The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
September 1970
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Bureau of Labor Statistics
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
- r w ''
La b
1
or
c /?e utes
•Nmiwiin«!
UNIOP.
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
REGIONAL OFFICES AND DIRECTORS
Region I — Boston: Wendell D. M acdonald
u. s. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
J. D. Hodgson, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Geoffrey H. Moore, Commissioner
Ben Burdetsky, Deputy Commissioner
Leon Greenberg. Chief Statistician
Peter Henle, Chief Economist
1603-A Federal Building, Government Center, Boston, Mass. 02203
Phone: (617) 223-6727
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Region II — New York: Herbert Bienstock
341 Ninth Avenue, New York. N.Y. 10001
Phone: (212) 971-5405
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Region III — Philadelphia: Frederick W. M ueller
The Monthly Labor Review is for sale by
the regional offices of the Bureau of Labor Statistics
and by the Superintendent of Documents,
U. S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D. C. 20402
Subscription price per year —
$9 domestic; $11.25 foreign.
Single copy 75 cents.
Correspondence regarding subscriptions
should be addressed to the Superintendent of Documents.
406 Penn Square Building, 1317 Filbert Street, Philadelphia. Pa. 19107
Phone: (215) 597-7796
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Communications on editorial matters
should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief,
Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Washington, D. C. 20212
Phone; (202) 961-2327.
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Ga. 30309
Phone: (404) 526-5416
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Use of funds for printing this publication
approved by the Director of the Bureau
of the Budget (October 31, 1967)
Region IV — Atlanta: Brunswick A. Bagdon
Region V — Chicago: Thomas J. McArdle
219 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, III. 60604
Phone: (312) 353-7226
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Region VI — Dallas: Jack S trickland
411 N. Akard Street. Dallas, Tex. 75201
Phone: (214) 749-3516
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Regions V II and V III — Kansas City: E llio tt A. Browar
911 Walnut Street, Kansas City, Mo. 64106
Phone- (816) 374-2378
V II
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
V III
Cover design:
Detail from a print depicting
early Labor Day parade
on Fifth Avenue, New York City,
from the collections
of the Library of Congress
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Regions IX and X — San Francisco: Charles Roumasset
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017, San Francisco, Calif. 94102
Phone: (415) 556-3178
IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
Editor-in-Chief, Herbert C. Morton
Executive Editor, Henry Lowenstern
Anne M. Young
4
Employment of school-age youth
Special Labor Force Report shows sharp increase in past 10
years in both the number of young workers and the proportion
in school
Constance Sorrentino
12
Unemployment in the U.S. and seven countries
In general, countries with serious youth unemployment
problems tended to have the highest overall unemployment
rates in the 1960's
Joseph P. Goldberg
24
A report on the 1970 International Labor Conference
Major topics range from poverty, civil rights, jobless youth,
and the minimum wage to the internal structure of the ILO
Harry P. Cohany 30
The NEA prepares for the 1970’s
National Education Association reasserts the right of teachers
to bargain collectively and to strike
W. R. Bailey, A. Sackley 32
A model of worker compensation changes
Equation explains overall wage movements reasonably well,
but reveals instability when tested in some subperiods
H. E. Henneberger, H. F. Gale 39
Productivity: the major household appliance industry
Increase in output per man-hour averaged
5.8 percent annually from 1958 to 1969
George L. Stei luto 46
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Wages in motor vehicle and parts plants
DEPARTMENTS
2
43
46
48
52
56
57
64
79
Labor month in review
The anatomy of price change
Research summaries
Significant decisions in labor cases
Foreign labor briefs
Major agreements expiring next month
Developments in industrial relations
Book reviews and notes
Current labor statistics
SEPTEMBER 1970
VOLUME 93, NUMBER 9
Railroad bargaining. With some contract talks
underway and others approaching, officials of the
Department of Labor and the National Mediation
Board met with representatives of 17 railroad
unions and with railroad management to explore
ways of streamlining collective bargaining in the
industry. Under the present system, individual
unions or groups of unions meet separately with
management and generally negotiate separate
agreements covering wages, work rules, vacations,
and holidays. Unlike contracts in most other
industries, the railroad agreements do not have
fixed terms.
Changes explored at the Washington meetings
would have each of the parties put a complete
package of demands on the table and then bargain
on all issues simultaneously, seeking fixed term
agreements with uniform expiration dates.
Meanwhile, a Presidential Emergency Board
recommended that one of the oldest and thorniest
disputes in railroad history be settled by creating
a new job classification. Under the proposal, the
duties of firemen and brakemen on diesel loco
motives would be combined because “there is no
need for firemen on diesel locomotives.” Firemen’s
jobs would be phased out by natural attrition. The
panel urged the carriers to share the savings with
workers through wage increases.
Inflation alert. The Council of Economic Ad
visers issued its first “inflation alert.” Chairman
Paul W. McCracken said that its purpose was to
“lift the level of visibility” of inflationary develop
ments in hopes that this would lead to changed
public policies.
The report identified several recent wage and
price increases but sought to avoid making price
predictions. Data showed that annual increases in
prices during 1960-69 were greatest in the con
struction industry. In 1969 and in the first half of
1970, median wage increases in construction were
approximately twice the increases in manufactur2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ing, the Council said. “It is clear,” the report
added, “that wage increases of 15 percent per year
or more are far beyond even a generous estimate
of gains in output per man-hour, and these wage
increases therefore cannot fail to raise the cost of
producing buildings, highways, and other struc
tures.”
The tobacco, rubber, and trucking industries
were cited as examples of areas where inflationary
pressures have had a strong effect during recent
months. The report noted also that energy costs
have risen sharply, with bituminous coal prices
increasing an average of 35 percent between June
1969 and June 1970 and the price of residual oil
25 percent in the last year.
An analysis of inflationary developments as far
back as the mid-1950’s made up a substantial
portion of the inflation alert. It was the Council’s
judgment that inflation eventually responds to the
treatment of fiscal and monetary tightness; and
that the longer the duration of inflation, the slower
it responds to overall Government fi-scal and mone
tary measures.
Unemployment insurance. President Nixon signed
into law the unemployment compensation amend
ments, designed to bring 4.8 million more workers
under the protection of the law. Coverage was
extended to small firms with 1 to 3 employees (the
previous minimum was 4), to employees of non
profit organizations, State hospitals, colleges and
univeristies, to some Americans working abroad,
and to some agricultural processing workers.
The new law provides for lengthening the
maximum payment period 13 weeks when the
national unemployment rate equals or exceeds
4.5 percent for 3 consecutive months. In some
cases, a similar provision for individual States may
be invoked.
The payroll base on which the Federal un
employment tax is levied will rise from $3,000 to
$4,200 in 1972. The tax rate for employers rose
3
LABOR MONTH IN REVIEW
from 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent of the payroll,
beginning with the third quarter of 1970.
The National Advisory
Council on Vocational Education sought to focus
public attention on “one of the most glaring fail
ures of the American education system: its inaility to effectively prepare the disadvantaged for
full participation in society.”
In its third annual report, the Council, ap
pointed by the President, recommended some
new approaches: That employment be recog
nized as an integral part of education by having
secondary schools act as student employment
agencies and by using part-time jobs as part of
their curriculums; that schools follow up on and
counsel drop outs; that programs for the disad
vantaged be given priority without separating
disadvantaged students from the mainstream
of education; that parents and students be en
couraged to participate in the development of
vocational programs; and that residential schools
be established for those young people “who
cannot cope with their homes or their
neighborhoo ds.’’
Vocational education,
Defense reorganization. The report of the inde
pendent Blue Ribbon Defense Panel, which recom
mended a reorganization of the Defense
Department to decentralize authority and eliminate
overlapping programs and personnel, also touched
on the Department’s employment practices.
The study group urged the Department to
adhere to its equal employment opportunity
programs and also suggested that “The Depart
ment of Defense, although not expected to act
as enforcement agency of national labor laws,
should support any appropriate action that would
permit more flexibility in such matters, so that
contracts could be withheld from companies that
have been determined by appropriate authority
to have flagrantly, deliberately, and repeatedly
violated expressed national labor policy. At the
same time, the Department should not use its
contracting powers to help or hurt any party
involved in a union representation question, a
collective bargaining agreement, or an interunion
dispute.”
President Nixon signed the bill
that established an independent postal service
Postal reform.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
within the Executive Branch. Postal unions will
bargain collectively on wages with the new agency,
with unresolved differences to be settled through
arbitration. The law provides for an 8-percent pay
raise for postal workers, retroactive to April 16,
and reduces to 8 years from 21 years the time
required to reach top pay scales. Under the new
law, unions will not be able to bargain for the
union shop.
A board of governors, appointed by the Presi
dent and approved by the Senate, will operate
the system through a postmaster general whom
they will appoint. Postal rates will be set by an
independent rate commission. The new United
States Postal Seivice will begin opexation within
a year.
Coal mine safety. A group of West Virginia
University graduate students released a report
on coal mine health and safety in that State—a
product of 18 months of interviews and investi
gation. The study was financed by two private
foundations, Ralph Nader, the Department of
the Interior, State officials, the mine workers
union, and a coal company.
The report contended that coal mining is “the
Nation’s most hazax’dous occupation” and charged
coal companies, the union, State and Federal
Governments, and the miners themselves with
“appalling disregard” for health and safety.
New statistical series
Two additional statistical series—the
implicit price deflator of the Department of
Commerce and unit nonlabor payments—
are included this month in table 32 (p .lll).
The implicit price deflator is the broadest
measure of price change covering the nation
al output of goods and services. Nonlabor
payments include profits, depreciation, in
terest, and indirect taxes—those elements
of the price deflator other than labor
costs. Other data in the table have been
revised to reflect new benchmarks.
Employment
of
school-age
youth
As a n e w d e c a d e begins, a look back at the
school enrollment status of young woikers over
the period 1959 to 1969 reveals sharp increases
in both the number and the proportion enrolled
in school. In October 1969, approximately 4.8
million youths 16 to 21 years old were working
or looking for work and were also going to school,
and 5.8 million employed youths were no longer
in school.1 The number of students in the labor
force has more than doubled since 1959 compared
with a rise of only one-fourth among young
workers not in school. As a result .of the differential
increase in the numbers of students and other
youths in the labor force, students accounted for
close to one-half of the 16- to 21-year-old labor
force in October 1969 compared with less than
one-third 10 years earlier. (See chart 1.)
These changes reflected increases in three
factors—the number of persons in this age group;
the proportion of young persons remaining in
school until they are graduated from high school
and college; and the proportion of students who
work. The population 16 to 21 years old reached
20 million in 1969, a gain of 6 million over the
decade, and the proportion in school jumped to
60 percent, up 10 percentage points. Labor force
participation rates rose substantially for men and
women who were in school and for women who
were no longer attending school, but declined
somewhat for men who were not students.
The labor force
Over the decade the number in the labor force
rose among men and women enrolled in school
and among women no longer in school. (See
table 1.) The number of out-of-school young men
Anne M. Young is an economist in the Division of
Labor Force Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
4
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Special Labor Force Report shows
that both the number of young workers
and the proportion enrolled in school
have increased sharply
over the past decade
ANNE M. YOUNG
in the labor force increased between 1959 and
the mid-T960’s, but then decreased in recent years
to nearly its earlier level because of the large
numbers entering the Armed Forces as the Viet
Nam war expanded.
Contributing to the large increase in the number
of student workers was a sharp rise in the propor
tion who work. Thirty-nine percent of all students
16 to 21 years old were in the labor force in October
1969, compared with only 31 percent a decade
earlier. Most of the gain in the rates occurred dur
ing the second half of the 1960’s, a period in which
economic expansion was substantial. The increase
in labor force rates was about as large for 16- and
17-year-olds as for older students, but somewhat
greater for women than for men.
The reasons for the increase in the 1960’s in the
proportion of students in the labor force are mixed,
both in terms of financial pressures and social
patterns. The desire of students to work tends to
be independent of family resources and is more
dependent on personal motivation. Some students
work to get experience in the field which they hope
to enter upon finishing school. A second group relies
on their earnings to pay tuition and to buy basic
necessities, such as food and clothing, while they
are continuing their education. A third group wants
the extra money for entertainment, automobiles,
more expensive clothes, or for similar purposes.
The increase in the proportion of teenagers (16
to 19 years old) enrolled in school was greater for
Negroes than for whites between 1959 and 1969.
However, in both years, Negroes 2 accounted for
about 10 percent of the teenage students in the
labor force. The faster rise in the proportion of
Negro teenagers in school was offset by the faster
rise in the labor force rates for white students.
In October 1969 about 30 percent of the Negro
and 40 percent of the white students were in the
labor force. Among 16- and 17-year-olds in school
5
EMPLOYMENT OF SCHOOL-AGE YOUTH
a greater proportion of the white than Negro
students were in the labor force, but among 18- and
19-year-olds the proportions were about the same.
Among out-of-school youth, the labor force
participation rate for men edged down somewhat
over the decade to 90 percent. For girls, the rate
rose about 10 percentage points to 63 percent be
cause of a rise among those 18 to 21 years old.
Several factors probably contributed to the
decrease in the labor force rate for men. Many of
the physically able have entered the Armed
Forces in recent years, so that, of those remaining
in the civilian population, a somewhat greater
proportion than formerly are physically unable
to work. Also, some young men are out of the
labor force in the weeks just prior to entering, or
soon after they have been discharged from, the
Armed Forces.
The large rise in the labor force rate for young
women no longer in school reflects several factors.
With the recent edging up of the average age at
first marriage the proportion of young women who
are unmarried has increased; their labor force
participation rate is much higher than for married
women. Also, the labor force participation rate
for young married women has recently been in
creasing more rapidly than in earlier years, in part
because of declines in birth rates. This increase in
women available for employment coincided with
job opportunities, especially for clerical and serv
ice workers, resulting from the expansion in
economic activity during the 1960’s.
Youths no longer in school in 1969 had, on
average, more schooling than their counterparts
earlier in the decade. In October 1969, about 63
percent of the men and 81 percent of the women
16 to 21 years old who were out of school and in
the labor force had at least a high school edu
cation 3 compared with 56 and 77 percent, re
spectively, in 1964.
College-age workers
There were sharp increases during the second
half of the 1960’s in both the number and the
proportion of 18- to 21-year-olds attending college,
as the large number of children born in the “baby
boom” years immediately following World War II
reached 18. The increase in the proportion of men
18 to 21 years old attending college resulted from
both the continuation of the long-term trend
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
toward more schooling and the added incentive
for some to go to school to avoid draft calls
resulting from expansion of the Viet Nam conflict.
In the early 1960’s, the proportion of all 18to 21-year-old men in college full time rose slightly
(to 31 percent in 1964), but in the following 5 years
it rose markedly. By October 1969, about 2.4
million, or 42 percent of all men in the age group,
were in college full time. The increase over the
decade in the proportion of 18- to 21-year-old
Chart 1. Population and labor force, persons 16 to 21 years
old, by school enrollment status, October 1959-59
Because numbers in school rose sharply --
Percent increase
140
Students were a much greater proportion
in
of 16 to 21 year olds
1969 than in 1959.
Percent
80
_ _ ___
6
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
Table 1.
1969
Employment status of students and nonstudents 16 to 21 years old, by age and sex, October 1959, 1964, and
[Numbers in thousands)
16 to 21 years old
Enrollment status, sex, and employment status
Total
16 and 17 years
18 and 19 years
20 and 21 years
1969
1964
1959
1969
1964
1959
1969
1964
Civilian noninstitutional population___________ ____
6,494
5,226
3,741
3,452
3,179
2, 323
1,886
1,238
918
1,156
809
500
Civilian labor fo rce ..________________________________
Labor force participation rate1_________ _____ _
Employed___________________________________
Unemployed________________________________ .
Unemployment rate2_________________________
2,751
42.4
2,449
302
11.0
1,826
34.9
1,665
161
8.8
1,298
34.7
1,183
115
8.9
1,410
40.8
1,228
182
12.9
1,034
32.5
930
104
10.1
779
33.5
701
78
10.0
821
43.5
739
82
10.0
446
36.0
408
38
8.5
330
35.9
299.
31
9.4
520
45.0
482
38
7.3
346
42.8
327
19
5.5
189
37.8
183
6
3.2
Civilian noninstitutional population_________ ______
5,600
4, 510
3,127
3,259
3,003
2,193
1,465
958
683
876
549
251
Civilian labor force__________________________
____
Labor force participation rate >..................................
Employed_____________________________________
Unemployed_________ __________________________
Unemployment rate2__________ _____ _________
2, 007
35.8
1,746
261
13.0
1,102
24.4
962
140
12.7
800
25.6
742
58
7.2
1,090
33.4
930
160
14.7
683
22.7
582
101
14.8
515
23.5
471
44
8.5
537
36.7
466
71
13.2
241
25.2
215
26
10.8
196
28.7
185
11
5.6
380
43.4
350
30
7.9
178
32.4
165
13
7.3
89
35.5
86
3
2,935
3,104
2, 735
315
363
418
1,288
1,196
1,097
1,332
1,545
1,220
2,627
89.5
2,408
219
8.3
2, 838
91.4
2, 499
339
11.9
2, 512
91.8
2,155
357
14.2
247
78.4
209
38
15.4
263
72.5
224
39
14.8
335
80.1
249
86
25.7
1,136
88.2
1,035
101
8.9
1,100
92.0
954
146
13.3
1,019
92.9
865
154
15.1
1,244
93.4
1,164
80
6.4
1,475
95.5
1,321
154
10.4
1,158
94.9
1,041
117
10.1
1959
1969
1964
1959
ENROLLED IN SCHOOL
MEN
WOMEN
0
NOT ENROLLED IN SCHOOL
MEN
Civilian noninstitutional population_______________
Civilian labor force______________________ . . . . .
Labor force participation rate1___________________
Employed___________________________________ .
Unemployed___________________________________
Unemployment rate2_________________________
WOMEN
Civilian noninstitutional population__________ _____
5, 087
4,654
4,170
455
505
514
2,040
1,884
1,655
2, 592
2,265
2, 001
Civilian labor force__________________________________
Labor force participation rate1_________________
Employed_____________________________________
Unemployed___________________________________
Unemployment rate2_________________________
3,184
62.6
2, 847
337
10.6
2,613
56.1
2,257
356
13.6
2, 202
52.8
1,952
250
11.4
206
45.3
151
55
26.7
215
42.6
159
56
26.0
230
44.7
195
35
15.2
1,346
66.0
1,198
148
11.0
1,135
60.2
961
174
15.3
951
57.5
826
125
13.1
1,632
63.0
1,498
134
8.2
1,263
55.8
1,137
126
10.0
1,021
51.0
931
90
8.8
1 Percent of civilian noninstitutional population in the labor force.
2 Percent of civilian labor force who were unemployed.
women in college full time was even sharper than
for men; at 27 percent, the percentage was nearly
double that for 1959. These figures exclude the
very small proportions attending college part
time in October 1969.
Labor force participation rates have increased
substantially for both high school and college
students at the same time that a broader segment
of the population has remained longer in school.
(See table 2.) With increasing costs of higher
education, the past 5 years have witnessed a sharp
rise in the proportion of full-time college students
18 to 21 years old who are in the labor market.
After remaining close to 30 percent for men and
ranging between 20 and 25 percent for women
between 1959 and 1964, the labor force rate in 1969
reached 39 percent and 35 percent, respectively,
for men and for women.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3
Percent not shown where base is less than 100,000.
NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
A small proportion, 6 percent, of these young
men attending college full time were married.
Most of these students have financial obligations
to their family which the average unmarried
student does not. As a result, 62 percent of them
were in the labor force in October 1969, and about
one-fourth of those employed in nonfarm industries
worked at full-time jobs, much larger proportions
than for unmarried male full-time college students
18 to 21 years old.
Kinds of work
In spite of the sharp rise over the decade in the
number of 16- to 21-year-olds enrolled in school
and in the proportion in the labor force, the
number of students in this age group employed in
October 1969, at 4.2 million, was about 1 million
7
EMPLOYMENT OF SCHOOL-AGE YOUTH
students than nonstudents were employed in
service occupations, mainly because many students
work as part-time maids in private homes or do
babysitting. Over half the women not in school
held clerical jobs, and another 16 percent were
blue-collar workers, primarily operatives, both
significantly greater proportions than obtained
among women students.
The 1959-69 period witnessed several changes
in the occupational distributions of employed
students and nonstudents. The continuing decline
in the total number of persons employed in
agriculture, because of technological developments
and movement off the farm, was reflected in a
10-percentage point drop in the proportion of
16- to 21-year-old male students working as farm
laborers. The proportion of students in service
occupations rose by 7 percentage points, and there
was some rise in the proportion who were nonfarm
laborers. Among men not in school, the decline
in the proportion who were farm workers was about
the same as for those in school. The rise in the
proportion of nonstudents who were blue-collar
workers resulted largely from increases in the
number and proportion working as operatives.
fewer than the number not in school, 5.3 million.
Over the 10-year period, the number of employed
students in this age group jumped by 2.3 million,
double the increase for those not in school.
Youths who work and also attend school full
time are usually able to hold only part-time jobs,
in contrast to the full-time jobs held by those
who are not in school. For example, of the men
students attending college full time and working
in nonagricultural industries, more than 8 out of
10 worked at part-time jobs; among those not in
school, roughly the same proportion worked at
full-time jobs in October 1969.
Distributions of occupations held by students
and nonstudents are different because most
students are generally available only for part-time
work. Among the men, a much smaller proportion
of the students hold blue-collar jobs, in part
because full-time work is generally the norm in
these occupations. (See table 3.) On the other
hand, greater proportions of men students hold
white-collar jobs, especially clerical and sales, and
service jobs, where part-time work may be
obtained more readily.
Among women, a much larger proportion of the
Table 2.
Labor force status of students 16 to 21 years old, by sex, age, and type of school, October 1959, 1964, and 1969
[Numbers in 'housands]
1959
1964
1969
Sex, age, and type of school
Population
Labor force
Labor force
participa
tion rate
Population
Labor force
Labor force
participa
tion rate
Population
Labor force
Labor force
participa
tion rate
MEN
6, 494
2,751
42.4
5,226
1,826
34,9
3,730
1,302
35.0
Elementary or high school, 16 to 21 years old.
16 to 19 years_____________________
16 and 17 years______ . _______
18 and 19 years________________
3,866
3,822
3, 333
489
1,670
1,639
1,373
266
43.2
42,9
41.2
54.4
3,427
3,387
3, 014
373
1,192
1,160
985
175
34.8
34.2
32.7
46.9
2,513
2,495
2, 231
264
871
858
749
109
34.7
34. 4
33.6
41.3
College, full time, 16 to 21 years old_______
16 and 17 years____________________
18 to 21 years_______ ______________
18 and 19 years________________
20 and 21 years_________ _______
2, 492
116
2,376
1,352
1,024
955
35
920
515
405
38.3
30.2
38.7
38.1
39.6
1,627
158
1,469
801
668
472
44
428
213
215
29.0
27.8
29.1
26.6
32.2
1,115
8/
1, 028
605
423
336
27
309
175
134
College, part time, 16 to 21 years old_______
136
126
92.6
172
162
94.2
102
95
93.1
Enrolled in school, 16 to 21 years old__________
5, 600
2, 007
35.8
4,510
1,102
24.4
3,127
802
25.6
Elementary or high school, 16 to 21 years
o ld ..........- ______ _____________ ____
16 to 19 years_____________________
16 and 17 years....................... ........
18 and 19 years________________
3,441
3, 397
3,137
260
1,181
1,157
1,054
103
34.3
34.1
33.6
39.6
3,116
3, 085
2,877
208
723
711
652
59
23.2
23.0
22.7
28.4
2,244
2,233
2, 075
158
542
540
491
49
24.2
24.2
23. 7
31. 0
College, full time, 16 to 21 years old_______
16 and 17 years____________________
18 to 21 years... . . . _________ . . .
18 and 19 years................ ................
20 and 21 years________________
College, part time, 16 to 21 years old ______
1,983
115
1,868
1,135
733
176
681
31
650
377
273
145
34.3
27.0
34.8
33.2
37.2
82.4
1,252
120
1,132
702
430
142
257
27
230
141
89
122
20.5
22.5
20.3
20.1
20.7
85.9
796
105
691
478
213
87
180
11
171
107
64
80
22.6
10. 5
24.7
22. 4
30. 0
Enrolled in school, 16 to 21 years old__________
(')
30.1
.
30.1
28.9
31.7
WOMEN
1 Percent not shown where base is less than 100,000.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
0)
NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
8
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
Chart 2. Unemployment rates of men and women 16 to 21
years old, October 1959-69
young women. While the proportion of out-ofschool women in service occupations did not
change significantly, within that category the
proportion in household service declined while
that in other services rose.
Unemployment trends
1959
1961
1963
1965
1967
1969
1961
1963
1965
1967
1969
Percent
1959
For women students, the greatest change over
the period was a 10-percentage point rise in the
proportion in white-collar jobs, accompanied by
a drop in the proportion in service occupations,
due primarily to a decline in the proportion
working in private households. In spite of this
drop, service occupations remained a major source
of employment for women students in 1969.
Among those not enrolled in school, there was no
change in the already high proportion in whitecollar work, 64 percent. Farm work also declined
as an occupation for both in- and out-of-school
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
About 1.1 million workers 16 to 21 years old
were unemployed in October 1969. Half of them
were students. Ten years earlier, students con
stituted only 20 percent of the young unemployed.
Also, in October 1969, almost 40 percent of all
unemployed persons 16 years old and over were
16 to 21 years old, although this age group made
up only 13 percent of the labor force. Unemploy
ment rates for student and nonstudent youths are
consistently much higher than those for older,
more experienced persons. The rate for persons
25 to 54 years old was 2.2 percent at the time of
the October survey; for persons 16 to 21 years
old it averaged 10.6 percent, ranging from a low
of 8 percent for men not in school to 26 percent
for Negro women students.
Unemployment rates are now higher for students
than for nonstudents; a decade ago the rates were
higher for those out of school. (See chart 2.) Be
tween 1959 and 1964, unemployment rates for
men students moved within a narrow range, while
those for nonstudents decreased but remained
higher than for students. In 1965, the nonstudent
rate moved below that for in-school youth, and
it has remained below since then. Among women,
the unemployment rate for those out of school has
shown comparatively little net change over the 10
year period but the rate for students has moved
irregularly higher; by 1969 it was almost double
that for 1959. In October 1969, for the first time,
the unemployment rate for women students was
higher than that for out-of-school women. This
development may be only a single-year phenom
enon or it may presage a trend similar to that for
male students.
The higher unemployment rate among students
in 1969 does not reflect an increase in the propor
tion of the labor force in the youngest age group.
In fact, among both students and nonstudents, a
somewhat smaller proportion of the labor force
was 16 and 17 years old in 1969 than in 1959;
and unemployment rates are highest among the
youngest. Among the students, however, half of
9
EMPLOYMENT OF SCHOOL-AGE YOUTH
the labor force in 1969 was 16 and 17 years old,
this had a substantial influence on raising the
overall rate for the 16- to 21-year-old students.
The 16- and 17-year-olds made up only 8 percent
of the young labor force not in school.
The higher rate among students may reflect
the much larger numbers seeking employment and
their limited availability with respect to hours
of work. On the other hand, the decrease in the
unemployment rate among those out of school
undoubtedly reflects to some extent their higher
educational attainment. The proportion with at
least a high school education has increased over
the years.
Unemployment rates among youths result in
part from movement into the labor force. The
work pattern of young persons typically consists
of a series of entries, withdrawals, and reentries
into the labor market and consequent periods of
unemployment as they go through the process of
settling into a position with some degree of per
manence or the completion of apprenticeship or
other formal training.4 While the school calendar
governs much of students’ movement into and
out of the labor force, out-of-school youth typi
cally switch jobs as opportunity allows when
working conditions, pay, or other factors make
another job more desirable. In the absence of the
structured school-to-work patterns found in many
European countries,5 finding “permanent” em
ployment in the United States becomes a process
that may take several years rather than a single
act of choice. This kind of labor market activity
produces relatively high rates of unemployment.
The large proportion of inexperienced new
entrants in the 16 to 21 labor force is also an
important factor contributing to the high un
employment rate for the age group. The tradi
tional ways of seeking employment in this country,
through friends and relatives or by direct applica-
Table 3. Major occupation group of employed persons 16 to 21 years old, by school enrollment status, sex, and color,
October 1969
[Percent distribution]
Not enrolled in school
Enrolled in school
Major occupation and sex
Negro and
other races
White
Total
Negro and
other races
White
Total
MEN
Number (thousands). ............................. .............
Percent ............. ........... ............................... .
2,449
100.0
2,239
100.0
210
100.0
2,408
100.0
2,021
100.0
387
100.0
_____ _____ ___
White-collar_________ _______ ________
Professional and technical________________________ . .
Managers and officials........ ........... .......................................
.
.......... ............................
Clerical ________ ___
Sales____________________________________________
29.4
7.2
1.5
10.8
9.9
29.9
7.3
1.6
10.4
10.6
23.8
5.7
.5
14.8
2.9
18.6
3.5
2.6
8.9
3.6
20.0
4.0
2.9
9.1
4.0
11.6
1. 0
1. 0
8.0
1. 5
Blue-collar........ ........................ .................... ....................
Craftsmen ____ . . . __________________________ _
Operatives
................... .................... ............................ .
Nonfarm laborers. _____ ____________ ______ _____
43.3
5.2
17.9
20.2
43.8
5.4
17.8
20.6
38.1
3.3
18.6
16.2
69.8
15.6
36.3
17.9
69.1
16.3
35.9
16.9
73.2
11.9
38.4
22.9
.......................................... .......................... .....
19.5
.4
19.2
28.1
________ _____________ ________
20.3
.3
19.9
28.1
6.5
.1
6.4
5.8
.1
5.7
9.8
Farm workers.............................. ............................... ...................
7.0
6.7
10.0
5.2
5.1
5.4
Number (thousands)
______ _______. . .
Percent
.........................................................
1,746
100. 0
1,592
100.0
154
100.0
2,847
100.0
2,530
100.0
317
100.0
White-collar
........................... ............ ........ ............................
Professional and technical_________ _________ _________
58.1
6.6
.6
35.4
15.4
62.5
7.2
64.0
4.3
.9
53.7
5.1
66.3
4.6
1.0
55.4
5.3
45.5
2.5
................................... ........ . . ......... ..................
___________ _
_____________________ .
58.4
6.7
6
36.3
14.9
Blue-collar_________ ____________ ___ _____________ . . .
Craftsmen
Operatives . . ___________
______________ _____
Nonfarm laborers
........ .....................................................
5.0
.2
3.7
1.1
4.9
.2
3.5
1.1
16.0
.9
14.4
.7
14,9
.9
13.3
.7
24.8
5.9
.7
Service workers
........................................
Private household______ _
______________
____
Other service.................................... .....................................
35.1
14.3
20.8
35.8
14.8
21.0
27.6
8.6
19.1
19.6
3.4
16.2
18.4
3.0
15.4
28.8
6.3
22.6
............................... ...........................................
1.4
1.3
3.3
.4
.3
.9
Total:
Service workers
Other service____ .
9.8
WOMEN
Total:
Clerical
Sales
Farm workers
NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
45.4
9.9
6.6
39.8
3. 1
22.9
10
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
Table 4.
1969
Duration of unemployment of persons 16 to 21 years old, by school enrollment status, age, and sex, October
[Percent distribution]
Enrolled in school
Not enrolled in school
Weeks unemployed and sex
Total, 16
to 21 years
old
16 and 17
years
18 and 19
years
20 and 21
years
Total, 16
to 21 years
old
16 and 17
years
18 and 19
years
38
101
100.0
80
100.0
64.0
18.0
8.0
10.0
77.2
20.3
1.3
1.3
148
100.0
134
100.0
60.8
15.5
8.8
14.9
58.2
21.6
6.7
13.4
20 and 21
years
MEN
Total unemployed:
Number (thousands).
Percent....................
I to 4 weeks..........
5 to 10 weeks........
I I to 14 weeks___
15 weeks and over.
302
182
82
100.0
100.0
100.0
56.1
37.6
3.3
3.0
52. 7
40.7
3. 3
3. 3
38
219
100.0
(>)
61. 0
34.1
2.4
2.4
0)
69.1
19.8
4.1
6.9
WOMEN
Total unemployed:
Number (thousands).
Percent................ .
261
I to 4 weeks..........
5 to 10 weeks........
I I to 14 weeks___
15 weeks and over.
1
160
100.0
100.0
61. 4
32. 2
1. 5
4.9
59. 0
32.9
2. 5
5. 6
(O
71
30
(0
337
100.0
55
0
58.5
22.0
7.1
12.5
Percent not shown where base Is less than 75,000.
NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
tion to the employer, may result in a considerable
time lag between becoming available for employ
ment and actually starting a job. One of the major
functions of the family for youth of this age is the
help afforded by appropriate connections so that
the transition to maturity and the assumption of
the work role is smoothed over. The absence of
such family connections and limited knowledge of
the job market handicap many in searching for
employment.
Table 5. Occupation of last job of unemployed persons
16 to 21 years old, by sex and school enrollment status,
October 1969
[Percent distribution]
Men
Women
Occupation
Enrolled
Not
Enrolled
Not
enrolled
enrolled
Total unemployed:
Number (thousands)______ __________
Percent with no work experience...............
Percent with work experience..... ..............
302
32.7
67.3
216
12.5
87.5
263
45.2
54.8
336
26.2
73.8
Total with work experience:
Number (thousands)_____________
Percent_____________________ __
203
100.0
189
100.0
144
100.0
248
100.0
Professional, technical, managers, and proprietors________
Clerical_____________
S a le s................ .......
Craftsmen and foremen_______
Operatives__________________
Nonfarm laborers.. __
Service workers............. ............
Farm workers..........................
3.9
6.8
4.9
8.3
22.8
26.7
19.4
7.3
8.5
9.5
2.6
11.6
31.7
23.3
9.0
3.7
6.2
34.0
8.3
.7
15.3
2.0
36.7
7.3
1.6
25.8
.4
25.8
.4
35.4
NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The high unemployment rate produced by
frequent job changes tends to obscure the fact
that the average period of unemployment is
relatively short for young workers. As of October
1969, 6 out of 10 jobless workers 16 to 21 years of
age had been unemployed for less than 5 weeks.
The men not in school had an even higher propor
tion jobless fewer than 5 weeks. (See table 4.)
Both students and nonstudents had higher pro
portions of short-term unemployment than did
persons 45 years old or older; one of the reasons
may be that young persons are more likely to
accept lower paid or temporary jobs. While un
employment rates for young persons were above
those for older workers, a smaller proportion of
the youths were jobless for a long time—15 weeks
or more—because they either found jobs more
easily or were more likely to drop out of the labor
force.
Occupations of the unemployed
A substantial proportion of the persons 16 to
21 years old unemployed in October 1969, espe
cially those in school, had no prior work experience.
(See table 5.) Among the jobless students, about
one-third of the men and nearly one-half of the
women had never worked, substantially higher
proportions than among those not in school. The
much larger proportion for jobless students re
sulted from the fact that a greater share of them
11
EMPLOYMENT OF SCHOOL-AGE YOUTH
were 16 and 17 years old, the age group most likely
to have had no prior work experience.
The occupational distribution of the last jobs
of the unemployed youths who had work experi
ence was generally somewhat different from that
for employed youths of the same school status
and sex. Among the men, about one-half of the
jobless students who had worked at some time had
been operatives or nonfarm laborers, but only 38
percent of the employed students were in these
two occupation groups; on the other hand, 16
percent of the jobless students had been whitecollar workers, a smaller proportion than among
the employed. Among the men who were not
students, about two-thirds of the experienced
unemployed and of the employed were blue-collar
workers, primarily operatives and nonfarm
laborers.
Among jobless women students with work
experience, about 70 percent were equally divided
between former clerical and service workers, the
same proportions as among the employed. A
larger proportion of the jobless than of the em
ployed had been operatives, and relatively fewer
had been sales workers. Among women not in
school, clerical workers were underrepresented
among the experienced unemployed while oper
atives and service workers were overrepresented.
t h e m o n t h s since the survey in October 1969,
on which the analysis in this article is based, the
economy has generally slowed down. Youth un
employment rates have begun to reflect the
decline. As of late spring 1970, the overall 16- to
21-year-old rate was an average of 2 percentage
points higher than a year earlier. When jobs be
come scarce, the greatest difficulty in finding work
may be expected to occur among the young, less
qualified workers. As a result of the recent overall
increase in unemployment, many young students
encountered difficulty in securing summertime
employment. Some of them may not be able to
continue with their college studies (or they may
have to work during the school year) if they do
not earn enough during the summer, especially
if Federal Government loan funds or bank loans
at reasonable interest rates are not readily availa
ble. The rate of demobilization of the Armed
Forces will also affect the labor market for young
workers as young men reenter civilian life.
Ed
In
F O O T N O T E S-
1
Data pertain to the civilian noninstitutional population
and are based on information from supplementary ques
tions to the October 1969 monthly survey of the labor
force, conducted for the Bureau of Labor Statistics by the
Bureau of the Census through its Current Population
Survey. The data in this report relate primarily to persons
16 to 24 years old.
This is the 11th in a series of reports on this subject.
The most recent was published in the M o n t h l y L a b o r
R e v i e w , August 1969, pp. 23-32, and reprinted with addi
tional tabular data and explanatory notes as Special
Labor Force Report No. 111. Reprints of all articles in
the series are available upon request to the Bureau or to
any of its regional offices.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2 In this report, data for the grouping, “Negro and other
races” are used to represent data for Negroes, since
Negroes constitute about 92 percent of all persons in the
grouping. In addition to Negroes, the grouping includes
American Indians, Filipinos, Chinese, and Japanese,
among others.
3 See Howard Hayghe, “Employment of High School
Graduates and Dropouts,” M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v i e w , August
1970, pp. 35-42.
4 See Marcia Freedman, T h e P r o c e s s o f W o r k E s t a b l i s h
m e n t (New York, Columbia University Press, 1969).
5 See Thomas W. Gavett, “Youth Unemployment and
Minimum Wages,” M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v i e w , March 1970,
pp. 3-12.
Unemployment in
the United States
and seven
foreign countries
A n e w i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o m p a r i s o n of unemploy
ment rates reveals continued differences in overall
joblessness among major industrial countries,
and especially marked differences in the success
of teenagers in finding work. In all countries
studied, teenagers had more difficulty than adults
in securing jobs, but the degree of difficulty varied
widely. In 1968, for instance, the United States,
Canada, and Italy had, by far, the highest youth
unemployment rates—over 10 percent of their
teenage labor forces was unemployed. Japan had
the lowest level of teenage unemployment, at 2.3
percent. Italian and American teenagers had un
employment rates over 5 times as great as adults;
in contrast, Japanese youth unemployment was
only twice as high as adult unemployment. In
general, countries with serious youth unemploy
ment problems tended to have the highest overall
unemployment rates in the 1960’s.
This article—the fourth 1 in a series of reports
on unemployment rates adjusted to U.S. defi
nitions—presents comparative data on labor
force and unemployment for Canada, France,
Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Sweden, West Ger
many, and the United States during 1960-69.
Some revisions have been made in the previously
published data. The nature of these changes will
be discussed later in this report. Adjusted unem
ployment rates by age and sex for seven coun
tries—excluding France—are presented here for
the first time. These data relate only to 1968.
General trends
During the second half of the 1960’s, un
employment in the United States moved steadily
Constance Sorrentino is an economist in the Division
of Foreign Labor Statistics and Trade, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
12
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Shortage of jobs
for teenagers
figured significantly
in unemployment
during the 1960’s
CONSTANCE SORRENTINO
downward, reaching a 16-year low of 3.5 percent
in 1969. In contrast, unemployment rates in most
other major industrial countries rose in the late
1960’s. Of the seven foreign countries covered in
this study, Canada, Italy, and Great Britain had
unemployment rates higher than the United
States in 1969. Unemployment in France, West
Germany, Sweden, and Japan remained below the
U.S. level in 1969, but the gap had narrowed
significantly since the early years of the decade,
when the U.S. jobless rate was over 5 percent.
Nevertheless, the gap began to widen again in
late 1969 and early 1970. Average unemployment
in the second half of 1969 was lower than, or
equal to, unemployment in the first half in all
countries except the United States and Canada.
Seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United
States rose to 3.8 percent in September and
October 1969, dropped to 3.5 percent in November
and December, but moved upward again to 4.2
percent in the first quarter of 1970. By the second
quarter, U.S. unemployment had risen to 4.8
percent. In Canada, unemployment also rose in
late 1969 and by May 1970 was up to 6.2 percent.
The United States, Canada, and Great Britain
were the only countries with unemployment higher
in early 1970 than in the same period of 1969, and
only Canada had a higher unemployment rate
than the United States by early 1970.
A slowdown in European economic growth in
1967 caused unemployment rates in France, West
Germany, and Sweden to rise to decade highs. In
1967, the West German unemployment rate
reached 1 percent and the Swedish rate surpassed
2 percent for the first time during the decade. In
France, the 3-percent level was crossed for the
first time in 1968, when nationwide strikes in
volving over half the French labor force virtually
paralyzed the economy during May and June.
13
UNEMPLOYMENT IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
After falling to 2.2 percent in 1965, unemploy
ment in Great Britain rose to 3.8 percent in 1967,
the same rate as in the United States that year,
and remained at about the same level in 1968-69.
The British Government’s stringent deflationary
measures to combat balance of payments prob
lems had an adverse impact on the labor market.
In Italy, unemployment surpassed the U.S. rate
in 1966, the first time since the 1950’s, and con
tinued slightly higher than the U.S. rate in
1969.
Canada began and ended the decade with the
highest unemployment rate among the countries
included here. In the intervening years, unemploy
ment had moved downward to 3.6 percent in 1966,
the lowest rate in Canada since 1956. Unemploy
ment subsequently rose sharply to 4.8 percent in
1968 and continued at about the same level in
1969. Growth in jobs could not keep up with
extremely large increases in the Canadian labor
force during the 1960’s. In contrast, Japan’s
labor force growth was not fast enough to cope
with the demand for labor, and serious manpower
shortages appeared after 1965. Unemployment
was below 2 percent throughout the decade in
Japan, reaching a 25-year low of 1.1 percent in
1969.
Unemployment trends by country
The Canadian unemployment rate fell
from 7 percent in 1960 and 1961 to 3.6 percent
in 1966, generally paralleling the trend in the
United States. (See chart 1 and table 1.) In 196769, however, the Canadian jobless rate rose well
above 4 percent, while the U.S. rate continued to
decline. As in the United States, Canada’s un
interrupted years of economic growth during the
1960’s were marred by an alarming rise in price
levels during the later years of the decade. The
Canadian unemployment rate rose in the late
1960’s in response to restrictive monetary and
fiscal policies instituted to combat inflation. The
inflation-high unemployment problem in Canada
was worsened by the economy’s regional
imbalance. In 1969, there was virtually full
employment in Ontario and the four Western
provinces where inflationary pressures were strong
est. In Quebec and the four Atlantic provinces,
however, unemployment approached 9 percent
in some months of 1969.
C anada.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chart 1. Adjusted unemployment rates in eight industrial
countries, 1960-69
Percent
8
6
5
4
3
2
1960
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68 1969
Canada’s labor market also had to contend with
extraordinary growth in the supply of labor.
During the 1960’s, Canada had the largest per
centage increase in labor force of any of the coun
tries studied. (See chart 2.) After an annual gain
of about 2.5 percent in the early 1960’s, the labor
force grew at an accelerated rate of 3 to 4 percent
annually, beginning in 1965. This reflected an
acceleration in the number of young persons reach
ing working age, a new surge in the level of im
migration, and continued high growth in the
participation of women in the labor force. In con
trast with earlier years, expansion of employment
opportunities after 1966 was not rapid enough to
fully absorb the marked increase in the labor
force.
After reaching a low of 2.7 percent in
1963, unemployment in Italy rose in 1964-65,
as government policies to curb inflation caused a
recession in the economy. By 1966, despite a
shift to expansionary policies, the jobless rate was
4.3 percent, the highest rate since 1960. Economic
growth picked up strongly in 1967, and the un-
Italy.
14
Table 1.
Year
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
Labor force and unemployment in 8 industrial countries, 1960-1969
United
States i
France
Great
Britain
Italy
Canada >
Japan
West
Germany
Sweden
France
Great
Britain
Adjusted to U.S. concepts
Italy
Japan
Sweden
West
Germany
As published
Civilian labor force2 (in thousands)
1960___
1961........
1962___
1963___
1964___
1965___
1966___
1967___
1968___
1969___
69,628
70,459
70,614
71,833
73, 091
74,455
75, 770
77, 347
78, 737
80, 733
6,411
6, 521
6,615
6, 748
6,933
7,141
7, 420
7,694
7,919
8,162
19,310
19,200
19, 240
19, 550
19, 780
4 19,950
4 20,120
4 20,270
4 20, 290
4 20, 320
23,330
23,600
24, 000
24,190
24, 240
24, 420
24, 570
24, 530
24, 370
24, 290
20,340
20, 270
20,100
19, 760
19, 850
19,650
19,410
19, 560
19, 500
19, 280
44,120
44,610
45, 040
45, 420
46, 040
46, 770
47, 850
48,810
49, 690
50,150
(3)
3,581
3,663
3, 731
3,687
3,711
3, 760
3, 742
3,804
3,832
25,970
26,180
26, 310
26,490
26, 560
26, 730
26,660
26,190
26, 080
26,410
18,951
18,919
19, 050
19,398
19,659
19,829
20, 000
20,147
20,172
3 20,195
24,008
24, 299
24, 604
24,711
24, 844
25, 040
25,166
24, 974
24, 833
24, 764
20,972
20,882
20,561
20,134
20,130
19,920
19,653
19, 796
19, 763
19, 534
45,110
45,620
46,140
46, 520
47,100
47, 870
48,910
49, 830
50,610
50, 980
239
203
230
273
216
360
341
463
573
381
360
560
564
559
750
660
590
590
540
570
650
630
590
570
(3)
280
365
431
379
836
710
611
504
549
721
769
689
694
663
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.8
2.1
1.9
1.6
1.5
2.0
2.5
1.6
1.4
1.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
4.0
3.4
3.0
2.5
2.7
3.6
3.9
3.5
3.5
3.4
1.7
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.1
(3)
(3)
3,699
3, 746
3,813
3, 779
3, 794
3,841
3,816
3,868
3,894
26, 518
26,772
26,937
27, 066
27,148
27, 300
27, 243
26, 751
26, 665
27, 001
Unemployed s (in thousands)
1960___
1961___
1962........
1963___
1964___
3,852
4,714
3,911
4,070
3, 786
1966___
1967____
1968___
1969___
2,875
2, 975
2,817
2,831
1965___
3,366
446
466
390
374
324
280
267
315
382
382
480
360
350
410
320
* 400
4 420
4 550
4 640
4 570
460
440
660
850
600
540
600
930
910
890
880
750
640
530
590
780
830
740
750
720
750
660
590
590
540
570
650
630
590
570
O)
53
54
63
57
43
59
79
84
72
200
120
100
120
90
80
70
260
310
4 180
269
329
56
56
65
60
45
61
82
86
74
271
181
154
186
169
147
161
459
323
179
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.2
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.9
1.3
.8
.7
.8
.8
.7
.7
2.1
1.5
.8
Unemployment rate «
1960.......
1961___
1962.......
1963.......
1964___
1965___
1966___
1967___
1968___
1969___
5.5
6.7
5.5
5.7
5.2
4.5
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.5
7.0
7.1
5.9
5.5
4.7
3.9
3.6
4.1 '
4.8
4.7
2.5
1.9
1.8
2.1
1.6
4 2.0
4 2.1
4 2.7
4 3.2
4 2.8
2.0
1.9
2.8
3.5
2.5
2.2
2.4
3.8
3.7
3.7
4.3
3.7
3.2
2.7
3.0
4.0
4.3
3.8
3.8
3.7
1.7
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
(3)
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.2
1.6
2.1
2.2
1.9
.8
.5
.4
.5
.3
.3
.3
1.0
1.2
4 .7
1 Published and adjusted data for the United States and Canada are identical.
2 Published figures for Italy, Japan, Sweden, and West Germany include military
personnel.
3 Not available.
4 Preliminary estimates based on incomplete data.
5 Published figures for the United States, Canada, Italy, Japan, and Sweden refer to
unemployment as recorded by sample labor force surveys; for France, to annual esti
mates of unemployment; and for Great Britain and West Germany, to the registered
unemployed.
6 Adjusted figures; as a percent of the civilian labor force. Published figures; for
France, unemployment as a percent of the civilian labor force; for Italy, Japan, and
Sweden, unemployment as a percent of the civilian labor force plus career military per
sonnel; for Great Britain and West Germany, registered unemployed as a percent of
employed wage and salary workers plus the unemployed. With tne exception of France,
which does not publish an unemployment rate, these are the usually published unemploy
ment rates for each country. Published rates shown for Great Britain and West Germany
cannot be computed from the data contained in this table.
NOTE: Data for the United States relate to the population 16 years of age and over.
Published data for Canada, France, Italy, Sweden, and West Germany relate to the
population 14 years of age and over; and for Great Britain and Japan, to the population
15 years of age and over. The adjusted statistics, insofar as possible, have been adapted
to the age at which compulsory schooling ends in each country. Therefore, adjusted
statistics for France and Sweden relate to the population 16 years of age and over; and
for West Germany, to the population 15 years of age and over. The age lim its of adjusted
statistics for Great Britain, Italy, and Japan coincide with the age limits of the published
statistics. Although schooling is usually required until age 15 or 16 in Canada, the
Canadian data remain at the 14-year-old age lim it because sufficient data are not
available for adjustment purposes.
employment rate moved downward to 3.8 percent.
By 1969, the Italian jobless rate was down to 3.7
percent. However, this was a full percentage
point above the 1963 low for the decade.
Unlike any other country studied here, Italy’s
labor force declined in most years of the decade.
Although the Italian unemployment rate was lower
in 1969 than in 1960, the economy was actually
providing fewer jobs for the country’s rising pop
ulation. Labor force participation rates declined
to the point where less than half the Italian pop
ulation of working age was in the labor force by
1969, the lowest activity rate among major in
dustrial countries. This was attributed to insuf
ficient demand for labor, resulting in nonentry
into or withdrawal from the labor force, as well
as emigration and structural developments such
as longer education and earlier retirement.2
Large-scale emigration has generally helped
ease the Italian labor market by reducing the
potential number of unemployed. Higher wages
and more job opportunities abroad are the
attractions to emigration. Over the years, Italy
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SOURCE: National sources and statistical publications of the International Labor
Office, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the Statistical
Office of the European Communities. Some data are based partly on estimates.
15
UNEMPLOYMENT IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
has provided hundreds of thousands of workers
for labor-short European countries such as Swit
zerland and West Germany. In 1969, 325,000
Italians were temporarily outside the country’s
borders, 264,000 of them working abroad. How
ever, this was substantially below the levels of
the early 1960’s, when over 500,000 Italians
were working abroad. Better economic conditions
in Italy and recessions in other European countries
caused many Italians to return home in the
late 1960’s. Over 100,000 Italians who had been
working in West Germany left during the 1967
recession—many to return to Italy.
G r e a t B r i t a i n . In the late 1960’s, measures to
alleviate serious deficits in the balance of payments
took priority over the full employment goal in
Great Britain. Restrictive fiscal and monetary
policies introduced in July 1966 were followed
by even more stringent measures, including
devaluation of the pound, in November 1967.
Unemployment rose to the 3.7-3.8-percent level
in 1967-69, the highest unemployment in Britain
during the decade.
The actual effect of the Government’s defla
tionary measures on employment conditions in
Britain was probably much greater than the
unemployment statistics indicate. Between 1966
and 1969 employment declined by 570,000, but
unemployment rose by only 290,000. The British
labor force declined in 1967-69, after rising
slowly but steadily in the earlier years of the
decade. British projections for the 1967-69
period, assuming the demand for labor at the
1964-66 level, had indicated continued slow
increases in the labor force. Therefore, the decline
in the British labor force in the late 1960’s
apparently reflected withdrawals from or nonappearance in the labor market of persons
discouraged by the leveling off of economic
activity.
A comparatively new feature of the British
labor market was a more persistent transitional
element in the labor force resulting from higher
unemployment benefits and redundancy (sever
ance) payments since 1965. According to Britain’s
Chancellor of the Exchequer, these payments
allowed persons a longer time to look around
before taking a job, and were a factor in the
higher unemployment levels of the late 1960’s.3
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chart 2. Trends in the civilian labor force in eight industrial
countries, 1960-69
Index (1960 = 100) i
1960
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68 1969
1For Sweden, 1961 = 100.
Job vacancies, although considerably below their
1966 peak, remained fairly high in relation to the
level of unemployment in 1968 and 1969. The
level of vacancies would have been compatible
with a much lower level of unemployment under
the conditions of the early 1960’s.
After a decade low of 1.6 percent in
1964, the French unemployment rate moved
upward to 2.7 percent in 1967 as a slowdown in
economic growth led to higher unemployment,
shorter hours, and greater labor unrest. Although
growth picked up in late 1967 and early 1968,
unemployment continued to rise. In early 1968,
unemployment moved toward the “warning point”
for the economy set by the Fifth Plan and became
F rance.
16
a political issue in France for the first time in the
decade.
France’s economic and social problems came to
a head in the upheavals of May and June 1968,
which interrupted all economic activities. After
the spring strikes, however, unemployment moved
downward, as French producers made up for back
orders and attempted to meet the increased
consumer demand created by the sharp wage
increases of the strike settlement. By 1969, unem
ployment was down to 2.8 percent, and skilled
labor was becoming increasingly scarce. Reported
job vacancies increased rapidly in 1969 and, by
December, were 3 times as high as the prestrike
level.
S w e d e n . The Swedish unemployment rate stayed
below the 2 percent level until 1967-68, when a
slowdown in economic activity and a particularly
hard winter caused it to rise to slightly over 2
percent. The February 1968 unemployment rate of
2.7 percent was the highest since the late 1950’s in
Sweden. Unemployment declined to 1.7 percent in
the second half of 1969, as economic growth ac
celerated, and averaged 1.9 percent for the year.
In Sweden, “active labor market” policies are
highly developed and provide a comprehensive
system of institutions for retraining and relief
works.4 The Swedish Labor Market Board acted
quickly in 1967 and 1968 to meet the unemploy
ment problem, and its programs kept the jobless
rate from moving higher. Adding the annual aver
age number of persons employed in public works
(20,000) and registered unemployed persons re
ceiving vocational training or retraining (14,000)
to the Swedish unemployed count in 1968 would
increase the comparative unemployment rate
from 2.2 to 3.1 percent. Thus, without the Swedish
Government’s actions, the unemployment rate
would have moved much closer to the U.S. rate of
3.6 percent that year. In 1969, the number of per
sons employed on public relief projects declined to
15,600, but the number of registered unemployed
persons in training programs remained at 14,000.
The Japanese unemployment rate fluctuated
within the narrow range of 1.1-1.4 percent
during 1962—69, after a decade high of 1.7 percent
in 1960. Although Japan’s labor force grew almost
Ja pa n .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
14 percent during the decade (surpassed only by
Canada and the United States), years of booming
economic growth opened up more job opportuni
ties than the available supply of labor could fill.
