total cases.................................................................................. Lost workday cases ......................................................................... Lost workdays.................................................................................. Paper and allied products: Total cases...................................................................................... Lost workday cases ....................................................................... Lost workdays......................................................................... Printing and publishing: Total cases..................................................................................... Lost workday cases ................................................................... Lost workdays............................................................................. Chemicals and allied products: Total cases................................................................................... Lost workday cases ......................................................................... Lost workdays.................................................................................. Petroleum and coal products: Total cases............................................................................. •....... Lost workday cases ......................................................................... Lost workdays.................................................................................. Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products: Total cases...................................................................................... Lost workday cases ......................................................................... Lost workdays.......................................................................... Leather and leather products: Total cases...................................................................................... Lost workday cases ......................................................................... Lost workdays.................................................................................. Transportation and public utilities Total cases....................................................................................... Lost workday cases........................................................................... Lost workdays ............................................................................. Wholesale and retail trade Total cases................................................................................ Lost workday cases............................................................................ Lost workdays..................................................................... Wholesale trade: Total cases......................................................................... Lost workday cases................................................................... Lost workdays.............................................................................. Retail trade: Total cases.................................................................................. Lost workday cases....................................................................... Lost workdays................................................................. 1 Data for 1989 and subsequent years are based on the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987 Edition. For this reason, they are not strictly comparable with data for the years 1985-88, which were based on the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1972 Edition, 1977 Supplement. 2 Beginning with the 1992 survey, the annual survey measures only nonfatal Injuries and illnesses, while past surveys covered both fatal and nonfatal incidents. To better address fatalities, a basic element of workplace safety, BLS implemented the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries. 3 The incidence rates represent the number of injuries and illnesses or lost workdays per 100 full-time workers and were calculated as: (N/EH) X 200,000, where: 106 1986 Monthly Labor Review https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis October 1995 . _ . _ _ . _ _ N = number of injuries and illnesses or lost workdays. EH = total hours worked by all employees during the calendar year. 200,000 = base for 100 full-time equivalent workers (working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). 4 Beginning with the 1993 survey, lost workday estimates will not be generated. As of 1992, BLS began generating percent distributions and the median number of days away from work by industry and for groups of workers sustaining similar work disabilities. 5 Excludes farms with fewer than 11 employees since 1976. - Data not available. Freebies From BLS Keep You Informed The Bureau’s series of issues papers provides you with succinct, up-to-the-minute background analysis in readily digested form. They’re convenient, current, easy to read, and free from BLS. To be added to the Issues in Labor Statistics mailing list, write to: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Publications and Special Studies, Room2 8 5 0 ,2 Massachusetts Ave., N E, Washington, DC 20212-0001, or FAX the coupon below to (202) 606-7891. Here are some recent Issu es. • Health Insurance Premiums Dominate Health Care Budget Of Consumers • Growth of Jobs With Above Average Earnings Projected At All Educational Levels • Shifting Work Force Spawns New Set of Hazardous Occupations • Violence In the Workplace Comes Under Close Scrutiny • Part-time Work: A Choice Or A Response • The Demographics of Family Spending • What’s Behind U.S. Competitiveness? • Safer Construction Workplaces Evident During the Early 1990s • Unpaid Family Leave • Outdoor Occupations Exhibit High Rates of Fatal Injury • School Enrollment After Age 25 • Displacement Spreads to Higher Paid Managers and Professionals Yes, please add my name to free mailing list J336, is s u e s In L a b o r S ta tis tic s . Name/Position___________ ______________________________________ Organization____________________________________________________ Street___________________ _______________________________________ City.______________________________State________________Zip______ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Occupational Injuries and Illnesses i U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics The Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illness provides you with information on the number and incidence of nonfatal work-related injuries and illnesses. For injuries involving time away from work, this publication tells you the number and percent distribution of injuries and illnesses by occupation, sex, age, race, and length of service. Numbers, percent distributions, and incidence rates are also calculated by detailed nature of injury or illness, part of body affected, source of injury or illness, and type of event and exposure leading to the incident. Charge yo ur order, It's easy! Order Processing Code: S u perintendent of Docum ents O rder Form *7793 To fax y o u r orders (202) 512-2250 To phone y o u r orders (202) 512-1800 □ Y E S , send m e _____ copy(s) of O ccupational Injuries and Illnesses: C ounts, Rates, and C haracteristics, 1992, GPO s/n 029-001 -03210-1, at $17.00 each. The total cost of my order is $ ________________________ . (Includes regular shipping and handling.) Price subject to change. International customers please add 25%. For privacy, check box below: Company or personal name (Please type or print) □ Do not make my name available to other mailers C heck m ethod of paym ent: Additional address/attention line □ Check payable to Superintendent of Documents Street address City, State, ZIP Code Thank you for your order! Daytime phone including area code Purchase order number (optional) Authorizing signature 9/95 Mail To: Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954 orto Publications Sales Center, P.O. Box 21451, Chicago, IL 60690. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M O N T H L Y ’ L A B O R REVI EW U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics We provide the pieces. Putting you in touch with the raw data is our mission. We help you put them together. Each issue also brings you our insights on employment and unemployment, wages and benefits, prices and productivity, and the rest of the economic puzzle. You get the picture. Order Processing Code: 5551 □ YES, C harge y o u r order, m VISA' It's easy! Superintendent of Documents Order Form To fax your orders (202) 512-2250 To phone your orders (202) 512-1800 send m e ____ subscription(s) to Monthly Labor Review at □ $25 per year or □ $50 for 2 years. International customers please add 25%. _. (Includes regular The total cost of my order is $. shipping and handling.) Price subject to change. Company or personal name For privacy, check box below: □ Do not make my name available to other mailers Check method of payment: □ Check payable to Superintendent of Documents (Please type or pnnt) □ G PO Deposit Account | Additional address/attention line □ VISA □ MasterCard n (expiration date) J __L Street address Thank you fo r yo u r order! City, State, ZIP Code Daytime phone including area code https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Purchase order number (optional) Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Authorizing signature 9 /9 5 Mail To: Superintendent of Documents P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954 U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Washington, DC 20212 Second Class Mail Postage and Fees Paid U.S. Department of Labor ISSN 0098-1818 Official Business Penalty for Private Use, $300 RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED Schedule of release dates for BLS statistical series Series Release date Period covered Release date Period covered Release date Period covered MLR table number Employment situation October 6 September November 3 October December 8 November 1; 4 -2 0 Producer Price Indexes October 12 September November 9 October December 12 November 2; 3 4 -3 6 Consumer Price Indexes October 13 September November 15 October December 13 November 2; 3 1 -3 3 Real earnings October 13 September November 15 October December 13 November 13-16 Employment Cost Indexes October 31 S^quarter 1-3 ; 2 1 -2 4 Major collective bargaining settlements October 31 3rdquarter 3; 2 5 -2 9 U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes September November 1 November 30 October December 29 November 37-41 Productivity and costs: Nonfarm business and manufacturing Nonfinancial corporations https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis November 7 3rdquarter 2 ;4 2 -4 5 December 14 3rdquarter 2; 4 2 -4 5
@FedFRASER