The extent of the labor shortage was revealed by
the fact that, in 1969, there were about five job
openings for every new high school graduate
entering the labor market. Because of the severe
labor shortage, employers were recruiting high
school students about a year in advance. For those
other than high school graduates, the job-offer-tojob-seeker ratio reached a record high of 1.6 in
October 1969.
G e r m a n y . In the years 1960-66, West
Germany was confronted with serious labor short
ages. Even the normally inactive handicapped, less
productive, and older workers had largely been
integrated into the working process. Teenagers had
little difficulty finding work, and their unemploy
ment rates were about the same as the overall
rate. During 1964-66, unemployment had fallen
to the incredibly low level of 0.3 percent in West
Germany, down from 0.8 percent in 1960.
After years of sustained growth, the West
German economy began to slow down in mid-1966.
In 1967, for the first time in the history of the
German Federal Republic, real output fell short
of the level of the preceding year. The unem
ployment rate more than tripled, rising to 1
percent in 1967, and job vacancies fell below the
number of registered unemployed for the first
time in the decade. Withdrawals from the labor
force of both foreign workers and German
nationals kept the jobless rate from going higher.
Between mid-1966 and mid-1967, almost 300,000
foreign workers left West Germany. Employment
of German nationals dropped by 560,000 in 1967,
but unemployment rose by only 190,000.
The unemployment rate increased to 1.2
percent in 1968 because of relatively high
unemployment levels in the early part of the
year. In the second half of 1968, unemployment
declined considerably, and by 1969 averaged
only 0.7 percent as manpower shortages appeared
again and the labor market became increasingly
tight. By October 1969, there were over seven
vacancies reported for every one person registered
as jobless. Foreign workers returned to West
W est
17
UNEMPLOYMENT IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
Germany as the economic picture brightened,
reaching a record level of 1.4 million in 1969,
over 5 percent of the labor force. By early 1970,
there were 1.6 million foreign workers in West
Germany.
Unemployment rates by age and sex
Table 2 presents 1968 unemployment rates by
age and sex adjusted to U.S. concepts for seven
countries. Reliable estimates could not be made
for France, and it has been excluded from the
comparison.5 It should be noted that data for
West Germany do not relate to the full year.
Five age groups are shown—all ages, teenagers, 20 to
24 years, 25 to 54 years, and 55 years and over.
The 25 to 54 age group is referred to as adults for
comparison with youth and older worker unem
ployment rates in the following discussion.
In the United States,
young workers have had substantially higher
rates of unemployment than adults. In fact,
in every year since the end of World W^r II,
in recession and prosperity alike, teenagers have
had the highest unemployment rates of any age
group in the labor force. Teenagers abroad are
also unemployed more frequently than adult
workers, but unemployment rates are often much
closer to those of adults than is the case in the
United States (table 3).
Charts 3 and 4 show how the countries compared
in terms of youth unemployment rates and the
ratio of youth to adult unemployment rates in
1968. On both comparisons, Italy ranks highest
in extent of youth unemployment. Italy’s teen
age unemployment rate was 13.4 percent, over
6 times the adult jobless rate. The unemployment
problem of Italian youth probably would be worse
if it were not for the escape valve of emigration.
About 25,000 Italian teenagers were working
abroad in 1968. Problems of teenagers in the
Italian labor market are intensified by a high
dropout rate from school. Almost half of Italian
youths entering the labor market have not com
pleted the basic 8 years of schooling required by
Italian law.
The United States was second to Italy in extent
of youth unemployment, with 12.7 percent of
the teenage labor force unemployed in 1968—about
Y
o u t h
u n e m p l o y m e n t
399-873 0 - 70 - 2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
.
Table 2. Unemployment rates by age and sex adjusted
to U.S. concepts in 7 industrial countries, 1 9 6 8 1
Sex and age
United
States
Can
ada
Great
Britain
Italy
3.6
12.7
5.8
2.3
2.2
4.8
10.8
6.3
3.6
4.2
3.7
4.4
4.0
3.3
4.4
3.8
13.4
10.0
2.2
1.3
1.2
2.3
1.8
2.9
11.6
5.1
1.7
2.1
5.5
12.7
7.7
4.1
5.0
4.2
5.5
4.5
3.7
5.1
4.8
14.0
6.7
3.4
2.3
3.4
8.3
4.2
2.2
(3)
2.8
3.3
3.2
2.7
2.7
Japan Sweden
West
Germany
BOTH SEXES
All ages-------------- ------Teenagers3......... ..........
20- to 24-year-olds____
25- to 54-year-olds____
55 and over_________
1.2
2.2
5.6
3.2
1.7
2.1
1.5
3.8
1.4
1.1
1.6
3.6
13.6
10.2
2.2
1.6
1.2
2.6
1.8
1.0
1.5
2.3
5.5
3.3
1.7
2.6
1.3
3.7
1.3
.9
1.6
4.5
12.9
9.7
2.2
.3
1.2
2.0
1.8
.9
.8
2.1
6.6
2.9
1.6
1.2
1.8
4.0
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.0
MALE
All ages____________
Teenagers3__________
20- to 24-year-olds____
25- to 54-year-olds____
55 and over____ _____
FEMALE
All ages____________
Teenagers3__________
20- to 24-year-olds____
25- to 54-year-olds____
55 and over_________
i Annual averages, except for West Germany. The West German data relate to April
1968; therefore, the overall unemployment rate differs from that shown in table 1.
3 16 to 19-year-olds in the United States and Sweden; 15 to 19-year-olds in Great
Britain, Japan, and West Germany; 14 to 19-year-olds in Canada and Italy.
3 For this age-sex group, Canadian data are not statistically significant.
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
5.5 times the adult rate. Cana,da’s young people
ranked third, at 10.8 percent, 3 times the adult
rate. After these three countries, there is a con
siderable drop to the 5.6 and 4.4 percent unem
ployment rate for teenagers in Sweden and Great
Britain. Great Britain was the only country where
the youth unemployment rate was not at least
double the adult rate.
West Germany’s teenage unemployment rate of
3.8 percent in 1968 was high by the standards
of earlier years of the decade, when teenage
unemployment was 1 percent or less. The German
recession of 1967 hit teenagers the hardest.
Reportedly, a wave of cyclical dismissals largely
affected youths with a low level of education
working in unskilled jobs which had offered
relatively high pay during the boom period. The
need for employers to economize during the
recession led to the cancellation of many odd jobs
filled by the unskilled youths.
Youth unemployment in Japan, at 2.3 percent
in 1968, was the lowest of any country studied
here. There is a strong preference by employers
for hiring high school graduates in Japan, as
shownby the highly favorable job vacancy situation
for graduates. Given the very high vacancyto-graduate ratio in Japan, it is perhaps sur
prising that teenage unemployment is over twice
18
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
Table 3. Ratio of youth to adult unemployment rates1 in
7 industrial countries, 1968
Country
United States____ __________________
Canada____________________________
Great Britain_______________________
Italy______________________________
Japan_____________________________
Sweden____________________________
West Germany______________________
Total
5.5
3.0
1.3
6.1
2.3
3.3
3.5
Male
6.8
3.1
1.5
6.2
2.6
3.2
4.1
Female
4.1
3.8
1.2
5.9
2.2
4.1
2.9
1 Ratio of teenage unemployment rate to unemployment rate for 25 to 54-year-olds.
Ratios are based on data adjusted to U.S. concepts.
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
as high as adult unemployment. There is a
growing problem in Japan, however, of matching
available jobs with teenage preferences. An in
creasing number of Japanese high school students
disdain manual labor and prefer administrative
and clerical jobs to factory work. In white-collar
occupations, however, the Japanese labor shortage
is not yet serious, and vacancies are not as numer
ous as in the blue-collar occupations.
U n em plo ym en t
o f
o ld e r
w o r k e r s .
Unem
ployment rates for older workers (55 and over)
were lower than rates for 25- to 54-year-olds in
the United States and Italy. The unemployment
rate for older workers in the United States was
2.2 percent, slightly below the rate of 2.3 percent
for 25- to 54-year-olds. In Italy, however, the
contrast was greater, with unemployment of older
workers at 1.3 percent, much lower than the 2.2percent. unemployment rate for persons in the
primary working ages. The very low unemploy
ment rates for older workers in Italy are related to
the fact that very few persons over 55 remain
economically active. The labor force participation
rate for older Italians was only 25 percent in 1968.
Older workers in Great Britain had the highest
unemployment rate—4.4 percent. Among older
male workers, the rate was 5.1 percent. Report
edly, many persons over retirement age were
among the first to be dismissed when Britain’s
deflationary measures were instituted in the last
half of the 1960’s. In addition, a number of older
persons were prematurely retired involuntarily.
Such people had virtually no chance for reem
ployment in a deteriorating labor market.
n e m p l o y m e n t
b y
s e x . Women in the United
States had a higher unemployment rate in 1968
U
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
than women in any other country studied here.
At 4.8 percent, the U.S. rate was above Italy’s
4.5 percent, Canada’s 3.4 percent, and Britain’s
2.8 percent, even though these countries had
higher overall jobless rates. Canada had the
highest level of male unemployment, at 5.5
percent. Great Britain and Italy were next, at
4.2 and 3.6 percent, respectively. The United
States ranked fourth, with 2.9 percent of its
male labor force unemployed.
In the United States and West Germany,
women were more likely to be unemployed than
men. Although this was also true in Italy, as
indicated by the total unemployment rate of 3.6
percent for men and 4.5 percent for women,
Italian men had higher or identical unemploy
ment rates in comparison with women in all
four age groups delineated. The reason for this
unusual result was the higher concentration of
female unemployment and labor force in the
younger age groups, where unemployment rates
are highest. Seventy percent of all unemployed
women were under age 25 in Italy, whereas only
half of the jobless Italian men were under 25.
In Japan, men and women had identical unem
ployment rates overall. Swedish, British, and
Canadian women, however, had lower unem
ployment rates than men.
Teenage girls in the United States had a higher
unemployment rate than girls in any other
country studied—14 percent. The rate for teenage
boys in the United States was 11.6 percent. In
the United States, Sweden, and West Germany,
teenage girls had greater difficulty in securing
jobs than teenage boys.
Adjustment to U.S. definitions
With the exception of Canada, the basic labor
force and unemployment statistics of the foreign
countries studied required adjustment to bring
them into closer comparability with U.S. data.
Adjustments were made for all known major
definitional differences. However, it should be
noted that it has been possible to achieve only
approximate comparability among countries. The
accuracy of the adjustments depends on the
availability of relevant information, and, in some
instances, it has been necessary to make estimates
19
UNEMPLOYMENT IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
based on incomplete data. Nevertheless, the
adjusted figures provide a better basis for inter
national comparisons than the figures regularly
published by each country.
No adjustment has been made for the different
labor force classifications of persons enrolled in
government-sponsored training and retraining
programs among the countries covered here.
In the United States, classification varies accord
ing to type of program. Participants in most
poverty program groups which combine work
experience and training—for example, the Neigh
borhood Youth Corps—are classified as employed.
Participants in the Job Corps, however, which is
primarily a means of training and rehabilitating
young persons in residential centers away from
home, are counted as not in the labor force.
Persons enrolled in training courses under the
Manpower Development and Training Act are
classified as unemployed if they receive only
institutional training. If a person receives on-thejob training involving payment of a wage or
salary, he is considered employed. Other countries
generally follow the U.S. practice of classifying
persons in on-the-job training programs as em
ployed. However, persons receiving only govern
ment-sponsored institutional training may be
regarded as outside the labor force in other
countries. Sufficient information on this point is
not yet available to b l s for adjustment purposes,
but the effect on comparative unemployment
rates is believed to be small.
The adjustment methods used by b l s were
described briefly in the earlier studies. However,
several significant refinements in methods have
been used for this study and many of the pre
viously published estimates have been revised.
A minor change, which did not affect the adjusted
unemployment rate, was made in the adjustment
method for Italy. Important changes in the meth
ods for the other countries, including some quali
fications on the comparability of Canadian sta
tistics, are discussed below.
h a n g e s i n U.S. d e f i n i t i o n s . All data in previous
studies were adjusted to the labor force definitions
followed in the United States prior to 1967. In
this study, foreign country data have been ad
justed, insofar as possible, to the revised U.S.
concepts adopted in January 1967. At that time,
C
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chart 3. Comparative youth unemployment rates by sex in
seven countries, 1968
Male
Female
Percent
15
10
5
0
5
10
15
Japan
2;3
i
West Germany
3.8
Great Britain
4.4
Sweden
5.6
T
Canada
------10.8
1-----United States
12.7
I t à lv
13 .4
i
1
the definition of unemployment was tightened
and actual jobseeking activities were required
for a person to be counted as unemployed. Meth
ods used in adjusting the French and Japanese
statistics were changed slightly in accordance
with this new definition.
Another change introduced in 1967 was the
raising of the lower age limit for labor force sta
tistics from 14 to 16 years of age. Instead of ad
justing the data of all countries to the new U.S.
cutoff age, the foreign age limits, wherever pos
sible, have been adapted to conform to the age
at which compulsory schooling ends in each coun
try. This was done because youths in most other
countries complete their education and enter
the labor force on a full-time basis at earlier
ages than in the United States. Therefore, French
and Swedish data are adjusted to cover 16-yearolds and over and West German data to cover 15year-olds and over. British and Japanese data
remain at their published age limit of 15, and
Italian data remain at 14. Although schooling
is usually required until age 15 or 16 in Canada,
20
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
Chart 4. Ratio of youth to adult unemployment rate in 7
countries, 1968
Youth rate - Adult rate
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Canadian data have been left at the 14-year-old
limit because sufficient data are not yet available
to the Bureau for adjustment purposes.
The effects of the revised age limits for France,
Sweden, and West Germany were minimal. In all
years, t,he age limit adjustments resulted either
in no change in the overall adjusted unemploy
ment rate or in reductions amounting to no more
than one-tenth of 1 percentage point. If the U.S.
lower age limit of 16 had been used for the Japan
ese data, overall unemployment rates would have
remained unchanged. However, Italian unemploy
ment rates would have been reduced if 14- and 15year-olds had been excluded; the adjusted Italian
unemployment rate in 1968 for 16-year-olds and
over was 3.5 percent, compared with the 14-yearold and over rate of 3.8 percent. Italy’s adjusted
youth unemployment rate for 16- to 19-year-olds in
1968 was 11.3 percent, compared with the 14to 19-year-old rate of 13.4 percent used in this study.
C a n a d a . A s in earlier studies, no adjustments
have been made in the published unemployment
data for Canada. However, there is some evidence
which indicates that there may be an understate
ment of unemployment, particularly among mar
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ried women. In enumerating the unemployed, the
Canadian labor force survey questionnaire differs
from the U.S. questionnaire in two important
respects. First, the Canadian survey schedule does
not specifically ask whether a person was looking
for work. Second, the Canadian survey allows for
a shorter period of time for jobseeking activities
than the U.S. survey. In Canada, a person must
have been seeking work in the survey week to be
counted as unemployed, whereas a 4-week period
for jobseeking is allowed under U.S. definitions.
Prior to revision of the U.S. concepts in 1967, the
survey questionnaire was unspecific as to the time
period for jobseeking. When the U.S. time period
was specified as “within the past 4 weeks” in 1967,
it was estimated that this caused an increase in
the female unemployment rate of four-tenths of a
percentage point. Both of the differences men
tioned above suggest that the U.S. survey may
probe more deeply into the question of unemploy
ment and, hence, pick up more of the “peripheral”
labor force—for example, housewives seeking
work—in the unemployed count.
The 1961 Canadian population census provides
some indication of an undercount of unemployed
married women. Unlike the labor force survey,
the census questionnaire specifically asked whether
persons were looking for work; however, the job
seeking was still limited to only the survey week.
Comparison of the results of the June 1961 Cana
dian population census and the labor force survey
for that month reveals that, although unemploy
ment as measured by the census was 32 percent
smaller than that derived from the labor force
survey, the number of unemployed married women
was 60 percent higher in the census than in the
survey.6
Since the only available information for making
an adjustment is the 1961 census, it was felt
that no reliable adjustment could be made for
the possible undercount of unemployed married
women in Canada for the entire 1960-69 period.
In any case, an adjustment based on the 1961
census would have had only a small effect on the
overall unemployment rate, raising the published
Canadian rate by only one- or two-tenths of a
percentage point in all years of the period. The
UNEMPLOYMENT IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
female unemployment rate would have been
raised from 3.4 to 4.1 percent in 1968. This would
not change the relative position of Canada in
extent of female unemployment among the seven
countries studied.
There are also a few other minor differences
between the U.S. and Canadian labor force survey
definitions for which no adjustments have been
made. First, Canada, by definition, counts as
unemployed persons not seeking work because
of a belief no jobs are available, but there is no
specific question on this point in the survey ques
tionnaire. Prior to the 1967 U.S. revisions, such
persons were also theoretically counted as un
employed, but, like Canada, without explicit
questions. They are now counted as outside the
labor force in the United States. Second, Canada
classifies persons who have jobs but are absent
from work during the survey week and looking
for other jobs as unemployed. With the 1967
revisions, such persons are classified as employed
in the United States. Adjusting the Canadian
unemployment figures to exclude persons not
seeking work because of a belief no work is avail
able and persons with jobs, not at work, and seek
ing work would probably net lower the Canadian
rate by more than one- or two-tenths of a per
centage point.
F rance . Results of the 1968 population census
in France caused the French authorities to revise
their previously published annual estimates of
unemployed and labor force. In addition, when the
last article was published, the latest available
French labor force survey results were for October
1962. The October 1964 survey has since become
available, making it possible for the Bureau to
update its previously published estimates for
France. It is probable that when the results of
surveys conducted in later years are published,
the estimates for 1965 and later years will require
further revision.
G reat B ritain . A new method of adjusting
British unemployment data to U.S. concepts has
been introduced here, based on the results of
the April 1961 population census and the April
1966 “sample census” of Great Britain. The
sample census was, in effect, a labor force survey,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
21
the first of its kind conducted in Great Britain
between decennial census years. Concepts and
definitions were similar to those used in the U.S.
labor force survey and allowed for tabulation of
adjustment factors to apply to the British reg
istered unemployed series. Adjustment factors
for 1960 were assumed to be the same as for 1961;
for 1962-65, factors were interpolated from the
1961 and 1966 results; for 1967-69, adjustment
factors were assumed to be the same as for 1966.
bls had based its adjustments to the British data
in the past on a 1962 study of British unemploy
ment statistics.7 The new estimates raised the
British unemployment rate higher than the previ
ously published estimates for 1963 to 1968 and
lowered the rates for 1960 to 1962.
Analytical problems arose from the fact that
data on labor force status were not collected in
exactly the same way in 1961 and 1966. Insofar
as possible, the more detailed information avail
able from the 1966 census was used to put the
1961 census results on a compatible basis prior
to arriving at adjustment factors. Comparison of
the results of these two censuses, adjusted for
the differences between them, indicates that the
extent to which the British registered unemployed
series undercounts unemployment according to
U.S. concepts apparently rose sharply between the
2 years. In 1961, adjusted unemployment was
estimated as 128 percent of total registered unem
ployment; in 1966, it was 167 percent. The results
of the two censuses indicate that a substantial
increase in underregistration of unemployed adult
women apparently occurred between 1961 and
1966. Because of the sharp rise in the undercount
of unemployment, the reported British unem
ployment rate of 1.5 percent in both 1961 and
1966 was adjusted to only 1.9 percent in 1961,
but to 2.4 percent in 1966.
The use of adjustment factors based on only
two time periods, April 1961 and 1966, when
reported unemployment was very low, to adjust
data for other years, particularly years of high
unemployment, is subject to a substantial margin
of error. Unfortunately, bls does not have
reliable information on whether the proportion of
unemployed persons who register in Great Britain
changes substantially as unemployment increases.
In 1966, 1968, and 1969, the number of registered
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
22
unemployed females declined, and the number of
registered unemployed males increased. This
could be a true reflection of labor market condi
tions, but it could also result from a further
decline in the propensity for unemployed females
to register.
Recognizing the need for more precise informa
tion on the labor force, the British Central
Statistical Office recently announced plans to
carry out a pilot household sample survey this
year and to begin a regular program of surveys
at the end of 1970. As results of these surveys
become available, the method of adjusting the
British data to U.S. concepts will be further
refined.
J apan . Japan redesigned its labor force survey
in September 1967, and all major data items
were revised back to 1960 based on the new survey
design. The labor force survey schedule is now
filled out by the respondent himself, rather than
the interviewer. In addition, wording and ordering
of questions were changed and minor revisions in
definitions introduced. The revised data resulted
in higher unemployment rates than had been
published previously by Japan.
S w eden . Prior to 1968, the International Labor
Office (ilo) published the registered unemployed
series as representative of Swedish unemployment
figures. In 1968, however, ilo began to publish
the Swedish sample survey results as well as the
registered unemployed series. Previous studies on
comparative unemployment showed the registered
unemployed series as the regularly published
data for Sweden. Beginning with this study, the
sample survey data are entered instead.
W est G ermany . Data in previous articles covered
the Federal Republic of Germany, excluding
West Berlin. Here, data for all years have been
revised to include West Berlin, and are labeled
“West Germany.” Inclusion of West Berlin
increased the previously published adjusted un
employment rates slightly in the early 1960’s
but has made no difference in the adjusted rate
since 1964.
Adjusted rates by age and sex
Adjusted unemployment rates by age and
sex for 1968 are less reliable than the overall
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
adjusted unemployment rates. Whereas adjust
ments made to the overall unemployment rates
were based on published statistics generally
available each year, adjustments by age and sex
were partially estimated on the basis of data for
years other than 1968. For example, career
military personnel and unpaid family workers
Working less than 15 hours had to be excluded
from the labor force in most countries for com
parability with U.S. data. Such adjustments by
age group for France and Italy were based on age
distributions from a 1960 survey coordinated by
the Statistical Office of the European Communi
ties. For Japan, age distributions of the career
military were taken from the 1965 census.
Adjusted figures by age and sex for Great
Britain should be regarded with special caution
because the regularly published British data are
from registered unemployment statistics rather
than a labor force survey. Data on registered
unemployed persons are particularly weak for
comparisons of youth unemployment rates, since
a high proportion of unemployed youths are new
entrants to the labor force. Such persons are
generally not eligible to collect unemployment
benefits and are, therefore, much less likely to
register with employment offices than the ex
perienced unemployed.8 Registration statistics
also undercount unemployment among married
women in Great Britain, since a large number
have accepted the option of not paying the British
unemployment insurance tax and, hence, are not
covered for unemployment benefits. The method
of adjustment of the British data by age and sex
is based on ratios derived from the 1966 sample
census of Britain. Since economic conditions in
1966 were markedly different from conditions
in 1968, the adjusted data by age and sex may be
less accurate than the adjusted data for countries
with regular labor force surveys.
□
---------- F
O O T N O T E S
-----------
1 See M o n th ly L a b o r R eview , August 1962, pp. 857-864;
March 1965, pp. 256-259; and April 1967, pp. 18-20.
2 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop
ment ( o e c d ) E con om ic O u tlook, December 1968, p . 69.
3 See “ A Recession with Full Employment?” T h e E co n
January 24, 1970, pp. 49-50; and “Down to 2.5
percent is Fine, b u t . . . ” T h e E co n o m ist, February 22, 1969,
o m ist,
pp.
61 - 6 2 .
23
UNEMPLOYMENT IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
4 For a description of Sweden’s manpower programs, see
Sol Swerdloff, “Sweden’s Manpower Programs,” M o n t h l y
L a b o r R e v i e w , January 1966, pp. 1-6.
5 The latest available French labor force survey was
conducted in October 1964. Results of this survey, adjusted
to U.S. concepts, yielded a teenage unemployment rate
of 6.0 percent about four and one-half times the adult
unemployment rate. It is believed that teenage unemploy
ment has risen substantially since 1964, but no accurate
statistics are available as yet. The adjusted female un
employment rate was 3.0 percent, over twice as high as
the male rate of 1.4 percent. The rates for teenage boys
and girls were 7.4 percent and 5.0 percent, respectively.
Workers aged 55 and over had a jobless rate of 1.6 percent.
6 See Mordechai E. Lando, T h e S e x D i f f e r e n t i a l i n C a n a
d ia n
U n e m p lo y m e n t D a ta
(Center for Naval Analyses,
Professional Paper No. 2, January 9, 1970).
7 See M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v i e w , May 1962, pp. 489-501.
This study was subsequently expanded by the author,
Joseph Zeisel, in T h e S t r u c t u r e o f U n e m p l o y m e n t a t F u l l
E m p l o y m e n t i n G r e a t B r i t a i n a n d t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s (pub
lished on demand by University Microfilms, Ann Arbor,
Mich.). Another student of British unemployment statis
tics, Robert J. Flanagan, provides an alternative method
of adjusting British unemployment data to U.S. concepts
in his recently completed dissertation entitled A S t u d y o f
I n te r n a tio n a l D iffe r e n c e s i n
P h illip s
C urves
(Berkeley,
University of California, 1970). Unpublished. He arrives
at higher unemployment rates than those shown in this
article. In 1960, he raises the British rate to 2.7 percent;
in 1968, to 4.2 percent.
8
Youth are not as likely to be underrepresented in the
British registered unemployed data as in the employment
office data of most other countries because of the existence
of the Youth Employment Service ( y e s ) in Britain. Young
persons under 18 seeking their first employment who
register for job placement with y e s are included in the
British registered unemployment count. However, there
is no compulsion to register at y e s and, in 1969, only
8,600 school leavers who had not yet been in insured em
ployment were included in the British registered unem
ployed total.
Summer jobs for young workers
Jobs for young people were less plentiful
this summer than last, according to a midAugust report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
While the young labor force was increasing to
13.3 million (due mainly to a lesser number of
young men in the Armed Forces), the total
number of 16- to 21-year-olds employed was
only 11.2 million—some 210,000 less than in
the summer of 1969. As a result, unemploy
ment among youths rose to a rate of 15.7
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
percent, compared with 12.8 percent in 1969
and 14.0 percent in 1968.
Unemployment of white and black youths
increased by the same proportion from 1969 to
1970, their jobless rates rising to 13.6 and 30.2,
respectively. Young men accounted for more
than three-fourths of the overall rise.
The full report, E m p lo y m e n t i n P e r s p e c tiv e :
Y o u th J o b S itu a tio n i n S u m m e r 1 9 7 0 , is available
from any of the b l s regional offices listed on
the inside front cover.
A report
on the 1 9 7 0
International
Labor Conference
T h e f i f t y - f o u r t h s e s s i o n of the International
Labor Conference held in June amply demon
strated the organization’s faculty for adapting
to the changing conditions and prospects con
fronting the workers of the world. The social
and economic aspects of poverty and trade union
rights in relation to civil liberties were major
foci of discussions by government, employer, and
labor representatives from 111 of the 121 member
states of the International Labor Organization.
Despite internal tensions, several important in
ternational instruments were adopted by this
unique tripartite international institution. There
were continued and divergent pressures from
smaller industrial states, developing countries,
and the Soviet bloc countries for altering the
structure of the organization. Political issues,
some directly and others more tenuously related
to the rights guaranteed to workers’ organizations,
also figured prominently.
The conference was one of transition. Sub
stantively, it was oriented to the Second De
velopment Decade program, being concerned
with the interrelated social and economic needs
of the world’s peoples. Administratively, it
reflected for the last time the influence of David
A. Morse, who had resigned just prior to the
conference, after 22 years as Director-General
of the International Labor Office. In May, the
governing body of the i l o elected Wilfred H .
Jenks to the position. The new Director-General
has been a prominent member of the i l o Secre
tariat for over 40 years.
V. Manickavasagam, Malaysian Labor Minister,
was elected president of the conference.1 The
Joseph P. Goldberg is Special Assistant to the Com
missioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
24
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Poverty, civil rights,
jobless youth, minimum wages,
and the ILO’s internal structure
were major topics
of the Geneva gathering
JOSEPH P. GOLDBERG
three vice presidents elected were I. Pacuraru,
government delegate of Rumania, F. BannermanMenson, employer delegate of Ghana, and G. B.
Fogam, worker delegate of Cameroon.
The U.S. delegation, headed for the first time
by George H. Hildebrand, Deputy Under Sec
retary of Labor for International Affairs, par
ticipated actively in all phases of the conference.2
ILO and poverty
Almost 200 speeches by government, worker,
and employer representatives delivered during the
2 weeks of plenary sessions centered on the
outgoing Director-General’s report, “Poverty and
Minimum Living Standards—The Role of the
i l o .”
The report took its theme from the
approaches developed by other United Nations
agencies to the Second Development Decade,
which now stresses the need for coping with
social problems along with economic growth in
national development programs.
The report on poverty is complementary to
the i l o World Employment Program, adopted
by last year’s conference, which emphasizes the
essentiality of including higher levels of employ
ment as objectives “if development is to lead to
higher standards of living for more and more
people, and if the benefits of development are to
be spread more equitably.” 3
The keynote of the poverty report was that
“A policy for minimum living standards implies
giving as much care and attention to the setting
of consumption targets as to the setting of
investment targets. . . .” 4The scope of the treat
ment is wide-ranging, including the need for
agrarian reform in many developing countries,
the persistence of inequalities based on race,
caste, religion, and other distinctions, and the
problems of population pressure and of subsistence
25
THE 1970 ILO CONFERENCE
agriculture. Some guides to national policies are
indicated, along with the outlines of a program
through which the i l o can contribute to the
requirements for raising living standards.
The extended discussion of the DirectorGeneral’s report indicated general approval of
the tone, direction, and guides proposed for
consideration. Some of the speeches covered the
theme of the report, others gave elaborate de
scription of developments within their own coun
tries that coincided with some of the report’s
proposals, and still others added requests, or
forceful demands, for aid from the industrialized
countries. Many speakers also called for change
in the i l o structure. More general political
assertions were made by a number of Arab states,
notably charging Israel with aggression, coupled
with sallies against the United States for its role
in Viet Nam and Cambodia. Less intense but
frequent expressions in the same direction came
also from the Soviet bloc spokesmen.
In his observations, Mr. Hildebrand agreed
that growth in income and output, though es
sential elements in solving problems of poverty,
would not automatically assure higher levels of
real per capita income. Stressing that each nation
must deal with underlying causes of poverty in
terms of its own institutions and basic goals, he
cited the role of rapid growth in both industrial
and agricultural national output as essential to
“provide lasting improvements in personal in
comes, in social security, and in conditions of life
and work.” But economic gains would be without
real meaning where “personal liberty, freedom
of initiative, and freedom of association” do not
prevail. Citing recent legislation and proposals for
dealing with poverty in the United States, he
stated: “In our view, the task of improving
conditions of life and work is never finished.
This is one of the major reasons why the United
States belongs to the International Labor Organi
zation: we can learn and we can contribute
through our active participation.” He stressed
the unique character of the tripartite i l o structure,
grounded on the independence of both the workers’
and employers’ groups from government domina
tion, and on the common premise among all
these groups “that compromises among their
competing interests are both possible and to
be sought.”
Fostering such goals should obtain a climate
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
free of rancor and recrimination. Oppositely, there
was overt criticism of U.S. involvement in Viet
Nam and Cambodia, which required lengthy re
buttal by Mr. Hildebrand. His concluding remarks
were, “ . . . It becomes a grotesque experience to
hear speeches in this conference by delegates whose
governments are openly supporting the aggression
of North Viet Nam, speeches that are replete with
sympathy for the people who are the victims of
that aggression, but which never offer the slightest
prospect of a negotiated settlement.”
Mr. Rudolph Faupl, U.S. workers’ delegate,
called attention to the long campaign against
poverty by the American labor movement, as
well as by workers’ organizations in all free
countries, and cited the continuing efforts made
in the United States to wipe out racial and re
ligious discrimination, to raise the minimum wage,
and to establish a national health insurance pro
gram. He, too, felt that scurrilous attacks on the
United States called for a reminder that the
United States had come to the assistance of South
Viet Nam at the request of that country when it
was faced by aggression from North Viet Nam,
aided and abetted by the Soviet Union and Com
munist China. He called attention to the existence
in South Viet Nam of a more vigorous and inde
pendent trade union movement than in those
countries making these attacks. Regarding the
charges against Israel, he called that country “the
very model of economic development and social
progress in the world to which so many countries
have turned to learn from its experience. Its loss
would be tragic, not just for its nearly 3 million
people, Jews and Arabs alike, but for the entire
world, and especially the workers of the world.”
Civil liberties
Trade union rights and civil liberties figured
prominently in the deliberations of the conference.
There was also concern with the need for reitera
tion of the rights and immunities associated with
free expression by worker and employer delegates
to the conference. The Resolutions Committee
gave extensive consideration to proposed resolu
tions calling attention to the trade union situations
in Spain and Greece. The final Conference actions
on these matters varied considerably.
The report of the Office, “Trade Union Rights
and Their Relation to Civil Liberties,” was the
26
basis for a first general committee consideration.
Wide-ranging discussion culminated in the devel
opment of a resolution, explicity stating that the
absence of civil liberties for workers’ and em
ployers’ organizations removes all meaning from
the concept of trade union rights.5 Deep concern
was expressed about repeated violations of trade
union and other human rights, and the competence
of the ilo in this field within the United Nations
system was reaffirmed. It urged member states
which have not yet done so to ratify—and to
observe—the ilo Conventions on Freedom of
Association and Protection of the Right to
Organize (No. 87) and on the Right to Organize
and Collective Bargaining (No. 98), and urged
the governing body to increase efforts to secure
observance. The resolution also called for compre
hensive ilo studies of means to ensure universal
respect for trade union rights and related civil
liberties, including the unions’ right to participate
in work places and the general economy, and the
right to strike. The studies should lead to the
development of international instruments. The
resolution was adopted unanimously by the
conference despite some individual reservations.
Freedom of speech for nongovernmental dele
gates to ilo meetings was deemed in need of
clarification and reaffirmation, despite existing
protection in the ilo constitution and un con
ventions. The conference unanimously approved
a resolution explicitly affirming that employers’
and workers’ representatives should be able
freely to express their views on matters of concern
to the ilo, and to report back to the members
of their organizations in their own countries. The
resolution expressly states that “such immunity
may be necessary even in relation to the authori
ties” of the state of which they are nationals.
Resolutions relating to freedom of association
in Spain and Greece, introduced by workers’
representatives, failed of adoption. The proposed
statement on Spain called for implementation of
the recommendations of the ilo Study Group on
the trade union situation in Spain published in
September 1969. It was defeated in committee by
a majority of government and employer members,
who indicated that, while they were concerned
with freedom of association, they felt the reso
lution was discriminatory in that it singled out one
country while others remained in violation. A
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
resolution calling on the Greek Government to
consider favorably a general amnesty for trade
unionists and workers imprisoned or deported
for trade union activities, and to make its law
and practice conform to Conventions 87 and 98
which it had ratified, was not accepted by the
conference, because of lack of a quorum. Many
government representatives and the employer
spokesman indicated that the resolution prejudged
matters presently under review by an ilo Com
mission of Inquiry, thereby violating the ilo
constitutional process.6
International instruments
The development of conventions (which come
into effect through ratification by individual
States) and of recommendations (which require
reporting by all members) establish international
standards which exert important influences on the
law and practice of member states. This important
aspect of conference activity was handled by four
technical committees during the ongoing session.
Regarding holidays (that is, vacations) with
pay, the conference adopted a new convention
applicable to all employed persons.7 On the ques
tion of covering agricultural workers, a compro
mise was reached which permits separate
ratification or nonratification for agricultural and
nonagricultural workers. The convention sets a
minimum standard of 3 working weeks of vaca
tion for 1 year of service. The final vote was 213
for the convention and 62 against, with 62 absten
tions. (U.S. Government and workers’ delegates
voted for the adoption, and the employer delegate
against.) The employers’ stand was grounded in
part on insufficient consideration given in the
terms of the instrument to conditions in develop
ing countries.
The conference adopted a convention and a
recommendation on minimum wage fixing, with
special reference to developing countries. Under
the convention, ratifying states undertake to
establish a minimum-wage-fixing machinery, with
coverage to be determined by the Government
after full consultation with representative organi
zations of employers and workers concerned.
Minimum wage rates are stated to have the force
of law, with failure to apply them making persons
concerned subject to appropriate penal or other
THE 1970 IL0 CONFERENCE
sanctions. In fixing the level of minimum wages,
account is to be taken of both the needs of workers
and their families, including the general wage
level, the cost of living, social security benefits,
and the relative living standards of other social
groups. Attention must be directed also to general
economic factors, including economic development
requirements, levels of productivity, and the need
to attain a high level of employment. The recom
mendation provides detailed guidelines for placing
the convention’s principles into effect and includes
provision for regional or zonal minimum wage
variations based on differences in the cost of
living. The final vote on the convention was 248
for, 46 against, and 46 abstentions. (U.S. Govern
ment and worker delegates were for and the
employer delegate against the convention.) The
vote on the recommendation was 251 for, 5
against, and 74 abstentions. (U.S. Government
and worker delegates were for the recommen
dation, and the employer delegate abstained.)
In opposing the convention, the spokesman for
the employers’ group stated that cost effects of
the minimum wage and its impact on the general
wage structure in the free world fall on employers,
who market their products under strong competi
tion. While the employers’ representatives ac
cepted minimum wages as a means of over
coming poverty, they pointed out it was only one
element in the totality of a social security and
social protective system. They said that the pro
visions in the instruments lacked flexibility and
dynamism, and that the emphasis on statutory
provisions might threaten free collective bar
gaining.
Another recommendation adopted by the con
ference was on special youth employment and
training schemes for development purposes. The
stimulus for the recommendation was the concern
over the growing volume of unemployment and
underemployment of youth in developing coun
tries. Youth there receives little or no education
or the education provided does not meet the
practical needs of their communities. Of major
concern in the development of the recommen
dation was the issue of compulsory recruitment.
The recommendation meets this problem by
calling for voluntary participation in special
employment programs, and maximum individual
free choice of activities and regions. Recruitment
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
27
is permitted only under legislative enactments
and in full compliance with the terms of inter
national labor conventions on forced labor and
employment policy.
The recommendation calls for special programs
to promote equality of opportunity and treatment
as well as the opportunity for membership in
youth or trade union organizations, and establishes
formal procedures for appeals by participants
against recruitment decisions or conditions of serv
ice. The programs are to be administered with
out discrimination and are “to include the safe
guarding of human dignity and the development
of the personality and a sense of individual and
social responsibility.” Standards for participation,
and for the content of the programs and conditions
of service, are set out. Such programs are stated
to be of an interim character intended to meet
current and pressing needs, but not to duplicate or
prejudice other measures of econoniic policy or the
development of regular vocational or educational
programs. The final vote on the recommendation
was 311 for, 0 against, and 26 abstentions the
U.S. delegation voted unanimously for adoption.
The first discussion was held on a proposèd
recommendation concerning protection and fa
cilities to be provided workers’ representatives
in the undertaking (that is, enterprise). If adopted,
it would cover both trade union representatives
and representatives elected by the workers in the
establishment, and would contain an assurance that
such varied worker representation does not under
mine the position of the trade unions. The worker
representatives would enjoy protection against
prejudicial acts, such as dismissal because of their
status as workers’ representatives, or because of
union membership or participation in union ac
tivities. Specific protective measures for workers’
representatives are suggested where no such pro
tection exists for workers generally. Facilities
should be provided to workers’ representatives in
carrying out their functions. These facilities would
depend on the industrial relations system of the
country and of the establishment, and should not
unduly affect efficient operation. The final vote on
the proposed conclusions was 243 for, 27 against,
and 15 abstentions. (The U.S. delegation voted for
it.) Next year’s conference will give the proposal
second consideration and final determination of
the content of the instrument.
28
Other resolutions
Five other resolutions received the conference’s
unanimous approval. However, a proposal for a
study of “opportunities and social problems”
raised by multinational undertakings failed of
acceptance in the absence of a quorum. Employers’
delegates opposed it, claiming that there was no
evidence of attendant social problems.
1. The list of occupational diseases included in
the Employment Injury Benefits Convention (No.
121) will be amended to include occupational
deafness and other noise-induced disorders, ill
nesses resulting from the performance of work
under compression, and infectious diseases con
tracted by the staff of medical services and
laboratories.
2. The ilo was requested to strengthen its
activities in the field of workers’ education, par
ticularly by promoting workers’ education in
developing countries through institutions operated
by trade unions or other bodies having full support
of workers’ organizations.
3. Regarding the employment of older workers,
the ilo was asked to coordinate current studies
and projects concerned with the elimination of
discriminatory practices in the employment of
such workers, continuous vocational training or
retraining enabling them to adapt to technological
change, and examination of the effects of certain
pension schemes on older workers’ employment.
4. The importance of tripartite participation in
the United Nations Conference on Human En
vironment, to be held in 1972, was stressed, and
an ilo delegation will be sent to the conference.
5. In view of new technology, machinery, and
materials, the ilo was asked to update the Model
Code of Safety Regulations drawn up in 1948
for the guidance of governments and industry.
Other actions
The Committee on the Application of Conven
tions and Recommendations gave the annual
review of reports submitted by governments on
ratification of conventions, and of the observations
by the Committee of Experts on the Application
of Conventions and Recommendations. The Com
mittee reported on the initial success of a new
procedure under which problems encountered by
governments in applying ratified conventions are
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
dealt with through direct contacts with a repre
sentative of the Director-General of the ilo, and
called for further development of this procedure.
To ensure continuance or enhancement of the role
of workers’ and employers’ organizations in
implementing conventions and recommendations,
the Committee endorsed study courses on inter
national labor standards already begun for
workers, and to be available to employers on
request. Cases of progress by governments in
seeking to conform to conventions were noted,
along with the more serious cases of noncompliance.
Also considered was a general survey prepared
by the Committee of Experts on four recommenda
tions concerning the health, welfare, and housing
of workers. Cooperation of governments and the
debate in the Committee were cited as confirma
tion of the “vitality of the ilo’s standard-setting
activities, in all their aspects, and the general
concern that international standards should lead
to improvements in social conditions at the na
tional level.”
ILO structure
Major and knotty questions relating to the
structure of the ilo, under study for several years,
remained unresolved when the conference adopted
the recommendations of the Committee on Struc
ture that they be referred to the governing body
for further examination and a report to next year’s
conference. The leading issues here pertained to
the governing body’s composition. They included
the constitutional provisions reserving 10 of the
24 nonelective government seats for states of chief
industrial importance, and the requirement that
at least five states of chief industrial importance
ratify a constitutional amendment before it goes
into effect. Also under attack, from the Communist
countries, is the refusal of the employers’ group
to accord representation in the governing body to
“representatives of socialist management,” which
involves the question of the autonomy of the three
groups. A further issue relates to demands that
the conference be given a voice in the selection of
the Director-General, rather than having the
appointment made by the governing body.
Mr. Edward Neilan, U.S. employer represent
ative and Employer-Vice-Chairman of the Com
mittee on Structure, questioned whether a major-
THE 1970 ILO CONFERENCE
29
ity of the ILO membership “is in favor of any
particular structural change, though,” he said,
“I do agree that when you take them all together
there is a decided body in favor of structural
changes.” He cited statements in the report that
21 of the 24 employer members of the governing
body were affiliated with organizations in thenown countries which included substantial numbers
of nationalized and socialized industries. Con
trasting these countries where management auton
omy existed, Mr. Neilan cited from Soviet press
reports of governmental interference with rights
granted to Soviet enterprises. He stated, “In
fact, these governing body members may represent
socialist managers somewhat better than the
socialist managers can represent themselves.”
He viewed Soviet efforts as being directed at
destroying the autonomy of the Employers’
group.8
In conclusion, it can be said that it is the
sustaining drive of the tripartite system that
makes for accommodation in the face of so many
sources and pressures of diversity. It is the
general awareness that this system has been an
important world-wide foundation for continuing
adaptation to changing economic and social
conditions that has assured that accommodation
overshadows diversity.
□
■FOOTNOTES-
1 The other candidate proposed was B. F. Ople, the
Philippine Secretary of Labor. The result was 286 votes
for Mr. Manickavasagam, 84 for Mr. Ople.
2 Members of the delegation were: G overnm ent: Dele
gates— George H. Hildebrand, Deputy Undersecretary of
Labor for International Affairs, and George P. Delaney,
Special Assistant to the Secretary of State and Coordinator
of International Labor Affairs; Substitute Delegate, Allen
R. DeLong, Assistant General Counsel, Department of
Commerce; Congressional
Advisers— Representatives
William H. Ayres, John H. Dent, John M. Ashbrook,
Dominick V. Daniels, John N. Erlenborn, Edith M. Green;
Advisers—Joseph P. Goldberg, Philip H. Kleinberger,
Margaret Pallansch, Edward B. Persons, Ben P.
Robertson, Roger C. Schrader, Laurence Silberman, and
Sylvia R. Weissbrodt, E m p lo y e rs: Delegate—Edwin P.
Neilan, Chairman of the Board, Bank of Delaware;
Advisers— M. A. Darling, Jr., Leonard Janofsky, Lee
Knach, Webb Neely, Robert T. Thompson, and William
Van Meter. W o rk ers: Rudolph Faupl, International
Representative, International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers; Advisers— Max Greenberg, Lane
Kirkland, Harry D. Sayre, Bertrand Seidman, Floyd C.
Smith, and Miles C. Stanley.
3 I L O R e p o rt o f D irecto r-G en era l, Part 1, Poverty and
Minimum Living Standards; The Role of the i l o , Geneva,
1970, p. 3.
4 Ibid., p. 42.
5 The resolution stated that the protection of civil
rights as such comes within the purview of the United
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Nations on the basis of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the International Covenants on Civil
and Political Rights.
6 The vote in the Conference was 100 for, 0 against, and
163 abstentions. The Greek Government delegation with
drew from the Conference when the Resolutions Committee
approved the resolution by a vote of 10,194 for, 8,906
against, and 2,200 abstentions.
7 Seafarers are excluded, however, and a resolution was
adopted suggesting that present standards for seafarers
should be examined under the special i l o maritime
machinery.
8 The a f l - c i o Executive Council has recentty reacted
sharply to the appointment of a representative of a Soviet
bloc country as assistant director-general of the i l o after
the June conference. Charging that this was a further build
up of Communist strength in the organization, the Council
expressed its increasing concern over the use of the i l o as a
political instrument, noting “that while the i l o still pays
lip service to human rights, it has in fact turned a blind eye
to the most blatant violations of basic freedoms in its
member countries.” The Council statement referred
specifically to the failure of the conference to act on the
resolutions on trade union rights in Greece and Spain, and
the “head-in-the-sands approach to Communist violations
of human rights.” The a f l - c i o proposes to seek “the i l o
return to its historic mission of defending human rights and
workers’ freedom everywhere in the world.” See a f l - c i o
N e w s , August 8, 1970.
The NEA
prepares
for the
19 7 0 ’s
“To bargain or not to bargain” was a question
which occupied the delegates at National Edu
cation Association conventions several years ago.
Since the late 1960’s, however, pressures from the
competing American Federation of Teachers
(afl - cio) and the actions of restless classroom
teachers across the country have compelled the
nea to come to grips with economic demands,
while at the same time maintaining what some
consider fine semantic distinctions designed to
please those committed to a “pure and simple”
professionalism. At this convention, an association
official, in taking credit for the recently signed
Hawaiian collective bargaining bill, declared:
“We are through playing semantic games.”
The resolutions and debates at the 108th
annual nea convention, held in San Francisco
from July 3 to July 7, did not fully bear him out.
Thus, “professional negotiations” was still used
rather than “collective bargaining,” and “with
drawal of services” was substituted for “strikes.”
Yet few if any of the more than 7,000 delegates
were in doubt as to what was meant and even
fewer seemed disturbed over this turn of events as
evidenced by the frequently routine adoption of
policy statements dealing with these matters.
The nea ’s new approach was made clear in
the report of its executive secretary, Sam M.
Lambert: “Two years ago I said to this assembly:
The time has come to start a c tin g J o r nea instead
of r e a c tin g to aft . And, we have done precisely
that. We have been building our own program
and I am satisfied in my own mind it’s better
than anything our rivals can put on the road.”
In support of this assertion, the Association’s
research department prepared data indicating
that agreements were in effect in about 3,300
Harry P. Cohany is chief of the Division of Industrial
Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
30
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
National Education Association
reasserts teachers’
right to bargain, strike;
provides for
professional negotiators
HARRY P. COHANY
school districts during the 1969-70 school year,
compared with 1,531 in 1966-67, when the first
negotiation survey was made. As a result, 6 out of
every 10 public school teachers are now employed
in districts having negotiation agreements. Local
affiliates of nea represented more than 8 out of
10 teachers in these districts, the survey noted.
During the last school year the number of teachers
under nea agreements increased by 176,000 as
against a reported 22,000 for the aft . These
agreements covered not only salaries and working
conditions, but typically also extended into such
areas as class size, teacher load, recruiting,
selection of textbooks, and use of teacher aides.
At the convention, further steps in aid of col
lective bargaining were made known to, or
approved by, the delegates. In one of these steps,
the nea is actively seeking a Federal negotiation
law which would provide for mediation and fact
finding to resolve negotiation impasses. A strike
would be permissible in cases where the impasse
machinery had failed to settle the dispute. Injunc
tions would be restricted to situations of “clear
and present danger to the public health and
safety.” The proposed legislation would also allow
the agency shop if agreed to by the parties (it is
mandatory under the Hawaiian law). In the mean
time, the delegates were urged to continue to work
for the passage of similar laws at the State level.
Collective bargaining efforts will also be
strengthened by the newly adopted uniserv pro
gram which calls for one full-time professional for
every 1,200 members, primarily to serve as experts
in negotiations with school boards. As was ex
plained to the delegates: “ uniserv will place a
trained and skilled negotiator on the other side
of the table, facing down the Board’s hired gun,
and working with expertise for teachers.” In ad
dition, the uniserv representative will also carry
on administrative as well as economic and political
action programs. About 250 uniserv représenta-
NEA CONVENTION REPORT
31
tives are to be in the field within the first year, to
work in “unified” States, that is, those in which
members are affiliated with the national, State,
and local association. The number of units so
serviced is expected to reach 1,200 soon.
A 1969 resolution, upholding the right to
strike, was strengthened with these changes:
“. . . no attempt shall be made by any member
of the profession to provide for an instructional
program during the withdrawal of services by
a recognized professional organization. School
boards should officially close schools when work
stoppage is declared by the recognized professional
organization.” Delegates were assured that the
term “professional organization” referred only to
affiliates of the nea .
Legal difficulties, however, have troubled the
companion measure of invoking “professional
sanctions” ; that is, an alert that deplorable
conditions exist in a particular school jurisdiction
which thus stands condemned and should be
shunned by educators (the nea equivalent of
“hot cargo”). A court case involving the Union
Beach, N.J., Board of Education and the New
Jersey Education Association held that the nea ’s
C ode o f E th ic s , which requires an educator “not
to accept a position when so requested by the
appropriate professional organization” (Principle
Given the nea ’s present posture on collective
bargaining matters, what is the outlook for merger
with the aft ? Executive secretary Sam Lambert
saw the difference between the two organizations
in these terms: '“The newspapers sometime refer
to nea and its State and local affiliates as unions,
and I admit that in some respects we do have some
of the same outward appearances. You and I know,
however, we haven’t lost one bit of our interest in
the welfare of children or in the quality of educa
tion they are getting.” Then he added: “In addi
tion, there is still one enormous and overpowering
difference between the two organizations. The nea
is still a completely free, independent, selfdetermining organization. It has no entangling
alliances, no debts to the plumbers or clothing
workers, no encumbrances or obligations to other
segments of the labor force or to management. We
are free . . . .” Despite these obstacles, outgoing
president George D. Fischer held out hope for a
IV , 5), w as a n u n d u e r e s tr a in t on g o v e rn m e n ta l
m erg er in “ a b o u t 5 y e a rs ,” com ing a b o u t g ra d u a lly
authority and, thus, served an illegal purpose.
To forestall further legal problems, the delegates
voted to remove the above sentence from the
C ode o f E th ic s , but thereby admittedly weakened
the effectiveness of sanctions.
Nevertheless, the strike will definitely remain a
weapon in the nea ’s arsenal, as was made clear by
the incoming president, Helen Bain, a speech and
English high school teacher from Nashville, Tenn.:
“As teachers, we believe that strikes are distaste
ful . . . But the nea has learned . . . that some
times it is necessary to strike. And the nea will be
100 percent behind them.”
At the same time, however, the nea realizes that
such a militant stance is of little avail when
agreements reached with a Board of Education
cannot be implemented because taxpayers—as
they have in ever-growing numbers—refuse to
approve bond issues to aid in financing the agree
ments. One proposed solution to this problem
would be increased Federal support for education.
Another may lie in fiscally independent school
systems; that is, those authorized to levy taxes.
by mergers at the local level such as have taken
place in Los Angeles, Calif., and Flint, Mich. The
outlook for future mergers is cloudy, particularly
since the merger in Los Angeles, which after a less
than successful strike is under attack in the courts
by dissatisfied nea members. In any case, the
merger issue was not presented to the delegates nor
was it raised by them in the form of a resolution.
Instead, two other issues evoked considerable
debate: One proposal dealt with the calling and
makeup of a constitutional convention to revamp
the association’s structure (approved in a roll-call
vote by a slight margin) and the other with a
resolution on withdrawal from Indochina (defeated
after a heated exchange). In additional resolu
tions the delegates urged the prohibition of
“voucher plans” but came out strongly for Federal
funds for education to be “expended solely for the
support of public schools . . . with no diversion of
Federal funds, goods, or services to nonpublic
elementary and secondary schools.” A similar
proposed restriction was narrowly defeated at the
1969 convention.
D
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Although neither solution appeared very promising
at the moment, the nea went on record asking for
a starting salary of $12,500 and a maximum for
those with advanced degrees of $25,000-30,000
after “no more than 10 years.”
Prospects for merger
An econometric
model of worker
compensation
changes
C a n wage movements be predicted from changes
in unemployment, consumer prices, and cor
porate profits?
This article presents the results of an investi
gation of changes, over a 20-year period, from
1949 to 1968, in average hourly compensation for
the private nonfarm economy. The study was
initially undertaken for the purpose of developing
a wage forecasting equation. However, the develop
ment of a model for the determination of changes
in wages serves multiple purposes. It provides
a means of studying wage behavior, insight into
wage trends that can serve as the basis for addi
tional research, and a vehicle for projecting
changes in wages.
Background of the study
The method of investigation used in this
study is a variant of Phillips curve analysis which
is based upon a postulated relationship between
money wage rate changes and factors selected to
represent the state of the labor market. The
seminal study of this type by British economist
A. W. Phillips found stability, for over a century,
in the relationship between the percentage change
in money wages and the unemployment rate in
the United Kingdom.1 According to the theory
underlying the Phillips relationship, when the
supply and demand for labor is out of equilib
rium, the rate of change of wages will be roughly
proportional to the unemployment rate—a proxy
for the degree of disequilibrium. When economic
activity quickens, unemployed resources diminish,
and demand for labor forces up the price of labor
William R. Bailey is chief of the Special Reports Group’
and Arthur Sackley is a labor economist, Office of Wages
and Industrial Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
32
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Equation explains overall
wage movements reasonably
well, but reveals
instability when tested
in some subperiods
WILLIAM R. BAILEY AND ARTHUR SACKLEY
at a faster rate. The reverse is postulated to occur
when the unemployment rate rises.
Further development of this type of analysis
has mainly taken the form of attempts to obtain
a more complete explanation of wage movements
by introducing additional explanatory variables
such as profits and prices,2 the type of bargaining
process,3 the level of new hires,4 value producti
vity,5 adjusted unemployment rates;6 and by
shifting temporal relationships and applying the
analysis to different periods and industries. Given
the multiplicity of variables, type of specification,
industry coverage, and period of observation,
the results, as might be expected, are diverse and
often appear contradictory.7
In common with other formulations in this
type of research, the model used here hypothesizes
a relationship, specified in single equation form,
between changes in wages and changes in certain
labor market variables. The investigation in this
article is limited to that portion of Phillips curve
research dealing with the existence of a stable
relationship between wage movements and move
ments of selected economic variables, especially
the unemployment rate.8
Our study resulted in an estimated equation
which by standard statistical criteria provides
a reasonably good statistical fit over the period
1949 to 1968. However, further investigation
revealed that this relationship was unstable among
subperiods of this 20-year period. In particular,
the model did not perform well in representing the
course of compensation during the 1958-64 sub
period. Although the scope of our investigation was
not adequate to support conclusive judgments, the
finding of instability contributes further to ques
tions which have been raised about the adequacy
of a model of the Phillips type as an explanation
of changes in compensation.
WORKER COMPENSATION CHANGES
Method of investigation
The general procedure for this investigation
was to specify a single equation model, test the
specification by means of ordinary least squares
regression techniques, and examine the statistical
properties. Many variables in various combina
tions and alternatives were tested. The preferred
form was the one which was logical on conceptual
grounds and yielded the highest coefficient of
determination (K2) and the smallest standard
error (S.E.). It associated change in compensa
tion per man-hour in the private economy (depend
ent variable) with the civilian unemployment rate,
the change in that rate, the rate of change in
consumer prices, the rate of corporate profits,
and changes in the Federal minimum wage.
The equation takes the form:
C*=f(Ut-i. U't. Pt. Rt-i, Mt)
where
C=
U=
U' =
P=
R=
M=
the percent change in compensation
per man-hour in the private economy;
the reciprocal of the civilian unemploy
ment rate;
the first difference in the reciprocal of the
civilian unemployment rate variable;
percent change in the Consumer Price
Index;
the ratio of after-tax profits to gross
corporate product; and
a dummy variable for the effect of
changes in the Federal minimum
wage.
Observations used in this investigation ran from
the second quarter of 1949 to the fourth quarter
of 1968.9
The dependent variable (C)—the percent
change in compensation per man-hour for em
ployees in the private nonfarm economy—
includes wage and salary payments plus sup
plements to wage and salaries which are included
in the national income accounts.10 The specific
form of this variable is the percent change in
compensation in a given quarter from the same
quarter in the prior year.
Two variables were specified to reflect labor
market conditions: the reciprocal of the civilian
399-873 0 - 7 0 - 3
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
33
unemployment rate (U) and the change in the rate
(U '). The first variable is specified as the reciprocal
of a 4-quarter average, lagged one quarter to
reflect an anticipated delay in reaction to the
changed labor market condition. The reciprocal
specification was adopted to conform to an ex
pected nonlinear relationship. The other unem
ployment variable (U') is specified as the first
difference in the unemployment rate variable.
The price change variable (P) was included to
account for the effect upon wages produced when
consumer price changes motivate the worker to
maintain his real income or when they trigger
escalator clauses, which are institutional devices
for achieving the same objective. The price vari
able is specified as a percent change to one quarter
from the same quarter in the previous year. The
unlagged form proved superior to the lagged ver
sions in the statistical tests.11
The rate of corporate profit represents the
ability of employers to grant wage increases. It is
also an indicator of market power on the part of
the employer. The version specified in the model
(Rt-0 is the 4-quarter average of the ratio of
after tax profits to gross corporate product,
lagged one quarter.
The other independent variable in the func
tion is a dummy variable (Mt) to account for the
effect on wages of a change in the Federal mini
mum wage. It takes the value of 1 in the 4 quar
ters including and immediately following the
institution of a general change in Federal mini
mum wages and zero otherwise.
Other variables were considered for the equation,
among them a dummy variable for the period of
Federal wage guideposts, changes in the rate of
employer contributions for social insurance, a
job-opening-to-employment ratio, changes in the
amount of bargaining activity, overtime hours,
and the lagged value of the dependent variable.
With the exception of the last, all variables were
rejected because they made little or no contribu
tion to the effectiveness of the model in explaining
wage changes. The last—the lagged value of the
dependent variable—was rejected because the
authors felt the model was sounder conceptually
when it was specified entirely in terms of inde
pendent variables.
The form of the model that provided the best
statistical fit is shown below. Values of the t
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
34
statistic are shown in parentheses:
C t^ 0.1501+ 9.6983 U t-i + 34.4031 U \
( 6 .8)
( 6 .6)
+ 0.4778 P t + 0.1351 R t-j+0.7520 M t
(10.1)
(2.9)
(4.7).
R2=0.86
S E -0 .6 4
D W = 1.23
All variables are significant at the 1 percent
level. Eighty-six percent of the change in com
pensation is associated with the behavior of the
independent variables.
As an illustration of the application of the
model, the actual values of the independent vari
ables for 1969 can be inserted in the equation to
produce a set of estimated values of the depen
dent variable. These estimated values can then be
compared with the actual. For example, the
equation is as follows for the first quarter of 1969:
C = 0.1501 + (9.6983) (0.2800)
+ (34.4031) (0.0082) + (0.4788) (4.8739)
+ (0.1351) (9.2792) + (0.7520) (0)
C = 6.7349
The estimated and actual values for the percent
change in compensation per man-hour for the four
quarters of 1969 are the following:
Estimated: 6.7349; 6.8046; 6.8038; 6.9195
Actual
6.9067; 6.9472; 6.9382; 6.2758
Tests of stability
Some additional insights were obtained by
closer examination of certain analytical results.
One matter of particular interest came to light;
that is, the question of the stability of the relation
ship over time.
In examining the results of one of the interim
forms of the model we noted certain differences in
the pattern of the estimation error. Particularly,
there was a rather persistent pattern of overesti
mation of the extent of wage change during the
sluggish period from mid-1957 through mid-1964.
Earlier periods displayed the opposite tendency,
although not so markedly. These observations
raised the question of whether the estimated rela
tionship was stable. Therefore, we sought to
determine whether the relation changed signifi
cantly and, if so, at what point in time.
For purposes of testing for the stability of the
relationship, the model, as estimated, possesses
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
one serious defect, that of serial correlation of the
residuals as indicated by the Durbin-Watson
statistic of 1.23. The method used to test for
stability is the one developed by Gregory Chow,
which assumes the serial independence of the
residuals.12 At least a part of the serial correlation
in our model results from the use of overlapping
4-quarter periods in the specification of some
variables. Therefore, we developed a model
specified for 1-quarter periods which proved to be
free of serial correlation. The use of single quarters
also clarifies the timing of relationships and of
changes in relationships.
The preferred form of the 1-quarter model (the
one which provided the best statistical fit) differs
in specification from the 4-quarter model. Never
theless, the results of the following analysis seem
clear enough to support reasonable inferences
regarding the properties of the 4-quarter model.
The testing procedure was to estimate the model
for the total period of observation and for various
subperiods and test whether the model produced
reasonably comparable estimates for the total
period and each subperiod. Having performed this
test for the 1-quarter model, we then estimated
the 4-quarter model for significant subperiods and
drew conclusions from the standard statistical
properties of the estimates.
The 20-year period, 1949 through 1968, was
divided into 4-year subperiods. The choice of
subperiods was dictated by the joint objectives of
defining economically meaningful periods and
defining sufficiently short periods to identify
points at which the relationship might have
changed.
The equation used to test for the stability of
the quarterly model for 1949-68 was as follows (t
values in parenthesis)
Ct= —0.376 + 2.739Ut+ 0.427M t
(3.14)
(4.06)
+ 0.269Pt-i + 0.069Rt-i
(3.74)
(2.27)
R 2= .48 S E = .43 D W = 1.97
in which:
C =the quarterly change in compensation
per man-hour;
U = the reciprocal of the quarterly unem
ployment rate;
35
WORKER COMPENSATION CHANGES
Table 1.
Comparison of results of 4-year subperiod tests of the stability of the 1-quarter model regressions
Coefficients of the independent variables
Period
Intercept
Reciprocal of
unemployment
rate (Ut)
Dummy for
change in Fed
erai minimum
wage (Mt)
6.7048
(2. 2)
1. 7837
(1.9)
8.2200
(1.3)
-1 0 . 5062
( - 0 . 38)
16. 0432
(1. 7)
1.4997
(4.8)
0. 7557
(4.2)
0.1540
(0.31)
0.0266
(0.11)
0.0667
(0.12)
1949-52.____ __________
-1.3565
1953-56................................
- 0 . 8287
1957-60_____ __________
1. 4040
1961-64________________
-0.3027
1965-68.......... .............. .
-3.4806
1Critical value of F at the 5-percent level is 3.48.
The determination ratio (R) and the determination ratio adjusted for degrees of
freedom (R2) are computed as follows:
2
R2=regression sum of squares
total sum of squares
M = a dummy for changes in the minimum
wage;
P = thc quarterly percent change in the
Consumer Price Index; and
R = the quarterly corporate profit rate.
The estimated equations for the five subperiods
are shown in table 1. The results, by standard
criteria, are very poor except for the first two
periods. On the whole, there is a marked incon
sistency in coefficient signs and significance tests.
At least part of this result may be due to the small
number of observations in each subperiod, but the
conclusion of inconsistency is inescapable. The
most interesting feature is the complete failure of
the model to account for wage changes in the
1957-60 and 1961-64 periods.
The test of stability of the fitted relation consists
of a test of the hypothesis that the coefficients of
the relation fitted for the whole period and for
various subperiods are equal, that is, b0= b i= b 2
where the bi are, respectively, vectors of coefficients
for the whole period and for two subperiods
comprising the whole. The test is an F test on the
sums of squared residuals (ssr).13
Tests of equality between each 4-year subperiod
and the other 16 years of the full period are shown
in table 2. It is interesting that the only period
identified as inconsistent with the others was
1949-52, not 1957-60 or 1961-64.
To further test the stability of the postulated
relationship, a new group of subperiods was
defined to clarify the subperiod relationship. In
particular, the period of sluggish economic growth
from 1958-64 was defined as a subperiod because
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Consumer price
change (Pt- i)
0. 2660
(1.6)
-0.1227
(- 0 .8 2 )
- 0 . 0401
( -0 .1 2 )
-0.1834
(- 0 .3 3 )
-0.0029
( - 0 . 006)
Corporate profit
rate (Rt- i)
0.0447
(0.5)
0.1370
(2.0)
- 0 . 2104
(- 0 .8 3 )
0. 3515
(0. 44)
0. 0751
(0. 23)
Coefficient of
determination
(R2)
Standard error
(S. E.)
F
value 1
12.689
0.77
0. 51
0. 66
0.27
8.183
20
0.45
0. 839
20
0.45
0.150
0.33
0.47
2.831
R2= l —residual variance
total variance
When the correlation is low enough, R2 may actually assume a negative value. This
happened in these two periods, and the value was arbitrarily set at zero.
NOTE: Numbers in parentheses are t values.
the behavior of the economy during 1957 seemed
more consistent with that of the 1953-56 period.
The results of the regressions are shown in table 3
and those of the interperiod stability tests, in
table 4.
Although the results are not startling, they
reinforce the idea that the relation does not hold
for the 1958-64 period and that 1949-52 is still
the source of a finding of inequality. The question
remains as to why 1958-64 is not shown to be
inconsistent.
Interpreting the tests
The logic of the stability test is that if the
parameters of the relation in two subperiods
differ significantly from one another, better
statistical fits would be obtained for each period
separately than for the full period. This superior
ity of fit will reflect itself in the residual sums of
squares. The data indicate that the 1949-52
period is explained significantly better by the
subperiod model. This is not surprising because
this period was one of extreme changes in rates of
compensation, and wage behavior during the
Table 2. Results of tests of equality between 4-year
subperiods and the other 16 years of the 1949—68 period
4-year period
1949 52
1953 56
1957-60
1961-64
1965-68
_________________
________________
____________________
____ ______________
____________________
1 Critical value of F at 5-percent level is 2.35.
IF
value1
4.004
0. 749
0.541
1.092
0.747
Conclusion
Not equal.
Equal.
Equal.
Equal.
Equal.
36
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
Table 3.
Comparison of estimates for selected subperiods (1-quarter model)
Coefficients of independent variables
Period
Intercept
1949-57.......... ........... .........
-0.5269
1949-57 and 65-68.............
-0.8732
1958-64________________
1.3113
1949-68________________
0.3761
Reciprocal of
unemploy
ment rate
(Ut)
Dummy for
change in
Federal
minimum
wage (Mt)
3.5015
(2.9)
3. 5289
(3.0)
8.3202
(0. 96)
2.7387
(3.1)
0.8441
(4.7)
0.6114
(4.7)
0.1075
(0.64)
0.4274
(4.1)
1See footnote 2 to table 1.
period was influenced by a set of postwar circum
stances that were probably more unusual than in
any succeeding period.14 The 1958-64 period is
another matter, however.
The failure of the test to differentiate the 195864 period from the others is due to both the full
period and the subperiod models producing
equally bad results. The total lack of a relation
ship for the 1958-64 period (R2=0) eliminates the
possibility of obtaining a lower sum of squared
residuals from a subperiod estimate. Thus, the
stability test is inappropriate to this period. The
significance tests and the determination ratio are
more appropriate bases for judgment in this
instance and indicate that wage behavior during
1958-64 was inconsistent with that of other
postwar subperiods.
Corporate
profit rate
( R t- i)
Consumer
price change
( P t - i)
0.2850
(3.2)
0.2653
(3.0)
-0.1278
(- 0 .4 1 )
0.2962
(3.7)
Coefficient of
determination
(R2)
Standard error
(S.E.)
0.64
0.43
16.176
0.56
0.44
16.842
i 0
0.42
0.377
0.48
0.42
18.670
0.0526
(1.4)
0. 0914
(2.4)
-0.1984
( - 0 .8 1 )
0. 0687
(2.3)
F value
NOTE: Numbers in parentheses are t values.
The results were slightly better for 1949-57 ; that
is, a higher coefficient of determination, lower
standard error, and less serial correlation.
The explanatory capability of the model
deteriorates from 1958 to 1964. The unemploy
ment variable becomes negative and only the
coefficient for the profit variable is as significant
as in the prior period. However, the standard error
is low.
From 1965 to 1968, the coefficient for price
change is significant at the 1-percent level. In
estimates for this period, the standard error
dropped sharply. Omission of the 1958-64 period
produced marginally better results than estimates
which included all observations. Values for all
independent variables were significant.
Cautions and conclusions
The 4-quarter model
Concern over the stability of the relationship
grew out of our work with the 4-quarter model.
The single-quarter construction was then adopted
only to meet the demands of the stability test.
With the results of these tests and some additional
examination on the behavior of the 4-quarter
model, some inferences could be made regarding
the stability of the 4-quarter model. The latter
was estimated for selected subperiods derived
from the quarterly analysis, and the results,
shown in table 5, are generally consistent with the
finding of interperiod variability derived from the
quarterly model.
Over the whole period from 1949-68, the
variables explain 86 percent of the variation in
compensation. All variables have the expected
signs, and are significant at the 1-percent level.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
These findings cannot be accepted without
reservation, however. The theory from which the
model is derived purports to explain changes in
wage rates by selected conditions in the labor
market. Such a relationship covers only endoge
nous changes in the unit cost of labor services. But
measured wage changes also include the effects of
exogenous elements of compensation, such as
Table 4. Results of tests of equality between selected
subperiods, 1949—68
Subperiod 1
1949-57 and
1965-68_______
1949-57_________
1949-52_________
Subperiod 2
1958-64
1965-68
1953-57 and
1965-68
F value
1.74
1.34
3. 34
Critical
F value,
5-percent
level
2.35
2.35
2.45
Conclusion
Equal
Equal
Not equal
WORKER COMPENSATION CHANGES
Table 5.
37
Comparison of estimates for selected subperiods, using 4-quarter model regressions
Coefficients of independent variables
Period
Y intercept
1949-57____
0.6229
1958-64____
0.1481
1965-68........
- 0 . 7607
1949-57 and
1965-68 __
1949-68 . . . .
-0.6348
0.1501
Reciprocal of
unemployment
rate(U t-i)
Consumer
price change
(Pt)
9.8587
(4.3)
-2 5 . 7843
(-1 .2 )
16. 5489
(0.84)
11.0243
(5.2)
9.6983
(6.8)
0. 5165
(9.9)
0. 5718
(1.5)
0.9595
(2.7)
0. 4936
(10.0)
0. 4788
(10.1)
Dummy for
Corporate prof changein Fed
erai minimum
it rate (R t-i)
wage (IVU)
0.0838
(1.21)
0.8361
0 .2 )
-0.0693
( - 0 .1 6 )
0.1656
(2.6)
0.1351
(2.9)
1.2653
(4. 5)
0. 0645
(0.26)
0. 0665
(0.10)
1. 0291
(5. 0)
0.7520
(4.7)
Change in
Coefficient of
reciprocai of
determination Standard error
unemployment
(S.E.)
(R2)
rate (U’t)
30.1695
(4.9)
15.4816
(0. 43)
36. 7414
(0. 84)
29.8592
(4.8)
34.4031
(6.6)
F value
DurbinWatson value
0.92
0.63
73.3
1.75
0.30
0.53
3.0
1.41
0.94
0.36
44.8
1.76
0.89
0.64
81.2
1.31
0.86
0.64
99.2
1.23
NOTE: Numbers in parentheses are t values.
changes in statutory minimum wage rates,15 as
well as the effects of industry shifts. Further, no
account has been taken of factors which are endog
enous to the economic system but exogenous in
the timing of their effect upon wage changes,
namely, the impact of major collective bargaining
settlements, where the timing is dictated by con
tract provisions. There is, therefore, an element of
inconsistency between the theoretical statements
about wage changes and the data used to measure
those changes. It is probable that some of the
instability in wage-rate behavior is attributable to
data problems of this type rather than to faulty
specification of the model. Consequently, the valid
ity of any conclusions in this paper depends on
the adequacy of the wage measure.
The foregoing analysis demonstrates substantial
instability in the relationships specified in our
model. What are the implications of this insta
bility for the analysis of wage changes?
The major point is that the variability in the
model’s performance is associated with significant
variability in the behavior of the economy. The
instability does not appear to be merely the result
of natural variability among small samples. The
subperiods for which analyses were performed all
differ from one another in terms of rates of eco
nomic change, patterns of change, and differences
in policies adopted to achieve economic stabiliza
-F
1 A. W. Phillips, “The Relation Between Unemploy
ment and the Rate of Change of Money Wage Rates in
the United Kingdom,” E c o n o m i c a , November 1958,
pp. 283-99.
2 George L. Perry, “The Determinants of Wage Rate
Changes and the Inflation-Unemployment Trade-off for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tion. In particular, 1949-52 was a period influ
enced by wartime conditions and economic con
trols, and 1958-64, one of sluggish economic
growth. Therefore, the instability observed in
the model suggests either that there were changes
in behavioral relations in the economy or that the
model does not represent properly the existing
behavioral relations between economic processes
and wage change. These alternative explanations
are appropriate subjects for further research.16
a model has been developed which
provides an approximation of wage changes, on
the average, for the postwar period. This model
specifies a relationship between changes in worker
compensation and unemployment, changes in un
employment, changes in consumer prices, the level
of profits, and changes in the Federal statutory
minimum wage. However, our knowledge of com
pensation changes, as reflected in this model,
cannot be considered satisfactory at this point.
The relationship among the variables in the model
was inconsistent over time, and it is a poor repre
sentation of the forces of change between 1958 and
1964. Research goals should be directed toward
developing a model that represents more ade
quately the structure of the wage-change process.
I n summary,
□
O O T N O T E S
-
the United States,” R e v i e w o f E c o n o m i c S t u d i e s , October
1964, pp. 287-308.
3 Otto Eckstein and Thomas A. Wilson, “The Deter
minants of Money Wages in American Industry,” Q u a r t e r l y
J o u r n a l o f E c o n o m i c s , August 1962, pp. 379-414.
4 Sara Behman, “Wage Determination Process in U.S.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
38
Manufacturing,” Q u a r t e r l y
1968, pp. 117-142.
J o u r n a l o f E c o n o m ic s ,
February
5 Edwin Kuh, “A Productivity Theory of Wage Levels—
An Alternative to the Phillips Curve,” R e v i e w o f E c o n o m i c
S t u d i e s , October 1967, pp. 333-365.
6 N. J. Simler and Alfred Telia, “Labor Reserves and
the Phillips Curve,” T h e R e v i e w o f E c o n o m i c s a n d S t a t i s t i c s ,
February 1968, pp. 32-49.
7 H. I. Liebling and A. T. Cluff, “U.S. Postwar Inflation
and Phillips Curves,” K y k l o s , 1969, pp. 232-250, for a
survey of results of prior Phillips curve studies of the
U.S. economy.
8 For a negative conclusion on this point, see Raltan J.
Bhatia, “Unemployment and the Rate of Change of
Money Earnings in the United States, 1900-1958,”
E c o n o m i c a , August 1961, pp. 285-296.
8 This model closely resembles the one developed by
George L. Perry in the article cited in footnote 2.
10 The data for observations on this variable were
obtained from the Division of Productivity Research,
Bureau of Labor Statistics. They are seasonally adjusted.
11 For other evidence supporting a coincident version,
see Thomas F. Cargell, “An Empirical Investigation of
the Wage-Lag Hypothesis,” A m e r i c a n E c o n o m i c R e v i e w ,
December 1969, pp. 806-816. We, of course, recognized
the probability of wage changes influencing price changes
as well.
12
Gregory Chow, “Tests of Equality Between Sets of
Coefficients in Two Linear Regressions,” E c o n o m e t r i c a ,
July 1960, pp. 591-605.
18 Ibid., p. 598. Letting
Qi = the sums of squared residuals for the full
period,
Q2= th e sum of the s s r from the 2 subperiods,
Q3= th e difference between Qi and Q2,
M =num ber of observations in subperiod 1,
N —number of observations in subperiod 2, and
P=num ber of independent variables;
then
F (P, M + N - 2P) = (Qj/P) / (Qa/ (M + N - 2P) ).
If F is greater than F e the hypothesis b0= b i = b2 is re
jected.
14 See Perry, o p . c i t .
15 The dummy variable M in the model indicates that
minimum wage changes are a significant influence; but,
being a dummy variable, it does not quantify the impact
of changes precisely.
16 For additional discussion, see comments by Paul S.
Anderson, Michael L. Wachter, and Adrian W. Throop,
and reply by George L. Perry, in “Wages and the Guideposts,” A m e r i c a n E c o n o m i c R e v i e w , June 1969, pp. 351-70.
Trade unionism in America
The 1970 edition of A B r i e f H is to r y o f the
A m e r ic a n L a b o r M o v e m e n t (BLS Bulletin 1000)
continues a 20-year tradition of introducing its
readers to the mainstreams of trade unionism in
the United States. This latest edition updates by
5 years the third edition. It spans a period of
almost 180 years, from the time of the first craft
organizations of carpenters, shoemakers, and
printers in 1791 through the formation of the
Alliance for Labor Action in 1969. The B r i e f
H is to r y discusses the influence of key leaders on
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
union policies and activities and the significant
developments in the organization of workers and
in collective bargaining. And in a lengthy
appendix, chronologically organized, it presents
“Important Events in American Labor
History.”
Copies of the B r i e f H is to r y may be obtained
from any of the regional offices listed on the
inside front cover, or from the Superintendent
of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. The price is $1.
Output per man-hour
averaged 5.8 percent annually
during 1958-69,
compared with 3.4 percent
for all manufacturing
JOHN E. HENNEBERGER AND HAZEN F. GALE
P roductivity in the major household appliance
industry 1 has been increasing rapidly. Output per
man-hour in this industry went up an average 5.8
percent a year between 1958 and 1969—a rate far
higher than the 3.4-percent rate for all manufac
turing and higher than the rates for two-thirds of
the 31 individual industries whose productivity
the Bureau of Labor Statistics measures regularly.2
As a result, the 1969 index of output per man
hour for major household appliance manufactures
was nearly 90 percent above its 1958 level.
Productivity went up almost every year—even
in 1960 and 1961, when output declined. Yearto-year increases ranged from over 14 percent in
1963 to less than 3 percent in 1965.
Output per man-hour grew much faster in the
first half of the period than in the second. Pro
ductivity went up 7.9 percent a year between 1958
and 1963, as opposed to 3.6 percent a year between
1963 and 1969. (See table 1 and chart 1.) This
pattern is typical of industry in general: while
output may increase steadily throughout a busi
ness expansion, productivity generally goes up
faster in the earlier than in the later stages.
The increase in output per man-hour in this
industry is closely related to the increase in
output. The output index for major appliances
went up nearly 120 percent between 1958 and 1969,
representing production increases in every year
after 1961. The only declines in output came in 1960
and 1961 during a mild recession.
Productivity growth varied widely for the
component industries of the major household
John E. Henneberger and Hazen F. Gale are economists
in the Division of Industry Productivity Studies, Bureau
of Labor Statistics. Richard Lyon, of the Bureau’s Divi
sion of Technological Studies, provided the information
on technological developments.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Productivity
in the
major household
appliance industry
appliance group. In the refrigerator and freezer
industry output per man-hour grew fastest, and
in cooking equipment the slowest. (See table 2.)
Both employment and man-hours in the major
household appliance industry went up about 1
percent a year between 1958 and 1969. This slight
growth represents a decrease in the first half of
the period combined with an increase in the second
half. The change in direction reflects the combined
effect of output and productivity change.
1 958-6S
Output____________
Output per man-hour.
Man-hours_________
6. 1
7. 9
-1 . 7
1968-69
6. 6
3. 6
2. 9
Productivity went up faster than output in the
first part of the period, with the drop in man-hours.
In the second half of the period, output outpaced
productivity, with the increase in man-hours.
According to preliminary estimates, the industry
had about 114,000 employees in 1969, up from
99,000 in 1958. Changes in total man-hours
worked followed employment changes closely
in most years, but there was a slight increase
in annual hours worked per employee.
In contrast to most manufacturing industries,
production workers in this industry accounted
for an increasingly larger share of the total
work force from 76 percent in 1958 to 81 percent
in 1969. The increase resulted entirely from an
increase in production worker employment (1.5
percent a year), but nonproduction worker em
ployment declined. Therefore, the 5.2 percent
average annual growth in output per production
worker man-hour has not been as great as the
comparable measure for all employees.
Employment expanded in cooking equipment
and refrigerators, and declined in laundry equip
ment and other appliances.3 There was no clear
relationship between productivity growth and
39
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
40
Table 1. Output per man-hour and related data in the
major household appliance industry, 1958-69
[Indexes, 1958=100]
Related data
Output
Year
Per
employee
Per
employee
man-hour
Output
Employees
Employee
man-hours
1958...............
1959_______
1960..............
1 9 6 1 ...-........
100.0
108.4
110.8
120.1
100.0
109.0
113.6
121.0
100.0
116.5
115.9
114.6
100.0
107.5
104.6
95.4
100.0
106.9
102.0
94.7
1962...........
1963........... .
1964_______
1965_______
133.6
150.5
157.3
163.0
131.7
150.4
156.1
160.2
128.5
142.7
157.8
170.5
96.2
94.8
100.3
104.6
97.6
94.9
101.1
106.4
1966_______
1967_______
19681______
19691...........
159.4
168.2
179.7
187.0
159.8
170.6
179.4
186.7
178.5
181.7
200.9
215.8
112.0
108.0
111.8
115.4
111.7
106.5
112.0
115.6
Average annual rates (percent)
1958-69_____
i
5.9
5.8
7.1
1.1
1.2
Preliminary.
employment growth; though the greatest growth
in both categories took place in refrigerators,
cooking equipment had a slow productivity in
crease and a relatively fast employment increase.
In the short run, output growth is usually a
major factor in productivity growth; however,
over longer periods of time, productivity increases
can result in lower prices, which in turn stimulate
demand and lead to greater output growth. In the
major household appliance industry, the long-term
trend seems to be true. Appliance prices declined
while output and output per man-hour grew.
Prices for other durable goods were rising at the
same time.
The price decline partially reflects the high rate
of productivity increase which contributed to
wards lower unit labor costs. The 1969 wholesale
price index for major household appliances was
about 7.5 percent below that of 1958, while the
1969 price level for all industrial commodities was
over 13 percent above its 1958 level.
Price changes and productivity increases were
inversely correlated for the industry’s com
ponents. Prices of refrigeration equipment went
down the most, just as its productivity went up
the most; the 1969 price index for this product was
about 18 percent lower than the 1958 index.
Prices did not decline for all appliances. The price
of cooking ranges went up about 6 percent be
tween 1958 and 1969, corresponding to the rel
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
atively slow rate of growth in output per man
hour in this part of the industry.
Prices began to move up in 1967 for most of the
industry’s products. This rise probably reflects
the strong inflationary pressures in the economy
that resulted in higher material costs and accel
erating wage increases.
Factors affecting productivity
O utput . A s with the industry as a whole, there
was a positive relationship between productivity
and output growth for the industry’s components.
Output and productivity grew the fastest in
refrigerators and freezers, the slowest in cooking
equipment. Both output and productivity grew
at moderate rates in laundry equipment and in
other appliances.
Population growth and the new household
formation that it fosters is a prime source of
demand for major household appliances. These
products, once considered luxuries, have come to
be regarded as necessities; consequently, the per
centage of households owning any or all of the
appliances manufactured by the industry has
risen steadily and output has responded
accordingly.
Chart 1. Output per employee man-hour, output, and
employee man-hours, 1958-69, in the major household
appliance industry 1
1958
60
62
64
1 SIC 3 6 3 1 , 3 6 3 2 , 3 6 3 3 , and 3 6 3 9 .
66
68 1969
41
MAJOR HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES
Table 2. Average annual rate of change in output, output
per man-hour and man-hours in the major household
appliance industry and subindustries, 1958-67
Percent!
Output
Majnr hniKehnld appliance industry_____
Conking equipment
___________
Refrigeration equipm ent__________
| sundry equipm ent________ - __
Appliances', not elsewhere classified—
7.1
4.5
9.8
5.0
4.9
Output per
employee
man-hour
6.3
3.1
7.8
6.6
4.8
Man-hours
0.8
1.4
1.9
- 1 .6
0
Replacement demand is another major influence
on appliance production. This factor becomes
increasingly important as the ownership percent
age, or saturation ratio, grows.4 Replacements now
represent a substantial share of the market for
refrigerators, ranges, clothes washers, and water
heaters. (See table 3.)
Like other consumer durable goods industries,
the major household appliance industry is par
ticularly responsive to changes in the business
cycle—when times are bad people can often post
pone buying new homes or replacing wornout
appliances. Satisfying such pent-up demand makes
output jump when the economy turns up again.
For example, the household appliance industry
was hit hard by the 1957-58 recession; the follow
ing year, it experienced its biggest increase in
output during the period studied—16.5 percent.
Changes in the nature of the product also affect
demand; output can increase even for products
like refrigerators that have a high saturation rate.
Refrigerators and freezers grew faster than any
other major appliance industry, primarily because
of a pronounced consumer preference for larger
and more expensive models. Thus, the principal
source of output growth in this industry has not
been the greater number of units produced, but
rather their increased size and new features.
expenditures . The relationship between
capital expenditures and productivity growth is
never very clear, but in general it is believed that
an increase in capital outlays will eventually bring
about an increase in productivity. The major
household appliance industry seems to bear this
out, with both expenditures for new plant and
equipment and output per man-hour showing
large growth rates between 1958 and 1967. Capital
expenditures per employee in this industry rose at
C apital
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
an annual rate of 13 percent over the period,
going from $260 in 1958 to $820 in 1965, with a
slight drop in succeeding years. Capital expendi
tures in manufacturing in general went up 7.8 per
cent per employee a year between 1958 and 1967.
The relatively large increase in capital spending
was related more to expansion of capacity than to
introduction of new technology. Since the new
equipment and facilities were more efficient than
the old, capital investment probably helped to
reduce labor requirements.
Just as in the industry as a whole, capital in
vestment growth in the individual parts of the
industry corresponded to productivity growth:
those industries that had large productivity in
creases also had large capital spending increases.
Refrigerators and laundry equipment grew rapidly
in both categories, while cooking equipment and
all other appliances had low rates of growth for
both capital investments and productivity.
in technology. Most of the industry’s
capital spending went toward plant modernization,
expecially after 1963. These facilities incorporated
recent advances in technology and more efficient
plant layouts. Advances in machines that form
and cut metal resulted in greater speed and ac
curacy, more automatic controls and devices, and
better adaptation to mechanized materials han
dling. Multistation machines and fabricating lines
C hanges
Table 3. Replacement and saturation of major household
appliances
Product
1967
1964
1958
Replacement as a percent of total sales
Dryers (gas and electric)..................
Freezers..------ -------------------------Dishwashers____________ ____
Ranges (gas and electric)-------------Refrigerators------------------------------Water heaters (gas and electric)----Clothes washers_______________
Food waste disposers------------ -------
19
15
10
62
77
50
73
12
31
30
16
48
56
60
60
38
46
34
13
55
84
80
72
34
Saturation as a percent of households owning
Dryers (gas and electric)............ Freezers.------ ---------------------------Dishwashers_________ ________
Ranges (gas and electric)________
Refrigerators__________________
Water heaters (gas and electric)----Clothes washers________________
Food waste disposers....... ..............-
16
21
6
98
91
8
24
26
9
2 95-100
99
2 90
87
13
30
28
16
2 95-100
99
2 90
88
16
1 Not available.
.
,
. . ,
. . . . . .
2 Estimated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, based on data from Merchandising
Week.
42
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
also made metalworking operations more efficient.
One producer of laundry equipment installed a
13-station palletized transfer machine that per
forms drilling, tapping, milling, and other opera
tions required in processing washing machine gear
cases. Another large firm introduced an elec
tronically-controlled production line consisting of
nine separate metal-cutting, metal-forming, and
joining operations for fabricating refrigerator and
freezer doors.
Assembly machines, which locate component
parts automatically and join them together, re
placed manual operations in an increasing number
of plants. Machines which measure and inspect
work automatically have replaced manuallyoperated instruments in growing numbers. They
save time, reduce errors, and require less skilled
workers than does manual inspection.
Plastics were used more and more in appliance
manufacturing. They offer lower tooling costs,
fewer man-hours for secondary finishing operations,
improved chemical and physical properties, and
adaptability to a wide variety of fabrication
techniques. Appliance components made of plastic
are usually lighter; consequently, they require
less labor handling between stations and in final
assembly.
In the larger firms, computers took over a good
deal of the increased office work brought about by
expanding production. They are used in such opera
tions as billing, inventory control, payrolls, and
production scheduling.
□
1
The major household appliance industry as defined in of the industry manufacture what are small household
this report is composed of four subindustries, designated
appliances or housewares: SIC 3634, electric housewares
3631, 3632, 3633, and 3639 in the 1967 S ta n d a r d I n d u s tr ia l
and fans; SIC 3635, household vacuum cleaners; and SIC
C la ssifica tio n ( S I C ) M a n u a l. The primary products manu
3636, sewing machines. These industries are not included
factured by each subindustry are as follows. S I C 3 6 3 1
in this report.
(H o u seh o ld C o o k in g E q u ip m e n t) : Establishments primarily
2 A technical note describing the methods and procedures
engaged in manufacturing household cooking equipment
used in developing the indexes is available from the Bureau
such as stoves, ovens, and ranges (both gas and electric
upon request. All average annual rates of change are based
types). S I C 3 6 3 2 (H o u seh o ld R e frig e r a to r s): Establish
on the linear least squares trend of the logarithms of the
ments primarily engaged in manufacturing household
index numbers.
refrigerators and home and farm freezers. S I C 3 6 3 3 (H o u se
h old L a u n d r y E q u ip m e n t) : Establishments primarily
3 The refrigerator industry is the largest appliance
engaged in manufacturing laundry equipment such as
industry; with 50,000 employees in 1967, it accounted for
washing machines, wringers, driers and ironers for house
nearly half of the industry’s total employment. Laundry
hold use. S I C 3 6 3 9 (H o u seh o ld A p p lia n c e s , n o t elsew ere
equipment was the next largest industry, with 22,000
c la ssifie d ): Establishments primarily engaged in manu
employees in 1967 representing 21 percent of the total.
facturing household appliances, not elsewhere classified,
Cooking equipment and other household appliances
such as hot water heaters, dishwashers, food waste disposal
accounted for 19 percent and 13 percent, respectively.
units, and floor polishers.
These four industries account for over 60 percent of the
4 Replacement and saturation data from M e rc h a n d is in g
household appliance industry (SIC 363). Other components
W eek.
The M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w welcomes communications that supplement,
challenge, or expand on research published in its pages. To be considered for
publication, communications should be factual and analytical, not polemical
in tone. Communications should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief, M o n th ly
L a b o r R e v ie w , Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor,
Washington, D.C. 20212.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The
Anatomy
of Price
Change
THE SECOND QUARTER, 1970
rate of inflation was reduced slightly in the
second quarter, as the effect of the business slow
down in the past year broadened. The Implicit
Price Deflator for private Gross National Product
advanced at an annual rate of 4.1 percent—down
from 5.3 percent in the first quarter, and the
slowest since the third quarter of 1968. (See table
1.) The upward pace of the Consumer Price Index
(cpi) lessened from an annual rate of 7.0 percent
in the first quarter to 5.9 percent. This was slower
than the increase last year in the second quarter
but faster than in the second half. (See table 2.)
Early in the third quarter, the CPI rise eased
further to a 4.8 percent annual rate for the 3month period ending in July, compared with 5.8
percent in June.
I t is too early to conclude that the most recent
deceleration represents the beginning of a return
to price stability, since many factors other than
changes in economic activity influence price
behavior. However, some of the developments
contributing to the deceleration were similar to
those which occur when an inflationary period is
drawing to a close.
One such development was the less rapid
rise in unit labor costs as the improvement in
output per man-hour partly offset the rise in
compensation per man-hour. Productivity rose
because private output moved up after 6 months
of decline and man-hours were reduced sharply
chiefly by lower employment. The last time em
ployment fell as much as in the second quarter
was in the latter half of 1962. In addition, the
decline in employment checked the rise in com
pensation so that the advance in compensation
per man-hour was more moderate than in recent
T he
*
*
Prepared by Toshiko Nakayama of the Division of
Consumer Prices and Price Indexes, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
*•
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
quarters. Since the increase in unit labor costs
was smaller than the rise in the Implicit Deflator,
the employee share of private gnp decreased quite
significantly.
Although increases were large for all major
components of the Implicit Price Deflator, the
rate of advance slowed considerably for producers’
durable equipment and moderately for personal
consumption expenditures. In the latter compo
nent, the slowdown for durables was substantial; 1
nondurables rose at about the same rate as in the
first quarter—somewhat below the 1969 peak; and
services continued to accelerate. Private construc
tion and government purchases of goods and
services (excluding government employees’ com
pensation) also increased more rapidly than in
the first quarter.
In the Consumer Price Index, both goods and
services components decelerated. The slowdown
in the goods component occurred primarily in
foods and new cars. Increased supplies of meats,
poultry, and eggs combined with a slight easing
in demand contributed to the smallest rise for
Table 1.
The anatomy of price change, 1969 and 1970
[Annual rates, compounded]
Percent change from previous
quarter
Item
1970
1969
II
III
IV
1
II
4.9
5.0
6.4
5.7
8.7
1.7
4.5
4.8
7.8
4.4
9.5
4.7
4.7
4.7
2.7
1.2
4.0
3.8
5.3
5.1
4.5
3.8
4.8
5.7
4.1
4.2
7.9
5.2
10.2
2.7
7.1
3.6
8.0
3.4
6.9
Private GNP deflator_____________________
4.9
Unit labor costs__________ __________
7.1
5.9
Compensation per man-hour________
1
.1
Output per man-hour______________
1.5
Unit nonlabor costs___________________
4.5
6.5
8.2
1.6
1.1
4.7
7.9
8.8
0.8
- 0 .8
5.3
9.6
6.8
- 2 .5
- 2 .0
4.1
1.9
5.1
3.1
8.2
PRODUCT DEFLATORS
Private GNP deflator_____________________
Personal consumption expenditures______
Private construction___ _______________
Residential______________________
Nonresidential__________________
Producers’ durable equipment______ ___
Government purchases of goods and
services1_________________________
UNIT COSTS (ALL PERSONS)
i Excludes services of government employees.
43
44
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
grocery store foods in almost 2 years. On the
other hand, charges for restaurant meals, which
includes cost of services as well as foods, continued
to accelerate. Despite the second quarter slow
down, grocery store foods were still more than
6 percent higher than in the second quarter of
last year. Kestaurant foods were 8 percent higher.
Although the rise in new car prices slowed
substantially, the durables component in the
Consumer Price Index accelerated primarily
because of the sharp advance in used car prices.
Part of the difference in the behavior of the
durables component in the Consumer Price Index
and in Personal Consumption Expenditures in the
second quarter can be attributed to the different
treatment of used car prices in the two price
measures.2 Higher used car prices stemmed partly
from the unusually strong demand this spring for
older model cars. Despite the large increase, used
car prices in the second quarter of this year
Table 2.
averaged slightly below second quarter of last year.
In contrast, home purchase prices, which are also
treated differently in the two price measures, have
contributed greatly to the rapid advance in the
Consumer Price Index in the past year.3 In the
second quarter, the rise in home purchase prices
moderated somewhat from the rapid pace of the
past year. Among other major durables, appliances
and furniture prices increased slightly more than
in the first quarter. The increase for furniture,
however, was considerably smaller than in the
second quarter of last year.
Among nondurables other than food, cigarette
and gasoline prices rose sharply. Since the upturn
in gasoline followed a steady decline in the three
preceding quarters, prices in the second quarter of
this year were just slightly higher than in the
second quarter of 1969. The rise in apparel prices
was slightly slower than in the first quarter and
significantly slower than in 1968 and 1969. Sluggish
Percent change in prices for consumer goods and services, 1969 and 1970
[Seasonally adjusted, annual rates, compounded]
Relative
importance,
December 1969
Item
CPI
Quarter
1969
WPI
II
Personal Consumption Expenditures-Deflator.
Consumer Price Index-all items___
Consumer goods_________
100.0
Nondurables.......... .................
Apparel, less footwear.................
Gasoline............................
2.2
Appliances including radio and TV______
Services2. ____ ____________
4.7
5.8
5.1
7.0
4.2
5.9
June
July
0
0
0
0
6.0
6.0
5.8
Aug.p
0
(')
5.1
4.8
4.8
- 0 .9
4.5
0.3
4.8
-0 .2
5.2
- 2 .7
3.4
0.1
0)
0
76.7
CPI
WPI
6.1
6.8
5.5
4.2
5.6
5.9
5.8
5.9
4.1
-2 .5
4.3
-1 .4
4.4
-1 .8
3.7
-3 .8
2.2
0.4
- ? i
39.5
CPI
WPI
6.7
9.1
6.9
4.4
7.3
9.7
9.1
8.7
3.2
-8 .6
4.9
-6 .3
3.6
-6 .7
1.3
-1 1 .1
0.2
- 0 .6
0)
- 1 .4
37.2
CPI
WPI
5.1
3.1
4.3
4.1
4.3
3.6
3.0
2.6
4.7
3.1
4.6
2.1
4.7
4.4
4.7
3.0
4.3
3.0
0.9
10.0
CPI
WPI
5.3
2.0
4.7
6.6
5.5
5.5
2.6
3.0
2.3
2.4
2.3
3.7
1.7
2.9
2.8
1.7
2.2
0.1
0)
- .6
3.8
CPI
WPI
7.4
16.1
-1 .0
- 3 .3
- 0 .4
- 1 .1
-3 .2
-7 .8
6.8
-1 .2
7.0
0
5.6
7.1
7.8
-1 1 .7
- 1 .7
- 1 .9
23.0
CPI
WPI
5.2
2.1
2.1
1.4
4.2
2.8
3.2
3.0
6.1
2.5
3.1
2.7
7.1
2.3
8.1
2.2
7.5
3.1
8
10.3
CPI
WPI
1.1
1.9
1.5
-0 .4
2.0
5.7
4.2
1.1
1.1
2.0
1.2
1.6
0.9
2.7
1.3
2.0
0.9
2.0
0.4
2.7
CPI
WPI
8.4
3.4
4.4
4.8
4.6
0.9
3.0
3.8
4.7
3.2
5.0
4.7
5.2
2.3
3.8
2.9
2.3
3.4
ft
3.5
CPI
WPI
1.0
0
1.6
0.7
1.4
0.2
1.8
2.2
2.1
0.8
2.3
1.4
1.8
0.4
2.3
0.4
1.3
1.4
2.6
8.3
6.7
6.6
10.0
9.0
10.6
«/• •J
7.3
11.0
8.8
9.5
11.5
11.5
15.4
12.2
7.1
6.0
( ')
26.6
Furniture______ _________
4.8
5.4
May
5.2
5.9
14.6
3.6
5.0
6.6
April
4.6
3.4
37.8
New cars____________ ________
II
5.9
5.4
4.6
Durables____ ____ _____
1
CPI
WPI
35.6
Nondurables except food......... .....................
IV
100.0
73.4
F o o d ....................... ..
III
1970
1970
2.5
(')
—?5. 8
(>)
(>)
..
100.0
(l)
CPI
Household, except re n t...........
40.9
0
CPI
14.4
0
CPI
6.7
5.7
9.2
18.4
7.6
7.8
7.0
8.2
10.0
O
14.6
0
CPI
9.5
7.7
2.6
7.3
9.4
,7
9.3
9.2
8.7
(‘)
Transportation______
.
Medical care_______________
1 Not available.
2 Total services, not seasonally adjusted.
p = Preliminary.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
(*)
NOTE: Relative importances are for consumer goods portions of CPI and WPI. For
all items in the CPI, consumer goods represent 63.8 percent and services represent 36.2
percent. CPI durables also include home purchases and used cars which are not included
in WPI. For WPI, consumer goods represent 33.9 percent of all commodities.
45
THE ANATOMY OF PRICE CHANGE
sales in women’s apparel continued to be an
important factor.
At the wholesale level, price changes for
consumer goods moderated during the second
quarter. In June, both food and gasoline prices
declined contraseasonally. Furthermore, except for
new cars, increases for other goods were smaller
than at the beginning of the quarter.
The cpi for services advanced 9 percent at an
annual rate, compared with 10 percent in the first
quarter. A more moderate rise than in the first
quarter for local transit fares contributed greatly
to the deceleration. In addition, home repairs,
laundry services, and washing machine repairs
were among the few services for which increases
were somewhat slower than in the first quarter
and over the past year. Since the second quarter
of 1969, the cpi for services has advanced 8 percent,
compared with 4.9 percent for commodities. Trans
portation and household services have risen over
10 percent and medical care services 6.7 percent.
Although the slowdown in the economy has had
little effect on service prices thus far, it has
apparently started to affect employment. The
second quarter rise in employment in the serviceproducing sector was the smallest since early 1963.
In another development, the rate of advance—
based on a 3-month span—for household services
moved down from 15.4 percent in April to 7.1
percent in June, This was due largely to the taper
ing off after April in the uptrend of mortgage
interest rates, which, of course, has been a major
factor in the sharp rise in the cpi services over the
past year.
□
--------- FOOTNOTES--------1 Rising auto sales combined with relatively stable
auto prices gave larger weight to the automobile compo
nent, thus slowing the rise of the durables. Changes in
the deflator result from shifts in weights as well as from
price changes, unlike the changes in the CPI which result
from prices only as weights are fixed.
2 For explanation of the differences between PCE and
CPI, see “Price changes in the first quarter of 1969 in
perspective,” M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v i e w , July 1969, pp. 20-30,
reprint No. 2628.
3 For a discussion of home purchase in the CPI, see
“Trends in home ownership and rental costs,” M o n t h l y
L a b o r R e v i e w , July 1970, pp. 26-32.
Occupational choice and job openings
As American industries continue to grow
larger, more complex, and more mechanized,
fundamental changes will take place in the
Nation’s occupational structure. Furthermore,
occupations will become more complex and
more specialized. Thus, an imposing and con
fusing number of occupational choices is
provided to individuals who are planning
their careers. An individual, in examining
the vast number of choices, should first look at
broad groupings of jobs that have similar
characteristics such as entrance require
ments. . . .
In considering a career, young people should
not eliminate occupations just because thenpreferences will not be among the most rapidly
growing. Although growth is a key indicator
of future job outlook, more jobs will be created
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
between 1968-80 from deaths, retirements, and
other labor force separations than from employ
ment growth. . . . Replacement needs will
be particularly significant in occupations which
have a large proportion of older workers and
women. Furthermore, large occupations that
have little growth may offer more openings
than a fast growing small one. For example,
among the major occupational groups, openings
for operatives resulting from growth and
replacement combined will be greater than for
craftsmen, although the rate of growth of
craftsmen will be more than twice as rapid
as the rate of growth for operatives.
— O c c u p a t i o n a l O u t l o o k H a n d b o o k , 1 9 7 0 —7 1 e d i t i o n
(BLS Bulletin 1650, 1970).
WAGES IN MOTOR VEHICLE
AND PARTS PLANTS
GEORGE L. STELLUTO
S iraight -time earnings of production and re
lated workers in motor vehicle manufacturing
plants averaged $3.82 an hour in April 1969 com
pared with $3.24 for those in plants making motor
vehicle parts, according to a Bureau of Labor
Statistics survey. Virtually all workers in the
motor vehicle industry were covered by collective
bargaining agreements with the United Auto
Workers; four-fifths of the workers in parts plants
were covered by agreements, usually with uaw .
Men made up over nine-tenths of the 605,556
production workers in motor vehicle plants and
four-fifths of the 226,946 workers in parts plants.
Incentive pay systems applied to few workers in
the motor vehicle industry, compared with about
three-tenths in the parts industry. In both in
dustries, a large majority of the workers were in
the North Central region—four-fifths in vehicles
and seven-tenths in parts.
Motor vehicles
The level of straight-time hourly earnings for
production workers in motor vehicle plants in
April 1969 ($3.82) was 32 percent above the
average recorded in a similar Bureau survey in
April 1963.1 General wage increases—typically in
the form of annual-improvement increases, costof-living adjustments, and special increases for
skilled trades—accounted for a large part of the
increase in average earnings during the 1963-69
George L. Stelluto is project director for industry and
union wage surveys in the Division of Occupational Wage
Structures, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
46
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
period. The latest wage adjustments under major
collective bargaining agreements expiring in Sep
tember 1970 were an 8-cent-an-hour cost-of-living
adjustment in October 1969 and a 3-percent
annual-improvement factor increase in November
1969. These adjustments are not reflected in data
for the current survey.
Workers in Michigan, about half of the in
dustry’s work force, averaged $3.83 an hour in
April 1969—the same as workers in the rest of
the North Central region who made up another
three-tenths of the production workers. Averages
for workers in the South and West were $3.73
and $3.74, respectively. Part of the relatively
small variation in regional averages was due to
differences in occupational staffing among the
regions.
Average hourly earnings ranged from $3.37 for
janitors to $5.58 for die-sinkers (drop-forge dies),
among the occupations selected for separate study.
Major and minor assemblers, together about onefifth of all production workers, averaged $3.62
and $3.52 an hour, respectively. Individual earn
ings for a majority of the workers in nearly all
jobs surveyed were within 2 percent of the nation
wide averages for the occupations.
All companies covered by the survey provided
paid holidays, 10 or 11 days a year, and paid
vacations, as well as health, insurance, retire
ment, and supplemental unemployment benefits.
Motor vehicle parts
The April 1969 level of earnings for production
workers in motor vehicle parts plants ($3.24 an
hour) was 25 percent above the level recorded
in the Bureau’s April 1963 survey ($2.59). Similar
increases were recorded in the Northeast and
North Central region, whereas average earnings
rose 31 percent in the South during the 6-year
period.
47
RESEARCH SUMMARIES
Workers in the North Central region, largest
in terms of industry employment, averaged $3.39
an hour in April 1969, compared with $3.27 in
the Northeast and $2.39 in the South. As indicated
in table 1, earnings levels also varied by industry
branch and among four North Central areas
studied separately.
Averages for the occupations studied separately
ranged from $2.62 an hour for shipping packers
to $4.29 for maintenance sheet-metal workers.
Averages for assemblers, numerically the largest
occupation studied, varied by degree of skill and
responsibility—$3.52 for class A, $3.11 for class B,
and $2.77 for class C. Earnings of individuals in
the same occupation and area varied considerably,
unlike the motor vehicles industry.
All establishments visited during the survey
provided production workers paid holidays, usually
9 or 10 days annually, and paid vacations. Pro
visions for retirement pension benefits and various
types of insurance, for example, life, hospitaliza
tion, surgical, and medical, were also widespread
in the industry.
The survey of m o to r veh icles included data for
all automotive operations of the four major pas
senger car manufacturers, including motor vehicle
parts operations, with the exception of the truck
division of one firm and the steel and glass opera
tions of all companies. The m o to r veh icle p a r ts
survey covered establishments with 50 workers
or more and primarily engaged in manufacturing
Table 1. Number and average straight-time hourly
earnings of production workers in motor vehicle parts
plants, April 1969
Area and industry branch
Number of
production workers
Average
hourly earnings
United States________________________
Northeast_______________________
South--------------------------------------------North Central____________________
Chicago. _____ _______________
Cleveland___________________
D etroit........................ ...............
Toledo............................................
226,946
33,611
25,864
162,639
10,041
8, 541
24, 785
6,639
$3.24
3.27
2.39
3.39
2.79
3.83
3.43
3.71
Motor vehicle parts and accessories______
Automotive stampings.____ ___________
Pistons, piston rings, and carburetors-------Electrical engine parts_________________
133,690
34,531
25,043
15,737
3.36
3.16
3.15
2.83
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
metal parts for motor vehicles. A more compre
hensive account of the survey will be presented in
a bls bulletin to be issued in a few months.
□
1
See L. Earl Lewis and Frederick L. Bauer, “Wages in
Motor Vehicle and Parts Plants, April 1963,” M o n th ly
L a b o r R eview , February 1964, pp. 161-167.
CHARACTERISTICS OF
HOUSEHOLD WORKERS
Social Security Administration obtains in
formation on household workers as a byproduct
of the employer reporting system. Data for house
hold workers in 1965 show that about 1.25
million employers reported taxable household
wages of $1.2 billion for 1.4 million workers.
Study of the data reveals significant character
istics of household workers. For instance, 9 out of
10 household workers were women, compared
with 4 out of 10 among all wage and salary workers.
More than half of the household workers were
Negro, and 90 percent of these Negro workers
were women. The median age was 52, compared
with 37 for all wage and salary workers.
Household workers averaged $800 in wages
annually, but all wage and salary earners averaged
$3,100. Less than 4 percent of the household
workers had taxable wages of $3,000 or more from
domestic employment; for more than two-thirds
of them, earnings from household employment
were under $1,000. This earnings pattern is
undoubtedly influenced by the part-time nature
of the work and the absence of minimum wage
laws applicable to domestic employment. Four
out of 5 household workers had no other type of
employment covered by the social security pro
gram, and about half of the workers earned fewer
than 4 quarters of coverage in domestic work.
Detailed information on the characteristics of
household workers may be found in Herbert R.
Tacker, “Household Employment under OASDHI,
1951-66,” S o c ia l S e c u r ity B u lle tin , June 1970,
pp. 10-17.
□
T he
Significant
Decisions
in
Labor Cases
Retirees and union bargaining
A recent ruling by an appellate court held
that a trade union ceases to represent an em
ployee when he retires and begins to draw benefits
under union-negotiated pension provisions. If an
employer wishes to modify these benefits, he may
do so upon reaching a direct understanding with
the retiree. He is not legally obligated to take the
matter up with the union, because retired workers
are no longer “his employees” within the meaning
of the National Labor Relations Act, nor are they
members of the bargaining unit to which they
belonged as active employees. Retirement “is a
complete and final severance of employment.”
The ruling on employer-retiree relationship was
enunciated in P itts b u r g h P la te G la ss G o .1 by the
U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. It super
sedes a contrary decision of the National Labor
Relations Board in this case last year,2 when the
issue came before the Board for the first time
since the enactment of the act in 1935.
In the present situation, the union asked the
company to renegotiate the existing agreement so
as to provide retired workers with benefits not
available under the newly enacted Medicare law.
The company rejected the request and challenged
the union’s right to bargain for retired employees.
It then addressed letters to individual retirees,
announcing that they could withdraw from the
union-negotiated health insurance plan and, in
stead, receive from the employer a contribution
of $3 a month toward additional Medicare pre
miums. Some retirees accepted the offer. Asserting
the right to bargain over changes in the health
insurance plan, the union filed charges with the
N LR B.
Upholding the union’s position, the Board said
that retired workers were “employees” within the
Prepared by Eugene Skotzko of the Office of Publica
tions, Bureau of Labor Statisitcs, in consultation with the
Office of the Solicitor of Labor.
48
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
meaning of the law; “bargaining about changes
in retirement benefits for retired employees is
. . . within the contemplation of the statue be
cause of the interest which active employees have
in this subject;” and the employer’s rejection of
the proposal to renegotiate was an unlawful re
fusal to bargain.
The court of appeals disposed of the Board’s
conclusions by giving the statutory provisions
and past judicial opinions a straight-and-narrow
reading. It pointed out that “The statute [section
8(a)(5)] plainly provides that it shall be an unfair
labor practice for an employer ‘to refuse to bargain
collectively with the representatives of h is e m
p lo y e e s . . . .’ ” 3 (Court’s emphasis.) But who
were “his employees?”
A Supreme Court statement on this subject
indicated the answer: “One aspect of [determining
who ‘his employees’ are] is covered by section 9 (b)
which provides for the determination of the
appropriate bargaining unit.” 4 Hence, “his
employees” are the members of the bargaining
unit. Here the question arose, who was in the
bargaining unit?
In this case, the unit was certified as composed
of “[a]ll employees of the employer’s [business]
working [on] hourly rates, including group leaders
who work on hourly rates. . . .” Retired em
ployees were not mentioned in this definition.
“[T]he Board certified a bargaining unit composed
only of presumably active employees,” the
appellate court said, adding, “In no prior case
where the issue was raised did the Board hold
that a retiree was in such a unit, or entitled to
vote in an election.” The opposite was true.
The court recalled the Board’s own statement
from a distant p a st5 that—
We have considerable doubt as to whether or not
pensioners are employees within the meaning of section
2(3) of the act, since they no longer perform any work
for the employers, and have little expectancy of re
suming their former employment. In any event, even
if pensioners were to be considered employees, we
believe that they lack a substantial community of
49
SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS
interest with the employees who are presently in the
active service of the employers.
Clearly, the court was puzzled by the Board’s
reversal of its stand in the present situation.
As already stated, the nlrb had argued that
retired employees should be considered as mem
bers of the bargaining unit for the purpose of
renegotiating their benefits, because the subject
“vitally affects” active employees in the bargaining
unit in essentially three ways:
First, in the Board’s language, “the union and
current employees have a legitimate interest in
assuring that negotiated retirement benefits are
in fact paid and administered in accordance with
the terms and intent of their contracts.” “We
agree,” replied the court of appeals; but “the
issue in this case is not whether contract benefits
can be legally enforced, but whether contract
benefits for retirees must be reopened at the re
quest of the union after the employees to whom
these benefits are payable have retired.”
Second, the Board had said, the active em
ployees have a “selfish as well as compassionate
interest” in the adequacy of retired employees’
benefits “because of its inextricable relationship
to and impact on the wages, hours, and working
conditions of those actively employed in the
bargaining unit.” Again the appeals court agreed,
but said, “Leaving aside their altruistic senti
ments, what active employees are concerned about
are th e ir o w n retirement benefits. It is not necessary
to extend the bargaining obligation to persons
already retired in order to insure current em
ployees the right to negotiate through their
bargaining representative their own retirement
benefits to take effect after their retirement.”
Third, the changes in the retirees’ benefits
should be subject to mandatory bargaining, the
nlrb had said, because they “affect the availability
of employer funds . . . for active employees.”
“This [effect on the availability of funds] is of
course true,” replied the appellate court; however,
“does this mean that all employer salaries, in
cluding those to supervisory and managerial
personnel, are mandatory subjects which must be
collectively bargained with the union? Moreover,
all employer expenditures, from dividends to
capital expenditures, affect, however obliquely,
the availability of employer funds for active unit
employees. Surely the Board does not contend
that these are mandatory subjects of bargaining.”
The contrast in basic attitude of the two judicial
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
3 9 9 -8 7 3 0 - 7 0 - 4
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
bodies to the issue of union representation for
retired workers emerges from the following state
ments in their respective opinions in this case:
NLRB:
. . . The critical question is whether the [retirement]
benefit is founded on employment—past or present.
The health insurance plan here was negotiated for
active employees to be enjoyed upon retirement, and
its terms relate back to their active employment. For
retired employees, the benefits paid to them in retire
ment are part of the return of their investment of a
lifetime of labor. In some respects, an employee’s
retirement from active employment and his separation
from the daily association with fellow workers is the
very time when he is most vulnerable economically
and most needs representation. This is the point at
which his economic alternatives are most limited be
cause of his age. It would virtually stand the act on
its head to hold that his employer is free to deal with
him unilaterally and that the union may not represent
him with respect to changes in the very plan which it
negotiated for him.
Court of appeals:
. . . The purpose of Federal labor legislation is to
reconcile and, insofar as possible, equalize the power
of competing economic forces within the society in
order to encourage the making of voluntary agree
ments governing labor-management relations and pre
vent industrial strife. Its purpose is not artificially to
create or manufacture new economic forces. Thus, the
act ‘leaves the adjustment of industrial relations to
the free play of economic forces but seeks to assure
that the play of those forces be truly free.’ 6
Retired employees have no economic or bargaining
power within this system. Their financial security
derives from past economic power pragmatically and
prudently exercised. Once retirement benefits have
been bargained for, earned, and become payable, the
employer may not recant on his contractual obligation
to pay them. Nor may retirees demand that they be
increased. Changing economic facts pertaining to the
employer’s business or the general economy occurring
after the employee retires cannot enhance or depreci
ate the value of his services or justifjr periodic postre
tirement negotiations. The employer cannot retroac
tively increase his prices to compensate for these
increased benefits, or fund expenses. . . .
Moreover, retirees given the bargaining power would
lose their economic security, for just as surely as an
employer may increase benefits, in bargaining, he may
take them away. Even if retirees were given the statu
tory power to periodically renegotiate pension benefits
previously earned, the union would be an inappro
priate bargaining vehicle. It is not at all unlikely that
a union negotiator, presented with the opportunity
to advance employees’ wages at the expense of retirees’
pensions, would choose to favor his constituents at
the expense of the honorary members, who retain no
voting power.
50
Replaced strikers as ‘employees’
Permanently replaced economic strikers remain
“employees” of the struck employer and members
of the bargaining unit for as long as they “retain
an expectation of future employment” by the
same employer or “until they have surrendered
their interest”—most likely by finding another
job. In thus ruling (in P io n e e r F lo u r M i l l s 7),
a Federal court of appeals upheld the nlrb ’s
new policy (adopted in deciding this case) of
including such permanently replaced strikers
in the bargaining unit when the union’s majority
status is challenged.
Following a strike, the employer handled the
matter of reemployment of the displaced strikers
in a manner later found by the Board to be un
lawful. For example, when some of the replace
ments departed, the company did not rehire dis
placed strikers to fill the vacancies but hired new
workers—an act of discrimination under section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations
Act. Most important, the employer refused to deal
with the union, claiming it had lost the majority
status due to replacements.
When the dispute reached the Board, the em
ployer said it had a good faith doubt that the union
continued to represent a majority of its employees.
The doubt, the company said, was based on the
assumption, consistent with the Board’s own
policy, that displaced economic strikers are not to
be counted in the test of the union’s majority
status. In the present case, however, the Board
reversed its policy, and it was within its power
under the law to do so.
A 1959 amendment to the act (section 9(c)(3))
clearly gives the permanently replaced economic
strikers the right to vote in elections conducted
within 12 months of the beginning of the strike,
but under the Board’s regulations that are “con
sistent with the purpose and provisions of this act.” 8
In implementing this provision, the Board con
tinued—until the present case—the old policy of
excluding such replaced strikers from the bargain
ing unit in weighing the employer’s good faith
doubt that a union has a majority position.
The company countered the Board’s reversal
of policy with a contention that, first, the old
policy had the effect of a “rule” and, as such, could
be changed only in a manner prescribed by the
Administrative Procedure Act; second, the re
versal of the policy could not retroactively affect
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
the company’s refusal to bargain with the union
after the strike, since that refusal was in good faith
under the law as it existed—or as the company
understood it to exist—at that time.
The court disagreed with these arguments.
Regarding the Board’s rulemaking power, the
court cited the opinion of another court of
appeals9 that,
[W]hen an administrative agency makes law as a
legislature would, it must follow the rulemaking
procedure . . . and when it makes law as a court
would, it must follow the adjudicative procedure. . . .
[WJhether to use one method of lawmaking or the
other is a question of judgment, not of power.
As for the retroactivity of the change in the
Board’s policy, the court cited the Supreme
Court’s statement in C h e n e ry C o r p .10 that “such
retroactivity must be balanced against the mis
chief of producing a result which is contrary to a
statutory design or to legal and equitable princi
ples.” The statutory design, stated in section
9(c)(3) of the act as congressional desire that
permanently replaced economic strikers be per
mitted to vote in elections, has been carried out by
the Board in various instances. It would now be a
“mischief” not to apply—even though retro
actively—the principle of participation in elections
to the replaced strikers in the present case:
“logic requires that such employees also be in
cluded in the [bargaining] unit when determining
whether the union continues to enjoy majority
status.”
In support of its reasoning, the court pointed
out that section 2(3) of the act defines the term
“employee” as including any person “whose work
ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with,
any current labor dispute . . . and who has not
obtained any other regular and substantially
equivalent employment . . .”—a provision that
has furnished ground for major judicial rulings
upholding the replaced strikers’ rights.11
The appellate court concluded, “[WJhether or
not the company in good faith relied on earlier
Board decisions, the Board drew the proper
balance, and its bargaining order should be en
forced.” The retroactive application of the new
policy and the order to the company to bargain,
the court said, will not “unduly burden” the
company, yet they will serve the purpose of re
storing the status quo ante that was disturbed by
the company’s violations.
□
51
SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS
-F O O T N O T E S -
1 P itts b u r g h P la te G la s s C o .
v.
N L R B
(C.A. 6, No. 19875,
June 10, 1970).
and L o c a l 1 , A l l i e d C h e m i c a l
W o r k e r s , 177 NLRB No. 114, July 9, 1969; see M o n t h l y
L a b o r R e v i e w , October 1969, pp. 56-58.
2 P itts b u r g h
P la te G la s s C o .
3 The n l r a ’ s definition of “employee” is rather broad.
Section 2(3) reads in part: “When used in this act . . .
(3) The term ‘employee’ shall include any employee, and
shall not be limited to the employees of a particular
employer, unless the act explicitly states otherwise. . . .”
The court here took note of this broad language and
pointed out that it may apply to persons who have never
been employees of a particular employer (such as the
employees of a newly acquired enterprise) or who may
become employees in the future (such as job applicants).
But, it pointed out, for bargaining purposes the law
(section 8(a)(5)) “explicitly states otherwise.” In view of
the Board’s past distinction in this matter, the court was
surprised at the n l r b ’ s change of attitude in this case.
It cited as an example the Board’s opinion (in P a g e A i r
c r a f t M a i n t e n a n c e , I n c . , 123 n l r b 159, 163 (1959)) that
“antidiscrimination provisions refer to ‘employees’ g e n
e r a l l y , whereas unlike these provisions, section 8(a)(5)
contains specific language requiring an employer to bargain
for ' h i s ’ e m p l o y e e s . ” (Board’s language and emphasis.)
4 P h e lp s
5 In
D odge C orp.
P u b lic
S e r v ic e
v.
N L R B ,
C o r p o r a tio n
313 U.S. 192 (1941).
of N ew
Jersey,
72
n l r b
229-30 (1947).
5 U.S. Supreme Court in
313 U.S. 177, 183 (1941).
7 C.
N L R B
H .
G u e n th e r
&
P h e lp s D o d g e C o rp .
Son,
In c.
(P i o n e e r
v.
N L R B ,
v.
F lo u r M ills )
(C.A. 5, No. 27495, June 1, 1970).
8 Section 9(c)(3) of the n l r a provides that “Employees
engaged in an economic strike who are not entitled to
reinstatement shall be eligible to vote under such regula
tions as the Board shall find are consistent with the purpose
and provisions of the act in any election conducted within
12 months after the commencement of the strike.”
9 The opinion of Judge Friendly in N L R B v. A . P . W .
C o . , 316 F.2d 899, 905 (C.A. 2, 1963). See also
the landmark decision of the Supreme Court on the issue
of rulemaking, in N L R B v. W y m a n - G o r d o n (U.S. Sup. Ct.,
April 23, 1969), in M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v i e w , July 1969, pp.
73-75.
P r o d u c ts
10
S e c u r itie s
and
E xchange
C o m m is sio n
v.
C henery,
332
U.S. 194.
11 Cited were: N L R B v. F l e e t w o o d T r a i l e r C o . , 389 U.S.
375 (1967)—see M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v i e w , January 1967, p.
61, for the appellate decision (C.A. 9) in this case; L a i d l a w
C o r p . v. N L R B , 414 F.2d 99 (C.A. 7— 1969); and A m e r i c a n
M a c h i n e r y C o r p . v. N L R B (C.A. 5, No. 27283, April 15,
1970).
Employment outlook for appliance servicemen
Employment of appliance servicemen is ex
pected to grow rapidly through the 1970’s. In
addition to many thousands of job opportunities
resulting from employment growth, about 4,200
job opportunities will arise annually to replace
experienced servicemen who retire or die.
Transfers of servicemen to other kinds of work
will provide additional job openings.
The number of household appliances in use
is expected to increase rapidly during the 1970’s.
Factors that will contribute to this growth in
clude increasing population and family forma
tions and rising level of personal disposable
income. The demand for appliances also will be
stimulated by the introduction of new appli
ances, some of which may be cordless like many
automatic toothbrushes now in use, and by the
improved styling and design of appliances to
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
make them more attractive and easier to oper
ate. In addition, more widespread use of appli
ances such as electric can openers, waste
disposers, home clothes dryers, dishwashers, and
knife sharpeners is expected.
Employment of appliance servicemen is not
expected to increase as rapidly as the number
of appliances in use. Although the automatic
operation of some types of appliances has tended
to make them more complicated, manufacturers
are designing appliances with more durable
components, and appliances that can be taken
apart and repaired more easily. In addition,
employers are increasing the efficiency of serv
icemen through more effective training.
— O c c u p a t i o n a l O u t l o o k H a n d b o o k , 1 9 7 0 —7 1 e d i t i o n
(BLS Bulletin 1650, 1970).
Netherlands
A widening conflict between the Government
and trade unions over wages and w age policy has
disrupted the peaceful and cooperative industrial
relations system that had existed since the end of
World War II. The immediate issue concerns the
passage in February 1970 of Government-spon
sored legislation authorizing the Minister of
Social Affairs to declare invalid individual con
tracts considered detrimental to the economy.
The unions strongly oppose this provision, al
though they approve of a clause giving the Gov
ernment authority in an economic emergency to
extend the life of all collective agreements for a
period of up to 6 months.
When the law was enacted, two of the three
labor federations, the Netherlands Federation of
Trade Unions and the Netherlands Catholic
Workers’ Federation, were so incensed that they
boycotted the talks on national wages in the Social
and Economic Council, a highly influential group
composed of management, labor, and independent
experts which advises the Government. The
Council reports twice yearly on the economic
situation and recommends general policy guide
lines to the Government, which usually adopts
them. The two federations also refused to partici
pate in another advisory group, the Labor Foun
dation, which concentrates on such matters as
hours of work, pensions, holidays, equal pay, and
broad lines of wage policy. The third federation,
the National Federation of Christian Workers,
decided to continue its participation in the two
advisory bodies, although its leaders declared
they had “insurmountable objections” to the bill.
Prepared in the Division of Foreign Labor Conditions,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, on the basis of material
available in early July.
52
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Ironically, the new law is based on an agreement
reached within the Social and Economic Council
in 1967. This agreement, which became effective
on January 1, 1968, liberalized wage policy and
permitted contracts to be made without predeter
mined guidelines. However, the Government could
reject contracts which it considered detrimental to
the economy. Labor became disenchanted with
the agreement, feeling that the Government used
its authority too frequently. The Government, on
the other hand, wanted statutory authority over
wages similar to that a 1969 law gives it over
prices. The new law empowers the Ministry of
Social Affairs to declare collective agreements
invalid if they are not in the “socioeconomic”
interest of the nation. The unions fear that the
law threatens free collective bargaining. (Concern
over inflation is widespread. The 7.5-percent in
crease in the cost of living index in 1969 was the
highest since 1951, when the index rose by 12
percent.)
Union leaders insist that the legislation of
February 1970 represents a hollow victory for
the Government, claiming that without their
cooperation in the Council and the Labor Foun
dation the Government’s wage policy cannot
succeed. Some commentators say that the Gov
ernment may have to take a more active role in
individual contract negotiations.
Employers, meanwhile, prepare for greater
union militancy. Last February, the Netherland Employers’ Federation and the Confes
sional Employers’ Federation established a joint
strike fund to assist employers who may be faced
with strikes if they reject “unreasonable union
demands.” Under the plan, struck employers
would receive a sum equal to the total amount of
wages they normally would have paid to workers
during the period of strike. This is the first time
that a strike fund has been set up in the
Netherlands.
53
FOREIGN LABOR BRIEFS
Hong Kong
New labor regulations have been introduced by
the Government and more are anticipated.
Effective April 1, 1970, all manual workers, re
gardless of how much they earn, and nonmanual
workers earning up to $248 (1,500 Hong Kong
dollars) monthly, became entitled to 4 unpaid
rest days a month. (Under previous legislation
only women and young persons employed in
industry received 1 free day in 7.) As an apparent
compensation to big business, the Department of
Labor lifted its prohibition against night work
(11 p.m. to 6 a.m.) of women over 18 employed
in industrial establishments. This experiment will
last until June 1971 and will be limited to in
dustrial plants employing over 500 workers on an
8-hour shift, including at least 100 women who
participate in night-shift work. Previously, at
least some U.S. electronic firms in Hong Kong
had found a night shift impractical because of the
ban on women’s night work.
Another law recently enacted gives workers’
wages a higher priority in the distribution of as
sets of bankrupt companies. Only taxes continue
to have the same priority as workers’ backpay.
The Governor has the power to waive even the tax
collection in order to protect the workers, and the
maximum amount of wages in arrear a worker
may claim has been raised to $974 (HK$6,000)
from $487 (HK$3,000).
Argentina
Early in June, the military junta Government
appointed Bernardo Bas, a labor lawyer, Governor
of the Province of Córdoba. Bas has been an ad
viser to a number of Córdoba unions and was
Minister of Labor in 1962-63.
In the current labor situation in the province,
Bas’ appointment was not without political sig
nificance. The Córdoba Regional General Con
federation of Labor supported a strike by the
Union of Mechanics and Related Automotive
Transport Workers over a 1-month period begin
ning June 8. The mechanics protested the dis
charge of 900 auto workers in retaliation for the
seizure of automotive plants by workers on
June 2. These strikes continued until union and
management reached a mutual agreement to
submit to government arbitration.
The appointment of Bas was apparently a wise
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
one for, although economic conditions worsened
with large financial losses by industry and wage
and salary workers in Córdoba, the governor
allowed the worst strike since 1968 to work itself
out.
Peru
A recent decree of the Military Government
gave domestic workers social security, a 6-day
workweek, guaranteed holidays, and dismissal
pay—conditions of work and benefits they did
not have in the past. As a rule, servants had com
pletely depended upon the generosity and uni
lateral action of the employer: he treated them as
members of his family while making them work
hard; he gave them about half a day’s leave per
week, but no holidays or dismissal benefits; and
he paid their medical expenses. They were not
covered by social security.
Another action of the Government induced the
Cerro de Pasco Corp., a leading mining concern in
the country, to sign an agreement with 14 mineworkers’ unions providing for additional benefits
and higher pay. The agreement, reached after 10
months of negotiating, provides for pay based on
the altitude at which the work is performed, in
creased overtime pay, higher benefits for workrelated sickness and accidents, company payment
of expenses of union negotiators during all stages
of collective bargaining, and two additional paid
holidays per year.
Both of these improvements, achieved as a
result of the Government’s action, in effect favored
the Communist-oriented General Confederation of
Peruvian Workers, which had demanded govern
ment intervention in these situations. The favor
appeared to be at the expense of the Confederation
of Workers of Peru, an affiliate of the strongly
anti-Communist Popular American Revolutionary
Alliance.
Syria
Some industrial establishments, particularly in
the oil sector, faced with a surplus of manpower
have been evading government regulations pro
hibiting dismissal of workers without prior ap
proval of the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs.
They have been paying their workers full wages
but not allowing them to report to work. In so
54
doing, employers have avoided any confrontation
with the workers which would lead to protest and
reprisals. Many workers have been happy to get
full pay for no work, and have been able to take
simultaneous employment elsewhere.
The Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs
responded to this practice of management by issu
ing a legislative decree that bans this practice.
The decree forbids employers to prevent their
employees from actually working and, more
specifically, forbids them to induce the workers’
idleness by means of paid leave granted under
circumstances not stipulated in the existing labor
legislation.
France
Inflation was a major factor in wage develop
ments during 1969 and early 1970. Continuous
rise in prices and a corollary rise in wages fed the
inflationary trend and caused an imbalance in the
country’s foreign trade.
Preliminary wage estimates put the average
wage increase in private industry and trade in 1969
at 8.4 percent; in the public sector, the increases
ranged 5 to 6 percent. The Government also agreed
to a 1-percent wage adjustment effective Jan
uary 1, 1970, to offset the 6-percent increase in
retail prices in 1969.
To correct the economic imbalance, the Govern
ment devalued the franc by 11.1 percent in August
1969 and adopted a stabilization program, to last
to the end of 1970, designed to reduce consumption
and investment and to eliminate the foreign trade
deficit. Although the Government’s restrictive
policy had a steadying effect on the economy, the
inflationary pressures have not disappeared
entirely. The latest figures avai able indicate that
prices in 1970 will continue their sharp upward
trend: in January 1970, consumer prices rose by
0.8 percent, and forecasts indicated little relief.
Inflation has been regarded with increasing
concern by the trade unions and the Government.
Fear that labor would bear the major burden of
the economic stabilization program led to a
number of wildcat strikes in the fall of 1969,1
and the Government has since sought to come
to terms with labor and avoid serious stoppages
in 1970.
At the end of the first quarter of 1970, the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
Government’s wage policy appeared to have satis
fied major sections of labor and to have succeeded
in lessening the incidence of strikes. Contracts
have been signed with unions representing 600,000
public sector workers in the electricity and gas
industries, the railways, and coal mining. The
basic pattern is an increase of 6 to 7 percent,
including bonuses and cost of living guarantees to
insure a specific increase in purchasing power.
These agreements, called c o n tra ts de p ro g rè s, link
wage adjustments to a formula based on the
profitability of the enterprises, overall domestic
production, and price developments. They cannot
be broken by either side without notice. The
Government has also given 500,000 civil servants
pay raises totaling nearly 6 percent effective in
April and October, with a provision for a possible
cost of living adjustment in January 1971, thus
avoiding a threatened strike. The civil service
unions successfully resisted signing a formal
contract with the Government.
The small part of 1970 private sector negotiations
concluded by the end of May provided increases
averaging 10 percent. In the north of France,
for example, 35,000 steelworkers concluded an
agreement, effective January 30, 1970, calling for
increases of 8 percent for the lowest paid manual
workers and 11 percent for highly skilled workers.
Labor relations have undoubtedly improved
with the conclusion of these 1970 agreements,
but the situation remains tense. The Communistled Confederation Generale du Travail ( c g t ) , the
largest labor organization in France, has refused
to sign any of the c o n tra ts de p r o g r è s and has
called for strikes to bring about agreements that
would tie wages directly to price increases and
living costs. The c g t is alone in this demand.
Other federations have so far refused to join it
for any concerted action, but its future isolation
within the labor movement is uncertain.
United Kingdom
An experimental factory system has been intro
duced at the Coldingly Prison in Surrey, England,
intended, as Home Secretary James Callaghan
said, to make the inmates feel “that they have a
job worth doing and are not just rotting away.”
An additional goal is to make profits to be used for
modernization of other prisons. If Coldingly shows
55
FOREIGN LABOR BRIEFS
a profit, at least 12 prisons are to be equipped with
similar factory systems within the next 5 years.
Three industrial workshops have been equipped
at Coldingly: a laundry, which provides low-cost
service to local hospitals; an engineering and
machine shop, to make office equipment for the
Government; and a sign shop, which will supply
local councils and the Ministry of Transport with
road signs.
Inmates participating in the program can be
hired and dismissed, as well as promoted or
demoted. Their wages, however, are only about
$200 a year, compared with the $4,000 paid for
similar work outside. The three shops now employ
over 100 men, though eventually about 300 men
are expected to be employed there on 40-hour
weeks while serving their prison sentences.
The Trades Union Congress and the employers’
Confederation of British Industry have agreed to
cooperate with this program. Major unions for the
building trades, transport, engineering and foundry
workers have signed an agreement to accept
participants in this program as card-carrying
members after their release from Coldingly.
West Germany
The Federation of Trade Unions (Deutscher
Gewerkschaftsbund—d g b ) , in close cooperation
with the Adult Education Association, has ini
tiated an education program designed to help
workers expand their political awareness and to
equip them for the exercise of their political rights
and responsibilities. Known as the “Work and
Life” program, it consists of week-long courses,
evening and weekend seminars, and study trips and
excursions. The program is carried out by approxi
mately 10 regional and 250 local groups, with a
central institute in Düsseldorf coordinating their
activities.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The basic political education course, which lasts
a week and is the core of the Work and Life
program, includes a broad treatment of politics,
history, and economics, but emphasizes elementary
techniques of analytical thought to help partici
pants develop political judgment. The basic course
usually is followed by short, concentrated courses,
each keyed to a definite aspect of political life. The
course work is supplemented by study trips and
excursions to Eastern and W estern European
countries and to Israel. The Work and Life
program also provides evening courses at work
sites, usually lasting 5 days at a time, including
discussions of broad political or economic issues or
matters of concern to particular industries.
In addition to coordinating the activities of local
and regional work-in communities, the central in
stitute in Düsseldorf recruits and trains instructors
for the program. Instructors recruited from the po
litical parties, schools, universities, churches, and
various associations supplement those provided by
the trade unions and the Adult Education Association.
One program, which receives financial support
from the Federal Government, trains tutors who
specialize in political education courses for young
people. Training of Work and Life instructors is
closely coordinated with the training activities of
other national organizations engaged in political
education.
An important function of the Work and Life
organizations is obtaining paid leave of absence for
workers wishing to avail themselves of the political
education offered. A number of collective agree
ments already provide for such leave, but the
program’s goal is a Federal law that would make
paid leave for educational purposes available to all
workers as a matter of right.
CD
1 See M o n th ly L a b o r R eview , December 1969, p. 63.
This list of collective bargaining agreements expiring in October is based on contracts
on file in the Bureau’s Office of Wages and Industrial Relations. The list includes
agreements covering 1,000 workers or more in all industries except government.
Company and location
Industry
Belt Association, Inc. (New York, N.Y.)........ ....................... ...................
Borg-Warner Corp., Warner Gear Division (Muncie, Ind.)........ ................
Borg-Warner Corp., York Division—Engineering Department (York, Pa.).
Apparel____________________________
Transportation equipment______________
Machinery____ ______________________
Brown Shoe Co. (Interstate)....................................................................
Brown Shoe Co. (Interstate).................................. ...................... ...........
Burroughs Corp. (Detroit and Plymouth, Mich.)_________ _________
Car-Wash-Service Station Agreement 2 (Chicago III.)__________ _________
Caterpillar Tractor Co. (Interstate)________________ _________________
Cessna Aircraft Co. (Hutchinson, Kans.)______________________________
Chain and Independent Grocery Stores- Retail Meat Markets (Houston, Tex.).
Chandler Evans, Inc., and Pratt & Whitney, Inc. (West Hartford, Conn.)___
Chicago Bakery Employers Labor Council covering 4 companies (Chicago, III.).
Chrysler Corp., Airtemp Division (Dayton, Ohio)................................ ........... .
Collins Radio Co. (Cedar Rapids, Iowa)___ __________ ________________
Leather_______ . . .
Leather____________________________
Machinery. ____________ .. .
Dana Corp., Parish Divisions (Reading, Pa.).................................. ...................
Dayton Power and Light Co (Ohio)................................ ...................................
Eaton Yale and Towne, Inc., Eaton Axle Division (Cleveland, Ohio).
First National Stores, Inc. (New York and New Jersey)___ ____
Fischer Packing Co., and Klarer of Kentucky, Inc. (Louisville, Ky.)_
Food Employers Council, Inc. (California)____________________
Gasoline Service Station Employers of Metropolitan Chicago area_______
General Motors Corp., hourly rated plant protection employees (Interstate).
General Telephone Co., of Illinois, Traffic & Commercial Departments (In
terstate).
Jeffboat, Inc. (Jeffersonville, Ind)..................................... ............................ .
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and 2 others (California).......................
Kroger Co., Charleston Division (West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio).
Ladies Shoe Industry 2 (New York, N.Y.)............................... .........
League of Off-Broadway Theatres and Producers (New York, N .Y.j..
Leeds & Northrup Co. (Pennsylvania)__ _____________________
Mack Trucks, Inc., Shop Agreement (Interstate)_______________
Massey-Ferguson, Inc., Master Agreement (Interstate)__________
Meat Markets, Self-Service Contract (Chicago and Cook County, III.).
Meat Markets, Service Contract (Chicago and Cook County, III.).
Mountain States Employers Council, Inc., Denver Retail Grocers (Denver)..
National Electrical Contractors Association, Inc., Western Pennsylvania
Chapter (Pennsylvania).
National Twist Drill & Tool Co. (Rochester, M ich.).........................................
New York City Bakery Employers Labor Council covering 8 cos. (N.Ÿ.-N.J.)..
Office Buildings 2 (Pittsburgh, Pa.)................. .............. ....................................
Oil, Petroleum, Chemicals, and Liquid Products Drivers Agreement (inter
state).
Otis Elevator Co., Production and Maintenance Agreement (Yonkers, N.Y.)___
Number
of
workers
U nion1
Ladies’ Garment Workers .
Auto Workers (In d ,).. .
Ice Machinery Independent
Association (Ind.).
United Shoe Workers
Boot and Shoe Workers .
Auto Workers (Ind.)
Employees’
3.500
3, 000
1,800
5,050
7.100
4.500
Services. __________________________ Teamsters (Ind.).
Machinery__________________________ Auto Workers (Ind.)__
Machinery__________________________ Machinists..
Retail trade___________________ _ .
Meat Cutters
Machinery__________________________ Auto Workers (Ind.).................................
Food products . . . _________________ Teamsters (Ind.)
Machinery__________________________ Electrical Workers (IUE)................
Electrical products.........................
Electrical Workers (IBEW)
Transportation equipment______________ Steelworkers................................................
Utilities______________________ _____ _ Utility Workers
Transportation equipment___________ ._ Mechanics Educational Society
Retail tra d e ______________
Meat Cutters
Food products_______________________ Meat Cutters
Food products._____ ___________ . . . Meat Cutters
.
Retail trade_______________
Teamsters (Ind.)
Transportation equipment______________ Plant Guard Workers (Ind.). .
. .
Electrical Workers (IBEW)
Communications.-----. ______________
Transportation equipment_______
. . . . . Marine and Shipbuilding Workers
Hospitals. _ __________________ . . __ Service Employees
Retail trade______________________
Meat Cutters
Leather____ ____ ___________________ United Shoe Workers
Amusements.._ _______ ___ ..
Actors
Instruments____ ____ ________________ Auto Workers (Ind.)
Transportation equipment. ____________ Auto Workers (Ind.)
Machinery____ . . . __________________ Auto Workers (Ind.)
Retail trade______________________
Meat Cutters . ___ . . . .
Retail trade__________________ . . .. Meat Cutters
Retail trade_________________________ Retail Clerks
Construction__________ ______________ Electrical Workers (IBEW)
1.500
26, 300
1,200
1.700
2, 000
1,200
4.100
7, 000
2,850
2.150
1.750
1,400
1.450
3; 000
6, 000
1,000
1 000
,
1,000
4.500
1.100
4.000
1.500
2,250
6.350
1,800
2, 500
2.000
3, 000
1.500
Machinery__________________________
Food products___________ ______ _____
Auto Workers (Ind.)
Bakery Workers
1.500
1.350
Services____________________________
Wholesale trade______________
___
Service Employees
Teamsters ( i n d , ) . . . ...... ...........
1,800
3.500
2,000
1,000
Machinery_______________
Electrical Workers (IUE)
Petroleum Labor Group, Wholesale Gas and Oil (Minneapolis and St. Paul). _
PPG Industries, Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., Chemical Division (Barberton,
Ohio).
Printing Industries pf Metropolitan New York, Inc., Printers League Section..
Printing Industries of Northern California (California)...____ ___________
Wholesale trade_____________
Chemicals_______________ .
Printing and Publishing_______ ____ ___
Printing and Publishing______
Teamsters (Ind.)
Allied Chemical and Alkali Workers of
America (Ind.).
Typographical Union__________________
Lithographers and Photoengravers.
Simmons Co., Master Multi-Plant (Interstate)_________ _________ _____
Southeastern Employers 2 (Interstate).............................................. ..............
Sterling Faucet Cos., and 3 other cos. (Morgantown and ReedsvNIe, W. Va.).
Sylvania Electric Products, Inc., (Warren, Pa.)_............... ............. ................
Furniture___ _______________
Construction__________
Fabricated metal products____
Rubber____________________
Upholsterers
Boilermakers. .
District 50, Allied and Technical (Ind.)___
Machinists... . ___
7.750
3.700
Timex Corp. (Oakville and Middlebury, Conn.)..........................
TRW, Inc., Tapco Division (Ohio)........................................... .............. ..........
TRW, Inc., Van Dyke Works, Thompson Products, Michigan Division (Warren)..
Instruments_________
Transportation equipment... .
Transportation equipment
Directly Affiliated Local Union
Aircraft Workers Alliance, Inc. (Ind.)_____
Auto Workers (Ind.)__ ___________ ..
3, 000
6,900
1.150
Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers..
1,000
.
1.500
6.700
2 , 200
1,000
1,100
Union Carbide Corp., Nuclear Division, Gaseous Diffusion Plant (Oakridge, Chemicals________ .
Tenn.).
United Parcel Service (Los Angeles, C alif.).................. ............ ...................
Trucking___________
Teamsters (In d .)........................... ...........
1,600
Weston Instruments, Inc., Weston Instruments Division (Newark, N.J.)___
Whjrlpool Corp. (Evansville, Ind.)........................................................... ........
White Motor Corp., Diamond Reo Truck Division (Lansing, Mich.).................
Weston Employees'Union (Ind.)............ . .
Electrical Workers (IU E ) .______ _____
Auto Workers find.')___ .
_ ... ... .
1,200
Electrical products____________ ___
Machinery_____
. .
TransDortation eauiDment______________
!
1 Union affiliated with AFL-CIO except where noted as Independent (Ind.).
56
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2
Industry area (group of companies signing same contract).
.. .
i
6, 800
1,300
1
Developments
in
industrial
Relations
Transportation
The protracted bargaining in the trucking
industry ended on July 3, when 50,000 workers1
in the Chicago area approved a 36-month contract
providing for $1.65 in wage increases, plus benefit
improvements. Within hours, Trucking Employers,
Inc.2 and the Teamsters reopened the 39-month
“national” contract they had negotiated on April 2
and raised the wage portion of their package to
$1.85, from $1.10.3
The Chicago settlement, which ended a 3-month
strike-lockout, provided the following increases:
C o m p a n y c o n tr ib u
tio n to p e n s io n o r
h e a lth a n d w e lfa r e
E ffe c t iv e d a te
A p ril 1,1970_________________
October 1, 1970_______________
A p ril 1,1971_________________
October 1,1971. _____________
A p ril 1,1972_________________
October 1, 1972. . . . . . . . . ..
fu n d
W ages
$0.35
.30
.25
.25
.25
. 25
$1
1
2
2
2
2
Other terms included an additional holiday and
improved vacations.
The renegotiated national contract, which cov
ered 450,000 drivers and related employees,
called for increases in hourly wages and over-theroad mileage, as follows:
E ffe c tiv e d a te
W ages
M ile a g e
A p ril 1,1970........................ .......................
$0.35
$0.01
July 1,1970________ ________ _____ __________15
--------------------January 1, 1971______ ____ ____________
.40
.........................
July 1,1971.___ ___________________________________
.01
January 1,1972--------------------------------------.25
.........................
July 1,1972.................................................................25
.0075
Contributions to both pension and health and
welfare funds were hiked by $1 a week to each
fund on April 1, 1970, January 1, 1971, January 1,
1972, and January 1, 1973. Other terms included
Prepared by Leon Bornstein and other members of the
staff of the Division of Trends in Employee Compensation,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, and based on information from
secondary sources available in July.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
an additional holiday and improved vacations.
Both agreements provided for revised escalator
clauses, with a 16-cent maximum possible increase
over the term in the national contract and 12-cent
maximum in the Chicago pact.
A “selective strike” by 18,000 members of the
260,000-member United Transportation Union
( u t u ) against three railroads4 ended on July 7,
when President Nixon ordered the strike halted
for 60 days. Acting under provisions of the Rail
way Labor Act, the President appointed an
emergency board5 to investigate the 11-year-old
dispute over the need for firemen on diesel loco
motives and to report to him in 30 days. The strike
by firemen, brakemen, switchmen, and conductors
reflected the union’s attempt to restore some
18,000 firemen’s jobs which were eliminated as a
result of a November 1963 arbitration panel’s ruling
that 90 percent of the diesel locomotive firemen’s
jobs in freight and yard service were unnecessary
and could eventually be eliminated. The panel’s
ruling was effective until 1966. Since then, the rail
unions have attempted to restore the firemen’s
jobs.
On December 1, 1969, both sides in the dispute
agreed to continue talks with the help of a special
mediator, Frederick R. Livingston, thus averting
a walkout by rail unions. The talks broke down on
June 11, 1970, over whether the use of radios by
ground crews should be negotiated separately or
along with the manning dispute. The union as
serted that the use of radios “was not part of the
original dispute” and should be dealt with sep
arately. u t u President Charles Luna stated that
the cause of the strike was “a simple failure of
the railroads to bargain in good faith to settle the
firemen issue with us.” The union argues that
firemen are needed on diesel locomotives as
a safety measure; the carriers contend that
having firemen aboard a diesel engine amounts to
‘‘featherbedding. ’’
57
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
58
La Huelga
The long and bitter strike by the United Farm
Workers Organizing Committee against table
grape growers neared completion on July 29, when
the union signed an agreement on initial contracts
with 26 grape growers (representing 35 percent of
the industry) in the San Joaquin Valley. The
settlement, signed in Delano, Calif., meant that
65 percent of the grape growers are now unionized.
(The union had achieved a breakthrough with
table grape growers in April 1970, when agree
ments were reached with five growers in the
Coachella Valley.6) The remaining table grape
growers, located primarily in the Fresno, Calif.,
area, were expected to sign contracts shortly with
the union. In that event, the historic 5-year
strike, coupled with a 3-year nationwide boycott of
table grapes, would be over.
Cesar Chavez, who led the strikers and organized
the boycott, signed the agreement, which called
for a wage of $1.80 an hour plus 20 cents for each
box picked, rising to $1.95 an hour in 1971 and
Earnings index
The Bureau’s index of manufacturing production
workers average hourly earnings (excluding overtime premium pay and the effects of interindustry
employment shifts) rose 0.7 in April, to 155.1.
Data for prior periods are shown below.
1969
Index
(1957-59 =100)
April
___ 146.
May
___ 146.
June. _
___ 146.
July----- __ ___ 147.
August _
___ 148.
September ___ 149.
___ 150.
October
November ____ 151.
December _ ___ 152.
Annual averages:
1968— .
1969— .
0
6
9
8
4
5
2
0
0
1970
Index
(1957-59 - 1 0 0 )
Jan uary..
February .
March
April
152.9
153. 4
154. 4
155. 1
_________________ 139. 5
_________________ 147. 7
Monthly data from 1947-68 and data for selected
periods from 1939 to 1947 are contained in S u m m a r y
o f M a n u fa c tu r in g P r o d u c tio n W o rk ers E a r n in g s
S e rie s, 1939- 68 ( b l s Bulletin 1616, 1969).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
$2.05 an hour in 1972. (Prior to the strike, workers
received $1.10 an hour, rising up to $1.65 an hour
in recent years.) Growers will also contribute 10
cents an hour to the union’s health plan and 2
cents for each box to an economic development
project.
Under the agreement, jobs will be assigned
through a union hiring hall. Formal grievance
procedures will be instituted, and the agreement
prohibits strikes. A joint union-grower committee
will regulate the use of dangerous pesticides.
Agreements
In New York City, 25,000 nonprofessional
employees of 33 private hospitals were affected by a
July 1 settlement between the League of Voluntary
Hospitals and Homes and Local 1199 of the Retail,
Wholesale and Department Store Union. The
2- year pact provided for an immediate wage
increase of $18 a week or 15 percent, whichever is
higher, and $12 or 10 percent in 1971. There was
also a provision for cost-of-living increases equal
to any rise in the Consumer Price Index in excess
of 6 percent a year. Prior to the settlement, the
minimum rate was $100 a week and the average
was $112 for service workers and $135 for licensed
practical nurses and clerical, technical, and social
workers. Other terms included adoption of a
twelfth paid holiday (the birthday of Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr.), 4 weeks of vacation after 8
instead of 10 years of service, and adoption of
dental and prescription drug plans financed by
a 2-percent (of gross payroll) increase in the
hospitals’ welfare fund payment.
Twenty thousand announcers, newsmen, corres
pondents, and other employees were covered by
a June settlement between the American Federa
tion of Television and Radio Artists (aftra) and
the nbc , cbs, and abc networks. Terms of the
3- year pact included a $60-a-week total increase
in newsmen’s base pay (to $410). The networks’
pension and welfare contribution was increased
to 6.5 percent of employees compensation, from
5 percent. The networks also agreed to begin
paying the employees for the re-use in foreign
countries of commercials made in the United
States.
International Paper Co. and three unions
reached agreement in mid-June on a 3-year
DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
contract for 12,000 employees of the firm’s
Southern Kraft Division. The contract provided
for a 25-cent wage increase retroactive to the
June 1 termination date of the previous contract
and for 6.25-percent increases in June of both
1971 and 1972. Other provisions included a ninth
paid holiday, company assumption of the em
ployees’ pension contribution (4.5 percent of
annual earnings in excess of $3,000), and improved
sick pay and insurance. The unions were the
United Papermakers and Paperworkers, the Pulp,
Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, and the Elec
trical Workers ( ibew ).
A 2%-month strike at the Allen-Bradley Co.
in Milwaukee, Wis., ended on June 22, when
members of the Electrical Workers union ( u e )
ratified a 33-month contract. The 5,200 workers
received an immediate 26-cent wage increase,
16 cents on May 2, 1971, 16 cents on July 9, 1972,
and cost-of-living adjustments of up to 7 cents
in October of both 1971 and 1972. Benefit changes
included a tenth paid holiday, an improved
vacation schedule—ranging from 1 week after 1
year of service to 4 weeks after 15 years, and an
additional day for each year in excess of 24—and
improved pension and insurance. The company
agreed to a dues checkoff system and to rehire 30
workers fired during the walkout.
Laid-off workers will continue to accrue benefit
credits for up to 3 years under an agreement
between trw , Inc., of Cleveland, Ohio, and the
Aircraft Workers Alliance, which represents 5,500
workers. As a result, laid-off employees recalled
to work within 3 years will receive vacations,
pensions, and Old Guard Bonuses (a lump-sum
payment of up to $1,500, paid after 25 years of
service), computed as if their service had not
been interrupted. Under the previous provision,
up to 3 years of time in layoff status was credit
able, but only for job bidding, recalls, shift
preferences, and “bumping” in the event of a
subsequent layoff. The company extended the
new benefit protection to nonunion salaried
employees.
About 3,000 employees of Brunswick Corpora
tion’s Kiekhaefer-Mercury Division (outboard
motors) in Fond du Lac, Cedarburg, and Oshkosh,
Wis., were covered by 2-year contracts negotiated
by the Machinists. Terms of the pacts, ratified
June 20, included a 30-cent-an-hour immediate
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
59
wage increase, 25 cents in June 1971, an addi
tional paid holiday, increased company funding
of the pension plan, and company assumption of
the cost of dependents’ insurance coverage.
Kodak
About 38,000 employees of the Eastman Kodak
Co., including 34,000 in Rochester, N.Y., were
given a 7.5-percent wage increase on August 10,
as a result of a decision by the firm’s management.
The increase, which was announced in mid-July,
applied to all hourly and some salaried employees.
In July 1969, the company granted a 5.5-percent
wage increase.
Forgoing increases
About 450 workers at the Aluminum Company
of America’s Wear-Ever subsidiary cookware
plant in Chillicothe, Ohio, have voted to forgo
the third-year wage-and-benefit increases due
them under their contract in order to keep the
plant operating. A final vote was taken on June 23,
after Alcoa had begun phasing out the operation.
A company spokesman said that the shutdown
was started because wages and benefits “. . . were
running at least $1 an hour more than the compet
ing cookware industry.” The gains the workers
gave up, which were negotiated for them in 1968
by the Aluminum Workers International Union,
consisted of a June 1 wage increase averaging 13
cents an hour, an increase in night shift premiums,
another paid holiday, and improvements in su b
and medical insurance.
In a similar development, Rubber Workers at
Uniroyal, Inc.’s Naugatuck, Conn., plant agreed
on July 12 to forgo a wage increase for 3 years.
In return, the company agreed to keep the fa
cility—portions of which are 127 years old—in
operation for 4 years. In January, Uniroyal had
announced a “tentative” decision to close the
canvas and rubber footwear plant, reportedly
stating that the $4.50 an hour in pay and supple
mentary benefits paid at Naugatuck made the
plant’s output uncompetitive with both foreign
and domestic producers of such products.
The moratorium on wage hikes means that the
4,000 Rubber Workers at the Naugatuck footwear
plant are excluded from the 82-cent wage boosts
under the new 3-year master agreement concluded
60
between Uniroyal and the union (ratified on
June 30) .7 However, the Naugatuck plant is
covered by the supplementary benefit gains won
under the master contract.
Equal rights
The U.S. Department of Justice, on July 20,
filed the first suit to halt job discrimination against
women since the practice was outlawed by the 1964
Civil Eights Act. The suit, filed in U.S. District
Court in Toledo, Ohio, charges the Libby-0 wensFord Co., Inc. with hiring women at only 1 of its
5 Toledo-area plants and with assigning them to
"less-desirable and lower-paying jobs” subject to
a high frequency of layoffs. The company was
accused of following job practices that "tend to
deprive [women] of employment opportunities or
adversely affect their status as employees because
of their sex.” The suit alleged that women have
to meet higher hiring qualifications than men in
similar jobs, are denied equal opportunity for
promotions or overtime work, and are not given
jobs traditionally held by men.
Also named in the discrimination suit was the
United Glass and Ceramic Workers Union. The
suit maintained that labor agreements between
the firm and the union shortchange women
employees on seniority. Since senority is not based
on total time with the company, but on service in
jobs from which women have either been excluded
or had limited access, the labor contracts were
described as depriving females of an equal chance
"to compete with their male contemporaries for
the more desirable, better-paying jobs.”
The Justice Department suit asks for prelim
inary and permanent injunctions against the com
pany and union to require equal opportunities
for women in hiring, job assignments, promotions,
overtime work, and seniority. The defendants
would be required to compensate women who were
rejected for jobs because of their sex or suffered
economic losses as a result of discriminatory job
assignments. The action came 6 weeks after the
Labor Department issued guidelines implementing
a 1968 Executive Order prohibiting sex discrim
ination in employment by
Government
contractors.8
On July 21, the company issued a statement
saying it "is making every effort to comply” with
the Civil Rights Act requirements. A company
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
spokesman cited the conflict between Federal and
Ohio laws as a major problem in the alleged
discrimination. Federal law forbids different treat
ment of the sexes, but Ohio law requires a number
of special conditions for women, including hours
restrictions, he said. "This basic conflict of laws”
remains unresolved, he added, because Ohio
refuses to change its laws.
Philadelphia plan
Seven Philadelphia contractors were charged
with failure to make good-faith efforts to hire
minority members under the Philadelphia plan.
The charges were detailed in six show-cause
orders issued by the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare and one by the Depart
ment of Housing and Urban Development. The
orders could result in the loss of existing Federal
contracts and the ban of future contracts for
contractors covered by the Philadelphia plan.
The controversial plan, which has been challenged
in the courts by contractors, sets up specific
hiring "goals” for contractors in the Philadelphia
area working on federally assisted construction
projects. It was implemented in September 1969.9
A spokesman for the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare said that the agency was
providing funds for eight construction projects in
the Philadelphia area involving 21 contractors, six
of which have not met their hiring goals. He added,
"These contractors have been notified and directed
to show cause why enforcement action should not
be instituted against them.” Under the "show
cause” notice, each contractor has 30 days to
indicate what efforts he has made to comply with
the plan’s requirements.
John L. Wilks, director of the Labor Depart
ment’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance,
termed the moves "very significant,” saying, “This
is the first overt enforcement action we’ve taken.”
Legal developments
J. P. Stevens & Co. disclosed that a Federal
appeals court in Richmond, Va., had reversed the
and ruled in the company’s favor over
n l r b
charges of unfair labor practices. The July ruling
marked the giant textile company’s first U.S.
appellate court victory in its lengthy battle with
the Textile Workers Union over efforts to organize
61
DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Stevens’ workers. (A union official stated that the
decision would be appealed to the Supreme Court.)
In five prior cases, appeals courts had upheld
nlrb rulings that J. P. Stevens engaged in unfair
labor practices while resisting union organizing
attempts.
The firm said that the decision means “the
company is now under no requirement to bargain
or deal with the union in any manner,” adding
“over a period of more than 7 years of extensive
campaigning the union has failed to organize any
Stevens plant, and during this time Stevens has
repeatedly charged that the labor board has been
extremely biased in seeking to assist the union s
organizing efforts.”
In July, the American Association of Securities
Representatives filed a civil antitrust suit against
the New York Stock Exchange and 44 securities
firms, charging that recent reductions in com
missions paid to securities salesmen by many firms
reflect a conspiracy in restraint of trade. The suit
also attacked the temporary service fee, or sur
charge, of up to $15 being charged by brokers on
orders of 1,000 shares or less, alleging that the
surcharge is not shared by registered representa
tives. The suit asked for damages but did not
specify a dollar amount. The action, filed in a
Federal district court in New York, also asked the
court to enjoin the defendants against violations
of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act.
The association, which claims 5,000 members,
affiliated with the National Maritime Union in
June.10
Union developments
In a referendum, members of the Professional Air
Traffic Controllers Organization (patco) ratified
its affiliation with the Marine Engineers Beneficial
Association (meba). The vote endorsed the move
toward affiliation which had been taken at patco’s
April convention.11 The affiliation brings the 7,0*00
air traffic controllers into the afl- cio. patco
President John Leyden hailed the move as a way
to make new resources available, to achieve in
creased effectiveness, and to obtain “a more
professional approach toward labor-management
relations.”
The executive board of the 68,000-member
Plasterers and Cement Masons Union named
Joseph T. Power president of the union following
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the resignation of President Edward J. Leonard
because of ill health. Mr. Leonard, who had served
as president of the union since 1958, was named
president emeritus. Mr. Power, age 50, had been
executive vice president of the union since 1959.
In another union change, Frederick O’Neal, an
actor and an afl - cio vice president, was named
president of the Associated Actors and Artistes of
America, succeeding the late Conrad Nagel. Mr.
O’Neal had recently been reelected president of
Actors’ Equity, a post he had held since 1964.
Besides Actors’ Equity, member groups of the
Associated Actors and Artistes include the Amer
ican Guild of Musical Artists, American Federa
tion of Television and Radio Artists, American
Guild of Variety Artists, and the Screen Actors
Guild.
Herman D. Kenin, President of the American
Federation of Musicians since 1958, died at the
age of 69. Mr. Kenin, who was also an afl- cio
vice president, succeeded former Musicians’ Presi
dent James C. Petrillo in 1958 and helped guide
the 300,000-member union to its period of greatest
growth. Union officers called a special board meet
ing for July 29 to deal with the emergency caused
by Mr. Kenin’s death. The board named Hal C.
Davis of Pittsburgh, a vice president of the union
since 1963, to succeed Mr. Kenin.
In a nationwide secret mail ballot representation
election among rea Express, Inc. employees, the
incumbent Brotherhood of Railway and Airline
Clerks defeated the Teamsters by a vote of 10,074
to 6,077. The vote was conducted by the National
Mediation Board, which declared some 20,598
rea employees eligible to vote.
Conventions
Among unions convening in July were the
Maintenance of Way Employees who met in
Detroit. Delegates to the union’s 36th convention
reelected President Harold C. Grotty and other
top officers to new 4-year terms, and voted to
raise Grand Lodge dues for the 140,000 members
from $6.75 quarterly to $9.75 effective in 1971.
Nearly 300 delegates to the 36th biennial
convention of the Bookbinders, also meeting in
Detroit, approved a recommendation to “enter
into an agreement for merger with the Lithog
raphers and Photoengravers Union.” A merger,
which would create a 125,000-member union, was
62
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
approved by the Lithographers’ international
council in June. A convention resolution authorized
the Bookbinders’ executive council to “take any
and all actions which it deems necessary to bring
about a merger” with the goal of completing the
action prior to the next convention in 1972. Any
merger agreement must be ratified by the member
ship before becoming effective.
Bill Baldwin was elected the new president of
the American Federation of Television and Radio
Artists by delegates to the union’s 33d convention
in Louisville. Mr. Baldwin, who has been an actor,
narrator, announcer, and sportscaster for nearly
35 years, has been the union’s first vice president
since 1967. He succeeds Mel Brandt, who served
3 years as president and did not choose to run for
another term. In response to officers’ calls for
“staggered” contract bargaining, the delegates
approved a resolution calling for different expir
ation dates for major contracts. In June, the union
had concluded a 3-year contract with the major
networks. (See above.)
In Milwaukee, William T. Cleary was elected
president of the American Federation of Technical
Engineers, succeeding James Woodside, who
joined the Navy Department as a labor relations
advisor. Delegates to the 18,000-member union
voted to increase monthly per capita payments
from $1.50 to $1.85. If approved by members in a
Table 1. Preliminary measures of compensation. 1968,
1969, and 1970
Annual rate of increase
in percent
Type of measure
First 6
months
1970
Major collective bargaining settlements:
First-year wage rate adjustment i ______
Wage rate changes over life of contract»..
Wages and benefits combined (equal
timing) 2_..................
Wages and benefits combined (first-year
changes)2_____
Aggregate measures:3
Total compensation per man-hour, all
employees, private nonfarm economy...
Average hourly earnings, production or
nonsupervisory workers, private non
farm economy........ ........
13.4
9.5
Full year
1969
8.7
7.5
1969
9.2
7.6
1968
7.4
5.9
9.7
8.2
8.2
6.5
14.6
10.6
10.9
8.7
6.1
5.8
6.6
7.9
5.0
7.2
7.1
7.0
1 Covers settlements affecting 1,000 workers or more.
2 Limited to settlements for 5,000 workers or more. Equal timing assumes a uniform
spacing of wage and benefit changes over the life of the contract. First-year changes
m.®??ur® increases in wages and benefits negotiated during the period and effective
within 12 months of the effective date of the agreement.
3 Data for full years measure changes from fourth quarter of prior year to fourth
quarter of current year. All changes are computed from seasonally adjusted data.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
referendum, the dues hike would go into effect
in February 1971.
Government
On July 23, Governor Raymond P. Shafer of
Pennsylvania signed with “misgivings and strong
reservations” a bill giving public employees the
right to engage in collective bargaining and a
limited right to strike over wages or working
conditions. (Some local jurisdictions in the State
have, in the past, engaged in collective bargaining
with their employees—for example, Philadelphia
and Pittsburgh public school teachers. Such
agreements, which were in effect as of January 1,
1970, were protected under the new bill.) The new
law, which becomes effective 90 days after the
Governor’s signature, prohibits strikes that en
danger the public health, safety, or welfare. The
bill does not apply to policemen or firemen, who
are covered by a separate law enacted 4 years ago
that established procedures for binding arbitration.
The Governor’s signing of the bill culminated over
2 years of efforts in the State legislature to secure
collective bargaining rights for nearly 1 million
workers in the public sector across the State. The
new law covers State, county, and municipal
employees, as well as employees of nonprofit
hospitals, nursing homes, universities, and colleges.
On June 30, Governor John A. Burns of Hawaii
signed a bill permitting State and local govern
ment employees to strike, except where the public
health is endangered, if efforts to reach an agree
ment fail. The bill had been passed by the legisla
ture in May.12
On July 15, New York City Major John V.
Lindsay signed an executive order, effective
September 1, requiring contractors working on
city construction projects—or projects assisted by
the city—to hire one minority trainee for every
four journeymen on the job. The Mayor stated
that the order would result in a “significant in
crease in . . . job opportunities in the construction
industry for the lowest rung of the city’s economic
ladder.”
Statistical summary
Table 1 summarizes various preliminary mea
sures of compensation during the first 6 months
DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
of 1970 and during earlier periods. Mean
adjustments are used as the average measure of
change.
□
63
4 The Southern Pacific, Baltimore & Ohio, and Louis
ville & Nashville railroads.
5 Frederick R. Livingston, a special mediator in the
rail dispute, was named chairman of the board. The other
members were Willoughby Abner and James C. Vadakin.
--------- F O O T N O T E S ---------
8 See
M o n th ly L a b o r
R eview ,
June 1970, p. 80.
1 Represented by the Chicago Truck Drivers Union,
which is not affiliated with the Teamsters, and by several
Teamster locals that have never participated in the
national bargaining which began in 1964.
7 See
M o n th ly L a b o r
R eview ,
August 1970, p. 78.
2 Trucking Employers includes 1,100 of the largest
trucking firms out of the 12,000 in the industry.
10 See
3 See M o n th ly L a b o r R eview , June 1970, pp. 77.and 79,
for terms of the contract, which provided for the reopening
of bargaining if the Chicago locals gained a larger package.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8 Ibid.
9 See
M o n th ly L a b o r
R eview ,
November 1969, pp. 72-3.
M o n th ly L a b o r
R eview ,
August 1970, p. 82.
11 See M o n t h l y L a b o r R eview , June 1970, p. 77, for an
account of the convention and the termination of the
“sick out” by members of p a t c o .
12 See
M o n th ly L a b o r
R e view ,
July 1970, p. 82.
Indexes to the Monthly Labor Review
Each year the December issue of the M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v i e w con
tains an index, by subject, of articles published in the R e v i e w in the
current year. Also included are listings of statistical tables and of
books reviewed, by author of book. In recent years, the index has also
included an alphabetical list of authors.
At intervals, these yearend indexes have been combined and pub
lished as BLS Bulletins:
Bulletin 695, S u b j e c t I n d e x to th e M o n th ly L a b o r R e v i e w , V o lu m e s 1 to 11,
July 1915 to December 1920
Bulletin 696, S u b j e c t I n d e x to th e M o n th ly L a b o r R e v i e w , V o lu m e s 12 to 51,
January 1921 to December 1940
Bulletin 1080, S u b je c t I n d e x o f V o lu m e s 5 2 -7 1 , M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w ,
January 1941 to December 1950
Bulletin 1335, I n d e x o f V o lu m e s 7 2 -8 3 , M o n th ly L a b o r R e v i e w , January
1951 to December 1960
Work is now in progress on the next bulletin in the series, to cover
volumes 84 to 93, January 1961 to December 1970.
World coverage
T ra d e U n io n s a n d I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s : A n I n te r
n a tio n a l C o m p a riso n . By Everett M. Kassalow. New York, Random House, Inc., 1969.
333 pp. $8.
Too frequently, books on international com
parison of labor turn out to be either a series of
discrete country studies or a comparative dis
cussion confined to a few selected countries. In
the book under review, Professor Kassalow suc
cessfully covers all the industrially developed
areas of the world and their labor problems. Two
additional chapters provide a discussion that this
reviewer hopes the author will pursue in a later
study—one is on trade union development and
the other on the economic setting of industrial
relations in the newly independent countries.
Students and practitioners in the field will find
this study useful for many years. For more serious
scholars, it will serve as a challenging point from
which to embark on critical analysis.
Kassalow identifies two distinct kinds of move
ments among the '‘Western” nations—pragmatic,
with the stress on economic objectives (the United
States), and ideological or class-oriented (most
Western European countries). After discussing
the evolution of these systems, the author illus
trates the increasing pragmatism of both political
and trade union organizations, especially as State
power becomes a reality for the parties, and as
improved economic conditions provide the working
class with something to lose in addition to their
chains. Of special value to students is the countryby-country discussion of the changes that took
place in Western European socialist movements,
and how doctrinal revisionism came about as a
natural concomitant of economic advance in the
life of the average worker. Full treatment is also
given to the differences and similarities among
the economic aspects—collective bargaining ob64
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
jectives and techniques, labor attitudes toward
management, the various types of worker-partici
pation in industry, and white-collar unionism.
The background discussion leads into a brief
but eloquently stated theory for understanding
the two strands of labor activity existing in
industrialized societies: the worker’s reaction to
his job situation where he depends on the union
to represent his economic interests—and the
activity of somewhat broader scope, occasionally
even appearing to conflict with his narrow job
interests, "which integrates workers into society,”
in this sphere, they rely on their political party
and union to represent their broader social
interests. The first represents the "conflict”
function of the union, and the second what the
author calls the "integration” function of the
labor movement, in its broader sense.
Although Kassalow disclaims any intention
of presenting a new full-blown theory of trade
unionism, he remarks that the dual strands of
labor activity he has described may bring together
Selig Perlman’s "job consciousness” theory of
trade unionism, based on a philosophy of job
scarcity, with the theories of J. B. S. Hardman
and others who saw unionism as "economic and
political power centers in modern society.”
The author does not feel the Western experience
necessarily provides a set of formulas for other
countries, only that it helps the developing nations
learn through the successes and failures of others.
In most of the newly independent countries the
labor movement was an ally in the anticolonial
struggle. After freedom, the new governments
generally found it necessary to integrate the
unions into the developing societies and to
dissuade them from threatening the economic
development program. The need felt by workers
in developing societies for "outside” leadership
(generally supplied by politicians or intellectuals),
for governmental support, for close relationships
65
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
to political parties, for “reactionary” economic
policies and ideological postures, are all briefly
explained without being excused or advocated by
the author. This discussion is necessary and
desirable if readers are to avoid the oversimplified
analyses which have led so many trade unionists,
managements, governmental authorities, and uni
versity scholars into advocacy of similarly over
simplified and thus ineffective solutions.
The author has obviously read and digested an
overwhelming amount of authoritative material
from all parts of the world. Much of what is high
lighted is “fugitive” material—articles, mono
graphs, and books not normally quoted in studies
within the narrow field of labor problems. Serious
students of international labor problems should
become acquainted with these sources to fully
develop their competence in this field.
As a final comment, I should like to add a note
on notes. Over the past few years, the practice of
putting footnotes at the end of the chapter or at
the end of the volume itself has been entirely
defensible for source references. In a study such
as Professor Kassalow’s, where so much analytical
information is provided in the notes—the brilliant
summary chapter on labor in the Western world,
for instance, is only twice as long as its notes—the
average reader is seriously inconvenienced. He
must shift his glance from text to chapter notes in
a veritable intellectual tennis match, straining his
neck-muscles, eyesight, and patience. Is it pos
sible to appeal to authors and publishers to revert
to the practice of placing substantive footnotes at
the bottom of the page where interested readers
can read them easily?
— M
o r r is
W
e is z
Counselor for Labor Affairs
U.S. Embassy, New Delhi
Diplomas and job performance
E d u c a tio n a n d J o b s: T h e G rea t T r a in in g R o b b e ry .
By Ivar Berg. New York, Praeger Publishers,
1970. 200 pp. $7.50.
This volume studies a vital and difficult
question: the economic value of education. The
American myth, that additional education is al
ways valuable and will be repaid many times over
399-873 0 - 7 0 - 5
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
in better jobs and promotions, is hereby challenged.
The myth was comfortable. It required the unem
ployed of the 30’s and the disadvantaged of today
to blame themselves for their plight, “If only I
had gotten more education.”
Dr. Berg correctly suggests that an annual
investment of more than $49 billion ought to be
carefully scrutinized. He skillfully organizes and
analyzes the information available on the economic
contribution of education and training. The data
are not convincing that education always pays for
itself. And it sometimes seems to be dysfunc
tional. The better educated do not always perform
well; they can become bored and frustrated with
low-skilled jobs.
A high school or college diploma is often used
as an initial screening device. It then becomes an
essential qualification for a job, regardless of
whether or not it is an accurate predictor of suc
cessful job performance. Berg faults the “purpose
less credential consciousness” of employers, al
though he does not seem to acknowledge that many
large employers have dropped their high school
degree requirements in recent years.
Dr. Berg could unearth no good data on the
economic value of hiring college graduates for
managerial positions. On the other hand, the turn
over and the resulting costs for these young men
was quite high. Interviews with executives, how
ever, brought abundant testimony on the worth
of college graduates. The executives cited their
diligence and perseverance in enduring 4 years of
college, their greater stability, and their poise and
self-assurance.
For blue-collar workers, “educational achieve
ment explained so few promotions that it could be
discounted as a factor.” The better-educated per
son obtains a better job by moving to another
firm, while his lesser educated fellow worker stays
and moves up into the vacated slots.
Dr. Berg indicts private industry for not keeping
records that would enable them to determine if
better-educated workers actually do perform
better. There is little information linking education
with “such matters as grievance patterns, turn
over, productivity, absenteeism, and worker
attitudes.”
The more careful research of public sector jobs,
the military, and civil service supports the same
theme. Most of the evidence shows that there is
66
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
little or no relation between additional education
and successful job performance.
Dr. Berg’s analysis is documented, careful,
skeptical, and generally clear, although he does
tend to string ideas and words together in a way
that is sometimes difficult to follow. The author
did not intend to attack the more difficult prob
lem of the overall value of a humanistic education.
Berg focuses on one aspect of education: its con
tribution to job performance. And he finds it
wanting. It would be a mistake to assume that
this were its primary purpose; and Berg agrees.
On the other hand, it would be presumptuous and
evasive to assume that education was performing
more effectively as a humanizer, a stimulator of
creativity, and a developer of fuller and more
mature human beings.
— G erald F. C avanagh , S.J.
Research Associate
Cambridge Center for Social Studies
Bargaining model
By John G. Cross.
New York, Basic Books, Inc., 1969. 247 pp.
$8.95.
T he E c o n o m ic s o f B a r g a in in g .
In this book Professor Cross develops an eco
nomic model of the bargaining process based on a
novel concept of the way in which bargainers
choose their demands and subsequently modify
them as the bargaining proceeds. Initially, the
model is examined against the background of
other economic models of bargaining (especially
those of Nash, Zeuthen, and Hicks). In later
chapters, Cross considers the questions of media
tion, arbitration, force, threats, preagreement
costs, and bluffing as they relate to his basic model.
In the last chapter the model is applied to the
problem of oligopoly. Though the coverage in
this book is relatively wide, the analysis never
really deviates very far from Cross’s basic model,
and a less general title such as “An Economic
Theory of Bargaining” would have more accu
rately described this material.
The author’s basic model of the bargaining
process is relatively straightforward. Cross
assumes there are two bargainers who are nego
tiating to divide a given quantity of an economic
good. Each bargainer expects some constant rate
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
of concession on the part of the other bargainer,
and then chooses the quantity he demands so as to
maximize the present value of the utility of this
quantity when the other bargainer finally concedes
it to him. At the time such decisions are made,
neither player plans to concede at all from the
demanded quantity but subsequently revises his
expectations of the other bargainer’s concession
rate as the bargaining goes on and changes his
demand accordingly. Cross discusses the condi
tions under which this process will converge to a
point of agreement. (A more detailed mathe
matical discussion of some of the aspects of Cross’s
basic model may be found in his article, “A Theory
of the Bargaining Process,” A m e r ic a n E c o n o m ic
R e v ie w , March 1965, and additional comments
by Coddington and Cross in the June 1966 issue.)
There are some interesting and innovative as
pects of this model. The first is the recognition
that bargainers will take the expected length of
time needed to reach agreement into account in
setting their demands as well as the costs of not
agreeing. The second is the productive or
information-providing nature of the bargaining
process.
Despite these appealing features, I am uncom
fortable with several of the implicit and explicit
assumptions that underlie this theory of the bar
gaining process. For example, it seems curious
that even though each bargainer continually
changes his demands throughout the bargaining
process, he never recognizes that this continual
revision will occur at the time he makes his demand
decisions. In other words, each bargainer cor
rectly assumes the qualitative (although not
necessarily quantitative) behavior of the other
bargainer but fails to recognize it on his own part.
Thus, according to a strict interpretation of the
mathematics of Cross’s model, a bargainer could
“optimally” decide to demand more than the
to ta l amount of the available good and base this
decision on an optimization scheme in which he
explicitly expects to make no concessions.
Now it may be true that the form of the optimal
decision rule is for each bargainer to make the
“complete” concession in each decision period and
ignore, at that time, the likelihood that he will
have to make future concessions, but that should
be proved as a mathematical theorem and not
simply assumed as Cross does in his model. If it
67
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
turns out that this rule is not optimal (and I
strongly suspect it is not when each bargainer is
aware of the uncertainty involved in his expecta
tion of the other’s concession rate), then many of
the conclusions that Cross derives from the model
would have to be reconsidered, particularly those
in the chapter on bluffing.
Another disturbing aspect of the model is that
at every point in time, each bargainer always
expects the other’s concession rate to remain con
stant throughout the subsequent negotiations.
Moreover, neither bargainer recognizes that his
own behavior will influence his opponents con
cession rate even though this is actually what
happens. Here again, there is a puzzling
asymmetry in the model.
I think that some of the results that Cross
finds surprising (he frequently uses exclamation
points at the end of counterintuitive statements)
may not hold up in a less extreme version of this
model. For example, he notes that the more sen
sitive learner (that is, one who adjusts his expec
tation of the other’s concession rate more rapidly)
is likely to have the outcome go against him.
This result, it seemed to me, is not so much of a
revealing insight into the bargaining process as
it is a clue that something is fishy in the structure
of the model. A bargainer who is aware of his
influence on the other bargainer’s concession rate
(that is, a r e a lly astute learner) is almost certainly
going to do better than a bargainer who does not
possess such an awareness. Furthermore, even
within the assumptions of the Cross model, there
is a more plausible (but less exciting) explanation
of this result. If, instead of calling expectation
adjustment process a “learning” function, one
designated it more generally as an expectations
response function, then the apparent disadvantage
of the more responsive bargainer could be explained
in terms of his weakness as a bargainer (because
of things such as a poorer political position, a less
forceful and confident personality, and so forth)
instead of his greater sensitivity as a “learner.”
In general, I was bothered by Cross’ tendency
to take a fairly limited result from the basic
model and verbally generalize its implications and
ramifications in an ad hoc manner that was al
most totally unrelated to any analytically sub
stantiated results.
Let me say, however, that on many occasions
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
throughout this book, I was impressed with the
depth of Cross’ analytical and economic insights,
his technical competence, and the amount of
thought and work he has devoted to this inter
esting subject. I ’m sure he is aware of the above
and other limitations of the basic model. At the
start of Chapter III, he makes it quite clear that
he regards the basic model as a somewhat extreme
case, and he spends a large part of the book
discussing the implications of loosening several of
the limiting assumptions. Nonetheless, I do not,
on the basis of the present evidence, share his
apparent confidence that the basic model provides
results that are qualitatively robust. I strongly
suspect that if the myopic character of the deci
sion rules was changed by introducing a sequential
or dynamic programing form of analysis, which in
essence would require bargainers to contemplate
alternative bargaining strategies over the entire
expected span of the negotiations, some of the
results of Cross’ basic model would be altered in
a fundamental manner. Before plunging ahead
at this time with the development of more elegant
theoretical models, however, I suspect that econo
mists interested in the analysis of bargaining
behavior would do well to give some greater
attention to identifying more precisely those
empirical phenomena that need to be explained.
If nothing else Cross’ work makes clear that
economic theory has an important role to play in
the analysis of bargaining behavior.
— John
P.
G ould
Special Assistant for
Economic Affairs
U.S. Department of Labor
From industry to community
A r b itr a tio n a n d S o c ia l C h a n g e: P r o c e e d in g s o f the
T w e n ty -S e c o n d A n n u a l M e e tin g , N a tio n a l
Edited by Gerald G.
Somers. Washington, BNA, Inc., 1970. 233
A c a d e m y o f A r b itr a to r s .
pp. $10.
It is of little moment that there are different
schools of thought on the wide variety of prob
lems presented to labor arbitrators. What is re
markable is that in a private, and virtually
unsupervised, adjudicative process at a single
level without appeal to review tribunals, there
68
should be so much consistency and continuity
in the articulation of controlling principles.
Enunciation of these principles may do more than
settle only the immediate issues submitted. If
published, these decisions may have a normative
impact nationally upon labor agreement admin
istration and on employer and employee conduct.
In his role as decisionmaker, the arbitrator’s
reflections and rhetoric are restrained by the
nature of the issues submitted for resolution and
the need for tactful observations that will mini
mize industrial tensions. An arbitrator’s critical
comments on the process in which he is the main
actor are best reserved for occasional essays in
specialized periodicals. Enduring commentaries,
expressing the arbitrator’s candid views on the
practice of his profession, will be found most
frequently in published reports of proceedings of
the National Academy of Arbitrators. Twentytwo such meetings have been reported since the
founding of the Academy in 1947. The first seven
annual meetings, 1948-54, survive only in the
eight papers and five committee reports that
appear in the first of the series, now at 16
volumes, that is also published by the Bureau of
National Affairs.
The program of each annual meeting of the
National Academy of Arbitrators usually centers
on some general theme. Frequently, the title
selected for the program does not encompass all
that is published in the proceedings; such mis
matching is not necessarily a drawback, however.
In the volume under review, the title applies
only to three of the volume’s seven chapters.
Chapter II deals with the potential application
of industrial jurisprudence to community conflict,
fair employment problems and campus confronta
tions; Chapter III is concerned with industrial
relations problems in hiring the disadvantaged
and retaining them in the work force; and Chapter
V canvasses the use of the factfinding process in
settlement of public employee disputes. Three
chapters discuss continuing and developing prob
lems in the ordinary run of labor arbitration cases :
management rights arguments; the uses of expert
testimony in arbitration cases; and the ramifica
tions of backpay awards in suspension and dis
charge cases. Chapter IV is a literal transcript
of a whimsical and satirical after-dinner address,
replete with in-group humor, that must have been
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
a joy to hear at the time; it strikes a discordant
note, however, when it appears among thoughtful
essays designed to be read in the sober light of
day.
The chapters related to the volume’s title con
sider the question—Can expertise developed in
private adjudication of grievance disputes or in
factfinding on presidential boards under the Rail
way Labor and Taft-Hartley Acts be used in
resolving ghetto and campus conflict? The role of
experienced labor arbitrators as mediators or
factfinders in public employment negotiations is
well-documented.
Even the most hopeful participant in the
Academy’s annual meeting failed to establish
any analogy between industrial grievances and
community or campus discontent. Optimism
rests on the tenuous assumption that experience
in labor arbitration produces the poise, tem
perament, imagination, and personal prestige
needed to mediate political and economic con
frontations that arise from challenges to estab
lished governing institutions because of disparities
of age, education, social, and economic class or
spring from historic patterns of discrimination.
Despite occasional optimistic suggestions for
putting arbitration experience to new uses, many
contributors express concern that in deciding in
dustrial discipline cases, arbitrators would be
acting injudiciously by applying more relaxed
standards of plant behavior to employees re
cruited from ghettoes than to their co-workers
possessed of more conventional backgrounds.
On balance, these papers should be valued more
for the difficulty of the questions posed than for
the few tentative and untried solutions tendered
for experiment. A compact report on developments
in the law of labor arbitration in 1968 and a cu
mulative index of authors and subjects reported
in the 16 printed volumes covering the 22 annual
meetings of the Academy are useful appendices
to the volume.
— A
lfr ed
K
a m in
Professor of Law
Loyola University of Chicago
(Word of Professor Kamin’s death was received after
this review went to press.)
69
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
Labor abroad
A m e r ic a n L a b o r a n d U n ite d S ta te s F o re ig n P o lic y .
By Ronald Radosh. New York, Random
House, Inc. 1969. 463 pp. $10.
This is a self-proclaimed essay in “radical
history.” If by this is meant rejection of all the
canons of historical scholarship, the author has
been successful: sloganeering is substituted for
logic, invective for analysis, fiction for fact.
The title is misleading. Out of 450 text pages,
270 are devoted to the period 1916-19, when the
American labor movement was hardly a major
political force. Of the nine chapters devoted to
these years, no less than five full chapters and
parts of others deal with the activities of people
like John Spargo and William Walling, who were
hardly in the mainstream of the labor movement,
to put it mildly.
The period 1919-45 is covered in four pages.
Almost nothing about the foreign policy role of
the Communist Party from its strongholds in the
cio; of the support given by both the afl and the
cio to the foreign policy of President Roosevelt;
of labor assistance to anti-Nazi groups. The only
reference to the momentous events of the Great
Depression and their impact on labor ideology is
the erroneous statement that “the National Re
covery Administration turned unionism into a
semipublic institution whose organization was
part of an official government program.”
The rest of the book is concerned with the
so-called “Lovestone diplomacy” in Europe and
with the activities of Serafino Romualdi and
others in Latin America. It consists of one long
indictment, relying heavily on such objective
journals as T h e N a tio n , T he N e w R e p u b lic ,
M o n th ly R e v ie w , and V ie t R e p o r t. There is certainly
much in the record that is subject to legitimate
criticism, but the author’s technique reminds one
of a midnight Western (or should I say Eastern?);
there are only good guys and bad guys. There is
virtually no use of original European and Latin
American source materials and the effort is
amateurish and superficial.
Nowhere in the book is there any serious treat
ment of labor’s role in the Marshall Plan, in the
formulation of American Middle Eastern policy,
of its impact upon Japan, of labor participation in
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the U.S. aid program. One would also have thought
that a book with this title would have contained
some analysis of the labor attaché program, and
of relations with ilo , icftu , and wftu . Apparently
only those matters were included which helped
sustain the author’s thesis that “the new business
collectivism, initiated during the presidency of
Woodrow Wilson, has come to resemble the type
of business-government alliance established by
Benito Mussolini in Fascist Italy.”
My colleague John Windmuller will publish in
another place a sample of the large number of
factual errors that abound in this book. But one
I cannot pass over is Radosh’s characterization
of the late David Saposs as a former Communist,
a falsehood initiated by the Dies Committee.
Saposs was a staunch opponent of Communism
all his life.
On every count—the quality of the research,
of the writing, of the analysis—this is a bad
book.
—W alter G alenson
Professor of Economics
School of Industrial and Labor Relations
Cornell University
Public bargaining
Edited
by Keith Ocheltree. Chicago, Public Personnel
Association, 1969. 98 pp. $10.
As action in collective bargaining in the public
sector accelerates, so does the publication of mate
rials reporting and analyzing these developments.
Most of them so far have been collections of essays
by a wide variety of experts in collective bargain
ing generally, reflecting the newness as well as the
rapid tempo of developments in this field, the
complexity of its issues and portents and the sub
stantial differences which have emerged not only
among the States but among different levels of
government within States. This approach has the
advantage of bringing a significant collection of
expertise to bear on the problem. It also has the
disadvantage of having a large number of people
feeling the elephant from different vantage points,
lending a certain amount of unevenness and in
consistency in reporting the results and little over
all perspective on the subject being examined.
P e r s p e c tiv e I n P u b lic E m p lo y e e N e g o tia tio n .
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
70
This special issue in the Public Employee Re
lations Library, the result of a series of seminars
on the subject, reflects both the advantages and
disadvantages. It contains 13 articles in all. The
first two discuss recent developments and the role
of the public interest in these matters. The next
four report on concrete experiences in public em
ployee bargaining in Canada and in the United
States. The seventh article focuses on some of the
problems which ensue when professional employees
are involved. The following five take up a variety
of overall problems which shape the environment
of bargaining in the public arena, such as Milton
Derber’s fine essay in “Who Negotiates For The
Public Sector?” and Howard Black’s “Legal Con
siderations in Public Employment Labor
Relations.” The final article on “Lessons from
Experience in the Private Sector” by Robert T.
Woodworth does a good job in trying to put the
whole matter in perspective.
Aside from a less-than-one-page foreword, there
is no attempt to provide these articles with some
context. They are not grouped in any kind of mean
ingful am n ;ement or succession, nor is there any
transition material provided for moving from one
article to the next. On balance, however, it is a
worthwhile addition to the literature in the field,
particularly for the practitioner, because it does
make many of the issues stand out and it does pro
vide some oncrete case studies in a field which
still has a long way to go before anything resem
bling a unifying set of principles and experiences
emerges.
— S eymour L. W olfbein
Dean, School of Business Administration
Temple University
Expanding job content
J o b E n la rg e m e n t: K e y to Im p ro v e d P e rfo rm a n c e .
By Peter P. Schoderbek and William E. Reif.
Ann Arbor, Mich., University of Michigan,
Bureau of Industrial Relations, 1969. 113 pp.,
bibliography. $8.
This book is based on a recent study of the
job enlargement interests and experiences of 276
companies randomly selected from the F o rtu n e
500 Directory. According to the authors, the
purpose of job enlargement is threefold: 1) expand
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
job content through a greater variety of knowledge
and skill, 2) provide for “a more complete utiliza
tion of . . . cognitive and motor abilities,” and
3) increase the degree of freedom and amount of
responsibility for the quality and quantity of work
performed. Professor Schoderbek and Mr. Reif
point out that the key factor is increasing the
variety of tasks performed by an employee, not
merely adding more of the same kind of tasks (the
latter is job extension, not enlargement).
Starting with an excellent introductory chapter
on the history and background of job enlargement,
the authors analyze current trends in terms of
reasons for its use, number of projects undertaken,
and organizational changes resulting from its
adoption. Particular attention is given to produc
tion, clerical, and supervisory applications.
Major advantages cited by corporate users in
clude increase in job satisfaction, reduction in
costs, increases in quality of work, increases in
quantity of output, and decreases in monotony.
The authors found such disadvantages as problems
in overcoming resistance to change, some em
ployees not capable or unwilling to grow with their
jobs, increases in training time, and occasional
union opposition. In their final chapters, Pro
fessor Schoderbek and Mr. Reif address themselves
to these problems and offer a series of practical
suggestions and guidelines for overcoming them.
Of central importance is the justification of job
enlargement to top management through the use
of objectively determinable results—lower costs,
greater output, and higher profits. Chapter IV,
“Resistance to Change,” will be of particular
interest to the practitioner.
While not wi i 'ten as a philosophical under
pinning for job enlargement, the authors contend
that it is a useful application of McGregor’s
Theory Y (the integration of the individual’s
goals with those of the organization). In their
opinion, job enlargement can best be “expressed as
an attitude,” not just “as a technique, and that it
should be viewed as an approach which (will) im
prove and upgrade practically any job in the
organization.” Furthermore, job enlargement is
not a case of job satisfaction versus the economic
interests of the firm. Their research indicates that
job satisfaction and economic goals need not be
in conflict.
71
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
Professor Schoderbek and Mr. Reif have done
an excellent job in the development of the concept,
stating the issues, presenting the advantages and
disadvantages, and providing the reader with
information as to its current use (and misuse) in
business and industry. Their position is that it is
one of the keys to improved performance.
— D
on
R.
S
h e r if f
Professor, Center for Labor and Management
University of Iowa
A 60-book summary of labor’s struggles
A m e r ic a n L a b o r : f r o m C o n s p ir a c y to C ollective
B a r g a in in g . Created by Leon Stein and
Philip Taft. New York, Arno Press, 1970.
$744.50, 60-volume set; varying prices for
individual titles.
To provide a readable, scholarly collection of
books that tell the story of the labor movement is
indeed a formidable task. Philip Taft and Leon
Stein accepted such an assignment, and the result
is a 60-volume set of out-of-print accounts of
labor’s struggles entitled A m e r ic a n L a b o r: f r o m
C o n s p ir a c y to C ollective B a r g a in in g . Some of the
books in the collection are texts, others are evalu
ations by participants in the movement focusing
on the exploitation of women, children, and im
migrants as well as biographical sketches and
histories of particular unions. These personal
dialogues are appropriate for relating the history
of labor since for a long time persons outside the
movement tended to ignore it except when vio
lence or some other crisis erupted.
In T he A m e r ic a n L a b o r M o v e m e n t, Mary Beard
says, “It is a significant comment on American
intellectuals that it was not until 1918 that there
was any authoritative and exhaustive history of
the American labor movement. It is still more
significant that the preparation of this history was
undertaken, not by professional historians, but by
economists who could not after all entirely ignore
labor in studying industry.” A few of the econo
mists contributing to this series are Louis Lorwin
(Louis Levine), John R. Commons, Sumner H.
Slichter, Solomon Blum, Paul H. Douglas, and
Richard T. Ely.
Most labor historians consider T he L a b o r M o v e
m en t in A m e r ic a by Richard Ely to be the first
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
modern history of the labor movement, though it
has been criticized for endorsing a socialist
program. Nevertheless, the thoughts are interest
ing and still timely despite the 1886 copyright
date. Ely talks of the economical and educational
value of labor organizations and states that “The
organization of labor . . . is an indispensable
condition of the improvement of the masses, and
it must be extended and also pursued on a more
elevated ethical plane, if it is to accomplish its
legitimate ends. There must be displayed a greater
willingness to yield personal advantage to the
common good . . .”
Simon Newcomb, an astronomer who thought
human events could be regulated with the same
mathematical exactness as the stars and author
of A P l a i n M a n ’s T a lk o n the L a b o r Q u e stio n ,
joined with other academicians in calling Ely’s
book an anarchist’s ravings. Newcomb says that
“. . . the reason why the laborer of today is so much
better off, is that the force of circumstances have
been stronger than his theory. Capitalists have
persisted in building railways to bring him the
products of other regions and in making machinery
to supply him with clothes and furniture; in a
word, to do for him the very thing which, according
to his theory, it is disadvantageous to have done.
Under these circumstances, I earnestly hope that
labor organizations will not succeed in doing them
selves irreparable damage by putting this old
theory into operation. I hope the common-sense of
society will prevail upon them to see that the
laborer is best supplied with the necessaries of
life when every man is at work at the very best
wages he can get, be they high or low.”
In many cases, of course, the wages were lower
than the laborer thought they should be. And,
as Ely points out, “. . . Employers rarely offer
an advance voluntarily, for they are like purchasers
of other commodities. Does my reader offer
seventeen dollars for a garment when the price
asked is only sixteen dollars?” So, workers or
ganize and hold back their commodity for the price
“which the state of the labor market justifies.”
“. . . The method of initiating a strike does
not determine its duration and intensity. These
are the resultants of the motives enlisted, the
number of participants, and the methods used in
conducting the conflict. Such methods include the
chief tactical problems in strike management; the
strategy directed upon the participants, the non-
72
striking laborer, the employer, and the public.”
This analysis is part of an overall account of what
happens when workers take collective action to
improve their lot. In T he S tr ik e : A S tu d y o f C o l
lective A c tio n , Ernest T. Hiller details the re
quirements and structure of the strike and the
bargaining that follows.
Another book on strikes by Edward Levinson
gives a vivid picture of Pearl L. Bergoff, self-pro
claimed King of the Strikebreakers during the
1930’s. One section in I B r e a k S tr ik e s tells of the
finances of strikebreaking: “The only standing
overhead is the maintenance of the central and
branch offices. In the cases of at least half a dozen
large practitioners this expense is avoided. They
carry their offices fin their hats.’ When the longawaited moment comes and the fink chieftain is
chosen to break a strike, he can hire a store, a loft,
or an old stable for recruiting quarters and pass
the rent on to the company. Office equipment is
scanty. One of the few necessary full-time em
ployees, aside from the operatives on the clients’
payrolls, is a man who can read. In the old days
he read the New York C a ll, today most likely he
peruses the D a i l y W o rk e r. The office will thus learn
of impending strikes. . . . Once a strike appears
inevitable, however, the purse strings will be
loosened. The solicitors become high-powered
salesmen, with expense accounts for dinners,
liquor, theaters, and cigars. Since the profits are
so large, there can always be a gratituty for any
helpful company executive, lawyer, or superin
tendent who helps the agency land the contract.”
Discussing the hope for industrial peace in his
book, L a b o r E c o n o m ic s, Solomon Blum poses
the question, “In spite of the difficulties lying in
the way of settlement by agreement, may it not
be feasible to attain peace in industry by the inter
vention of the state and the use of force to make
the rival parties compose their differences ami
cably?” but then concludes that “. . . with labor
in its present frame of mind, the use of coercion is
generally impracticable, and would be productive
of harm to the cause of peace. Coercion will be
feasible only when the law which it is to enforce is
accepted by the large proportion of the workers.”
For labor, Professor Blum says that the “task
of the trade union is far heavier than getting
favorable legislation through Congress or the state
legislatures. Its task is to convince liberal opinion,
both among industrial workers and outside the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
ranks of labor, not of the more generalized right of
labor organizations to existence, but of the peculiar
virtues of labor organizations as active and unique
agencies of the general welfare.”
In their observations on T he W o r k in g C la ss
M o v e m e n t i n A m e r ic a , Edward and Eleanor Marx
Aveling (daughter of Karl Marx) are a bit stronger
in their commitment to organization: “To reduce
the possibility of funerals, first-class and other
wise, to a minimum, it is clear that the workers
of America must organize.” They explain, “The
working men and the capitalists in the majority
of cases quite understand that each, as a class,
is the deadly and inexorable foe of the other . . .”
and “that the next years of the nineteenth cen
tury will be taken up chiefly by an internecine
struggle, that will end, as the capitalists hope,
in the subjugation of the working class; as the
working men know, in the abolition of all classes.”
Books in this collection give comprehensive
coverage of the specific areas where workers
organized to gain what they felt employers were
collectively denying them.
An excellent treatise on child labor by Edwin
Markham, Benjamin B. Lindsay, and George
Creel entitled C h ild re n i n B o n d a g e says there
is “a hideous squandering of energy in the un
uniformed unemployed armies of workers who
drift upon our streets, or crowd into our churches
crying for bread. With all these labor resources
to draw upon, what reason have we for wasting
the precious energy of the children, sucking
the marrow out of their bones, in the mills and
mines and fields and streets? A parent should no
more devour the health and strength of his child
than a hen should devour her own eggs. We let
the energies of grown men go to waste like water
in a sink-hole. We sweep the children into the labor
market, blasting their sacred energies, and blight
ing the generation that is to come. Could any social
situation be more illogical, more inhuman, more
insane”? But, they go on, “Child labor fighting,
to be sure, isn’t very spectacular. One cannot run
into a cotton mill, mine, or glass house and drag
the children out. One doesn’t save the doomed
children of the tenements by carrying them down
a ladder while a multitude cheers. The process of
rescue is through statutory enactments; and it
takes a lot of time and trouble to write laws upon
the books. Quite often the children themselves are
never seen, nor word of thanks ever heard.”
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
Florence Kelley had a strong interest in abolish
ing child labor and her book, S o m e E th ic a l G a in s
T h ro u g h L e g is la tio n , is part of the set. As general
secretary of the National Consumers’ League she
carried the responsibility of providing the public
with "Information on what articles on sale in
shop and store represent the lifeblood of little ones
and how to look for the League’s label so that
those purchases may be avoided which swell
the fortunes of employers deaf to pity and
humanity.”
The League was a powerful factor in forcing
enactment of laws to protect wage-earning women
from overwork, and worked hard to make the
statutes effective. Other groups were struggling
to gain wages for women equal to those received
by men. In W o m e n a n d the T ra d e s, Elizabeth
Beardsley Butler explains, "The social fact of
woman’s customary position in the household,
the position of a dependent who receives no wages
for her work, thus lies behind the economic fact
of her insufficient wage in the industrial field.
It is expected that she has men to support her.”
But as Carroll Wright points out in his T he
W o r k in g
G irls o f B o sto n ,
"The information
furnished by the working girls shows that the
wages earned by them constitute in many cases
the chief, and sometimes the entire support of the
family, the parents looking to the earnings of one,
two, three, and four daughters to pay the house
hold bills; the father often being reported not
able to work much or always, on account of
disability, from lack of steady work or possibly,
from disinclination to work while there is revenue
from any other source.”
A further interesting comment on the status of
women, written in 1913 by Edith Abbott in
W o m e n i n I n d u s tr y , should interest persons con
cerned with today’s women’s rights movement
“. . . attention may be called once more to the
fact that the ‘woman movement’ of the last
century belongs most exclusively to educated
women. So far as industrial employments are
concerned, they were considered especially suited
to women at a time when men did not regard
such work as profitable enough for themselves.
By prior right of occupation, and by the invitation
of early philanthropists and statesmen, the
working-woman holds a place of her own in this
field. In the days when the earliest factories were
calling for operatives the public moralist de
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
73
nounced her for ‘eating the bread of idleness’ if
she refused to obey the call. Now that there is
some fear lest profuse immigration may give us an
over-supply of labor, and that there may not be
work enough for the men, it is the public moralist
again who finds that her proper place is at home
and that the world of industry was created for
men. The woman of the working classes was
self-supporting more than three quarters of a
century ago, and even long before that she was
reproached for ‘eating the bread of idleness.’ The
efforts of the professional woman to realize a new
ideal of pecuniary independence, which have
taken her out of the home and into new and
varied occupations, belong to recent, if not
contemporary history. But this history, for her,
covers a social revolution, and the world she faces
is a new one. The woman of the working classes
finds it, so far as her measure of opportunity
goes, very much as her great grandmother left it.”
A quote from Samuel Gompers’ L a b o r a n d the
C o m m o n W e lfa r e sums up what this collection is
all about: “All we can do in our day is to keep on
and on, true to our fellows, consciously and con
fidently relying upon the future, unhampered by
prejudice and sordid avarice, to accord our pur
poses, efforts, and achievements in the interest
of humanity the place in history which they
justly deserve.”
Besides the texts referred to in this note, others
worthy of mention are McAlister Coleman’s
M e n a n d C o a l, a study of the mine workers and
their union history—"with the miners, whether
or not they belonged to the U.M.W. of A. the
influence of that organization upon the life and
fortune of every mine worker has been so pre
ponderant as to make its story the bulk of any
adequate chronicle of American coal mining.”
A book by Heber Blankenhorn, T h e S tr ik e f o r
U n io n , details the mine workers’ efforts in 1922
to organize mines in three Pennsylvania counties
and the reasons for their failure. C iv il W a r i n
W e s t V ir g in ia by Winthrop D. Lane chronicles
the history of the United Mine Workers’ efforts
to organize West Virginia’s coal fields. There is
also a study on T h e S te e l W o rk e r (John Andrew
Fitch), T he W o m e n ’s G a rm en t W o rk e rs (Louis
Lorwin) and a study by Samuel Yellen, A m e r ic a n
L a b o r S tru g g le s, of 10 “epic struggles in American labor
history, from the railroad strikes of 1877 to the
general strike in San Francisco in 1934.” Separate
74
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
studies of the K n ig h ts o f S t. C r is p in (Don D.
Lesochier) and the Molly Maguires (L a b o r D is tru b a n ces i n P e n n s y lv a n ia , 1 8 5 0 - 1 8 8 0 by Walter
J. Coleman) are included.
A book on the “new unionism” that developed
during the first decade following World War I
is in the set, as is John R. Commons’ I n d u s tr ia l
G o o d w ill. Another fine addition to the collection
is a grouping of speeches by Henry Demarest
Lloyd { M e n , the W o r k e r s ) which “presents his
record of an uncommonly dedicated crusader
who attached trustified wealth in defense of the
working man.”
Crystal Eastman’s extensive work, W o r k A c
c id e n ts a n d the L a w , on the investigation of work
accidents and employer liability is included, as
well as I. M. Rubinow’s S o c ia l In s u r a n c e , a study
which provided the foundation for the first
unemployment compensation laws.
Two “original editions” prepared by the editors
contain documents which reflect trends of thought
on labor topics during the 19th century and the
transformations as the movement progressed into
the 20th century. A third original volume is a
compilation of material that chronicles the history
of the Pullman Strike. These three books in
themselves do much to provide the feelings of
the times. Also useful in the series are the intro
ductory comments provided by the editors. More
frequent use of explanatory statements by the
editors at the beginning of each volume might
have helped connect and place each contribution
into overall perspective. An index to the collection
probably would have been helpful.
The volumes assembled here give a fairly com
plete picture of what the times were like and
should prove to be excellent source material for
scholar and student alike.
— B arbara V. F reund
Office of Publications
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Other recent publications
Economic development
Coats, A. W. and Ross M. Robertson, E s s a y s i n A m e r i c a n
E c o n o m i c H i s t o r y . New York, Barnes & Noble, Inc.,
1970, 307 pp. $12.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Davis, Chester A., A m e r i c a n S o c i e t y i n T r a n s i t i o n . New
York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970, 285 pp., bib
liography. $5.50.
Stern, Joseph J. and Walter P. Falcon,
G r o w th
and
Cambridge,
Mass., Harvard University, Center for International
Affairs, 1970, 94 pp. (Occasional Papers in Inter
national Affairs No. 23.) $2.75.
D e v e lo p m e n t
in
P a k ista n ,
1 9 5 5 -1 9 6 9 .
Education and training
Glass, Bentley,
The
r e la tio n s h ip s
T im e ly
o f S c ie n c e ,
and
th e
T im e le s s :
E d u c a tio n ,
and
The
In te r
New
S o c ie ty .
York, Basic Books, Inc., 1970, 99 pp. $4.95.
Morison, Robert S., “Some Aspects of Policy-Making in
the American University,” D a e d a l u s , American Acad
emy of Arts and Science, Summer 1970, pp. 609-644.
Odiorne, George S.,
A pproach
to
T r a in in g
B y
M anagem ent
O b je c tiv e s : A n
T r a in in g .
E c o n o m ic
New
York,
Macmillan Co., 1970, 354 pp. $10.95.
Stapleton, Robert N., “The Trainer in Community
Development: Adult Education in Three Different
Cultures,” T r a i n i n g a n d D e v e l o p m e n t J o u r n a l , June
1970, pp. 42-44.
Wasmuth, William J., “Workshop: A Dynamic Simulated
Training Program,” R e h a b i l i t a t i o n R e c o r d , U.S. Re
habilitation Services Administration, July and August
1970, pp. 12-16.
Employee benefits
Institute of Life Insurance, 1 9 7 0
New York, 1970, 128 pp.
L ife In su r a n c e F a ct B o o k.
Oswald, Rudolph and J. Douglas Smyth, “Fringe BeneA
fits—On the Move,” A m e r i c a n F e d e r a t i o n i s t , June
1970, pp. 18-23.
Health and safety
Berkowitz, Monroe and William G. Johnson, “Towards
an Economics of Disability: The Magnitude and
Structure of Transfer and Medical Costs,” T h e
Journal of H um an
R esources,
Summer 1970, pp.
271-297.
Cooper, Barbara S., “Medical Care Outlays for Aged and
Nonaged Persons, 1966-69,” S o c i a l S e c u r i t y B u l
l e t i n , July 1970, pp. 3-12.
Sobey, Francine,
The
N o n p r o fe s s io n a l
R e v o lu tio n
in
New York, Columbia University Press,
1970, 239 pp., bibliography. $10.
M e n ta l H e a lth .
75
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
Industrial relations
Harbison, Frederick H.,
F rom
A shby
Baer, Walter E., G r i e v a n c e H a n d l i n g : 1 0 1 G u i d e s f o r
S u p e r v i s o r s . New York, American Management Asso
ciation, Inc., 1970, 289 pp. $12.50.
Bilik, Al, “Toward Public Sector Equality: Extending
the Strike Privilege,” L a b o r L a w J o u r n a l , June 1970,
pp. 338-356.
Cook, Alice H., “Public Employee Bargaining in New
York City,” I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s : A J o u r n a l o f
E conom y
&
S o c i e t y , University of California, In
stitute of Industrial Relations, May 1970, pp. 249-267.
G r o w th
and
Derber, Milton,
R e fo rm
of
I n d u s tr ia l
U n io n s :
R e la tio n s .
Howard University, Institute for Youth Studies,
The
S to r y
o f th e
H ay-
A ffa ir .
New York, Macmillan Co., 1970,
120 pp., bibliography.
Labor force
Cassell, Frank H. and others, “Equal Employment
Opportunity: Comparative Community Experience—
A Symposium,” I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s : A J o u r n a l o f
E c o n o m y & S o c i e t y , University of California, Institute
of Industrial Relations, May 1970, pp. 277-355.
Dear, Edward P., “Computer Job Matching Now and
Tomorrow,” P e r s o n n e l , May-June 1970, pp. 57-63.
Gooding, Judson, “Blue-Collar Blues on the Assembly
Line;” F o r t u n e , July 1970.
E s tim a te s a n d P r o je c tio n s o f S p e c ia liz e d
Washington,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
1970, 50 pp. (International Population Reports,
Series P-91, No. 21.) 55 cents, Superintendent of
Documents, Washington.
M anpow er
in
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
th e
U .S .S .R .,
D is a d v a n ta g e d
in
H um an
N ew
S e r v ic e :
o f a S o c ia l E x p e r im e n t.
Washington, U.S.
Department of Labor, Manpower Administration,
1970, 269 pp.
R eport
Silberman, Charles G., “Negro Economic Gains— Impres
sive but Precarious,” F o r t u n e , July 1970.
m arket
Goodman, Ann S.,
th e
London, Faber and
Moskow, Michael H., J. Joseph Loewenberg, and Edward
Clifford Koziara, C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g i n P u b l i c
E m p lo y m e n t.
New York, Random House, Inc.
1970, 336 pp., bibliography.
V o ic e s :
fo r
Losman, Donald L., “The Nature of Appalachian Unem
ployment,” A p p a l a c h i a , April 1970, pp. 25-27.
Megginson, Leon C. and C. Ray Gullett, “A Predictive
Model of Union-Management Conflict,” P e r s o n n e l
J o u r n a l , June 1970, pp. 495-503.
S tra n g le d
E c o n o m y .)
T he T heory a n d
Faber, 1970, 317 pp. £3.50.
Werstein, Irving,
N ig e r ia n
Kirkland, Lane, "Labor in the Changing Community,”
A m e r i c a n F e d e r a t i o n i s t , June 1970, pp. 14-16.
Urbana, University of Illinois
1970, 553 pp. $9.50.
M anagem ent and
D e v e lo p m e n t o f th e
Press,
T h e A m e r ic a n Id e a o f In d u s tr ia l D em o cra cy,
1 8 6 5 -1 9 6 5 .
Flanders, Allan,
R e c o n s tr u c tio n :
N ig e r ia .
Howard, John C., T h e N e g r o i n t h e L u m b e r I n d u s t r y . Phila
delphia, University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School
of Finance and Commerce, Industrial Research Unit,
1970, 97 pp. (Racial Policies of American Industry,
Report 19.) $4.50, University of Pennsylvania Press,
Philadelphia.
C areers
Derber, Milton, C r o s s c u r r e n t s i n W o r k e r s P a r t i c i p a t i o n .
Urbana, University of Illinois, 1970, 14 pp. (Reprint
Series 14; from I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s , February 1970.)
to
Princeton, N.J.,
Inter-University Study of Labor Problems in
Economic Development, 1970, 17 pp. (Reprint from
M a n p o w e r a n d E d u c a tio n i n
1 9 5 0 -7 5 .
Tinbergen, J., “Trade Policy and Employment Growth,”
I n t e r n a t i o n a l L a b o r R e v i e w , May 1970, pp. 435-440.
U.S. Women’s Bureau,
B ackground
F a c ts
on
W om en
Washington,
Department of Labor, 1970, 20 pp.
W o rkers
in
th e
U n ite d
S ta te s .
U.S.
Utter, Carol, “BLS Establishment Employment Estimates
Revised to March 1969 Benchmark Levels,” E m p l o y
m e n t a n d E a r n i n g s , U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
June 1970, pp. 11-21.
Warriner, Doreen, “Problems of Rural-Urban Migration:
Some Suggestions for Investigation,” I n t e r n a t i o n a l
L a b o r R e v i e w , May 1970, pp. 441-451.
Labor organizations
Bain, George Sayers, T h e G r o w t h o f W h i t e - C o l l a r U n i o n i s m .
New York, Oxford University Press, 1970, 233 pp.
$9.
Curtin, Edward R., W h i t e - C o l l a r U n i o n i z a t i o n . New York,
National Industrial Conference Board, 1970, 70 pp.
(Personnel Policy Study No. 220.)
Stanley, David T., “What Are Unions Doing To Merit
Systems,” P u b l i c P e r s o n n e l R e v i e w , April 1970, pp.
108-113.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
A m e r ic a n
A
B r ie f
H is to r y
L a b o r M o v e m e n t, 1 $ 7 0 E d itio n .
e
o f th e
Washington,
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
76
1970, 143 pp. (Bulletin 1000.) $1, Superintendent
of Documents, Washington.
Personnel management
Fulmer, Robert M. and J. M. Hood, “Computerized
Human Relations,” P e r so n n e l J o u r n a l, June 1970,
pp. 513-516, 525.
Janson, Robert, “Job Enrichment: Challenge of the 70’s,”
T r a in in g a n d D evelo p m en t J o u r n a l, June 1970, pp.
7-9.
Johnson, David B. and James L. Stern, “Blue Collar
Workers: A Recruitment Source for White Collar
Openings,” P e r so n n e l J o u r n a l, June 1970, pp. 471-477.
Siegel, Saul M. and Nick J. Colarelli, “ ‘Consulting’
Supervision— How it Works and What it Does,”
P erso n n el, May-June 1970, pp. 52-56.
Yoder, Dale, P e r so n n e l M a n a g em e n t a n d I n d u s tr ia l R e la
tio n s. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1970, 784 pp. 6th ed. $10.95.
Prices and consumption economics
Houthakker, H. S. and
Lester D. Taylor, C on su m er
D e m a n d in the U n ite d S ta tes: A n a ly s e s a n d P ro je c tio n s
Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1970,
321 pp. 2d ed. $10.
National Economic Committee (Temporary), In v e s tig a
tio n o f C o n cen tra tio n o f E co n o m ic P o w er: H ea rin g s
B efo re the T e m p o ra r y N a tio n a l E co n o m ic C om m ittee —
P a r t 8 , P ro b lem s o f the C o n su m er. New York, Arno
Press, 1969, pp. 3283-3491. $10.
Stigler, George J., and James K. Kindahl, T he B eh a vio r o f
I n d u s tr ia l P r ic e s . New York, National Bureau of
Economic Research, 1970, 202 pp. (General Series,
90.) $7.50, Columbia University Press, New York.
Preston, Paul, “A Business Role in the Metropolitan
Challenge?” B u s in e s s a n d S o c iety , Roosevelt Uni
versity, Spring 1970, pp. 16-19.
Smith, Wallace F., H o u sin g : T h e S o c ia l a n d E con om ic
E lem en ts. Berkeley, University of California Press,
1970, 511 pp. $12.95.
Toynbee, Arnold, C itie s on the M o v e . New York, Oxford
University Press, 1970, 257 pp. $6.75.
Wilson, James Q., editor,
T he M e tr o p o lita n E n ig m a :
I n q u ir ie s in to the N a tu r e a n d D im e n sio n s o f A m e r ic a ’s
“ U rb a n C r is is .” Garden City, N.Y., Anchor Books,
1970, 426 pp. $1.95.
Wages and hours
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, A r e a W a g e S u rv e y : The
N e w a r k a n d J e r s e y C ity , N . J ., M e tr o p o lita n A re a ,
J a n u a r y 1 9 7 0 . Washington, 1970, 42 pp. (Bulletin
1660-47.) 50 cents, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington. Other recent bulletins in this series
include the metropolitan areas of Burlington, Yt.
(Bulletin 1660-53); Albuquerque, N. Mex. (Bulletin
1660-55); Birmingham, Ala.; Detroit, Mich.; Norfolk-Portsmouth and Newport News-Hampton, Va.;
Pittsburgh, Pa.; Charlotte, N.C.; South Bend, Ind.;
York, Pa. (Bulletins 1660-57 through 1660-63.)
Various pagings and prices.
Rapawy, Stephen, W a g es in the U .S .S .R ., 1 9 5 0 - 6 8 : T ra d e .
Washington, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970, 45 pp.
(International Population Reports, Series P-95, No.
67.)
Rosow, Jerome M., “Government Pay Trends,” C onference
B o a rd R ecord, July 1970, pp. 15-22.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, I n d u s tr y W a g e S u rv e y :
C o m m u n ica tio n s, 1 9 6 8 . Washington, 1970, 14 pp.
(Bulletin 1662.) 30 cents, Superintendent of Docu
ments, Washington.
Social security
Railroad Retirement Board, “Beneficiaries Under the
Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act in 1968-69,”
R R B Q u a rte r ly R e view , January-March 1970, pp.
15-25.
Tacker, Herbert R., “Household Employment Under
OASDHI, 1951-66,” S o c ia l S e c u r ity B u lle tin , June
1970, pp. 10-17.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, I n d u s tr y W a g e S u rv e y :
W o o d H o u seh o ld F u r n itu re , E x c e p t U ph o lstered , October
1 9 6 8 . Washington, 1970, 52 pp. (Bulletin 1651.) 60
cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington.
Miscellaneous
Urban affairs
Alexander, Albert, T h e C hallen ge o f E co n o m ics: A G u id e fo r
the P e rp le x e d . New York, Pitman Publishing Corp.,
1970, 227 pp., bibliography. $6.50.
Banz, George, E lem e n ts o f U rb a n F orm . New York,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970, 199 pp., bibliography.
$16.50.
American Economic Association, “Papers and Proceedings
of the Eighty-Second Annual Meeting of the American
Economic Association, New York, December 28-30,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4*
77
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
1969, ”
1-529.
A m e r ic a n
E c o n o m ic
R e v ie w ,
May 1970, pp.
Friedman, Milton, and Anna Jacobson Schwartz,
S ta tis tic s
of
th e
U n ite d
S ta te s :
M o n e ta r y
E s tim a te s ,
Sources,
New York, National Bureau of Economic
Research, 1970, 629 pp. $15, Columbia University
Press, New York.
M e th o d s .
Arrow, Kenneth J. and Mordecai Kurz,
P u b lic I n v e s tm e n t,
Balti
more, Johns Hopkins Press (for Resources for the
Future, Inc.), 1970, 218 pp., bibliography. $9.
T h e R a te o f R e tu r n , a n d
O p tim a l F is c a l P o lic y .
Gill, Richard T.,
Beck, Robert H., and others,
E urope:
E c o n o m ic ,
The
S o c ia l,
C h a n g in g
and
S tr u c tu r e
P o litic a l
of
T rends.
Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1970,
286 pp. $9.50.
Benarde, Melvin A., O u r P r e c a r i o u s H a b i t a t . New York,
W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1970, 362 pp., bibliography.
$6.95.
Boehme, Lillian R., C a r t e B l a n c h e f o r C h a o s . New Rochelle,
N.Y., Arlington House, 1970, 238 pp. $7.
E c o n o m ic s
and
th e
P r iv a te
In te r e s t:
A n
Pacific Palisades,
Calif., Goodyear Publishing Co., 1970, 276 pp. $6.95,
cloth; $4.95, paper.
In tr o d u c tio n
to
Gronau, Reuben,
M ic r o e c o n o m ic s .
T h e V a lu e
o f T im e
in
P assenger
T rans
New York,
National Bureau of Economic Research, 1970, 74 pp.,
bibliography. (Occasional Paper 109.) $4, Columbia
University Press, New York.
p o r ta tio n :
The
D em and
Gutterman, Stanley S.,
c h o lo g ic a l S t u d y
fo r
A ir
T r a v e l.
T h e M a c h ia v e llia n s : A
o f M o r a l C h a r a te r a n d
S o c ia l P s y
O r g a n iz a tio n a l
Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 1970,
178 pp., bibliography. $9.50.
M ilie u .
Browne, Harry,
H ow
You
Can
P r o fit
fr o m
th e
C o m in g
New Rochelle, N.Y ., Arlington House,
1970, 189 pp., bibliography. $5.95.
D e v a lu a tio n .
Brundage, Percival F., T h e B u r e a u o f t h e B u d g e t . New
York, Praeger Publishers, 1970, 327 pp., bibliography.
$
10 .
Canada Department of Labor, Legislation Branch, L a b o r
S t a n d a r d s i n C a n a d a , D e c e m b e r 1 9 6 9 . Ottawa, 1970,
98 pp. 75 cents, Queen’s Printer, Ottawa.
Hacker, Andrew, T h e E n d o f t h e A m e r i c a n
Atheneum, 1970, 239 pp. $6.50.
E ra.
New York,
Haveman, Robert H. and Julius Margolis, editors, P u b l i c
E x p e n d i t u r e s a n d P o l i c y A n a l y s i s . Chicago, Markham
Publishing Co., 1970, 596 pp. $9.50, cloth; $6.50,
paper.
Higbee, Edward,
A
Q u e s tio n
o f P r io r itie s :
N ew
S tr a te g ie s
New York, William Morrow
and Co., Inc., 1970, 214 pp. $6.
fo r O u r U r b a n iz e d W o rld .
Chandler, Lester V., A m e r i c a ’s G r e a t e s t D e p r e s s i o n , 1 9 2 9 4 1 . New York, Harper & Row, Publishers, 1970,
260 pp., bibliography. $6.95, cloth; $4.95, paper.
Claiborne, Robert, C l i m a t e , M a n , a n d H i s t o r y . New York,
W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1970, 444 pp., bibliography.
$8.95.
Karrass, Chester L., T h e N e g o t i a t i n g G a m e . New York,
World Publishing Co., 1970, 243 pp. $6.95.
Kindleberger, Charles P.,
ic s
of
In te r n a tio n a l
Cole, Rosanne,
E rrors
in
P r o v is io n a l
E s tim a te s
o f G ross
New York, National Bureau of
Economic Research, 1970, 109 pp. (Studies in Busi
ness Cycles 21.) $6, Columbia University Press, New
York.
N a tio n a l
P ow er a nd M o n ey: T he E conom
In te r n a tio n a l
P o litic s
E c o n o m ic s .
and
th e
P o litic s
of
New York, Basic Books
Inc., 1970, 246 pp. $6.95.
P r o d u c t.
De Greene, Kenyon B., editor, S y s t e m s P s y c h o l o g y . New
York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970, 593 pp. $18.50.
Drucker, Peter, T e c h n o l o g y , M a n a g e m e n t a n d S o c i e t y . New
York, Harper & Row, Publishers, 1970, 209 pp. $5.95.
King-Hele, Desmond, T h e E n d o f t h e T w e n t i e t h C e n t u r y ?
New York, St Martin’s Press, 1970, 206 pp., bibliog
raphy. $5.95.
Kriesberg, Louis, M o t h e r s i n P o v e r t y : A S t u d y o f F a t h e r l e s s
F a m ilie s .
Chicago, Aldine Publishing Co., 1970,
356 pp. $9.75.
Lloyd, T. O.,
Dubos, René, R e a s o n A w a k e : S c i e n c e f o r M a n . New York,
Columbia University Press, 1970, 280 pp., bibliog
raphy, $6.95.
1 9 0 6 -6 7 .
E m p ir e
to
W e lfa re
P oso
del
M undo:
In sid e
th e
M e x ic a n -
T i j u a n a t o M a t a m o r o s . Boston,
Mass., Little, Brown and Co., 1970, 244 pp. $5.95.
A m e r ic a n B o rd e r, F ro m
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
E n g lis h
H is to r y ,
465 pp.
Meyer, Richard Hennig,
Demaris, Ovid,
S ta te :
New York, Oxford University Press, 1970,
B a n k e r s ’ D ip lo m a c y :
M o n e ta r y
New York, Columbia
University Press, 1970, 170 pp., bibliography.
(Columbia Studies in Economics 4.) $8.
S ta b iliz a tio n
in
th e
T w e n tie s .
78
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
Miller, James R., I ll,
P ro ced u re
fo r
P r o fe s s io n a l
E v a lu a tin g
D e c isio n -M a k in g :
C o m p le x
A
New
A lte r n a tiv e s .
York, Praeger Publishers, 1970, 305 pp. $12.50.
Myrdal, Gunnar,
T h e C h a lle n g e o f W o r ld
A n ti- P o v e r ty P r o g r a m i n O u tlin e .
P o v e r ty : A
W o rld
New York, Pantheon
Books, 1970, 518 pp. $8.95.
Reddin, William J., M a n a g e r i a l E f f e c t i v e n e s s . New York,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970, 352 pp., bibliography.
$9.95.
Servin, Manuel P., T h e M e x i c a n - A m e r i c a n s : A n A w a k e n i n g
M i n o r i t y . Beverly Hills, Calif., Glencoe Press, 1970,
235 pp. $2.25, paper.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Sharpe, William F., P o r t f o l i o T h e o r y a n d C a p i t a l M a r k e t s .
New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970, 316 pp.,
bibliography. $12.95.
Skolnick, Jerome H. and Elliott Currie, editors, C r i s i s i n
A m e r i c a n I n s t i t u t i o n s . Boston, Little, Brown and Co.,
1970, 483 pp. $4.95.
Will, Robert E. and Harold G. Vatter, editors,
in
A fflu e n c e :
The
S o c ia l,
P o litic a l,
and
P o v e r ty
E c o n o m ic D i
o f P o v e r t y i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . New York,
Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1970, 243 pp. 2d ed.
$3.50.
m e n s io n s
Williams, C. Glyn, L a b o r E c o n o m i c s . New York, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1970, 489 pp.
Current
Labor
Statistics
Employment and unemployment—household data
«r
1.
Employment status of noninstitutional population, 1947 to date................................................................
2.
Employment status, by color, sex, and age, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages.............................
3.
4.
Full- and part-time status of civilian labor force............................................................................................
Employment and unemployment, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted, quarterly d ata..........................
5.
Employment totals, by occupation, with unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages
6.
Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment......................................................................................
7.
Unemployment rates, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted........................................................ ................
8.
Unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted.............................................................................................
9.
Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted...........................................................................................
10.
Unemployment insurance and employment services....................................................................................
80
80
81
81
82
82
83
84
84
85
Nonagricultural employment—payroll data
11.
Employment by industry, 1947 to date............................................................................................................
86
12.
Employment by State..........................................................................................................................................
86
13. Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group.............................................................
14. Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted................ ........
87
88
Labor turnover rates
15.
Labor turnover in manufacturing, 1959 to date.............................................................................................
16.
Labor turnover in manufacturing, by major industry group.........................................................................
89
90
Hours and earnings—private nonagricultural payrolls
91
92
93
94
95
96
17. Hours and earnings, by industry division. 1947 to date...............................................................................
18. Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group..........................................................
19. Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted......................
20.
Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group......................................................
21.
Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group.....................................................
22. Spendable weekly earnings in current and 1957-59 d o lla rs ........................................................................
Prices
96
97
103
104
106
107
108
108
23. Consumer and Wholesale Price Indexes, 1949 to date.................................................................................
24. Consumer Price Index, general summary and selected item s.....................................................................
25. Consumer Price Index, selected areas.............................................................................................................
26. Wholesale Price Index, by group and subgroup of com m odities..................................................................
27.
Wholesale Price Index, for special commodity groupings............................................................................
28.
29.
Wholesale Price Index, by stage of processing............................................ ..................................................
Wholesale Price Index, by durability of product............................................................................................
30.
Industry-sector price index for output of selected industries......................................................................
Labor-management disputes
31.
110
Work stoppages and tim e lo st...........................................................................................................................
Productivity
Indexes of output per man-hour, hourly compensation, and unit labor costs...........................................
111
Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series..........................................
111
32.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
79
80
1.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, 1947 to date
[In thousands]
Total labor force
Year
Total non
institutional
population
Civilian labor force
Employed
Number
Unemployed
Total
Percent of
population
Total
Agriculture
Nonagricultural
industries
Number
Not in
labor force
Percent of
labor
force
1947........ ............................... ........... .
1948__________________________
103,418
104,527
60,941
62,080
58.9
59.4
59,350
60,621
57,039
58,344
7,891
7,629
49,148
50,713
2,311
2,276
3.9
3.8
42,477
42,447
1949________ __________________
1950_____ _____ _____ _________
1951________ ____________ _____
1952_________ _____ ___________
1953.......................................... ...........
105,611
106,645
107,721
108,823
110,601
62,903
63,858
65,117
65,730
66, 560
59.6
59.9
60.4
60.4
60.2
61,286
62,208
62,017
62,138
63,015
57,649
58,920
59,962
60,254
61,181
7,656
7,160
6,726
6,501
6,261
49,990
51,760
53,239
53,753
54,922
3,637
3,288
2,055
1,883
1,834
5.9
5.3
3.3
3.0
2.9
42,708
42,787
42,604
43,093
44,041
1954_______ ____________ _____ _
1955........ ..................................
1956______ _______________ ____
1957__________________________
1958__________________________
111,671
112,732
113,811
115,065
116,363
66,993
68,072
69,409
69,729
70,275
60.0
60.4
61.0
60.6
60.4
63,643
65,023
66,552
66,929
67,639
60,110
62,171
63,802
64,071
63,036
6,206
6,449
6,283
5,947
5,586
53,903
55,724
57,517
58,123
57,450
3,532
2,852
2,750
2,859
4,602
5.5
4.4
4.1
4.3
6.8
44,678
44,660
44,402
45,336
46,088
1959._____ ______________ _____
1960_____ _____________________
1961__________________________
1962__________________________
1963__________________________
117,881
119,759
121,343
122,981
125,154
70,921
72,142
73,031
73,442
74,571
60.2
60.2
60.2
59.7
59.6
68,369
69,628
70,459
70,614
71,833
64,630
65,778
65,746
66,702
67,762
5,565
5,458
5,200
4,944
4,687
59,065
60,318
60, 546
61,759
63,076
3. 740
3,852
4,714
3,911
4,070
5.5
5.5
6.7
5.5
5.7
46,960
47,617
48,312
49, 539
50, 583
1964__________________________
1965_____ _____ _______________
1966__________________________
1967____________ ______________
1968__________________________
1969___________________________
127,224
129,236
131,180
133,319
135,562
137,841
75,830
77,178
78,893
80, 793
82,272
84, 239
59.6
59.7
60.1
60.6
60.7
61.1
73,091
74,455
75,770
77,347
78,737
80,733
69,305
71,088
72,895
74,372
75,920
77,902
4,523
4,361
3,979
3,844
3,817
3,606
64,782
66,726
68,915
70,527
72,103
74, 296
3,786
3,366
2,875
2,975
2,817
2,831
5.2
4.5
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.5
51,394
52,058
52,288
52,527
53,291
53, 602
2.
Employment status, by color, sex and age, seasonally adjusted,1 quarterly averages
[In thousands]
1970
Characteristic
2d
1969
1st
4th
3d
1968
2d
1st
4th
3d
1967
2d
1st
4th
3d
Annual average
2d
1969
1968
W H IT E
Civilian labor fores _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Men, 20 years and over________
Women, 20 years and over_______
Both sexes, 16-19 years_______
73,263 73,316 72,475 71,942 71,466 71,285 70,392 70,045 69,851 69,587 69,440 68, 944 68,210
42,463 42,245 41,956 41,842 41,639 41,656 41,423 41,373 41,235 41,230 41,175 40, 972 40, 673
24,378 24,513 24,156 23,949 23,684 23, 566 23,122 22,843 22,741 22,565 22,632 22,276 21,775
6,422 6, 558 6,363 6,151 6,143 6,036 5,847 5,829 5, 875 5,792 5,633 5,696 5,762
71,778
41,772
23,838
6,168
69,975
41,317
22, 820
5,838
Employed .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............
Men, 20 years and over________
Women, 20 years and over_____
Both sexes, 16-19 years..........................
70, 059 70, 527 70, 096 69, 575 69,260 69,135 68, 267 67, 804 67,617 67,311 67,032 66,576 65,888
41,131 41,180 41,091 40,995 40,871 40,926 40,677 40, 553 40, 405 40,376 40, 300 40,101 39,772
23, 347 23,587 23,327 23,120 22,891 22, 794 22, 372 22, 066 21,987 21,777 21, 766 21,416 20,963
5, 581 5,760 5,678 5,460 5,498 5,415 5,218 5,185 5,225 5,158 4,966 5,059 5,153
69,518
40,978
23,032
5, 508
67,750
40, 503
22,052
5,195
Unem ployed............ . .........
Men, 20 years and over. ______
Women, 20 years and over_____
Both sexes, 16-19 years_____ _________
3,204
1,332
1,032
841
2,789
1,065
926
798
2,379
865
829
685
2, 367
847
829
691
2,206
768
793
645
2,150
730
772
648
2,125
746
750
629
2,241
820
777
644
2,234
830
754
650
2,276
854
788
634
2,408
875
866
667
2,368
871
860
637
2,322
901
812
609
2,260
794
806
660
2,225
814
768
643
4.4
3,1
4.2
13.1
3.8
2.5
3.8
12.2
3.3
2.1
3.4
10.8
3.3
2.0
3.5
11.2
3.1
1.8
3.3
10.5
3.0
1.8
3.3
10.7
3.0
1.8
3.2
10.8
3.2
2.0
3.4
11.0
3.2
2.0
3.3
11.1
3.3
2.1
3.5
10.9
3.5
2.1
3.8
11.8
3.4
2.1
3.9
11.2
3.4
2.2
3.7
10.6
3.1
1.9
3.4
10.7
3.2
2.0
3.4
11.0
9,226
4,706
3,688
832
9,224
4,700
3, 682
842
9,056
4,622
3,616
818
8,979
4,593
3,595
791
8,867
4,549
3,535
783
8,914
4, 554
3,550
810
8,737
4,513
3,468
756
8,700
4,517
3,414
769
8,828
4,562
3,467
799
8,762
4,543
3,433
786
8,733
4,496
3,444
793
8,632
4, 507
3,348
777
8,632
4,505
3,347
780
8,954
4,579
3,574
801
8,759
4,535
3,446
778
Employed _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
8,447
Men, 20 years and over_______________ 4,434
Women, 20 years and over____________ 3,416
Both sexes, 16-19 years ______________
597
8, 598
4,498
3,468
632
8,500
4,445
3,429
626
8,394
4,416
3,372
606
8,271
4,382
3,307
582
8,371
4,397
3,352
622
8,164
4,335
3,264
565
8,132
4,349
3,205
578
8,233
4,388
3,246
599
8,147
4,351
3,200
596
8,073
4,305
3,191
577
8,006
4,328
3,112
566
7,986
4,303
3,115
568
8,384
4,410
3,365
609
8,169
4,356
3,229
584
Unemployment rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Men, 20 years and over_____________
Women, 20 years and over....... .
Both sexes, 16-19 years_______ _____
N E G R O AN D O TH E R
Civilian labor force ........ ....................
Men, 20 years and over________
Women, 20 years and over_____
Both sexes, 16-19 years.............................
Unemployed_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Men, 20 years and over_________ ____ _
Women, 20 years and over____________
Both sexes, 16-19 years _ ..........
779
272
272
235
626
201
215
210
556
177
187
192
585
177
223
185
596
167
228
201
543
157
198
188
573
178
204
191
568
168
209
191
595
174
221
200
615
192
233
190
660
191
253
216
626
179
236
211
646
202
232
212
570
169
209
192
590
179
217
194
Unemployment rate _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Men, 20 years and over. ______
Women, 20 years and over.................... .
Both sexes, 16-19 years_____________ .
8.4
5.8
7.4
28.2
6.8
4.3
5.8
24.9
6.1
3.8
5.2
23.5
6.5
3.9
6.2
23.4
6.7
3.7
6.4
25.7
6.1
3.4
5.6
23.2
6.6
3.9
5.9
25. 3-
6.5
3.7
6.1
24.8
6.7
3.8
6.4
25.0
7.0
4.2
6.8
24.2
7.6
4.2
7.3
27.2
7.3
4.0
7.0
27.2
7.5
4.5
6.9
27.2
6.4
3.7
5.8
24.0
6.7
3.9
6.3
24.9
1 These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 1969.
For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings.
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
3.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
81
Full- and part-time status of the civilian labor force
[In thousands—not seasonally adjusted]
1969
1970
Annual average
Employment status
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
1969
74,884
73,555
69,383
69,255
69,116
69,018
68,869
69,204
69,296
69,491
70,350
73,713
73,514
69,700
68,332
68, 044
66,779
64,413
64,166
64,108
63,997
64,155
65, 302
65,517
65, 594
66,206
68,854
68,471
65, 503
64,225
3,088
2,831
2,128
2,301
2,139
2,117
2,135
1,998
1,916
1,955
2,069
2,607
2,456
2,055
1,970
3,753
50
3,945
5.4
2,842
4.1
2,787
4.0
2,869
4.2
2,904
4.2
2,579
3.7
1,904
2.8
1,864
2.7
1,942
2.8
2,075
2.9
2,251
3.1
2,587
3.5
2,142
3.1
2,138
3.1
Civilian labor force............... ..........
9,917
10,496
12,358
12,706
12, 574
12,266
11,850
12,212
12,131
12,019
10,634
8,803
9,283
11,032
10,405
Employed (voluntary parttime)................................... .
9,159
9,772
11,816
11,940
11,711
11,375
11,023
11,488
11,284
11,122
9,751
8,185
8,688
10,343
9,726
757
7.6
724
6.9
542
4.4
765
6.0
863
6.9
890
7.3
827
7.0
724
5.9
847
7.0
898
7.5
883
8.3
618
7.0
594
6.4
689
6.2
679
6.5
1968
FULL TIME
Civilian labor force...... ..............
Employed:
Full-time schedules*.........
Part-time for economic
reasons........................ .
Unemployed, looking for fulltime work...........................
Unemployment rate...................
PART TIME
Unemployed, looking for parttime w ork...............................
Unemployment rate_________
• Employed persons with a job but not at work are distributed proportionately among the full- and part-time employed categories.
4.
Employment and unemployment, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted 1
[In thousands]
1969
1970
Annual average
Employment status
Nov.
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
85,304
85,783
86,143
86,087
85,590
85,599
85, 023
84,872
82,125
78,225
3,554
74,671
3,900
82,555
78, 449
3,613
74, 836
4,106
82,872
78, 924
3, 586
75,338
3,948
82,769
79,112
3, 550
75, 562
3,657
82,249
78, 822
3, 499
75,323
3,427
82,213
79, 041
3,426
75,615
3,172
81,583
78, 737
3,435
75,302
2,846
81,379
78, 528
3,434
75, 094
2,851
June
Total laborforce... ............. . . . . . . . . . .
85,967
Civilian labor force_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Employed____ ____ _____
Agriculture___________
Nonagriculture________
Unemployed............... .........
82,813
78,638
3, 519
75,119
4,175
M EN 20 Y EA R S AN D O VER
Total laborforce....... . ............ . . .
Jan.
Dec.
May
July
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
1969
85,051
84,868
84, 517
84,310
84, 239
82,272
81,523
78,445
3,446
74,999
3,078
81,325
78,194
3,498
74, 696
3,131
80,987
78,142
3,614
74, 528
2,845
80, 789
77,931
3,561
74,370
2,858
80, 733
77, 902
3,606
74,296
2, 831
78,737
75,920
3,817
72,103
2,817
1968
TO TAL
50, 024
49,906
50, 020
50, 032
49,920
49,707
49,736
49,534
49,544
49, 642
49, 642
49,488
49,405
49,406
48,834
Civilian labor f o r c e .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47, 294
Employed_________ ____ 45, 524
Agriculture............ ......... 2, 593
Nonagriculture....... ......... 42,931
1,770
Unemployed____________
47,154
45,521
2,603
42,918
1,633
47, 226
45, 593
2,625
42, 968
1,633
47,199
45,667
2,602
43, 065
1,532
47,060
45,709
2, 537
43,172
1,351
46, 836
45, 534
2,479
43, 055
1,302
46,826
45,674
2,473
43, 201
1,152
46, 578
45,553
2,499
43, 054
1,025
46, 531
45,533
2,482
43, 051
998
46, 599
45,511
2,575
42, 936
1,088
46, 586
45,465
2,593
42,872
1,121
46,443
45,485
2,670
42,815
958
46,338
45,335
2, 646
42, 689
1,003
46, 351
45,388
2,636
42, 752
963
45,852
44,859
2,816
42, 043
993
W O M E N , 20 YE A R S A N D O VER
Civilian lab o rfo rce......................
28, 500
28, 026
27,885
28,274
28,295
28, 066
28, 073
27,875
27,671
27,767
27,634
27,664
27, 524
27,413
26,266
Employed______________
Agriculture......................
Nonagriculture________
Unemployed.............. .......
27,073
545
26, 528
1,427
26,772
573
26,199
1,254
26,476
567
25, 909
1,409
27,022
571
26,451
1,252
27,016
583
26,433
1,279
26,925
630
26,295
1,114
27, 060
586
26,474
1,013
26,897
585
26,312
978
26, 663
555
26,108
1,008
26,699
554
26,145
1,068
26, 543
535
26, 008
1,091
26 626
582
26, 044
1,038
26,512
547
25,965
1,012
26,397
593
25,804
1,015
25,281
606
24,675
985
7,019
6,945
7,444
7,399
7,414
7,347
7,314
7,130
7,177
7,157
7,105
6,880
6,927
6,970
6,618
6,041
381
5,660
978
5,932
378
5,554
1,013
6,380
421
5,959
1,064
6,235
413
5,822
1,164
6, 387
430
5,957
1,027
6,363
390
5,973
984
6,307
367
5,940
1,007
6,287
351
5,936
843
6,332
397
5,935
845
6,235
317
5,918
922
6,186
370
5,816
919
6, 031
362
5,669
849
6, 084
368
5,716
843
6,117
377
5, 739
853
5,780
394
5,385
839
B O T H SEX ES, 16-19 Y E A R S
Civilian labor force__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Employed..................... .......
Agriculture_____ _____
Nonagriculture________
Unemployed____________
1
These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 1969.
For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
399-873 0 - 7 0 - 6
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings.
82
5.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Employment totals, by occupation, with unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted,1 quarterly averages
A n n u a l av erag e
1967
1968
1969
1970
Characteristic
2d
1st
4th
3d
2d
2d
3d
4th
1st
1st
4th
3d
2d
1969
1968
78,533 78,992 78.570 78,090 77,550 77,418 76,409 76,017 75,898 75,392 75,121 74,630 73,911
77,902
75,921
37,981 37,938 37,509 36,923 36,677 36,264 35,906 35,732 35,419 35,140 34,888 34,456 33,943
Professional and technical---------------------- 11,129 11,026 10,936 10,764 10,740 10,638 10,473 10,392 10,295 10,142 10,067 9,952 9,761
Managers, officials, and
proprietors............................................... 8,290 8,215 8,141 7,970 7,993 7,841 7,897 7,827 7,661 7,716 7,633 7,630 7,453
13,748 13, 906 13,655 13,478 13,281 13,171 12,876 12,823 12,816 12,694 12,624 12,343 12,250
4,815 4,791 4,777 4,711 4,663 4,614 4,660 4,690 4,647 4,588 4, 564 4, 531 4,479
Sales workers.....................................—
36,845
10,769
35,551
10,325
7,987
13,397
4,692
7,776
12,803
4,647
27,343 27,175
______________ 27,663 28,236 28,389 28,425 27,931 28,202 27,774 27,491 27,513 27,297 27,279
Craftsmen and foremen
___________ 10,109 10, 264 10,265 10,174 10,044 10,298 10,147 9,972 10,003 9,936 9,827 9,790 9,853
Operatives.................................................. 13,891 14,168 14,412 14,589 14,208 14,264 14,051 13,911 13,956 13,896 13,918 13,999 13,787
Nonfarm laborers.................................. . 3,663 3,804 3,712 3,662 3,679 3,640 3,576 3,608 3,554 3,465 3,534 3,554 3,535
28,237
10,193
14,372
3,672
27,525
10,015
13,95b
3, 555
E M P L O Y M E N T (in thousands)
W h ite - c e lla r w o rk e rs
B lu e -c o lla r w o rk e rs
9,589
Service workers................................................
Farmworkers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3,234
9,673
3,153
4.8
Unemployment rate
4.1
9,589
3,089
3.6
9,493
3,231
3.6
9,467
9,558
9,411
9,385
9,395
9,337
9,330
9,277
9,276
9,528
9,381
3,417
3,438
3,346
3,400
3,507
3,649
3,654
3,556
3,448
3,292
3,464
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.5
3.6
2.0
1 .2
2.2
1.3
2.2
1.3
2.0
1 .4
2 .1
1.3
2.0
1.2
3.5
3.4
3.4
White-collar workers...................................... .
Professional and technical..........................
Managers, officials, and
proprietors...............................................
_________________
Clerical workers
Sales workers.............................................
2.8
1.9
2.4
1.9
2.2
1.5
2.2
1.4
2.0
1.3
2.0
1 .1
1.9
1.2
2.0
1.3
2.0
1 .2
1.3
4.0
4.0
1.0
3.3
3.2
.9
3.2
2.8
1.0
3.2
3.0
.9
2.8
2 .9
.9
2.9
2.9
1.0
2.8
2.8
1 .1
2.9
2.6
.9
3.0
2.7
.9
3.1
3 .0
1.0
3.4
3.2
.9
3.3
3.6
.9
2.8
2.9
.9
3.0
2.9
1.0
3.0
2.8
Blue-collar workers
................... . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Craftsmen and foremen............................ Operatives...................................................
Nonfarm laborers........................................
6.0
3.9
6.6
9.4
4.9
2.6
5.7
7.9
4.3
2.2
5.0
6.9
4.0
2.2
4 .4
7.2
3.8
2 .1
4.3
6.5
3.7
2 .1
4.1
6.4
3.8
2.2
4.3
6.7
4 .2
2 .4
4.5
7.4
4 .0
2.4
4.3
7.0
4 .4
2.5
4.8
7.7
4.5
2.5
5.1
7.8
4.5
2.3
5.1
7.6
4.6
2.8
5.0
8.0
3.9
2.2
4 .4
6.7
4.1
2 .4
4.5
7.2
....... ...... . . . . . . . . . . .........
5.0
4.7
3.9
4.5
4 .4
4.0
4.3
4.5
4.6
4.3
4.9
4.5
4 .2
4.2
4.5
2.4
2.3
1.9
2.3
2.4
2.4
1.9
2.1
Serviceworkers
F a rm w o rk e r*
2.5
_______ _______ __________
2.1
1 .8
2.2
1.9
i These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 1969.
For a discussion of a seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally
6.
1.6
1.6
adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings.
Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment
[In thousands—not seasonally adjusted]
Total, 16 years and over.
Lost last job...............
Left last job...............
Reentered labor force.
Never worked before.
Male, 20 years and over..
Lost last job.................
Left last job.................
Reentered labor force..
Never worked before..
Annual average
1969
1970
Roason for unemployment,
ago, and sex
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct
Sept.
Aug.
July
1969
4,510
4,669
3,384
3,552
3,733
3,794
3,406
2,628
2,710
2,839
2,958
2,869
3,182
2,831
2,817
894
507
997
471
979
459
1,010
1,070
431
909
407
1968
1,778
635
1,342
756
1,598
565
1,567
939
1,658
447
944
333
1,669
507
1,001
375
1,797
441
1,143
351
1,787
473
1,158
377
1,595
485
999
328
1,133
378
825
292
939
421
1,011
339
882
451
1,093
414
823
586
1,105
445
734
1,017
436
965
413
1,667
1,584
1,403
1,498
1,606
1,678
1,456
1,052
909
906
914
888
945
963
993
1,013
230
368
56
911
206
413
55
942
170
251
40
988
214
261
34
1,059
200
312
35
1,144
185
310
39
997
197
230
32
693
150
188
20
524
141
226
18
458
141
267
40
440
209
235
30
469
192
200
24
534
170
195
46
556
164
216
27
599
167
205
1,015
985
22
Female, 20 years and over.......
1,391
1,302
1,205
1,171
1,264
1,238
1,086
840
994
1,097
1,202
1,119
987
Lost last job...............
Left last job...............
Reentered labor force.
Never worked before.
574
256
500
62
540
192
473
97
562
174
435
34
497
188
439
47
542
156
530
36
451
200
529
58
418
177
437
54
303
138
354
46
309
183
457
45
314
209
501
72
288
237
596
81
310
196
549
64
307
184
434
62
335
171
455
55
341
167
422
55
1,451
1,783
776
883
863
878
864
736
807
836
842
865
1,250
853
839
191
149
474
638
147
167
682
786
155
103
259
259
184
104
301
293
196
85
302
280
192
88
319
280
180
111
331
241
137
90
283
226
106
97
328
276
110
101
324
301
95
140
274
334
115
119
248
383
138
105
380
627
126
101
294
331
130
97
281
330
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years.
Lost last job...............
Left last job........ .......
Reentered labor force.
Never worked before.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
7.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
83
Unemployment rates, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted 1
1970
1969
Age and sex
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Annual average
Sept.
Aug.
July
1969
1968
TO T A L
16 years and over_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
5.0
4.7
5.0
4.8
4.4
4.2
3.9
3.5
3.5
3.8
3.8
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.6
16 to 19 years...... ..............
16 and 17 years_____
18 and 19 years. . . . .
13.9
15.2
13.2
14.6
16.0
13.3
14.3
15.6
13.8
15.7
18.7
13.8
13.9
15.7
12.4
13.4
16.3
11.7
13.8
17.2
11.8
11.8
13.7
12.2
10.6
14.6
10.3
14 5
10.5
1? 7
14 7
10.2
12.3
15.8
9.8
12.2
14.3
9.2
12.9
16.1
11.6
12.9
16.5
10.4
20 to 24 years.....................
25 years and over............ .
25 to 54 years..............
55 years and over........
8 .6
7.4
3.2
3.3
3.0
8.1
7.7
3.1
3.2
6.8
7.3
6.1
5.8
3.0
3.1
2.7
2 .6
2.4
2.5
5.8
2 .2
2.3
2.1
6.5
2.4
2.5
5.4
2.3
2.3
2J5
5 8
3
2 3
2 .0
2.1
1.9
5.8
2.3
2.3
5. 7
2 .2
6.4
2.4
2.4
2.3
2 .2
2 .0
2 .0
2 .0
2 .2
3.5
3.7
2.9
3.3
3.4
3.3
2 .8
2.7
2.4
2 2
11.2
2
M ALE
16 years and over_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4.5
4.3
4.4
4.2
3.6
3.6
3.3
2.9
2.9
3.1
3.2
16 to 19 years__________
16 and 17 years_____
18 and 19 years_____
14.1
15.2
13.6
14.8
16.6
13.2
15.0
16.4
14.6
15.2
17.2
13.9
12.5
14.6
13.0
15.4
12.6
11.0
11.8
14.9
11.0
10.8
13.1
9.3
12. 0
10.8
11.7
13.7
8.9
14.4
9.6
15.0
9.4
11.3
15. 5
7.8
20 to 24 years___ _______
25 years and over_______
25 to 54 years_______
55 years and over____
9.1
3.0
3.0
7.2
2.9
2.9
7.7
2.9
7.9
2 .2
2.1
6.3
1.9
4. 5
1 7
5 3
1. 7
2 .6
6.4
2.4
2.3
6.4
2 .6
2 .8
2.8
3.1
2 .8
2.8
2.4
1 .8
2 .2
2 .0
1 6
2 .0
1 7
2 .8
1 .8
6.9
6.1
2 .0
5.5
2 .0
1.7
2.1
2 .2
1.8
5.3
1.7
1.4
1.9
1.8
2 .8
2.9
11.8
14 4
9.7
1.9
2 .8
11 4
13 7
9.3
5 1
l’7
16
1.9
2.9
fi
13 9
9.6
11
5 1
1 8
1’ 7
2 .1
FEM A LE
16 years and over_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
5.9
5.5
5.9
5.7
5.7
5.1
4.8
4.5
4.5
4.9
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.7
4.8
16 to 19 years.....................
16 and 17 years...........
18 and 19 years...........
13.7
15.1
12.7
14.3
15.3
13.4
13.4
14.6
12.9
16.4
13.9
17.3
12.7
15.2
20.3
12.4
12.8
11.9
15.0
9.6
14.2
19.2
11.3
14.2
17.7
13.6
16.2
12.7
14.8
13.3
15.5
14.0
15.9
13.7
15.6
17.0
14.3
12.0
12.0
11.0
11.8
12.8
20 to 24 years................... .
25 years and over_______
25 to 54 years_______
55 years and over........
8.1
7.7
3.8
4.1
3.2
8.7
4.2
4.3
3.6
7.5
3.8
4.2
2.7
7.2
4.0
4.4
2.5
7.6
3.3
3.6
2.3
6 .2
6.1
3.0
3.3
1.9
6.5
3.4
3.6
2.5
6 .6
3.0
3.3
1.7
6.5
3.1
3.4
6.3
3.3
3.6
6.3
3.2
3.5
2.3
6.3
3.2
3.5
6.7
3.2
3.4
2.3
4.5
4.8
3.1
20.6
1 These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 1969.
For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
14.7
11.2
2 .0
3.4
3.7
2.5
2.1
adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings.
2 .2
84
8.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted 1
[In percent]
Annual average
1969
1970
Selected categories
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
1969
1968
Total (all civilian workers)........ .
Men, 20 years and over___
Women, 20 years and over.
Both sexes,16-19 years...
White.. ______________
Negro and other_________
Married men___________
Full-time workers_______
Unemployed 15 weeks and
5.0
3.7
5.0
13.9
4.7
8.3
2.7
4.6
4.7
3.5
4.5
14.6
4.2
8.7
2.5
4.3
.8
5.0
3.5
5.1
14.3
4.6
8.0
2.6
4.7
.7
4.8
3.2
4.4
15.7
4.3
8.7
2.4
4.4
.7
4.4
2.9
4.5
13.9
4.1
7.1
2.2
4.0
.7
4.2
2.8
4.1
13.4
3.8
7.0
2.0
3.7
3.9
2.5
3.6
13.8
3.6
6.3
1.8
3.4
.5
3.5
2.2
3.5
11.8
3.2
5.7
1.7
3.2
.5
3.5
2.1
3.6
11.8
3.2
6.2
1. 5
3.1
.5
3.8
2.3
3.8
12.9
3. b
6.6
1.6
3.1
.4
3.8
2.4
3.9
12.9
3. b
6.7
1.7
3.3
.5
3.5
2.1
3.8
12.3
3.2
6.4
1. 5
3.1
.5
3.5
2.2
3.7
12.2
3.2
6. 5
1.6
3.1
.5
3.5
2.1
3.7
12.2
3.1
6.4
1. 5
3.1
.5
3.6
2.2
3.8
12.7
3.2
6.7
1.6
3.1
.5
State insured 3__________
Labor force time lost4.........
3.5
5.4
3.7
4.9
3.6
5.4
3.1
5.1
2.7
4.8
2.7
4.5
2.5
4.2
2.4
3.9
2.4
4.0
2.2
4.3
2.2
4.3
2.1
4.0
2.2
4.0
2.1
3.9
2.2
4.0
White-collar workers......................
Professional and managerial............................. .
Clerical workers....... ..........
Sales workers................. .
3.1
2.6
2.8
2.9
2.7
2.3
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.2
4.4
4.0
1.5
4.0
3.4
1.7
3.9
4.4
1.7
4.0
4.1
1.8
3.6
3.5
1.4
3.2
3.4
1.3
3.1
2.8
1. 5
2.8
2.6
1.1
3.5
2.2
1.3
3.4
3.5
1.3
3.2
2.8
1.2
3.2
2.9
1.2
3.2
3.2
1.2
3.0
2.9
1.1
3.0
2.8
Blue-collar workers____________
Craftsmen and foremen___
Operatives_____________
Nonfarm laborers...............
6.6
4.4
7.2
9.9
6.3
4.0
6.8
10.4
6.2
4.2
6.7
9.1
5.7
3.5
6.3
8.8
5.2
3.1
6.2
7.4
5.0
2.5
6.0
7.7
4.6
2.3
5.1
8.5
4.3
2.3
5.0
7.4
4.2
2.1
4.9
6.9
4.2
2.4
4.9
6.5
4.4
2.6
4.7
7.6
3.8
2.1
4.2
6.8
3.8
1.9
4.2
7.1
3.9
2.2
4. 5
6.7
4.1
2.4
4.4
7.2
Service workers..............................
5.3
5.0
4.9
5.0
4.9
4.8
4.5
3.6
4.0
4.2
4.8
4.5
4.3
4.2
4.5
5.6
11.0
6.0
5.9
6.2
5.2
10.9
5.3
5.1
5.6
5.2
11.9
5.2
4.9
5.7
4.8
8.1
4.7
4.9
4.5
4.6
8.1
4.7
4.8
4.6
4.3
7.9
4.6
4.7
4.4
3.9
7.1
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.6
6.0
3.8
3.7
3.9
3.6
5.4
3.7
3.6
3.9
3.8
7.3
3.6
3.2
4.2
3.9
7.4
3.7
3.2
4.3
3.5
7.0
2.9
2.3
3.7
3.5
5.9
3.2
3.1
3.3
3.5
6. 0
3.3
3.0
3.7
3. 6
6.9
3.3
3.0
3.7
3.3
5.3
3.3
5.4
3.3
5.1
3.9
3.1
4.7
2.4
4.7
2.9
4.3
2.4
3.9
2.4
3.9
2.9
4.2
2.0
4.5
2.0
4.3
2.0
4.1
2.2
4.1
2.0
4.0
4.0
3.2
3.1
2.7
3.2
3.1
3.4
3.4
3.6
3.2
3.4
O C C U PATIO N
IN D U STR Y
Nonagricultural private wage
and salary workers5-----------Construction........................
Manufacturing _________
Durable goods________
Nondurable goods......... .
Transportation and public
utilities_____________
Wholesale and retail trade.
Finance and service industries........... ........... —
4.8
4.1
4.2
5.5
3.9
Government wage and salary
workers.................. ..............
2.0
1.9
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.2
2.0
2.1
2.4
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.8
Agricultural wage and salary
workers................ .............
8.6
5.5
9.3
5.9
6.4
5.8
6.2
6. 5
5.2
6.3
6. 5
6.5
8.9
6.1
6. 3
a Insured unemployment under State programs as a percent of average covered
employment.
* Man-hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons
as a percent of potentially available labor force man-hours.
3 Includes mining, not shown separately.
•These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 1969.
For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally
adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings.
1 Unemployment rate calculated as a percent of civilian labor force.
9.
Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted 1
[In thousands]
Annual average
1969
1970
Period
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
1969
Less than 5 weeks___________
5 to 14 weeks...... .........................
15 weeks and over___ — ...........
15 to 26 weeks____ ________
27 weeks and over........... .......
2,061
1,334
711
470
241
1,961
1,303
685
450
235
2,219
1,214
612
352
260
2,295
1,075
569
372
197
1,995
1,154
545
363
182
1,973
1,016
465
306
159
1,756
914
409
276
133
1,515
893
392
272
120
1,558
912
389
249
140
1,882
882
363
233
130
1,756
995
392
240
152
1,646
854
385
250
135
1,656
824
400
233
167
1,629
827
375
242
133
15 weeks and over as a percent
of civilian labor force...............
Average (mean) duration, in
weeks.........................................
.9
.8
.7
.7
.7
.6
.5
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.5
.5
9.3
9.5
9.0
8.2
8.4
8.1
7.8
8.1
8.0
7.3
7.9
7.8
8.2
8.0
8. 5
• These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 1969.
For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings.
1968
1,594
810
412
256
156
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
10.
85
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Unemployment insurance and employment service operations 1
[All items except average benefits amounts are in thousands!
1970
1969
Item
May
June
Employment service:2
New applications for work________
Nontarm placements_____________
Mar.
Apr.
854
339
857
352
Feb.
Jan.
765
295
828
328
Dec.
950
326
Nov.
658
311
Oct.
711
372
Sept.
762
463
Aug.
801
503
July
750
471
874
469
June
1,237
512
May
850
437
State unemployment insurance programs:
Initial claims34_________________
1,169
1,529
1,333
1,078
1,363
1,118
1,010
866
745
655
731
1,105
710
613
Insured unemployment3 (average
1,770
1,375
weekly volume)®______________
1,583
1,798
1,874
1,847
1,030
1,667
864
840
943
1,021
852
906
Rate of insured unemployment7____
3.4
3.6
3.0
3.5
2.7
2.0
3.2
3.6
1.6
1.8
1.6
2.0
1.7
1.8
Weeks of unemployment compen
6,418
sated_______________________
6,080
6,743
6,956
6, 517
4,692
6,142
3,054
3,156
3,104
3, 496
3,626
3,123
3,519
Average weekly benefit amount for
total unemployment____________
$49. 51 $49. 30 $49. 00 $48. 93 $49.11 $48.49 $47.42 $46. 47 $46. 25 $45. 70 $46.16 $45. 30 $44. 88 $45.14
Total benefits paid______________ $291,707 $292,854 $320,224 $331, 067 $310, 800 $299, 352 $214,260 $136, 585 $139, 536 $136,182 $156,707 $159,161 $135,004 $152,966
Unemployment compensation for ex-servicemen:3»
Initial claims3®______ __________
47
Insured unemployment® (average
weekly volume________________
73
Weeks of unemployment compen
303
sated_______ . .
________
$15, 299
Total benefits paid_____________
Unemployment compensation for Federal civilian
employees: »10
Initial claims3__________________
Insured unemployment® (average
weekly volume)_______________
Weeks of unemployment compen
sated_______________________
Total benefits paid______________
Railroad unemployment insurance:
Applications » __________________
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume)_______ ____ --
38
47
42
38
44
39
30
29
26
27
32
26
20
70
70
69
66
61
48
38
32
32
37
36
30
29
280
294
244
242
289
13,972 $14, 564 $14,200 $12, 028 $11,957
193
$9, 517
126
$6, 240
127
$6, 256
133
$6, 514
148
$7,156
143
$6,946
114
$5,511
122
$5,847
15
10
13
11
11
15
12
13
11
10
8
11
10
8
27
26
27
29
30
28
24
22
18
17
18
19
18
17
107
$5, 378
107
$5, 323
118
$5,824
128
$6,192
109
$5, 239
110
$5,194
101
$4,748
75
$3, 465
76
$3, 494
74
$3,163
77
$3,497
78
$3, 597
69
$3,155
73
$3,318
12
4
8
9
4
9
5
5
10
6
7
17
11
11
11
15
16
19
18
21
17
14
15
13
13
13
10
18
Number of payments42___________
Average amount of benefit payment 13.
Total benefits paid 14_____________
26
$91.89
$2, 253
30
$84.87
$2,439
43
$81. 50
$3, 565
42
$92. 00
$3, 668
38
$96. 76
$3,374
47
$94.78
$4, 091
35
$96. 02
$3,241
28
$96. 28
$2, 513
36
$89.31
$2,918
28
$93.64
$2,478
28
$94.12
$2,375
26
$91.74
$2,113
25
$90. 69
$2,043
39
$75.65
$2,804
All programs: 13
Insured unemployment®__________
1,696
1,778
1,885
1,916
1,987
1,957
1,464
1,105
929
902
1,015
1,088
911
970
1Includes data for Puerto Rico.
Includes Guam and the Virgin Islands.
3 Initial claims are notices filed by workers to indicate they are starting periods of
unemployment. Excludes transition claims under State programs.
4 Includes interstate claims for the Virgin Islands.
3 Number of workers reporting the completion of at least 1 week of unemployment.
®Initial claims and State insured unemployment include data under the program
for Puerto Rican sugarcane workers.
7The rate is the number of insured unemployed expressed as a percent of the average
covered employment in a 12-month period.
s Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with other programs.
»Includesthe Virgin Islands.
10 Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with State programs.
2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
n An application for benefits is filed by a railroad worker at the beginning of his first
period of unemployment in a benefit year; no application is required for subsequent
periods in the same year.
i2 Payments are for unemployment in 14-day registration periods.
«The average amount is an average for all compensable periods, not adjusted for
recovery of overpayments or settlement of underpayments,
ii Adjusted for recovery of overpayments and settlement of underpayments,
is Represents an unduplicated count of insured unemployment under the State,
Ex-servicemen and UCFE programs and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act.
Includes claims filed under Extended Duration (ED) provisions of regular State laws.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Manpower Management Data Systems
for all items except railroad unemployment insurance which is prepared by the U.S.
Railroad Retirement Board. Data for latest month are subject to revision.
86
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
PAYROLL DATA
11.
Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division, 1947 to date1
[In thousands]
Year
TOTAL
Mining
Contract
const ruc■ tion
Manufac
turing
Transpor
tation and
public
utilities
Wholesale and retail trade
Total
Retail
trade
Services
Government
Total
Federal
State
and local
1947..........
1948............
1949______
1950______
43,881
44, 891
43,778
45,222
955
994
930
901
1,982
2,169
2,165
2,333
15,545
15,582
14,441
15,241
4,166
4,189
4,001
4, 034
8,955
9,272
9,264
9,386
2,361
2,489
2,487
2,518
6,595
6,783
6,778
6,868
1,754
1,829
1,857
1,919
5,050
5,206
5,264
5,382
5,474
5,650
5,856
6,026
1,892
1,863
1,908
1,928
3,582
3,787
3,948
4,098
1951............
1952............
1953............
1954..........
1955............
47,849
48, 825
50,232
49, 022
50,675
929
898
866
791
792
2,603
2,634
2,623
2,612
2,802
16, 393
16,632
17, 549
16,314
16, 882
4,226
4,248
4, 290
4, 084
4,141
9,742
10,004
10,247
10,235
10, 535
2,606
2,687
2,727
2,739
2,796
7,136
7,317
7,520
7,496
7,740
1,991
2,069
2,146
2,234
2,335
5,576
5,730
5,867
6,002
6,274
6,389
6,609
6,645
6,751
6,914
2,302
2,420
2,305
2,188
2,187
4,087
4,188
4,340
4,563
4,727
1956...........
1957...........
1958............
1959 2.........
1960............
52.408
52, 894
51,363
53,313
54,234
822
828
751
732
712
2,999
2,923
2,778
2,960
2,885
17,243
17,174
15,945
16,675
16,796
4,244
4,241
3,976
4,011
4,004
10,858
10, 886
10,750
11,127
11,391
2,884
2,893
2,848
2,946
3,004
7,974
7,992
7,902
8,182
8,388
2,429
2,477
2,519
2,594
2,669
6,536
6,749
6,806
7,130
7,423
7,277
7,616
7,839
8,083
8,353
2,209
2,217
2,191
2,233
2,270
5,069
5,399
5,648
5,850
6,083
1961............
1962______
1963______
1964______
1965............
54,042
55, 596
56,702
58,331
60,815
672
650
635
634
632
2,816
2,902
2,963
3,050
3,186
16,326
16, 853
16,995
17,274
18, 062
3,903
3,906
3,903
3,951
4, 036
11,337
11, 566
11,778
12,160
12,716
2,993
3,056
3,104
3,189
3,312
8,344
8, 511
8,675
8,971
9,404
2,731
2,800
2,877
2,957
3,023
7,664
8,028
8,325
8,709
9,087
8, 594
8,890
9,225
9, 596
10, 074
2,279
2,340
2,358
2,348
2,378
6,315
6,550
6,868
7,248
7,696
1966...........
1967............
1968...........
1969______
63,955
65, 857
67,915
70,274
627
613
606
619
3,275
3,208
3,285
3,437
19,214
19, 447
19,781
20,169
4,151
4,261
4,310
4,431
13,245
13,606
14, 084
14,645
3,437
3, 525
3,611
3,738
9,808
10,081
10,473
10,907
3,100
3,225
3,382
3,557
9,551
10, 099
10,623
11,211
10,792
11,398
11,845
12,204
2,564
2,719
2,737
2,758
8,227
8,679
9,109
9,446
1The industry series have been adjusted to March 1969 benchmarks (comprehensive
counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues
prior to July 1970. For comparable back data, see Employment and Earnings, United
States, 1909—70 (BLS Bulletin 1312-7) to be released this fall.
These series are based upon establishment reports which cover all full- and part-time
employees in nonagricultural establishments who worked during, or received pay for
any part of the pay period which includes the 12th of the month. Therefore, persons who
12.
Wholesale
trade
Finance,
insurance,
and real
estate
worked in more than one establishment during the reporting period are counted more
than once. Proprietors, self-employed persons, unpaid family workers, and domestic
servants are excluded.
2 Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning 1959. This inclusion has resulted in an
increase of 212,000 (0.4 percent) in the nonagricultural total for the March 1959 bench
mark month.
Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by State
[In thousands]
State
June 1970 »
May 1970
June 1969
State
June 1970 j>
May 1970
June 1969
Alabama.......................
Alaska________ _____
Arizona...................... .
Arkansas____________
California....... .............. .
1,010.0
95.8
542.1
537.0
7, 052.6
1, 002.3
90.1
546.7
532.4
6,990.9
1,010.3
92.6
510.2
539.8
6,966.8
Montana................... .......
Nebraska....................... .
Nevada..............................
New Hampshire...............
New Jersey_____ _____
204.1
487.0
200.3
266.7
2, 641.9
198.1
482.4
195.9
256.0
2,615.6
203.2
478.1
191.9
267.2
2,628. 8
Colorado.......................
Connecticut.................. .
Delaware........................
District of Columbia___
Florida............... ...........
733.2
1,206.5
214.6
702.4
2,146.1
723.9
1,199.3
211.6
686.1
2,147.2
716.7
1,212.8
211.9
694.6
2, 070.4
New M exico....................
New York____________
North C a ro lin a ...............
North Dakota_________
Ohio..................................
294.2
7, 316.1
1,749.0
163.4
3,952.8
290.3
7, 257.6
1,741.2
161.1
3,907.2
289.8
7, 290.9
1,739.4
160.5
3, 942.4
Georgia...........................
Hawaii______________
Idaho........... ..................
Illinois............................
Indiana..........................
1, 536.5
292.3
208.3
4, 381.0
1,866.1
1,527.2
284.2
203.3
4, 325. 5
1, 859.8
1, 523.6
279.3
200.3
4,414.9
1, 897.1
Oklahoma.........................
Oregon_______ _______
Pennsylvania....... ...........
Rhode Island_________
South Carolina.................
767.6
715.6
4,416.5
338.8
813.6
761.6
696.6
4, 375.2
332.3
815.6
762.4
723.3
4, 444.7
347.7
817.3
Iowa...............................
Kansas...........................
Kentucky___ ________
Louisiana______ _____
Maine........... ...............
894.1
678.2
907.9
1, 044.3
338.9
884.2
676.9
909.4
1,039.4
327.8
892.0
689.0
907.8
1,056.7
340.4
South Dakota..................
Tennessee...................... ..
Texas___ _____ ______
Utah_________________
Vermont........................ .
179.2
1,318.1
3, 741.2
360.4
149.9
175.2
1,318.5
3,723. 5
359.9
144.8
175.5
1,323.9
3,636.6
351.7
146.6
Maryland...................... .
Massachusetts...............
Michigan........................
Minnesota...... .............. .
Mississippi...................
Missouri.........................
1,316.6
2,280.6
3, 019.4
1,315.5
574.4
1, 652.6
1, 303.3
2,255. 0
3, 023.2
1, 304. 5
578.2
1,645.5
1,294.2
2, 272. 5
3, 088.1
1, 322.1
570.6
1,671.7
Virginia......... ................. ..
Washington___________
West V irg in ia ..................
Wisconsin............... ..........
Wyoming. .........................
1,466. 0
1,105.5
517.4
1, 544.1
113.6
1,451.5
1, 098.7
511.1
1, 526.6
107.6
1,450.7
1,149.3
520.5
1,539.8
115.3
= preliminary.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SOURCE: State agencies in cooperation with U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics. More detailed industry data are available from the State agencies.
For addresses, see inside back cover of Employment and Earnings.
PAYROLL DATA
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
13.
87
Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group 1
[In thousands]
Annual average
1969
1970
Industry division and group
TOTAL.........................................
July *
June »
May
Apr.
70,486
71,378
70,780
70,758
Mar.
70,460
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
1969
1968
70,029
69,933
71,760
71,354
71,333
70,964
70,758
70,481
70,274
67,915
MINING.......................................
634
634
620
616
610
608
611
623
622
623
630
638
635
619
606
CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION........
3, 569
3,506
3,344
3,286
3,161
3,071
3,048
3,398
3,553
3,648
3,687
3,731
3,707
3,437
3,285
MANUFACTURING.................... .
Production workersJ. . . . .
19,296
13,948
19,622
14,253
19,432
14,061
19,627
14,240
19,794
14,385
19,770
14,346
19,824
14,402
20,110
14,680
20,194
14,763
20,395
14,953
20,482
15,041
20,497
15,014
20,164
14,700
20,169
14,768
19,781
14,514
Durable goods........................
Production workers*...
11,137
7,989
11,399
8,229
11,352
8,164
11,488
8,282
11,607
8,379
11,573
8,327
11,623
8,377
11,802
8,556
11,832
8,580
12,008
8,744
12,030
8,767
11,992
8,701
11,889
8,612
11,893
8,648
11,626
8,457
Ordnance and accessories..
Lumber and wood products.
Furniture and fixtures.........
Stone, clay, and glass
products........ .................
242.8
584.1
441.5
250.0
605.9
452.7
254.1
579.2
451.4
260.1
574.5
462.9
271.0
578.6
468.6
277.6
579.2
470.3
282.8
583.8
475.6
291.3
597.0
482.2
297.1
600.1
485.2
298.3
604.4
488.1
305.8
616.7
486.8
313.9
629.3
488.4
322.1
627.5
476.2
318.8
609.2
483.5
338.0
600.1
471.6
643.6
649.9
638.0
639.8
635.1
632.9
632.0
650.9
661.9
664.7
669.0
674.0
670.9
656.3
635.5
Primary metal industries... 1.318.5 1.329.0 1.319.4 1,329.5 1.338.1
Fabricated metal products.. 1.381.6 1.401.1 1.385.6 1,402. 5 1.416.1
Machinery, except
electrical.......................... 1.976.4 1.998.8 2.006.4 2, 040. 4 2,058.3
Electrical equipment_____ 1,902.0 1.930.9 1.932.5 1.959.1 1.983.2
Transportation equipment.. 1.776.5 1,890.0 1.897.2 1.928.9 1,963. 4
Instruments and related
471.3
465.5
469.1
465.0
459.6
products..........................
Miscellaneous
manufacturing.................
Nondurable goods..................
Production workers*...
410.7
8,159
5,959
Food and kindred products. 1.828.7
Tobacco manufactures........
72.1
Textile mill products.........
949.3
Apparel and other textile
products........ .............. . 1,344.2
425.6
8,223
6,024
422.4
8,080
5,897
421.3
8,139
5,958
423.0
8,178
6.006
1,346.6 1,351.4 1.367.6 1.364.7 1,364. 0 1.373.9 1,375.5 1,374.3 1.358.0 1,315.5
1.421.1 1.433.1 1.456.6 1.456.7 1.454.6 1.459.6 1.449.2 1.428.9 1.442.1 1.390.4
2, 055.9 2, 044. 6 2.043.2 2,028.6 2, 036. 0 2.032.9 2.022.2 2.032.1 2, 027. 7 1,965.9
1.995.2 1.928.2 1,948. 9 1.955.4 2, 069.7 2, 057.4 2, 049.0 2,022. 7 2,013.0 1.974.5
1,901.1 1,999. 4 2, 042. 9 2, 049. 2 2, 088. 2 2, 096. 5 2, 056. 0 2, 022.9 2, 067.1 2, 038. 6
471.3
472.6
477.7
476.9
476.2
476.8
482.1
477.4
476.5
461.9
421.4
419.0
443.7
456.4
463.4
454.9
452.0
433.7
440.2
433.4
8,197
6,019
8,201
6,025
8,308
6,124
8,362
6,183
8,387
6,209
8,452
6,274
8,505
6,313
8,275
6,088
8,277
6,120
8,155
6, 056
1,793.4 1.736.7 1.722.2 1,735.6 1,739.9 1.744.3 1.790.7 1.831.7 1,862.0 1.928.8 1,941.9 1,832.6 1,795.9 1.781.5
84.6
82.0
71.9
93.0
97.6
94.5
87.1
84.0
79.9
77.4
73.8
71.4
70.8
71.4
993.9
992.0
998.7
997.2 1,000.1
994.8
997.6
995.3
987.6
979.9
977.3
974.6
967.2
970.4
1.400.7
1,372.4 1,382.4 1.402.8 1.404.0 1,388.8 1,407.6 1,417.6 1.423.0 1,421.4 1.427.1 1.369.2 1.412.3 1.405.8
691.2
712.1
715.7
722.6
718.0
716.4
720.4
722.7
716.0
714.2
714.9
714.2
707.8
Paper and allied products..
720.7
709.7
Printing and publishing----- 1.098.6 1.103.7 1.102.3 1.109.9 1.112.3 1.110.0 1.107.7 1.116.2 1.113.4 1.107.7 1, 098. 5 1,098. 0 1,092.5 1.093.3 1,065.1
Chemicals and allied
products.......... ............... 1.064.6 1.064.9 1.058.3 1.063.8 1.064.1 1,060. 8 1,058. 5 1,062.1 1,059.9 1, 058.1 1.063.9 1,076. 5 1,076.1 1.060.7 1.029.9
Petroleum and coal
186.8
182.9
195.3
195.0
191.8
191.9
191.0
188.9
188.0
188.4
189.7
190.4
191.9
196.8
197.4
products.........................
Rubber and plastics
561.3
593.9
588.8
599.4
599.0
600.5
601.6
599.6
593.4
588.2
585.0
569.0
580.8
543.2
566.4
products, nee...... ............
Leather and leather
355.2
345.1
351.0
341.2
338.2
336.1
341.2
341.3
336.7
334.6
331.6
329.1
329.2
334.5
325.3
products.........................
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC
UTILITIES.................................
4,561
4,547
4,469
4,432
4,443
4,420
4,435
4,478
4,486
4,481
4,508
4,510
4,507
4,431
4,310
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE. 14,913
15.009
14,878
14,818
14,700
14,606
14,707
15,638
15,092
14,850
14,714
14,670
14,663
14,645
14,084
3,878
11,131
3,813
11,065
3,803
11,015
3,797
10,903
3,788
10,818
3,797
10,910
3,841
11,797
3,816
11,276
3,801
11,049
3,781
10,933
3,796
10,874
3,787
10,876
3,738
10,907
3,611
10,473
Wholesale trade....... ............ .
Retail trade............................
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND
REAL ESTATE..........................
3,886
11,027
3,738
3,701
3,670
3,658
3,639
3,615
3,604
3,608
3,597
3,589
3,595
3,641
3,628
3,557
3,382
SERVICES....................................
Hotels and other lodging
places........ ..................
Personal services________
Medical and other health
services_____ ________
Educational services_____
11,668
11,700
11,641
11,564
11,433
11,357
11,254
11,351
11,349
11,372
11,300
11,372
11,384
11,211
10,623
GOVERNMENT....... ................. .
12,107
12,659
Federal .................................
State and Local............ ........
2,707
9,400
2,710
9,949
722.2
750.3
856.5
852.3
764.8
738.4
714.5
713.3
709.6
717.5
727.3
745.3
759.6
788.3
1,012.6 1.009.8 1.006.2 1.006.2 1.003.0 1,005.1 1, 022. 0 1.025.4 1.028.0 1, 022.1 1, 023.8 1.036.9 1.025.8 1,031.4
3, 088.9 3,043.2 3.033.9 3, 019.4 3, 000. 7 2.979.8 2,961.4 2,950.0 2.927.8 2,907. 8 2.905.1 2.903.3 2, 868. 8 2,638. 6
974.7 1.116.9 1,067.3
958.4
1.105.7 1,190.7 1,197.8 1.197.8 1.196.1 1,163.6 1,179.9 1.184.5 1,164. 3 1.061.6
12,72
2,765
9,961
12, 757
12, 680
12, 582
12,450
12, 554
12,461
12,375
12, 048
11,699
11,793
12,204
11,845
2, 838
9,919
2,758
9,922
2,694
9, 888
2,690
9,760
2,760
9, 794
2,705
9,756
2,717
9,658
2,733
9,315
2,804
8, 895
2,842
8,951
2,758
9,446
2,737
9,109
1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, and
coverage of these series, see footnote 1, table 11.
2 Production workers include working foremen and all nonsupervisory workers
(including leadmen and trainees) engaged in fabricating, processing, assembling,
inspection, receiving, storage, handling, packing, warehousing, shipping, maintenance,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
repair, janitorial, and watchman services, product development, auxiliary production
for plant's own use (e.g., powerplant), and recordkeeping and other services closely
associated with the above production operations.
v
= preliminary.
88
14.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
PAYROLL DATA
Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted 1
[In thousands]
1970
1969
Industry division and group
July
v
June
v
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
70,400
T O T A L ............................................ ......... ..........
70,455
70, 598
70,852
71,163
71,256
71,135
70,992
70,842
70,808
70,836
70,567
70,497
M IN IN G ..................... ............ ................. ...........
617
619
620
622
626
626
625
627
624
622
623
621
618
C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T IO N ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3,311
3,326
3,351
3,426
3,481
3,466
3,394
3,496
3,473
3,445
3,436
3,420
3,439
M A N U F A C T U R IN G _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Production workers2...................................... . .
19,400
14,100
19,473
14,135
19, 572
14,180
19,795
14, 389
19,944
14, 512
19,937
14,489
20, 018
14, 573
20, 082
14,638
20, 082
14,638
20,233
14,794
20,252
14, 826
20,246
14, 826
20,247
14,839
Durable goods_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
Production workers2_________________
Ordnance and accessories_________________
Lumber and wood products.................... ..........
Furniture and fixtures........... ...........................Stone, clay, and glass products____ ________
11,226
8,099
243
565
449
628
11,295
8,136
250
584
452
636
11,386
8,186
256
582
456
638
11,529
8,318
261
585
468
644
11,648
8,409
271
593
471
651
11,625
8, 367
277
598
472
657
11,679
8, 425
281
605
477
653
11,773
8, 516
290
606
478
659
11,782
8, 522
296
603
479
659
11,965
8,703
298
601
483
658
11,968
8,713
306
606
483
657
11,950
8, 698
316
607
484
655
11,955
8,706
322
608
484
655
Primary metal industries...................... ..........
Fabricated metal products-------- ------------------Machinery, except electrical— ............... ........
Electrical equipment........................................
Transportation equipment__________________
Instruments and related products__________
1,303
1,398
1,976
1,923
1,863
460
1,303
1,389
1,983
1,935
1,877
463
1,309
1,394
2,004
1,956
1,897
468
1,323
1,411
2, 032
1,979
1,925
471
1,337
1,425
2,046
1,995
1,950
472
1,349
1,428
2,048
1,993
1,890
472
1,360
1,436
2,043
1,922
1,988
474
1,380
1,447
2, 051
1,930
2, 009
476
1,384
1,444
2, 043
1,934
2, 028
476
1,386
1,445
2,050
2,051
2, 078
476
1,381
1,452
2,041
2, 049
2, 078
477
1,367
1,451
2,028
2, 043
2, 081
479
1,358
1,446
2,032
2,045
2,086
478
Miscellaneous manufacturing.............................
418
423
426
430
437
441
440
447
436
439
438
439
441
Nondurable goods..... . ......... ........... . . . . ..........
Production workers2. ...................
.. _
Food and kindred products...............................
Tobacco manufactures.---------------- ---------------Textile mill products..........................................
Apparel and other textile products....... ............
Paper and allied products_________________
8,174
6,001
1,791
81
956
1,390
706
8,178
5,999
1,797
81
958
1,385
711
8,186
5,994
1,805
81
971
1,375
714
8,266
6, 071
1,805
81
979
1,394
721
8,296
6,103
1,823
81
980
1,396
721
8,312
6,122
1,830
80
987
1,398
720
8,339
6,148
1,817
80
999
1,416
721
8,309
6,122
1,805
77
995
1,410
720
8,300
6,116
1,806
80
993
1,405
718
8,268
6, 091
1,780
81
991
1,406
716
8,284
6,113
1,799
83
992
1,409
715
8,296
6,128
1,801
86
992
1,410
714
8,292
6,133
1,795
81
999
1,416
712
Printing and publishing......................................
Chemicals and allied products------------------------Petroleum and coal products--------------------------Rubber and plastics products, nec _________
Leather and leather products........ ...................
1,099
1,053
191
577
330
1,101
1,056
193
564
332
1,108
1,060
192
548
332
1,111
1,063
193
585
334
1,113
1,066
194
589
333
1,113
1,067
193
591
333
1,113
1,068
193
595
337
1,110
1,067
192
594
339
1,109
1,064
191
596
338
1,106
1,062
191
596
339
1,100
1,064
189
596
337
1,097
1,064
190
597
345
1,093
1,064
189
597
346
T R A N S P O R TA TIO N A N D PUBLIC U TILITIES......... . .
4, 507
4,498
4,478
4, 468
4, 502
4,496
4,507
4,469
4,464
4,463
4,459
4,457
4,454
W H O L E S A L E A N D R ET A IL T R A D E ........ . .................
14,922
14,941
14,968
14, 991
14,984
14,987
14,938
14,750
14, 848
14, 824
14,739
14,713
14,673
Wholesale trade......... ......... ...................... . ......
Retail trade_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3,840
11,082
3,854
11,087
3,859
11,109
3,853
11,133
3, 847
11,137
3, 834
11,153
3,828
11,110
3,807
10,943
3,782
11, 066
3,775
11,049
3,762
10,977
3,751
10, 962
3,742
10,931
FIN A N CE , IN SU RA N CE, AN D R E A L E S T A T E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3,676
3,672
3,677
3,673
3,665
3,652
3, 648
3,626
3,611
3,596
3, 584
3,580
3,567
SE R V IC E S _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Hotels and other lodging places______________
Personal services_________________________
Medical and other health services____________
Educational services......... ....................... ...............
11,484
11,516
749
997
3,067
1,151
11,572
764
1,005
3,058
l ’ 146
11,564
768
1,006
3j034
l| 151
11,537
772
1,015
3' 025
l| 143
11,530
770
1, 018
3, 007
l| 145
11,472
775
1 016
2 992
1 125
11,431
770
1 016
2 973
1 129
11,383
760
1 021
2 95Ô
1 125
11,361
761
1 025
2 931
T 122
11,289
748
i n?6
7 Old
in*»
11,248
730
i n?fi
7 801
1* 117
11,205
73d
1 030
7 875
i’ in
G O V E R N M E N T ........ . ............................................
12,538
12, 553
12,614
12,624
12, 517
12,441
12, 390
12,361
12, 323
12,292
12,185
12,212
12,197
Federal * ............... ....................... ...................
State and local_______________ ______ _ _ _ _ _ _
2,633
9,905
2,663
9,890
2,781
9,833
2,852
9, 772
2,780
9,737
2,718
9,723
2,717
2,721
9,673 i 9,640
|
2,730
9, 593
2,739
9,553
2,747
9,438
2,749
9,463
2,765
9,432
1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, and
coverage of these series, see footnote 1, table 11.
1 For definition of production workers, see footnote 2, table 13.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
r
NOTE: These data have been seasonally adjusted to reflect experience through
February 1970. For additional detail see June 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings.
„ = Dreliminarv
LABOR TURNOVER
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
15.
89
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1959 to d ate1
[Per 100 employees]
Year
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
June
May
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Annual
average
Total accessions
1959.
1960.
1961.
1962.
1963.
3.8
4.0
3.7
4.1
3.6
3.7
3.5
3.2
3.6
3.3
4.1
3.3
4.0
3.8
3.5
4.1
3.4
4.0
4.0
3.9
4.2
3.9
4.3
4.3
3.9
5.4
4.7
5.0
5.0
4.8
4.4
3.9
4.4
4.6
4.3
5.2
4.9
5.3
5.1
4.8
5.1
4.8
4.7
4.9
4.8
3.9
3.5
4.3
3.9
3.9
3.4
2.9
3.4
3.0
2.9
3.6
2.3
2.6
2.4
2.5
4.2
3.8
4.1
4.1
3.9
1964.
1965.
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
3.6
3.8
4.6
4.3
4.2
4.6
4.0
3.4
3.5
4.2
3.6
3.8
3.9
3.6
3.7
4.0
4.9
3.9
4.0
4.4
3.7
3.8
3.8
4.6
3.9
4.3
4.5
3.7
3.9
4.1
5.1
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.2
5.1
5.6
6.7
5.9
5.9
6.6
* 5.4
4.4
4.5
5.1
4.7
5.0
5.1
5.1
5.4
6.4
5.5
5.8
5.6
4.8
5.5
6.1
5.3
5.7
5.9
4.0
4.5
5.1
4.7
5.1
5.0
3.2
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.9
3.6
2.6
3.1
2.9
2.8
3.1
2.9
4.0
4.3
5.0
4.4
4.6
4.7
New hires
2.6
2.2
1959.
1960.
1961.
1962.
1963.
2 0
2,2
1 5
? 2
1.9
2.1
2.2
1.4
2.1
1.8
2.4
2.0
1.6
2.2
2.0
2.5
2.0
1.8
2.4
2.3
3.7
2.3
2.1
2.8
2.5
2.7
3.0
2.9
3.5
3.3
3.0
2.4
2.5
2.9
2.7
3.5
2.9
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.5
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.2
2.6
2.1
2.7
2.5
2.6
1.9
1. 5
2. 0
1.8
1.8
1.5
1.0
1.4
1.2
1.4
1964.
1965.
1966.
1967.
1968.
1969.
1970.
? n
2 4
3 2
3 0
3 0
3.3
2.9
2.0
2.4
3.1
2.7
2 7
3.0
2.5
2.2
2.8
3.7
2.8
2.9
3.4
2.6
2.4
2.6
3.6
2.8
3.2
3.5
2.6
2.5
3.0
4.1
3.3
3.6
3.8
2.8
3.6
4.3
5.6
4.6
4.7
5.4
* 4. 0
2.9
3.2
3.9
3.3
3.7
3.9
3.4
3.9
4.8
4.0
4.3
4.3
3.5
4.0
4.7
4.1
4.6
4.8
2.8
3. 5
4.2
3.7
4.0
4.0
2.2
2.9
3.1
2.8
2.9
2. 8
1.6
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.2
2.1
2.6
3.1
3.8
3.3
3.5
3.7
2.2
2.5
2.4
Total separations
1959.
1960.
1961.
1962.
1963.
3.7
3.6
4.7
3.9
4.0
3.1
3.5
3.9
3.4
3.2
3.3
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.5
3.6
4.2
3.4
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.9
3.5
3.8
3.6
3.6
4.0
3.6
3.8
3.4
4.0
4.4
4.1
4.4
4.1
4.6
4.8
4.2
5.1
4.8
5.3
5.3
5.1
5.0
4.9
5.5
4.7
4.2
4.4
4.1
4.7
4.5
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.9
4.8
4.0
3.8
3.7
4.1
4.3
4.0
4.1
3.9
1964.
1965.
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
4.0
3.7
4.0
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.8
3.3
3.1
3.6
4.0
3.9
4.0
4.3
3.5
3.4
4.1
4.6
4.1
4.4
4.5
3.5
3.7
4.3
4.3
4.1
4.5
4.8
3.6
3.6
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.6
4.6
3.5
3.6
4.4
4.3
4.1
4.6
*4 .4
4.4
4.3
5.3
4.8
5.0
5.3
4.3
5.1
5.8
5.3
6.0
6.2
5.1
5.6
6.6
6.2
6.3
6.6
4.2
4.5
4.8
4.7
5.0
5.3
3.6
3.9
4.3
4.0
4.1
4.3
3.7
4.1
4.2
3.9
3.8
4.2
3.9
4.1
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.9
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.4
2.1
1.8
1.7
2.1
2.1
2.6
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.4
1.7
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.2
.9
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
.7
.9
.8
.8
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.8
2.5
2.6
2.1
2.6
3.6
3.2
3.8
4.0
2.7
3.5
4.5
4.0
4.2
4.4
1.7
2.2
2.8
2.5
2.8
2.9
1.2
1.7
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.1
1.0
1.4
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.9
2.6
2.3
2.5
2.7
Quits
1.2
1.2
.9
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.5
2.3
1.3
1.7
2.5
1.5
1.7
2.5
1.9
1.9
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.1
1.4
1.7
2.5
2.3
2.3
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1.1
1.2
.9
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.2
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1.2
1.4
1.9
2.1
2.0
2.3
2.1
.8
1.1
1.0
1.8
2.4
1.9
2.2
2.2
2.6
2.1
1.1
2.2
2.4
2.7
2.1
1.2
2.6
*2 .1
2.1
2.4
Layoffs
1959.
1960.
1961.
1962.
1963.
2.1
3.2
2.1
2.2
2.6
1.6
2.2
2.3
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.7
1964.
1965.
1966.
1967.
1968.
1969.
1970
2.0
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.7
1.6
1.2
1.0
1.3
1.6
1.2
1.8
1.5
1.7
1.2
1.0
1.6
1.0
1.5
1.1
1.0
1.6
1.6
2.2
1.9
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.4
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.8
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.0
1.8
2.4
1.8
2.2
1.9
2.0
2.4
2.1
1.9
1.8
3.2
2.8
2.0
2.2
1.9
2.9
3.1
2.2
2.3
2.1
2.4
3.6
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.0
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.4
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.0
.9
1.7
1.4
1.1
.9
1.1
1.0
.9
1.5
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.1
.9
1.0
*1 .3
2.1
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.5
1.3
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.8
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.7
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.3
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.8
1.7
1. 4
1.2
1. 4
1.2
1.2
i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, see
fo o tn o te 1 , ta b le 11.
Month-to-month changes in total employment in manufacturing and nonmanufac
turing industries as indicated by labor turnover rates are not comparable with the
changes shown by the Bureau's employment series for the following reasons: (1) The
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
labor turnover series measures cnanges liu im * mo
■■■■■
turnover
ment series measures changes from midmonth to midimonth and (2)
serjes
series excludes personnel changes caused by strikes, but the employm
reflects the influence of such stoppages.
*=preliminary.
90
16.
LABOR TURNOVER
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, by major industry group 1
[Per 100 employees]
Accession rates
Total
Major industry group
June
19701’
May
1970
Separation rates
New hires
June
1969
June
1970p
May
1970
Total
June
1969
June
1970p
May
1970
Quits
June
1969
June
1970p
May
1970
Layoffs
June
1969
June
1970p
1970
1969
M A N U F A C TU R IN G .....................
Seasonally adjusted2.. . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4
4.0
4.2
4.2
6.6
4.9
4.0
2.8
2.8
2.7
5.4
3.8
4.4
4.8
4.6
5.0
4.6
5.0
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.6
2.8
1.3
1.6
1.5
1.9
10
1.2
Durable goods..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.9
3.7
6.2
3.5
2.4
5.1
4.3
4.4
4.4
1.9
1.8
2.4
1.4
1.7
.9
1.9
3.9
1.0
3.2
4.1
3.5
1.1
1.8
2.4
1.0
7.6
5.3
6.8
4.7
9.0
7.6
6.2
4.1
5.0
3.5
8.1
7.0
5.4
4.8
5.2
6.0
6.5
5.7
3.3
2.7
3.4
3.4
4.7
4.0
1.3
1.1
.9
1 5
8
5
Ordnance and
accessories...... ..........
Lumber and wood
products____ _______
Furniture and fixtures___
Stone, clay, and glass
products.......................
Primary metal Industries.
Fabricated metal
products_____ ______
Machinery, except
electrical___________
Electrical equipment___
Transportation equiprnent______________
Instruments and related
products.......................
6.4
5.0
7.9
5.0
3.7
6.8
4.7
4.6
4.6
2.5
2.4
3.0
1.3
1.2
.5
5.2
3.6
6.3
3.9
2.2
5.4
3.3
3.7
3.5
1.5
1.4
1.9
.7
1 ?
Jj
4.8
5.4
1.5
1.3
3.5
4.5
4.1
4.0
3.4
3.7
1.2
1.7
1.8
1.4
J>
5
4.7
7.4
3.6
4.2
2.6
3.1
5.2
5.7
3.5
5.5
4.0
2.6
4.8
3.1
6.2
2.6
2.9
1.7
1.9
4.3
4.6
1.6
3.8
2.9
1.8
4.2
4.8
4.8
4.1
3.3
3.3
2.2
3.0
1.4
1.8
1.4
1.7
1.8
2.2
1.3
1.9
1.9
1.4
1.9
2.7
1.8
1.1
1.1
.5
Miscellaneous manufacturing....................
7.1
5.4
7.8
5.3
4.0
6.6
5.8
6.0
5.8
2.9
2.9
3.5
1.8
2.1
1.3
Nondurable goods................ .
6.1
4.8
7.1
4.6
3.4
5.7
4.5
4.8
4.8
2.5
2.6
2.9
1.2
1.3
1.0
9.2
4.7
5.5
6.9
3.7
4.9
10.3
4.9
6.6
6.9
2.8
4.3
5.0
2.6
3.8
8.2
3.3
5.6
5.9
2.2
5.0
6.2
3.6
5.3
6.4
3.5
5.3
3.1
1.3
3.2
3.1
2.0
3.6
3.5
1.8
3.8
2.1
.3
.7
?.?
?
8
.7
4
6.4
5.9
6.2
4.3
3.6
4.4
5.5
6.0
5.6
2.9
3.0
3.0
1.8
2.2
1.7
5.1
4.2
3.4
3.0
6.9
5.5
3.9
3.4
2.6
2.4
6.0
4.8
3.2
3.2
3.5
3.4
4.0
3.5
1.7
2.0
1.9
2.0
2.5
2.4
.6
.6
.8
7
4
4
Food and kindred
products.......................
Tobacco manufactures...
Textile mill products___
Apparel and other textile
products___________
Paper and allied
products............... .......
Printing and publishing..
Chemicals and allied
products.......................
Petroleum and coal
products___________
Rubber and plastics
products, n.e.c.............
Leather and leather
products___________
3.7
2.4
4.9
3.2
1.8
4.2
2.5
2.5
2.9
1.2
1.2
1.5
.6
J)
J)
4.4
2.9
5.3
4.0
2.5
4.6
2.5
2.4
2.2
1.1
1.0
1.3
.8
7
-3
6.4
4.9
7.7
5.0
3.5
6.6
5.3
5.1
5.3
2.8
2.8
3.4
1.1
1?
7
6.6
5.9
7.0
4.9
4.3
5.7
5.2
5.9
5.8
3.1
3.4
3.9
1.0
1.5
.9
1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, see
footnote 1, table 11. For relationship to employment series see footnote 1, table 15.
2 These data have been seasonally adjusted to reflect experience through February
1970. For additional detail see June 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
0
NOTE: For additional detail see Employment and Earnings, table D-2.
p = preliminary.
*
HOURS AND EARNINGS
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
17.
91
Gross hours and earnings of production and nonsupervisory workers 1on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry
division, 1947 to date
Year
Weekly
earnings
Weekly
hours
Averages
Averages
Averages
Hourly
earnings
Weekly
earnings
Weekly
hours
Hourly
earnings
Weekly
hours
Hourly
earnings
Weekly
earnings
Contract construction
Mining
Total private
Weekly
earnings
Averages
Weekly
hours
Hourly
earnings
Manufacturing
1947...................................
1948_.................................
1949...................................
195 0 ...........................__
$45. 58
49. 00
50.24
53.13
40.3
40.0
39.4
39.8
$1,131
1.225
1.275
1.335
$59.94
65.56
62.33
67.16
40.8
39.4
36.3
37.9
$1.469
1.664
1.717
1.772
$58.87
65.27
67.56
69.68
38.2
38.1
37.7
37.4
$1,541
1.713
1.792
1.863
$49.17
53.12
53. 88
58.32
40.4
40.0
39.1
40.5
$1,217
1.328
1.378
1.440
1951 ..................................
1952............. ....................
1953.................................
1954...................................
1955............. ....................
57.86
60.65
63.76
64. 52
67.72
39.9
39.9
39.6
39.1
39.6
1.45
1.52
1.61
1.65
1.71
74.11
77. 59
83.03
82.60
89. 54
38.4
38.6
38.8
38.6
40.7
1.93
2.01
2.14
2.14
2.20
76.96
82. 86
86.41
88.91
90.90
38.1
38.9
37.9
37.2
37.1
2.02
2.13
2.28
2.39
2.45
63.34
67.16
70.47
70.49
75.70
40.6
40.7
40.5
39.6
40.7
1.56
1.65
1.74
1.78
1.86
1956...................................
1957...................................
1958............................... .
1959 2...............................
1960...................................
70.74
73.33
75. 08
78.78
80.67
39.3
38.8
38.5
39.0
38.6
1.80
1.89
1.95
2.02
2.09
95. 06
98.65
96. 08
103. 68
105.44
40.8
40.1
38.9
40.5
40.4
2.33
2.46
2. 47
2.56
2.61
96.38
100.27
103. 78
108.41
113. 04
37.5
37.0
36.8
37.0
36.7
2.57
2.71
2.82
2.93
3. 08
78.78
81. 59
82.71
88. 26
89.72
40.4
39.8
39.2
40.3
39.7
1.95
2.05
2.11
2.19
2.26
1961..................................
1962............. ....................
1963...................................
1964............................. .
1965......... ............. .........
82.60
85.91
88. 46
91.33
95. 06
38.6
38.7
38.8
38.7
38.8
2.14
2. 22
2. 28
2. 36
2.45
106.92
110.43
114.40
117.74
123. 52
40.5
40.9
41.6
41.9
42.3
2.64
2.70
2.75
2.81
2.92
118. 08
122. 47
127.19
132. 06
138.38
36.9
37.0
37.3
37.2
37.4
3.20
3.31
3.41
3. 55
3.70
92.34
96. 56
99.63
102.97
107.53
39.8
40.4
40.5
40.7
41.2
2.32
2. 39
2. 46
2. 53
2.61
1966...................................
1967..................................
1968............................... .
196 9 .............................
98. 82
101. 84
107.73
114.61
38.6
38.0
37.8
37.7
2.56
2.68
2. 85
3. 04
130.24
135. 89
142. 71
154.80
42.7
42.6
42.6
43.0
3. 05
3.19
3.35
3. 60
146.26
154.95
164.93
181.16
37.6
37.7
37.4
37.9
3.89
4.11
4. 41
4. 78
112.34
114. 90
122.51
129. 51
41.3
40.6
40.7
40.6
2.72
2. 83
3. 01
3.19
Transportation and public utilities
Wholesale and retail trade
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Services
1947
1948
1949
1950
$38.07
40.80
42.93
44. 55
40.5
40.4
40.5
40.5
$0.940
1.010
1.060
1.100
$43.21
45.48
47.63
50.52
37.9
37.9
37.8
37.7
$1.140
1.200
1.260
1.340
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
47.79
49. 20
51.35
53.33
55.16
40.5
40.0
39.5
39.5
39.4
1.18
1.23
1.30
1.35
1.40
54.67
57.08
59. 57
62.04
63.92
37.7
37.8
37.7
37.6
37.6
1.45
1.51
1.58
1.65
1.70
1956
1957
1958
1959 2
1960
57.48
59.60
61.76
64.41
66.01
39.1
38.7
38.6
38.8
38.6
1.47
1.54
1.60
1.66
1.71
65.68
67.53
70.12
72.74
75.14
36.9
36.7
37.1
37.3
37.2
1.78
1.84
1.89
1.95
2.02
1961
1962
1963
1964........... .................... .
1965...............................
$118.37
125.14
41.1
41.3
$2. 88
3. 03
67.41
69.91
72.01
74.28
76. 53
38.3
38.2
38.1
37.9
37.7
1.76
1.83
1.89
1.96
2. 03
77.12
80.94
84.38
85.79
88.91
36.9
37.3
37.5
37.3
37.2
2.09
2.17
2.25
2.30
2.39
$69. 84
73. 60
36.0
35.9
$1.94
2. 05
1966................................
1967.._______ _________
1 96 8 ....______________
1969_________________
128.13
131.22
138. 85
147. 74
41.2
40.5
40.6
40.7
3.11
3.24
3. 42
3. 63
79. 02
81.76
86.40
91.14
37.1
36.5
36.0
35.6
2.13
2.24
2.40
2. 56
92.13
95.46
101.75
108. 33
37.3
37.0
37.0
37.1
2. 47
2. 58
2.75
2.92
77.04
80.38
84. 32
91.26
35.5
35.1
34.7
34.7
2.17
2. 29
2. 43
2. 63
i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, see
footnote 1, table 11.
Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing: to construction
workers in contract construction: and to nonsupervisory workers in transportation and
public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
services. These groups account for approximately four-fifths of the total employment
on private nonagricultural payrolls.
2 Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning 1959.
NOTE: For additional detail see Employment and Earnings, table C-l.
92
HOURS AND EARNINGS
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
18- ®r° s? average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers1on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry
division and major manufacturing group
K
u y muusiry
1970
Industry division and group
1969
Annual average
July
1970i>
June
1970'’
TOTAL PRIVATE.........................
37.6
37.4
37.0
36.9
37.2
37.0
37.1
37.7
37.5
37.6
37.9
38.1
38.0
37.7
37.8
MINING...............................
42.8
42.8
42.7
43.1
42.4
42.6
42.3
43.3
43.3
43.3
43.4
43.6
43.0
43.0
42.6
May
1970
Apr.
1970
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
1969
1968
CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION.........
38.7
38.5
38.1
37.9
37.2
36.8
35.7
37.6
37.1
38.3
39.3
39.1
38.7
37.9
37.4
MANUFACTURING....................
Overtime hours____ _____
39.7
2.9
40.0
3.1
39.8
2.9
39.7
40.0
3.0
39.8
3.0
40.1
3.2
41.0
3.6
40.6
3.6
40.7
3.7
41.0
4.0
40.6
3.7
40.4
3. 5
40.6
3.6
40.7
3.6
Durable Goods............................
Overtime hours...................
40.1
40.7
3.2
40.3
2.9
40.2
2 .8
2 .8
40.6
3.1
40.3
3.0
40.7
3.3
41.7
3.8
41.2
3.7
41.4
3.9
41.7
4.2
41.1
3.8
40.9
3.6
41.3
3.8
41.4
3.8
Ordnance and accessories___
Lumber and wood products...
Furniture and fixtures............
Stone, clay, and glass
products..............................
40.0
39.3
37.9
40.7
39.9
39.0
40.8
40.1
38.5
40.8
39.8
38.7
40.8
39.5
39.1
40.8
39.4
38.7
41.0
39.1
38.9
41.0
40.1
40.8
40.6
39.9
40.3
40.3
40.3
40.6
40.6
40.3
40.7
40.2
40.2
40.8
39.8
39.7
39.7
40.4
40.2
40.4
41.5
40.6
40.6
Primary metal industries........
Fabricated metal products___
Machinery, except electrical..
Electrical equipment and
s u p p lie s ._____________
Transportation equipment___
Instruments and related
products..........................
2 .8
41.6
41.6
41.5
41.5
41.3
40.9
40.9
42.9
41.9
42.1
42.4
42.4
41.8
42.0
41.8
40.3
40.6
40.7
40.7
41.1
41.2
40.4
40.7
41.1
40.4
40.6
41.4
40.8
40.9
42.1
40.8
40.6
41.9
41.3
41.0
42.2
41.7
41.8
43.1
41.4
41.6
42.2
41.7
41.7
42.4
42.1
42.1
42.7
41.8
41.7
42.9
41.6
41.2
41.8
41.8
41.6
42.5
41.6
41.7
42.1
39.1
40.5
39.8
41.6
39.6
40.4
39.6
39.2
40.1
40.0
39.7
39.6
40.3
40.1
40.9
42.2
40.5
41.5
40.4
41.9
40.7
42.3
40.3
40.5
39.8
41.6
40.4
41.5
40.3
42.2
39.5
40.0
40.0
40.3
40.7
40.2
40.5
41.3
41.1
40.9
41.2
40.7
40.5
40.7
40.5
Miscellaneous manufacturing
industries............................
38.2
38.7
38.6
38.8
39.0
38.8
38.8
39.5
39.3
39.3
39.2
39.1
38.5
39.0
39.4
Nondurable goods.......................
Overtime hours.................
39.2
2.9
39.2
3.0
39.0
2.9
39.0
2 .8
39.2
3.0
39.1
3.0
39.2
3.1
40.0
3.4
39.8
3.4
39.7
3.5
40.0
3.7
39.9
3.5
39.8
3.4
39.7
3.4
39.8
3.3
Food and kindred products...
Tobacco manufactures______
Textile mill products..............
Apparel and other textile
products........ .....................
40.7
37.7
40.0
40.5
38.1
40.2
40.5
36.8
39.7
39.9
37.1
39.9
40.0
36.4
40.1
40.0
36.9
40.0
40.5
37.2
40.0
41.0
36.8
41.3
41.0
37.3
41.1
40.7
38.6
40.9
41.8
39.0
41.0
41 4
37.5
41.0
41.2
37.6
40.7
40.8
37.4
40.8
40.8
37.9
41.2
35.5
35.4
35.1
35.4
35.8
35.5
35.2
35.9
35.8
35.8
35.8
36.3
35.9
35.9
36.1
41.7
37.7
41.3
43.5
41.8
37.7
41.4
42.8
41.8
37.6
41.6
42.8
41.7
37.7
41.6
42.2
42.0
38 0
41.8
41.8
41.9
37.8
41.6
41.8
42.4
37.7
41.7
41.9
43.2
39.0
42.9
41.7
42.9
38.4
42.0
42.7
43.1
38.4
41.7
42.9
43.3
38.6
41 8
42.6
43 1
38.6
41 7
42.9
43.0
38.4
43! 6
43.0
38.4
41.8
42.6
42.9
38.3
41.8
42.5
40.3
37.6
40.2
37.9
39.9
37.5
40.3
36.3
40.4
37.1
40.6
37.4
40.7
37.7
41.5
38.3
41.1
37.4
41.3
37.0
41.5
36.8
41.0
37.1
40.8
37.4
41.1
37.2
41.5
38.3
Paper and allied products___
Printing and publishing_____
Chemicals and allied products.
Petroleum and coal products.
Rubber and plastics products, nec.............................
Leather and leather products.
¿1
7
TRANSPORTATION AND
PUBLIC UTILITIES............
41.0
40.7
40.4
39.8
40.2
40.5
40.5
40.8
40.9
41.0
41.0
40.8
41.1
40.7
40.6
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE.
36.3
35.6
35.0
34.9
35.0
35.0
35.1
35.7
35.2
35.3
35.7
36.6
36.5
35.6
36.0
Wholesale trade...................
Retail trade.............. .............
40.3
35.0
40.1
34.2
39.9
33.5
39.9
33.3
40.0
33.4
40.0
33.3
40.2
33.4
40.7
34.1
40.2
33.6
40.3
33.7
40.3
34.2
40.5
35.3
40.3
35.2
40.2
34.2
40.1
34.7
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE..................................
36.9
36.7
36.7
36.9
37.0
37.0
36.9
37.0
37.2
37.1
37.0
37.0
37.1
37.1
37.0
SERVICES______________
34.9
34.5
34.3
34.3 J
34.7
34.3
34.3
34.6
34.6
34.5
34.6
35.3
35.3
34.7
34.7
i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970
see footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table C-2.
»>=preliminary.
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
HOURS AND EARNINGS
93
19. Gross average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers 1on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry
division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted
1970
1969
Industry division and group
July»
June?
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
T O T A L P R IVA TE_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
37.3
37.2
37.1
37.2
37.4
37.3
37.5
37.6
37.6
37.5
37.7
37.7
37.7
M IN IN G _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
42.4
42.3
42.6
43.1
43.2
43.4
42.7
43.2
43.5
43.0
43.1
43.1
42.6
C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T IO N ....... ...........................
37.6
37.7
38.1
38.3
38.0
38.2
36.7
38.2
38.1
37.6
38.1
37.9
37.6
M A N U FA C TU R IN G _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Overtime hours............. .........................
39.9
3.0
39.8
3.1
39.8
2.9
40.0
3.0
40.2
3.2
39.9
3.2
40.3
3.3
40.7
3.5
40.5
3.5
40.5
3.5
40.7
3.6
40.6
3.6
40.6
3.6
Durable Goods_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Overtime hours.............. . .......... ............
40.5
3.0
40.5
3.2
40.3
3.0
40.4
3.0
40.7
3.2
40.5
3.2
41.0
3.4
41.3
3.6
41.1
3.5
41.2
3.6
41.4
3.8
41.2
3.8
41.3
3.8
Ordnance and accessories.._____ ________
Lumber and wood products___ _____ ____
Furniture and fixtures______________ ___
Stone, clay, and glass products.........................
Primary metal industries____________ _____
Fabricated metal products_______ _________
Machinery, except electrical_______________
Electrical equipment and supplies___ _____
Transportation equipm ent________ _____
Instruments and related products_________ .
40.5
39.4
38.4
41.5
40.4
41.0
41.2
39.7
41.0
39.9
40.6
39.4
38.8
41.2
40.4
40.9
41.1
39.7
41.6
39.9
40.8
39.7
38.8
41.3
40.2
40.6
41.1
39.7
40.3
40.1
41.1
39.8
39.3
41.6
40.1
40.9
41.4
40.0
39.7
40.5
41.1
39.5
39.4
41.8
40.7
41.2
41.8
40.2
40.4
40.7
41.3
40. 1
39.3
41.7
40.9
41.1
41.9
39.7
40.3
40.2
40.6
39.6
39.5
41.7
41.2
41.4
42.2
40.5
40.2
40.7
40.5
40.3
40.0
42.1
41.7
41.5
42.6
40.3
41.4
40.9
40.3
40.2
40.0
41.8
41.6
41.4
42.2
40.1
40.7
40.9
40.2
39.9
39.9
41.7
42.1
41.4
42.4
40.2
41.2
40.7
40.3
40.0
40.1
41.9
42.1
41.5
42.6
40.4
41.6
41.0
40.4
39.9
40.3
41.9
41.9
41.6
42.5
40.4
41.2
40.9
40.3
39.8
40.2
41.7
41.7
41.6
42.4
40.4
42.1
40.9
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries............
38.9
38.6
38.7
39.0
39.0
38.6
39.3
39.3
39.3
38.9
39.0
39.1
39.2
Nondurable Goods__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Overtime hours..................... . ................
39.2
2.9
39.0
3.0
39.1
3.0
39.4
3.0
39.4
3.2
39.3
3.2
39.6
3.4
39.8
3.3
39.6
3.3
39.6
3.3
39.7
3.3
39.7
3.4
39.8
3.4
Food and kindred products. . . . . . . . . . . .............. .
Tobacco manufactures______________ . . .
Textile mill products_____ . ............... . _
Apparel and other textile products........ ..........
40.2
38.1
40.4
35.6
40.3
37.5
39.9
35.2
40.7
37.1
39.8
35.1
40.6
38.3
40.6
35.5
40.5
37.5
40.2
35.6
40.7
37.3
40.1
35.5
41.0
38.3
40.4
35.6
40.8
36.2
40.9
36.0
40.8
37.2
40.7
35.8
40.6
37.3
40.6
35.8
40.9
37.4
40.7
35.8
40.9
37.2
40.9
35.9
40.7
38.0
41.1
36.0
Paper and allied p roducts................ ...........
Printing and publishing__________________
Chemicals and allied products._ _ _ _____ __
Petroleum and coal products___________
Rubber and plastics products, nec_________
Leather and leather products.._ _ _ ________
41.7
37.8
41.4
42.7
40.7
37.3
41.7
37.7
41.4
42.6
40.2
37.5
41.8
37.7
41.5
42.5
40.0
37.7
42.1
37.9
41.4
41.9
40.7
37.4
42.2
38.0
41.8
42.2
40.7
37.4
42.3
38.0
41.8
42.7
41.0
37.1
42.8
38.2
42.0
42.5
40.9
37.5
42.8
38.6
41.8
42.3
41.1
37.7
42.7
38.4
41.8
42.6
40.8
37.3
42.8
38.2
41.7
42.6
40.9
37.2
42.9
38. 3
41. 8
42 2
41.0
37.1
42. 9
38.4
41 8
42 8
40 9
36.9
43. 0
38 5
41 8
42 8
41 2
37.1
T R A N SP O R TA TIO N AN D PUBLIC U TIL ITIES ..........
40.6
40.6
40.6
40.2
40.6
40.7
40.7
40.8
40.7
40.9
40.8
40.5
40.7
W H O LE S A L E AN D R ETA IL T R A D E . . . . ........
35.5
35.4
35.4
35.3
35.3
35.4
35.4
35.5
35.5
35.5
35.6
35.7
35.7
40.0
34.0
40.0
33.9
40.1
33.9
40.1
33.7
40.1
33.8
40.2
33.7
40.3
33.8
40.5
33.8
40.3
34.0
40.3
34.0
40.3
34.1
40.3
34.2
40.0
34.2
FIN A N CE, IN SU R A N C E, AND R EAL E S T A T E .....
36.9
36.7
36.8
36.9
37.0
37.0
36.9
36.9
37.2
37.0
37.1
37.0
37.1
SE R V IC E S _ _ _ _ _ _ _
34.6
34.4
34.5
34.4
34.7
34.4
34.4
34.6
34.7
34.6
34.7
35.0
35.0
Wholesale Trade_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Retail trade_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, see
footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.
p=preliminary.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: These data have been seasonally adjusted to reflect experience through
February 1970. For additional detail see June 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings.
94
20.
HOURS AND EARNINGS
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
Gross average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls bv
industry division and major manufacturing group
’ 7
1970
1969
Industry and division group
July
Annual average
June *
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
1969
1968
TOTAL PRIVATE...........................
$3.22
$3.21
$3.20
$3.18
$3.17
$3.15
$3.13
$3.12
$3.13
$3.12
$3.11
$3. 06
$3.05
$3. 04
MINING____ ________________
3.80
3.82
3.80
3.79
3.78
3.77
3.76
3.71
3.72
3.69
3.65
3.60
3.59
3.60
3.35
CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION____
5.17
5.11
5.10
5.09
5.06
5.06
5.07
5. 03
4.97
4.96
4.92
4.80
4. 76
4. 78
4. 41
MANUFACTURING......... ...............
Durable Goods........... .........
Ordnance and accessories__________ ____
Lumber and wood
products . . . ____ . . .
Furniture and fixtures____
Stone, clay, and glass
products____ _ ____
3.36
3.36
3.34
3.32
3.31
3.29
3.29
3.29
3.26
3.25
3.24
3.20
3.19
3.19
3.01
3.56
3.57
3.55
3.52
3.51
3.48
3.49
3.49
3.46
3.45
3.44
3.39
3.38
3. 39
3.19
3.62
3. 58
3.59
3.58
3. 57
3.54
3. 53
3.51
3.53
3.48
3.46
3.43
3.41
3. 42
3.26
2.92
2.76
2.98
2.76
2.92
2.75
2.88
2.73
2.86
2.71
2. 84
2. 70
2.83
2.71
2.84
2.71
2.86
2.70
2.83
2. 68
2. 84
2.68
2 79
2. 64
? 75
2 . 62
2. 74
2.62
2.57
2. 47
3.41
3.40
3.38
3.35
3.32
3.28
3.28
3.28
3.29
3.27
3.25
3.22
3.19
3.19
2.99
Primary metal industrie s ...____ ______ .
Fabricated metal
products.................
Machinery, except
electrical................ ........
Electrical equipment and
supplies__
Transportation equipment _______
Instruments and related
products........ ..................
4.07
4.11
4.06
4. 00
4. 01
3.97
4. 02
4. 04
3.98
3.95
3.94
3.92
3.34
3.31
3.30
3.29
3.28
3.27
3. 26
3.25
3. 23
3.21
3.19
3.15
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries...........
2.80
2.82
2.81
2. 80
2.80
2.80
2.79
2. 76
2. 72
2.69
2.68
2.64
Nondurable Goods.......... .........
3.09
3.06
3.05
3.04
3. 03
3.01
3.01
2. 99
2.97
2.96
2.95
2. 92
3.17
3.01
2.43
3.15
3.02
2.44
3.16
2.99
2.43
3.12
2.98
2. 42
3 10
2.90
2. 42
3 08
2.89
2. 42
3. 08
2. 86
2.42
3.04
2.67
2. 42
3.01
2. 62
2.42
2.98
2. 49
2.41
2.97
2.51
2.41
2.94
2 49
2. 38
2.97
2 77
2.35
2.38
2.38
2.36
2.37
2.37
2. 36
2. 36
2.35
2. 34
2. 34
2.34
2.31
3.46
3.90
3.42
3.90
3.40
3.88
3.37
3.85
3.35
3.84
3.35
3.81
3.35
3.80
3.34
3.81
3.32
3.78
3.31
3. 77
3.31
3.75
3.73
3.68
3.64
3.61
3.60
3.60
3.60
3. 58
3. 56
3. 55
3.52
Food and kindred
products___________
Tobacco manufactures........
Textile mill products____
Apparel and other textile products......... .........
Paper and allied
products .
Printing and publishing___
Chemicals and allied
products.........................
Petroleum and coal
products.........................
Rubber and plastics
products, nec_________
Leather and leather
products..___________
$2.85
3.90
3.92
3.90
3.87
3.86
3.85
3.86
3.87
3.85
3.85
3.87
3.84
3. 79
3. 79
3. 55
3.54
3.54
3.52
3.50
3. 48
3.46
3. 45
3.44
3.41
3.39
3.40
3.34
3.33
3.34
3.16
3.76
3.76
3.77
3. 75
3.75
3.72
3.70
3. 72
3.67
3.67
3. 63
3.57
3.56
3. 58
3.36
3.33
3.30
3.27
3. 24
3.24
3.20
3.18
3.17
3.13
3.13
3.13
3.10
3. 09
3.09
2.93
3.90
3.90
3.69
3.13
3.15
2.98
2. 64
2.66
2. 50
2. 92
2.91
2.74
2.
2.96
? 62
34
2.80
2. 48
2.21
2.28
2.31
2.21
3.28
3.70
3 27
3.68
3 24
3! 69
3
3. 50
3. 49
3. 47
3.26
3.
48
4.28
4.22
4.25
4. 26
4.23
4.23
4.21
4.10
4.10
4. 06
4. 04
3.99
4. 03
4. 00
3.75
3.20
3.13
3.09
3.16
3.15
3.14
3.15
3.14
3.13
3.12
3.13
3. 08
3.09
3. 07
2.92
2.48
2.49
2.49
2. 48
2.47
2.47
2. 46
2.44
2. 42
2.40
2.38
2.35
2. 34
2.36
2.23
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC
UTILITIES_________
3.85
3.83
3.79
3. 75
3. 75
3.75
3. 73
3.72
3.72
3. 70
3.71
3.67
3.65
3.63
3. 42
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE.
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.69
2. 68
2. 68
2. 65
2.61
2.63
2.61
2. 59
2. 56
2. 55
2. 56
2.40
Wholesale trade____________
Retail trade__________
3.41
2.44
3.40
2.43
3.41
2.43
3.40
2.41
3.40
2.41
3.38
2. 40
3.35
2.38
3. 34
2.35
3. 33
2. 36
3.29
2. 35
3.28
2.33
3.24
2.30
3 23
2.30
3 23
2. 30
3. 05
2.16
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND
REAL ESTATE........ ...................
3.05
3.04
3.04
3.03
3.05
3. 04
3.02
2.98
2.99
2.95
2.93
2.92
2.91
2.92
2. 75
SERVICES________
2.81
2.81
2.80
2. 79
2. 79
2.77
2. 74
2. 72
2.72
2.69
2.67
2.62
2.63
2.63
2. 43
i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, see
footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE:
For additional detail see Employment and Earnings, table C-2.
^p re lim ina ry.
HOURS AND EARNINGS
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
21.
95
Gross average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by
industry division and major manufacturing group
___________________
Annual average
1969
1970
Industry division and group
TOTAL PRIVATE......... ............
MINING..........................................
July »>
June »
(121. 07
$120.05
162. 64
163. 50
May
Apr.
Mar.
$118.40
$117.34
$117.92
162.26
163.35
160.27
Feb.
$116.55
160.60
Nov.
Jan.
Dec.
$116.12
$117.62
159.05
160.64
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
1969
1968
$107.73
$117.38
$117.31
$117.87
$116.59
$115.90
$114.61
161.08
159.78
158.41
156.96
154. 37
154.80
142.71
187.
68
184.21
181.16
164.93
CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION..........
200.
08
196.74
194.31
192.91
188. 23
186.21
181.
00
189.13
184.39
189.97
193.36
MANUFACTURING____ ________
133.39
134.40
132.93
131.80
132. 40
130.94
131.93
134.89
132.36
132.28
132.84
129.92
128.88
129.51
122. 51
142.83
143.45
139.33
138.24
140.01
132.07
Durable goods..................... .
Ordnance and
accessories........................
Lumber and wood
products .
________
Furniture and fixtures____
Stone, clay, and glass
products______________
145. 53
142.55
144.73
143.91
143.32
140.24
140.48
137.89
135.72
138.17
135.29
113.88
110.57
114.11
108.81
114. 05
108.81
114.45
109.08
112.16
107.71
109.18
104.01
110.15
105.85
104.34
100.28
137. 76
137.85
137.67
137.80
136. 53
133. 34
133.98
124.98
142.76
145.30
143.07
141.50
142.51
140.24
142. 04
144.80
145.71
146.47
146.06
145.66
144.43
114.76
104.60
118.90
107.64
117.09
105. 8 8
114.62
105.65
112.97
105.96
111.90
104.49
110.65
105. 42
141.86
141.44
140.27
139. 03
137.12
134.15
134.15
Primary metal in d u strie s ...
Fabricated metal
products______________
Machinery, except
electrical..........................
Electrical equipment
and supplies___________
Transportation
equipment _____ ____
Instruments and related
products_____ _____ _
Miscellaneous manufac
turing industries_______
157.17
159. 54
157.56
156.35
157. 49
157. 08
159.42
161.38
159.39
160. 55
162.93
160. 51
157.66
158. 42
147.68
143.72
145.49
143.26
142.10
142. 33
140.48
141.45
143. 79
141.86
141.36
143.14
139.28
137. 20
138.94
131.77
153.03
154.91
154.95
155.25
157.88
155.87
156.14
160. 33
154. 87
155.61
155. 00
149.94
148.81
152.15
141.46
Nondurable goods.....................
Food and kindred
products..... ................... ..
Tobacco manufactures------Textile m ill products_____
Apparel and other
textile products________
131.34
129.49
128.30
129.92
127. 04
128.15
129.65
126. 77
126.45
127.39
124.93
122.98
124. 84
118.08
164.84
170.98
164.02
156.80
160.40
157.21
161.20
170.49
165.17
165.51
166.66
158.76
162.24
161.85
155. 72
131.93
132.40
132. 00
132.59
133. 50
131.45
132. 03
134.23
132.75
131.29
131.43
128.21
126.77
128.21
120.69
106.96
109.13
108.47
108.64
109. 20
108.64
108.25
109. 02
106.90
105. 72
105. 06
103.22
101.64
103. 74
98. 50
121.13
119.95
118.95
118.56
118. 78
117.69
117.99
119.60
118.21
117.51
118.
00
116.51
116.22
115.53
109. 05
129. 02
113.48
97.20
127. 58
115. 06
98. 09
127.98
110.03
96.47
124.49
110. 56
96.56
124. 00
105. 56
97. 04
123. 20
106.64
96. 80
124.74
106.39
96. 80
124.64
98. 26
99.95
123.41
97.73
99.46
121.29
96.11
98.57
124.15
97. 89
98.81
121.72
93. 38
97.58
122.36
104.15
95.65
120.77
97.99
95.47
114.24
93. 99
91.05
84.49
84.25
82.84
83.90
84. 85
83.78
83. 07
84. 37
83.77
83.77
83.77
83.85
81.85
82.93
79.78
142.96
147. 03
142.12
145.89
140.43
145.15
140.70
145.92
140.37
144. 02
142. 04
143. 26
144. 29
148. 59
142. 43
145.15
142.66
144. 77
143. 32
144. 75
141.37
142.82
140.61
141.31
139.32
141.70
130.85
133.28
152.35
151.42
150.18
150.48
149. 76
150.12
150. 36
149. 52
148. 04
147.14
145.95
145.53
145. 05
136.27
173. 77
172.10
171.17
175.71
170. 40
159. 38
129.90
126.28
126. 07
126.18
121.18
80
87. 58
87.19
87. 52
87. 79
85.41
138.85
130.20
Paper and allied
products..... ................. ..... 144.28
Printing and publishing------ 147.03
Chemicals and allied
products
...................... ,154.05
Petroleum and coal
products . . _________ 186.18
Rubber and plastics
products, n e c_________ 128.96
Leather and leather
93.26
products .
_________
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC
UTILITIES ________ ______
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE.
157.85
98.01
180.62
181.90
179.77
176.81
176.81
176. 40
123.29
127.35
127. 26
127. 48
21
130. 31
128.64
128.
94.37
93.83
90.02
91.64
92.38
92.74
93.45
90.51
88.
155.88
153.12
149.25
150. 75
151.88
151.07
151.78
152.15
151.70
152.11
149.74
150.02
147.74
94. 50
93.88
93.80
93.80
93. 02
93.18
92. 58
92.13
92.46
93.70
93.08
91.14
86.40
136. 00
80. 49
135.20
79.92
134.67
79.49
135.94
80.14
133. 87
79.30
132. 59
79.20
132.18
79.69
131.22
81.19
130.17
80.96
129. 85
78.66
122. 31
74.95
110.
26
111.23
109.45
108. 41
108. 04
107.96
108. 33
101.75
94.11
94.11
92.81
92. 38
92. 49
92. 84
91.26
84. 32
96.12
128.
Wholesale trade
_______
Retail trad e............................
137.42
85.40
136. 34
83.11
136. 06
81.41
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE
............................
112.55
111.57
111.57
111.81
112.85
112.48
111.44
96. 04
95.70
96.81
95. 01
93.98
________________
98. 07
96.95
i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, see
footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
175. 07
125.83
135.66
80.25
SERVICES
170.97
86
NOTE: For additional detail see Employment and Earnings, table C-2.
»^prelim inary.
96
HOURS AND EARNINGS/PRICES
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
22. Gross and spendable average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonaqricultural
payrolls, in current and 1957-59 dollars, 1960 to date
s
Total private
Gross average
weekly earnings
Year and month
Manufacturing
Spendable average weekly earnings
Worker with no
dependents
1960
......................
......................
1961
1962.
......................
1963.
..................
1964_________ ____ ____
Current
dollars
1957-59
$80.67
82.60
85.91
8 8 . 46
91.33
$78.24
79.27
81. bb
82.91
84. 49
Worker with 3
dependents
Current
dollars
1957-59
$65.95
67. 08
69. 56
71.05
75. 04
$63.62
64.38
50
87.37
8 /. 5/
88.89
89. 75
78. 99
81.29
83.38
86.71
90.96
115.22
115.90
116. 59
117. 87
117.31
117.38
117.62
90.30
90.41
90. 59
91.16
90. 38
89.95
89. 58
91.40
91.90
92.41
93.35
92. 94
92.99
93.17
71.63
71.68
71.80
72.20
71.60
71.26
70. 96
100.46
100.98
101.51
102.49
1 0 2 . 06
116.12
116. 55
117. 92
117.34
118.40
120.05
88.10
93. 43
93.76
94.78
94.35
95.14
96.38
70. 89
70. 76
71.16
70.41
70.68
71.29
1965.
...............
95. 06
1966.
....
98. 82
1967
___________ ___________
101. 84
1968
..............
107.73
1 9 6 9 ...........................
114. 61
dollars
86.
Worker with no
dependents
Current
dollars
1957-59
69. 42
$72.96
74. 48
76.99
78. 56
82. 57
$70.77
71.48
73. 05
73.63
76.38
$89. 72
92.34
96. 56
99. 63
102.97
71.87
71.87
71.69
71.54
71.23
86.30
90. 8 6
95.28
99. 99
78. 53
78.39
78.13
78. 61
78.30
dollars
Spendable average weekly earnings
Gross average
weekly earnings
Current
dollars
1957-59
Worker with 3
dependents
Current
dollars
1957-59
$87.02
8 8 . 62
91.61
93.37
95.25
$72.57
74.60
77. 8 6
79.82
84. 40
$70.39
71. 59
73.87
74.81
78. 08
107. 53
112. 34
114.90
122.51
129.51
97.84
99.33
98.80
101.08
101.42
89. 08
91.57
93. 28
97.70
101.90
81 06
80.96
80.21
80.61
79. 80
96
99
1Cl
106
111!
130. 06
128. 8 8
129. 92
132. 84
132.28
132. 36
134. 89
101.93
100. 53
100.95
102. 74
101.91
101.43
102. 73
102.30
101.43
87
104.34
103.93
103.99
105. 85
80 17
79 12
79 41
80 70
80. 07
79.69
80. 62
111 86
102.30
78.73
78.77
78. 87
79.27
78. 63
78.25
77.91
1 1 0 OS
111 ‘ 7*5
114 01
113. 57
113.63
115.61
54
83
17
87; 50
87. 07
8 8 . 05
101.97
102.32
103. 39
102.95
103.77
105. 08
77.37
77.22
77. 62
76.83
77.10
77.72
131.93
130. 94
132.40
131.80
132.93
134. 40
100.10
105.28
104. 53
105. 63
105.18
106.02
107. 03
79. 8 8
78. 89
79. 30
78. 49
78.77
79.24
114 48
113 69
114 85
114 37
115. 27
116.43
86
6 6 .0 0
6 6 . 59
dollars
8 8 .6 6
dollars
dollars
1Q*)7 S9
dollars
$80.11
8 ? IS
85 53
87 58
92! 18
78
45
76
75
44
dollars
$77.70
78 87
81 15
8 ? 08
85; 27
88 OÇ
87 9 3
87 07
8 8 08
87; 27
1969:
June................... ........
July_________________
August..............................
September....... ................
October___________
November_________
December...................
1 0 2 .1 1
1 0 2 .2 0
66
86
86
88
1970:
January............ .......
February______
March_____ ____
April....... ........
M ay.. ______
June». ________ _
87. 96
8 8 . 53
87. 57
87.96
8 8 .79
■For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 19/0, see
footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.
Spendable average weekly earnings are based on gross average weekly earnings as
published in table 21 less the estimated amount of the workers’ Federal social security
and income tax liability. Since the amount of tax liability depends on the number of
dependents supported by the worker as well as on the level of his gross income, spend
able earnings have been computed for 2 types of income receivers: (1) A worker with
no dependents and (2) a married worker with 3 dependents.
23.
98. 82
99.40
98. 36
98.76
99.41
86
85 80
8fi 7 ?
85 35
85 64
86.12
The earnings expressed in 1957-59 dollars have been adjusted for changes in pur
chasing power as measured by the Bureau’s Consumer Price Index.
These series are described in “ The Spendable Earnings Series: A Technical Note
on its Calculation,” in Employment and Earnings and Monthly Report on the Labor Force
February 1969, pp. 6-13.
NOTE: For additional detail see Employment and Earnings, table C-5.
»^preliminary.
Consumer and Wholesale Price Indexes, annual averages and changes, 1949 to date1
jlndexes: 1957-59=1001
Consumer prices
A ll items
Index
Commodities
Percent
change
Index
Wholesale prices
Services
Percent
change
Index
All commodities
Percent
change
Index
Percent
change
Farm products, proc- Industrial commodities
essed foods, and feeds
Index
Percent
change
Index
Percent
change
1949............................
83.0
87.1
-2 .6
72.6
4.6
83.5
-5 .0
94.3
-1 1 .7
80.0
- 2 .1
1950.________
1951.
1952.
1953.
1954.
83.8
90. 5
92. 5
93.2
93.6
1.0
8.0
2.2
0. 8
0.4
87.6
95. 5
96.7
96.4
95. 5
0.6
9.0
1.3
-.3
-.9
75.0
78.9
82.4
86.0
88.7
3.3
5.2
4.4
4.4
3.1
86.8
96.7
94.0
92.7
92.9
4.0
11.4
- 2 .8
- 1 .4
.2
98.8
112.5
108.0
101.0
100.7
4.8
13.9
- 4 .0
- 6 .5
-.3
82.9
91.5
89.4
90.1
90.4
3.6
10.4
- 2 .3
.8
.3
93.3
94. 7
98. 0
100. 7
101. 5
-.3
1. 5
3.5
2.8
.8
94.6
95. 5
98. 5
100.8
100.9
-.9
1.0
3.1
2.3
.1
90.5
92.8
96.6
100.3
103.2
2.0
2.5
4.1
3.8
2.9
93.2
96.2
99.0
100.4
100.6
.3
3.2
2.9
1.4
.2
95.9
95.3
98.6
103.2
98.4
- 4 .8
-.6
3.5
4.7
- 4 .7
92.4
96.5
99.2
99.5
101.3
2.2
4.4
2.8
.3
1.8
103.1
1.6
1. 1
.8
.6
.9
.9
l.i
106.6
108.8
110.9
113. 0
115.2
3.3
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
100.7
100.3
100.6
100.3
100.5
.1
-.4
.3
-.3
.2
98.6
98.6
99.6
98.7
98.0
.2
1.0
-.9
-.7
101.3
100.8
100.8
100.7
101.2
l i
2.6
1.8
3.7
4.5
117.8
122.3
127.7
134.3
143.7
2.3
3.8
4.4
5.2
7.0
102.5
105.9
106.1
108.7
113.0
2.0
3.3
.2
2.5
4.0
102.1
108.9
105.2
107.6
113.5
4.2
6.7
- 3 .4
2.3
5.5
102.5
104.7
106.3
109.0
112.7
1955.
1956.
1957.
1958.
1959.
1960.___
1961............
1962.
1963.____
1964.
1965.
1966.
1967.
1968.
1969.
..................
......
.........
.....................
- 1 .0
108.1
1.3
101.7
102. 3
103. 2
104.1
105.2
109.9
113. 1
116.3
121.2
127.7
1.7
2.9
2.8
4.2
5.4
106.4
109.2
111.2
115.3
120.5
Historical price changes are shown in greater detail and for earlier
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
years in the Bureau’s Handbook of Labor Statistics, 1969 (BLS Bulletin 1630), in tables 108-120.
- 0 .5
-.1
.5
1.3
2.1
1.5
2.5
3.4
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
24.
CONSUMER PRICES
97
Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items
l The official name of the index is, “ Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers.” It measures the average change in prices of goods and services purchased
by families and single workers. The indexes shown below represent the average of price changes in 56 metropolitan areas, selected to represent all U.S. urban places having
populations of more than 2500.]
[1957-59=100 unless otherwise specified]
General summary
1970
Item and group
1969
Annual
average
1969
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
All ite m s_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
All items (1947-49 =100)_______
135.7
166.5
135.2
165.9
134.6
165.2
134.0
164.4
133.2
163.4
132.5
162.5
131.8
161.7
131.3
161.1
130.5
160.1
129.8
159.3
129.3
158.6
128.7
157.9
128.2
157.3
127.7
156.7
Food........................................
Food at home____________
Food away from home_____
133.4
128.7
156.2
132.7
128.0
155.3
132.4
127.8
154.7
132.0
127.4
154.0
131.6
127.4
152.4
131.5
127.4
151.5
130.7
126.6
150.6
129.9
125.8
149.9
128.1
123.8
149.0
127.2
122.9
148.1
127.5
123.6
146.7
127.4
123.6
145.8
126.7
123.0
144.8
125.5
121.5
144.6
Housing__________________
Rent_______ ___________
Homeownership____ ____ _
136.2
123.8
155.0
135.6
123.4
154.4
135.1
123.0
153.3
134.4
122.6
152.1
133.6
122.3
150.9
132.2
121.8
148.5
131.1
121.3
146.8
130.5
121.0
145.4
129.8
120.5
144.5
129.2
120.1
143.6
128.6
119.7
142.6
127.8
119.3
141.3
127.0
118.8
140.0
126.7
118.8
139.4
Apparel and upkeep..................
Transportation.........................
Health and recreation________
Medical care_________ . . .
131.4
131.4
144.3
165.8
132.2
130.6
143.7
164.7
131.9
129.9
142.9
163.6
131.1
128.9
142.3
162.8
130.6
127.1
141. 4
161.6
130.0
127.3
140.7
160.1
129.3
127.3
140.1
159.0
130.8
126.4
139.6
158.1
130.7
125.6
139.1
157.4
129.8
125.7
138.6
156.9
128.7
123.6
138.4
157.6
126.6
124.2
137.7
156.8
126.8
124.3
137.0
155.9
127.1
124.2
136.6
155.0
Special groups:
All items less shelter.............
All items less food...... .........
All items less medical care..
133.0
136.6
133.9
132.6
136.1
133.4
132.1
135.5
132.9
131.5
134.8
132.2
130.7
133.8
131.5
130.3
133.0
130.8
129.8
132.3
130.1
129.5
131.9
129.7
128.6
131.4
128.9
128.1
130.8
128.2
127.6
130.0
127.6
127.1
129.3
127.0
126.7
128.8
126.5
126.3
128.6
126.1
Commodities................. ..........
Nondurables____________
Durables___ ___________
S ervices.................. .............
126.5
130.4
116.9
155.8
126.2
130.0
116.7
155.0
125.8
129.8
115.9
154.1
125.2
129.3
114.8
153.4
124.5
128.7
114.1
152.3
124.2
128.4
113.7
150.7
123.7
127.8
113.7
149.6
123.6
127.7
113.6
148.3
122.9
126.7
113.5
147.2
122.4
126.1
113.2
146.5
121.7
125.8
111.6
146.0
121.4
125.2
111.9
145.0
121.0
124.7
111.9
144.0
120.5
124.1
111.6
143.7
Commodities less food............
Nondurables less food____
Apparel commodities____
Apparel commodities less footwear_____________
Nondurables less food and apparel...
Household durables............
Housefurnishings...............
122.9
127.8
130.5
122.8
127.7
131.4
122.3
127.5
131.2
121.6
127.0
130.4
120.8
126.1
129.9
120.4
125.8
129.3
120.1
125.2
128.6
120.3
125.7
130.3
120.2
125.5
130.4
119.8
125.1
129.3
118.7
124.4
128.1
118.2
123.3
125.9
118.1
123.1
126.2
118.0
123.0
126.5
127.2
126.2
108.3
112.5
128.3
125.5
108.2
112.4
128.0
125.3
108.0
112.2
127.1
125.0
107.8
112.0
126.7
123.9
107.4
111.7
126.2
123.7
106.9
111.1
125.5
123.2
106.6
110.5
127.5
123.0
106.5
110.6
127.7
122.6
106.5
110.4
126.6
122.6
106.4
110.2
125.3
122.2
106.2
109.9
122.8
121.7
106.0
109.4
123.5
121.3
106.0
109.3
123.7
121.0
105.5
109.0
Services/less rent__________
Household services less rent.
Transportation services____
Medical care services_____
Other serv ces............. .........
162.8
161.6
158.6
181.8
153.8
161.9
160.6
157.1
180.6
153.4
161.0
160.0
156.1
179.3
152.3
160.1
159.1
155.5
178.4
151.4
158.9
157.7
154.5
177.0
150.3
157.1
155.0
154.1
175.2
149.8
155.8
153.2
152.9
173.8
149.4
154.3
152.4
148.4
172.8
148.9
153.1
151.4
145.8
171.8
148.2
152.3
150.4
145.1
171.2
147.6
151.7
149.5
144.0
172.2
147.2
150.7
148.2
143.1
171.1
146.5
149.6
146.9
142.5
170.1
145.7
149.2
146.4
142.9
168.9
145.5
O th e r
index
bases
U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items
F O O D ....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . .
133.4
132.7
132.4
132.0
131.6
131.5
130.7
129.9
128.1
127.2
127.5
127.4
126.7
125.5
Food away from home_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Restaurant meals..... .........
Snacks..... ................ .........
156.2
156.2
136.5
155.3
155.4
135.2
154.7
154.8
134.6
154.0
154.2
134.0
152.4
152.5
132.4
151.5
151.6
132.0
150.6
150.7
131.4
149.9
150.2
129.9
149.0
149.3
129.2
148.1
148.3
128.8
146.7
147.2
126.2
145.8
146.2
125.6
144.8
145.1
125.1
144.6
144.9
125.4
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
128.7
128.8
113.1
136.7
130.4
114.9
135.0
126.1
107.2
121.8
119.6
128.0
128.2
113.3
136.4
130.4
115.1
133.4
125.7
105.7
121.8
118.8
127.8
128.0
113.2
135.7
130.5
115.0
134.1
125.3
104.7
121.5
118.5
127.4
127.6
114.2
134.3
130.0
114.8
133.3
125.7
103.4
121.7
118.2
127.4
127.0
113.1
132.9
130.4
114.4
133.4
125.6
102.4
121.3
116.4
127.4
126.3
112.1
130.2
130.2
114.2
132.6
125.5
101.7
119.9
116.7
126.6
125.5
111.9
127.8
130.2
113.8
132.2
124.4
101.3
118.1
116.3
125.8
124.9
110.9
127.9
130.0
113.4
131.1
124.1
100.9
118.0
115.8
123.8
124.1
111.2
127.2
129.7
113.0
129.7
123.4
99.8
117.1
115.1
122.9
123.7
111.6
126.9
129.6
113.0
129.1
122.5
99.8
115.4
115.2
123.6
123.0
111.2
125.8
129.4
112.9
128.8
121.6
101.0
113.2
113.2
123.6
122.6
111.4
124.7
129.4
112.6
128.1
120.3
100.9
113.8
112.8
123.0
122.6
11 1.6
123.3
129.0
112.3
128.2
120.9
100.9
113.6
113.4
121.5
122.4
111.5
122.3
129.2
112.3
128.1
120.5
100.6
113.7
113.1
Meats,poultry, and fish_ _ _ _
Meats....... ................... .
Beef and veal______
Steak, round_____
Steak, sirloin_____ Apr. 60
Steak, porterhouse. Dec. 63
Rump roast______ Dec. 63
Rib roast________
Chuck ro ast..........
Hamburger............
Beef liver___ ____ Dec. 63
Veal cutlets...........
130.8
135.2
136.6
128.8
128.0
132.8
123.4
142.5
126.2
143.5
121.4
174.2
130.2
134.5
135.3
127.6
124.3
130.1
123.1
140.6
125.8
142.7
121.2
173.1
130.5
135.0
135.9
129.0
124.3
129.2
124.2
142.7
128.0
142.8
121.8
171.8
130.9
135.6
136.5
131.1
124.5
130.5
125.1
142.8
130.0
142.4
121.1
171.1
130.2
134.7
133.6
126.9
121.8
126.8
121.1
141.2
126.9
140.8
120.5
168.1
129.7
133.9
133.0
126.4
120.4
126.4
120.1
141.8
126.7
140.5
119.9
166.0
128.8
132.9
132.2
126.2
121.4
126.6
120.7
141.6
122.1
138.7
118.7
164.0
127.2
131.3
130.6
123.2
119.0
123.9
118.8
140.5
123.2
137.8
118.6
162.0
127.2
131.1
131.5
125.2
121.1
125.9
119.5
140.9
122.7
138.4
117.9
162.1
127.6
132.0
132.9
126.8
123.4
129.0
121.1
140.8
125.3
139.1
117.8
162.8
129.0
133.1
135.0
128.1
128.3
132.9
122.1
145.9
127.2
140.9
117.8
162.8
127.9
131.9
135.4
129.9
127.4
132.7
123.4
146.5
128.7
140.5
117.8
162.1
127.6
131.7
136.8
132.5
131.1
135.5
125.0
150.1
131.0
140.0
115.4
161.1
123.2
126.8
129.5
124.4
121.7
126.4
118.4
139.7
122.3
134.0
113.2
156.4
Food at home_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Cereals and bakery products_ _
Flour____________ _
Cracker meal________
Corn flakes... ______
R ice............... ..............
Bread, white_________
Bread, whole wheat___
Cookies_____________
Layer cake__________
Cinnamon rolls_______
399-873 0
-
70-7
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
98
CONSUMER PRICES
24.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued
Index or (roup
Other
index
bases
1970
Annual
average
1969
1969
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
134.9
137.5
144.3
149.5
125.9
137.2
137.4
134.4
135.5
142.6
150.5
126.5
137.5
137.4
134.8
135.1
143.6
150.4
129.0
138.5
137.1
135.9
135.6
143.5
150.6
133.5
139.9
138.2
137.9
139.7
146.1
150.6
135.3
142.1
138.7
137.2
139.5
146.2
148.6
134.0
139.9
138.8
135.6
136.9
143.7
146.7
136.9
137.7
136.7
133.3
135.7
143.4
146.8
130.7
134.7
133.1
132.0
134.1
140.4
148.3
124.8
136.0
132.4
132.7
134.0
141.8
149.1
123.9
136.5
134.9
133.7
137.6
143.0
149.6
121.8
135.5
135.6
130.2
135.7
141.3
146.0
117.0
134.5
128.7
129.0
136.4
141.9
143.6
114.2
130.9
126.8
125.2
129.6
135.8
137.8
117.1
127.5
124.3
63
63
63
63
137.2
141.9
137.1
132.8
140.5
131.5
132.5
137.4
141.0
137.1
134.4
139.7
131.9
133.2
137.9
141.2
138.2
136.7
139.5
132.0
132.9
138.0
142.0
137.4
138.3
139.7
131.8
131.9
137.3
142.2
136.1
138.3
138.4
130.4
131.6
136.0
140.8
134.2
136.6
137.7
128.6
131.4
135.3
140.9
134.2
134.8
137.2
128.0
130.1
134.4
140.4
134.6
130.4
136.6
127.9
129.9
133.6
139.4
134.7
127.8
136.1
127.1
129.8
133.3
139.9
134.7
125.1
136.2
127.2
129.9
132.6
139.7
135.4
122.6
136.2
127.0
128.0
131.2
139.3
133.7
120.6
134.5
126.0
126.3
128.8
140.9
129.4
115.6
132.0
123.7
125.0
127.7
137.0
127.4
120.0
129.3
122.1
123.7
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
97.5
96.6
108.0
117.3
97.4
95.9
108.2
119.2
97.1
95.3
109.2
119.5
97.1
95.4
109.4
119.0
97.9
96.7
110.4
116.9
99.1
98.5
110.4
115.9
99.5
99.4
110.1
114.4
97.9
97.9
110.4
110.3
99.1
99.5
110.8
110.0
98.2
98.6
112.0
107.2
102.0
103.8
113.8
105.9
101.4
103.3
113.0
104.7
100.4
103.1
109.4
101.8
96.9
98.1
108.4
102.8
143.4
127.4
156.2
126.8
131.7
143.2
128.2
154.4
126.6
131.9
142.3
127.8
153.0
126.0
130.8
141.1
126.8
152.5
124.5
129.3
139.8
127.4
150.9
123.1
126.9
138.3
126.2
148.1
121.6
126.5
137.0
125.4
145.2
120.5
126.0
135.4
124.4
143.4
117.9
125.4
134.0
122.9
141.1
116.7
125.0
133.4
122.5
139.9
116.2
124.9
132.2
121.0
138.6
114.9
124.2
131.5
120.8
137.2
114.4
123.5
130.6
119.7
134.5
113.6
124.4
130.6
119.3
134.6
114.4
124.2
130.6
126.6
134.5
129.4
133.1
130.2
126.3
134.2
129.4
131.5
129.9
126.6
134.0
129.2
129.7
129.5
126.5
133.9
128.3
127.9
129.4
126.8
133.5
128.4
127.7
128.8
126.2
133.1
127.3
127.4
128.4
126.1
132.7
127.4
126.4
127.6
125.0
132.3
126.0
125.0
126.3
123.4
130.4
125.0
124.3
125.8
122.8
130.1
124.3
123.8
125.5
122.8
129.4
124.8
124.1
125.0
122.3
128.7
124.3
124.1
124.4
121.7
128.0
122.9
123.9
124.5
121.8
128.4
123.0
123.5
104.5
157.9
121.4
103.8
157.4
121.1
103.4
157.2
121.0
102.7
157.3
120.2
102.7
156.4
119.5
102.1
154.8
119.5
102.1
153.1
119.9
102.0
152.4
119.6
100.7
151.0
119.4
99.9
149.9
119.9
100.1
148.9
118.3
99.5
148.5
118.0
99.0
147.7
118.0
99.5
146.8
118.3
137.5
152.2
178.0
92.4
135.6
90.1
139.4
155.9
166.0
102.4
129.1
89.5
136.8
151.5
149.7
101.6
123.7
90.1
134.7
148.0
141.3
101.4
122.4
89.9
133.1
145.7
139.6
101.9
125.4
90.6
132.4
144.5
135.8
96.5
124.5
90.7
130.9
141.9
134.0
94.5
121.5
90.5
132.1
144.1
129.3
93.3
125.0
91.5
127.0
135.4
125.7
93.9
132.4
91.8
124.0
130.1
131.7
100.7
131.9
92.0
126.8
134.9
174.6
99.6
132.1
92.1
130.2
141.0
190.5
97.4
132.7
92.0
132.3
145.0
192.9
97.7
127.9
91.4
128.4
138.1
162.5
95.3
128.4
90.9
Grapefruit.......................................
Grapes................................. ..........
Strawberries________ _____ ____
Watermelon...................................
215.4
197.3
(0
141.0
189.7
(>)
133.2
180.7
160.1
O)
128.1
O)
152.4
162.7
134.9
(O
150.6
(')
( ‘)
143.7
O )
142.0
(O
(O
(O
144.1
154.3
(O
O)
184.0
144.0
(>)
(*)
205.9
137.8
(>)
O )
151.7
(O
(O
(>)
O )
194.6
147.4
O)
116.1
156.6
188.3
O)
119.6
155.1
154.4
131.9
131.9
Potatoes............................... .......
Onions..___________ ____ _____
Asparagus_____________ ______
Cabbage....................... .................
Carrots.............................................
194.2
172.9
133.5
182.4
123.4
177.2
173.0
132.1
219.6
121.0
166.9
180.0
138.9
194.3
117.3
159.9
180.8
119.3
202.1
115.3
153.3
171.0
176.6
204.5
122.1
151.1
166.9
(O
211.3
145.3
144.3
140.5
141.6
188.7
139.2
142.0
136.4
(O
173.4
146.6
140.1
133.2
O)
150.6
127.1
137.6
134.2
O)
145.9
129.6
144.5
139.0
O)
135.6
128.3
159.0
152.2
(>)
138.3
139.6
165.2
141.5
129.6
145.7
129.5
144.8
134.1
138.7
152.0
123.8
133.1
125.9
127.1
174.5
117.2
140.1
175.6
139.4
126.1
244.1
117.3
154.5
160.5
154.6
138.9
344.4
117.5
145.2
128.7
214.0
125.2
299.7
119.9
159.0
136.2
209.1
123.0
265.5
118.3
136.1
143.6
208.5
122.7
283.9
122.0
134.8
140.5
203.4
137.6
231.2
120.3
168.1
132.2
176.5
189.5
217.2
121.8
177.5
131.2
122.5
177.9
160.9
116.5
146.7
115.5
118.5
133.3
145.7
120.1
119.0
120.1
111.7
130.8
147.8
118.0
103.2
130.2
122.5
124.2
146.4
117.2
116.3
151.8
123.0
126.8
165. 6
118.8
131.0
125.6
148.1
144.4
172.4
114.8
138.1
119.1
107.9
107.4
105.6
91.6
118.6
106.3
105.9
105.4
92.4
118.3
106.3
105.6
105.5
92.4
118.0
106.2
104.9
105.2
92.6
117.3
105.3
104.9
104.1
93.5
117.3
104.9
105.4
103.7
96.5
117.1
105.3
106.0
103.0
96.4
117.1
106.2
106.4
102.4
97.4
116.8
105.4
106.9
102.6
97.2
116.6
105.6
107.6
102.2
98.2
116.9
106.6
108.2
101.8
99.4
116.7
106.3
108.8
101.0
100.0
116.4
107.1
108.6
100.4
100.4
116.3
106.4
108.7
100.5
98.9
94.6
117.7
123.0
136.7
121.1
113.5
95.4
117.2
123.0
135.1
120.9
113.4
97.0
115.9
122.0
133.3
121.3
112.9
96.5
116.2
123.1
130.7
121.5
113.0
95.9
115.0
121.8
128.0
122.0
112.7
94.8
114.1
122.2
127.2
123.4
111.8
95.1
113.9
122.4
126.7
123.1
110.8
94.7
113.6
122.4
126.6
123.3
109.6
94.1
113.3
123.1
125.5
123.6
108.0
93.8
112.8
122.9
124.8
124.3
106.7
93.3
113.1
122.9
124.1
125.0
107.5
92.5
112.8
122.7
124.6
125.0
106.7
90.6
113.3
121.7
124.5
124.7
105.4
92.5
113.2
121.7
124.7
124.7
104.7
116.0
105.3
113.3
91.9
113.7
97.7
113.8
103.6
116.0
122.6
118.1
141.0
117.7
143.0
116.6
140.6
112.9
122.3
111.0
114.5
110.5
113.8
110.5
114.4
107.2
95.6
109.9
112.1
111.9
104.3
137.5
112.0
103.6
135.4
111.4
103.2
134.7
108.8
102.3
131.2
106.1
102.2
129.1
105.6
101.9
127.2
105.6
102.5
126.2
105.0
102.6
124.8
103.7
102.5
123.9
102.7
102.8
123.0
102.2
102.3
123.6
102.4
102.3
123.6
103.1
102.4
123.5
103.0
102.6
123.4
132.7
121.6
132.7
134.2
110.6
132.2
120.3
132.5
133.7
110.5
131.8
119.6
132.3
133.2
110.6
130.5
118.9
131.3
130.1
110.3
129.7
118.2
131.5
127.9
110.1
128.6
117.2
130.6
126.6
109.3
128.1
116.7
129.7
127.1
108.1
127.5
116.2
128.7
127.4
107.1
126.6
116.2
126.5
126.6
106.9
126.4
116.3
125.6
126.7
106.8
126.0
116.4
124.7
126.5
106.5
125.4
116.5
123.9
125.1
106.5
125.3
116.2
123.9
124.9
106.4
125.1
115.3
124.1
125.1
106.1
FOOD—Continued
Meats, poultry, and fish—Continued
Meats—Continued
Pork......... .......... .................... .
C h o p s...________ ____ _____
Loin roast___________ ______ _ Apr. 60
Pork sausage............................... Dec. 63
Ham, whole..................................
Picnics....................................... Dec. 63
Bacon__________ _____ _____
Other meats.....................................
Lamb chops........................... .
Dec.
Frankfurters.................... ............
Ham, canned.................... ......... Dec.
Bologna sausage_____________ Dec.
Salami sausage............................ Dec.
Liverwurst................................... Dec.
Poultry.................................................
Frying chicken................................
Chicken breasts..............................
Turkey.............................................
Fish..................... ...............................
Shrimp, frozen...............................
Fish, fresh or frozen........................
Tuna, fish, canned...........................
Sardines, canned......... ............ .......
Dairy products..........................................
Milk, fresh, grocery..... .......................
Milk, fresh, delivered_____________
Milk, fresh, skim_________ _______
Milk, evaporated............. ...................
63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Ice cream.............................................
Cheese, American process...................
Butter.......... .......................................
Fruits and vegetables________ _________
Fresh fruits and vegetables.................
Apples......... ...................................
Bananas................... ..................... .
Oranges_____ ________ _______ _
Orange juice, fre sh ........................ Dec. 63
Celery.............................................
Cucumbers_______ ____ _______
Lettuce.......... ................... .............
Peppers, green....... .........................
Spinach...........................................
Tomatoes.......... ..............................
Processed fruits and vegetables.......................
Fruit cocktail, canned..........................
Pears, cann e d ............................... .
Grapefruit-pineapple juice, canned...
Orange juice concentrate, frozen____
Lemonade concentrate, frozen........ .
Beets, canned............ .........................
Peas, green, canned...................... .
Tomatoes, canned....... ......................
Dried beans.........................................
Broccoli, frozen............. .....................
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Apr. 60
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Other food at home......... ......................... .......
Eggs....... ............. ............ ...................
Fats and oils:
Margarine............................................
Salad dressing, Italian...... .................. Dec. 63
Salad or cooking oil............ ................ Dec. 63
Sugar and sweets...................................
Sugar............... ............. ...................
Grape jelly..........................................
Chocolate bar....... ..............................
Syrup, chocolate flavored....................
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Dec. 63
O )
(>>
CONSUMER PRICES
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
24.
99
Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued
Item or iroup
Annual
average
1969
1969
1970
Other
index
bases
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
117.7
107.3
115.7
106.4
164.8
131.4
116.5
105.4
115.7
105.9
164.2
130.5
115.2
103.6
114.7
104.8
163.0
130.0
114.0
102.2
114.1
103.6
162.0
128.5
112.4
99.7
113.1
103.1
161.9
127.4
110.7
97.4
111.0
103.6
160.3
126.0
109.1
94.9
109.6
103.1
159.3
125.5
107.4
92.3
108.0
102.9
158.4
124.8
106.1
90.0
106.0
102.2
158.7
124.7
104.3
87.0
104.2
102.1
158.0
124.5
103.7
86.6
103.8
102.0
156.8
123.4
103.8
86.7
103.9
102.2
156.6
123.1
103.3
86.3
103.6
102.0
155.3
122.7
103.7
87.5
103.2
63
63
63
63
110.1
111.5
10'. 1
124.0
110.1
111.3
102.3
123.4
110.1
111.1
102.3
123.2
109.8
110.5
102.0
122.7
109.5
110.4
101.8
121.8
109.0
110.9
101.1
121.1
108.5
109.7
100.8
120.8
108.2
108.8
100.3
120.4
107.6
107.2
99.5
119.8
107.4
106.3
98.3
118.9
106.9
105.6
98.1
117.2
106.7
105.4
98.3
117.3
106.2
105.1
98.0
117.0
106.2
105.0
98.0
117.1
Mashed potatoes, instant.................... Dec. 63
Potatoes, french fried, frozen............. Apr. 60
Baby foods, canned.............................
Sweet pickle relish.............................. Dec. 63
Pretzels............................................... Dec. 63
111.0
93.3
112.7
116.4
110.4
110.8
93.4
112.6
117.0
110.3
110.7
93.5
112.5
117.6
110.1
110.5
93.2
112.0
117.2
109.1
109.6
92.5
111.9
115.0
107.5
110.0
92.1
111.4
114.3
107.0
109.6
92.8
111.7
114.2
107.6
108.1
91.8
111.7
107.2
91.4
135.1
133.6
131.1
130.5
129.8
129.2
108.9
92.7
112.7
112.6
107.6
128.6
108.5
92.5
112.1
112.0
107.6
135.6
110.3
92.8
112.0
116.0
108.3
132.2
109.7
92.7
112.1
115.6
107.1
136.2
110.6
93.2
112.9
118.0
110.0
134.4
I4fi
145.6
123.4
154.4
144.7
123.0
153.3
143.7
122.6
152.1
142.8
122.3
150.9
140.9
121.8
148.5
139.6
121.3
146.8
138.5
121.0
145.4
137.7
120.5
144.5
137.0
120.1
143.6
1^4 6
15214
149.1
139.8
153.5
151.4
149.2
139.4
153.2
149.9
149.1
138.2
153.6
148.8
148.9
134.7
153.2
148.3
143.5
133.6
152.8
146.9
139.9
133.0
152.5
146.4
139.6
132.0
153.3
145.8
139.3
131.5
152.3
144.9
1?0 3
]? ? 8
11517
119.6
120.7
115.6
118.4
119.9
115.0
117.8
119.9
114.6
117.2
121.0
114.7
116.5
119.8
114.8
116.1
119.3
114.1
115.9
119.1
114.3
ISO 4
149.3
196.3
168.0
138.3
151.6
154.3
147.9
191.7
167.1
137.4
150.4
153.7
146.7
187.9
165.6
137.1
149.1
152.9
146.2
186.8
166.1
136.7
148.2
152.4
144.7
185.4
165.4
135.0
145.6
151.3
144.1
184.6
164.9
134.6
145.2
150.0
116.4
121.0
118.0
115.8
123.2
108.2
116.3
120.9
117.8
115.7
123.1
108.0
115.6
120.8
117.8
114.8
121 9
107.5
114.9
12Q.6
117.5
114.6
121.5
107.4
FO O D — Continued
Other food at home— Continued
Nonalcoholic beverages..........................
Coffee, can and bag...........................
Coffee, instant..................................... July 61
Tea......................................................
Cola drink...........................................
Carbonated fruit drink........................ Dec. 63
Prepared and partially prepared foods..
Bean soup, canned..............................
Chicken soup, canned.........................
Spaghetti, canned...............................
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
H O U S IN G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Shelter................................
Rent....................................
Homeownership..................
?
1?V 8
155^0
Mortgage interest rates..
Property taxes................
Property insurance rates.
Maintenance and repairs.
Dec. 63
Commodities...............
Exterior house paint.
Interior house paint.
Dec. 63
Services...........................................
Repainting living and dining rooms.
Reshingling roofs.........................
Residing houses...........................
Replacing sinks............................
Repairing furnaces.......................
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
149 1
140 S
198 0
169 8
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
1 Q ?
IS ? 7
155.2
111.0
101.8
155.3
121.9
111.6
112.8
107.1
127.8
107.4
127.0
136.1
119.7
142.6
135.1
119.3
141.3
134.0
118.8
140.0
133.6
118.8
139.4
138.8
130.5
150.7
144. 5
138.2
130.4
149.5
143.8
137.1
129.9
150. 3
142.4
135.8
128.7
149.6
141.5
134.4
129.0
148.7
140.7
116.0
118.7
113.6
116.2
118.0
113.8
116.7
117.6
113.1
117.2
116. 5
113.1
117.5
115.7
112.3
116.1
116.5
112.4
143.5
183.6
164.1
134.0
144.5
149.7
142.2
182.6
163.0
134.2
142.6
145.2
141.6
181.8
162.3
133.7
142.0
144.1
140.4
179.7
161.4
133.0
140.4
142.8
138.2
178.3
130.0
139.0
141.2
136.9
176.1
155.4
129.3
137.8
139.7
136.4
174.6
155.8
129.0
137.4
139.1
114.6
119.7
116.6
114.1
120.5
107.4
114.6
119.2
116.2
113.7
119.8
107.2
114.2
118.9
116.0
113.2
118.8
107.2
113.5
118.4
115.5
112.2
116.9
106.9
113.3
118.1
115.4
112.0
116.7
106.8
113.0
117.7
115.2
111. 5
116.1
106.4
112.6
117.4
115.0
110.9
115.7
105.6
112.9
117.8
115.1
111.5
116.8
105.8
1 5 7 .6
126.7
Fuel and utilities................................
Fuel oil and coal............................
Fuel oil, #2.................................
Gas and electricity.........................
Gas.............................................
Electricity..................................
Other utilities:
Residential telephone services..
Residential water and sewerage.
122 9
108.7
116.2
121.2
118.3
115.3
122.0
108.3
105.2
158.7
104.9
151.0
104.9
151.0
104.8
151.0
103.9
151.0
102.8
147.5
103.0
147.5
103.8
147.5
103.7
147.5
103.6
145.3
103.6
145.3
103.6
145.3
103.6
145.3
103.5
144.4
Household furnishings and operation.
Housefurnishings................
123.0
112.5
122.8
112.4
122.5
112.2
122.0
112.0
121.6
111.7
120.8
111.1
120.1
110.5
120.0
110.6
119.6
110.4
119.3
H0.2
119.0
109.9
118.5
109.4
118.2
109.3
117.9
109.0
116.7
120.8
116.7
122.0
116.2
121.8
116.7
123.6
116.4
122.7
115.7
120.8
114.2
117.3
116.1
122.2
115.7
121.7
115.0
120.1
115.2
119.8
113.8
116.2
114.8
118.7
114.4
119.6
113.9
117.9
113.1
117.5
113.2
116.8
113.3
117.8
113.7
117.1
112.7
116.6
111.6
115.0
112.3
117.6
112.1
117.7
112.0
117.1
112.0
116.9
112.0
115.7
111.6
116.5
110.9
116.2
127.4
126.6
127.3
127.0
126.5
125.8
125.0
126.6
126.0
124.1
124.5
125.0
124.8
123.1
110.4
110.0
111.1
110.0
110.3
110.1
109.6
123.6
122.9
122.4
122.1
121.5
Textiles...............................................
Sheets, percale or muslin................
Curtains, tailored, polyester mar
quisette...................................
Bedspreads, chiefly cotton, tufted..
Drapery fabric, cotton or rayon/
acetate....... .................................
Slipcovers, ready made, chiefly
cotton...........................................
Furniture and bedding......................
Bedroom furniture chest and
dressers..................................
Living room suites, good and inex
pensive quality............................
Lounge chairs, upholstered........... .
Dining room chairs *......................
Sofas, upholstered.........................
Sofas, dual purpose.......................
Mattresses and box springs 6_.......
Cribs..............................................
Floor coverings........
Rugs, soft surface.
Rugs, hard surface.
Tile, vinyl.............
Appliances...........................................
washing machines, electric, auto
m a tic..........................................
Vacuum cleaners, canister type___
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
117
12?
119
115
Dec. 63
2
3
1
7
115.2
Dec. 63
Mar. 70
Dec. 63
June 70
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
112.7
111.8
126.7
126.6
126.0
100.9
100.6
100.5
100.4
128 8
122.2
100.6
121 1
122.2
99. 5
122.1
128.3
122.1
100.6
120.0
123.9
100.0
121.4
128.1
122.5
100.2
119.1
123.3
127.9
121.9
100.2
118.7
122.6
121.4
120.0
126.7
Mar. 70
114.3
112.1
112.3
125.4
124.6
124.1
123.9
123.7
127.3
121.0
126.1
120.0
126.0
120.0
126.3
118.8
125.8
118.6
125.9
118.9
124.9
119.0
124.8
117.9
123.9
116. 5
123.7
115.8
118.0
120.6
116.5
120.0
116.3
120.5
116.5
120.0
115.7
120.2
115.9
118.9
114.8
118.8
115.1
118.6
114.3
117.9
114.2
117.2
120.6
119.9
119.6
119.8
119.5
119.2
117.1
118.0
117.7
117.0
107.1
104.9
112.1
109.6
107.0
104.9
111.8
109.3
106.3
104.1
111. 6
108. 5
106.4
104.4
111. 5
108.2
106.5
104.5
111.2
108.4
107.1
104.8
112.5
110.1
106.8
104.0
113.2
110.3
107.1
104.7
112.5
110.3
86.6
86.5
86.4
86.3
86.2
86.0
86.0
85.9
85.8
92.3
81.5
91.8
81.8
91.5
81.4
91.2
81.4
90.9
81.5
91.0
81.3
90.8
82.1
90.5
82.0
90.6
81.5
107.2
103.9
114.0
113.1
107.4
104.2
113.7
113.1
106.9
103.8
113.7
111.8
106.9
103.9
113.7
111.7
106.9
104.0
113.6
111.3
87.3
87.2
87.1
87.1
86.8
93.1
81.4
93.0
81.2
92.9
81.5
92.9
81.6
92.4
81.3
107.2
103.7
114.6
113.5
111.0
100
24.
CONSUMER PRICES
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued
Index or {roup
1970
Other
index
bases
July
H O U SIN G — Continued
Household furnishings and operation— Con.
Appliances—Continued
Refrigerators
or
refrigeratorfreezers, electric........................
Ranges, free standing, gas or
electric.......................................
Clothes dryers, electric, automatic.
Airconditioners, demountable____
Room heaters, electric, portable___
Garbage disposal units...............
Other house furnishings:
Dinnerware, earthenware.
Flatware, stainless steel..
Table lamps, with shade..
Dec.
June
Dec.
Dec.
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Annual
Sept.
Aug.
1969”
July
87.6
87.5
87.3
87.5
87.2
86.8
86.1
86.0
85.8
85.8
85.8
85.7
85.4
85.3
101.0
100.7
100.2
100.7
100.1
99.3
99.0
99.0
98.8
98.5
98.1
98.2
97.6
97.7
102.7
101.6
102.6
101.5
101.9
101.3
102.1
101.3
100.6
99.6
99.7
99.8
99.5
99.7
(9
63
64
63
63
108.5
108.2
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
139.6
121.6
120.9
101.8
101.3
100.5
99.8
107.4
(9
107.2
100.5
106.6
100.6
105.9
100.6
105.5
100.4
105.0
99.8
105.0
99.6
104.7
104.3
103.9
103.9
99.4
99.5
98.8
103.9
139.3
121.0
121.6
138.3
120.8
121.4
138.1
120.7
121.2
138.1
120.4
119.9
137.1
120.1
118.6
136.2
119.2
118.3
135.6
119.0
118.7
135.2
119.6
118.3
134.8
119.6
117.8
134.3
119.8
116.0
133.5
119.6
115.4
133.6
119.5
115.3
133.3
118.7
114.6
110.3
140.5
129.9
110.0
139. 5
129.7
110.0
138.5
129.4
109.8
136.4
127.8
110.0
134.7
126.8
108.8
131.3
123.5
108.1
129.8
121.9
107.1
131.0
120.3
106.2
130.0
121.2
106.8
129.0
121.2
107.4
128.6
120.7
107.4
128.0
119.1
106.4
127.2
119.5
106.3
128 2
118.9
Dec. 63
186.8
142.4
165.5
150.6
186.6
141.8
165. 5
150.2
185.5
141.5
165.5
150.0
184.8
140.9
165.5
149.8
182.5
140.0
165.5
149.1
182.0
138.6
165.5
147.9
180.5
137.6
165.5
147.5
179.9
137.4
165.5
146.8
178.7
136.6
165.5
144.3
177.6
135.7
165.5
143.2
175.1
135.6
165.5
142.7
173.9
134.9
165.5
141.4
172.9
134.5
165.5
140.6
173 5
133 7
165 5
140.6
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
133.1
140.8
132.7
140.2
132.5
140.4
132.1
139.8
132.0
139.6
132.0
138.3
132.0
136.6
131.8
135.4
131.8
135.1
130.7
135.2
130.3
134.4
129.7
133.5
128.4
133.0
127 9
131.7
Housekeeping supplies:
Laundry soaps and detergents........
Paper napkins............. .............
Toilet tissue...............................
Housekeeping services:
Domestic service, general house
work______ ___ ____ _______
Baby sitter service.___________
Postal charges.................. .........
Laundry, flatwork, finished service.
Licensed day care service, pre
schoolchild________________
Washing machine repairs..............
June
1969
Dec. 63
(9
(9
(9
(9
<9
100.8
<9
<9
(9
(9
(9
(2)
(9
APPA REL AND U PK EEP.
131.4
132.2
131.9
131.1
130.6
130.0
129.3
130.8
130.7
129.8
128.7
126.6
126.8
127.1
M en’s and boys'........
132.8
134.2
133.9
133.4
132.3
131.0
130.8
132.0
132.1
131.0
130.0
128.7
128.1
128.5
(9
141.0
153.9
143.7
154.2
147.4
158.2
148.5
158.2
145.9
156.4
144.0
154.5
150.7
(9
142.9
150 9
128.6
124 6
Ï27 4
113 9
116.4
Men's:
Topcoats, wool...................................
Suits, year round weight....................
Suits, tropical weight.......................
Jackets, lightweight____ ____ ____
Slacks, wool or wool blend________
Slacks, cotton or manmade blend___
Trousers, work, cotton......................
Shirts, work, cotton___
Shirts, business, cotton.
T-shirts, chiefly cotton..
Socks, c o tto n ............
Handkerchiefs, cotton...
Boys':
Coats, all purpose, cotton or cotton
blend______________________
Sport coats, wool or wool blend____
Dungarees, cotton or cotton blend___
Undershorts, cotton............................
(>)
June 64
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Women’s and girls’...................................
Women’s:
Coats, heavyweight, wool or wool
blend...... .................... ............... .
Skirts, wool or wool blend................ Sept. 61
Skirts, cotton or cotton blend______ Mar. 62
Blouses, cotton............ ................... .
Dresses, street, chiefly manmade
fiber............................................. .
Dresses, street, wool or wool blend...
Dresses, street, cotton.......................
Housedresses, cotton..........................
Slips, nylon.....................
Panties, acetate........... .
Girdles, manmade blend.
Brassieres, cotton.........
Dec. 63
Hose, nylon, seamless.......................
Anklets, cotton............ .................... .
Gloves, fabric, nylon or cotton...........
Handbags, rayon faille or plastic____
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Girls’ :
Raincoats, vinyl plastic or chiefly
cotton..............................................
Skirts, wool or wool blend..................
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Dec. 63
(9
(9
158.6
131.8
124.8
130.8
123.4
118.4
160. 5
140. 5
125.2
132.8
123.7
117.8
160.2
138.4
125.1
132.7
123.4
117.1
159.8
137.4
125.3
131.8
123.0
117.2
144.1
157.3
136.6
125.3
131.0
120.9
116.6
125.6
129.6
119.4
116.4
125.5
130.0
117.6
116.0
127.0
125.1
135.0
123.3
115.5
126.8
124.6
134.7
123.1
115.3
126.5
124.2
134.6
122.6
115.1
126.4
124.1
134.1
122.6
114.4
126.0
123.7
132.9
121.5
114.2
124.9
123.2
133.3
121.3
113.9
(9
(9
(9
125.7
131.2
117.6
117.2
125.6
131.7
117.1
117.0
125.4
130.4
115.6
116.9
125.2
128.9
115.2
116.9
125.0
127.1
114.5
116.8
149.6
127.7
125.1
126.1
112.1
116.9
124.4
122.5
132.4
120.9
113.8
124.2
122.3
131.9
120.9
113.8
124.7
122.2
131.8
120.4
113.3
124.2
122.2
131.5
121.1
112.9
123.2
121.8
130.6
121.6
112.7
123.3
121.6
130.6
121.6
112.4
123.1
121.5
130.1
121.1
112.3
122.9
121.3
130.0
119.8
112.1
<9
<9
(9
(9
(9
114.3
130.1
131.5
130.1
131.6
(9
(9
114.6
128.0
131.3
129.5
130.9
129.5
130.5
129.4
129.9
114.2
127.8
128.9
130.1
116.1
130.3
127.1
130.3
115.9
131.0
127.9
130.3
115.2
126.4
126.9
129.0
113.5
122.5
127.4
128.9
127.4
128.4
127.2
127.9
(9
(9
112.4
125.6
126.3
127.1
125.8
126.8
126.6
125.2
125.3
125.4
124.2
127.2
127.4
126.2
124.6
120.8
122.5
122.8
(9
(9
(9
(9
<9
121.0
<9
<9
124.9
135.6
136.2
144.6
139.9
145.3
139.9
133.9
136.0
129.4
(9
(9
(9
(9
134.4
129.3
129.3
123.6
(9
0)
<9
<9
(9
<9
(>)
<9
<9
0)
(9
<9
(9
(9
(9
(9
(9
(9
130.0
126.2
136.3
130.6
136.3
129.7
135.2
127.1
125.3
124.9
126.9
127.6
127.2
125.4
122.7
156.1
155.8
156.5
158.9
158.5
<9
(9
(9
<9
(9
(9
(9
(9
(9
158.7
155.9
144.2
158.3
145.7
158.8
144.8
155.9
145.7
152.5
140.8
147.3
147.6
(9
149.9
148.8
(9
150.2
141.0
147.2
147.9
<9
(5)
(•)
<9
0)
0)
115.2
114.5
120.4
128.2
115.8
113.5
121.4
128.9
115.6
113.3
121.4
129.2
114.7
112.7
121.3
128.4
99.4
119.7
118.7
98.8
118.9
111.4
120.3
99.1
120.1
111.2
119.3
(9
(9
<9
(*)
<9
<9
111.6
<9
(9
(9
(9
(9
(9
(9
(9
(9
121.8
122.2
(9
130.7
122.4
153.5
152.3
153.0
152.1
150.7
149.0
136.6
150.0
114.2
113.2
121.4
127.4
114.6
112.7
120.9
125.6
113.4
112.0
120.5
124.4
112.3
111.2
120.8
124.9
112.2
111.4
120.5
123.8
111.9
110.5
120.2
123.1
111.9
109.9
119.5
122.9
111.6
109.1
119.4
122.5
109.7
108.6
119.0
122.2
110.8
109.2
119.1
121.7
98.9
120.1
110.6
118.8
99.0
120.5
110.9
118.2
111.0
98.3
122.5
118.5
98.5
121.0
110.7
116.4
99.8
121.5
110.5
117.3
99.8
118.5
109.8
117.2
99.4
118.5
109.2
115.5
99.2
118.4
109.0
114.8
98.8
118.2
109.3
114.1
99.6
118.1
108.9
113.8
99.1
117.2
108.6
113.6
(9
(9
114.8
118.9
118.1
117.4
125.6
123.2
124.4
123.4
121.7
124.0
120.8
(9
(9
(9
(9
120.9
121.4
(9
(9
<9
CONSUMER PRICES
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
24.
101
Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued
1969
1970
A P P A R E L A N D U P K EE P -C o n tln u ed
W om en’s and girls'— Continued
G irls ' C o n tin u ed
Dresses, co tto n ............
Slacks, cotton......... .......
Slips, cotton blend------Handbags................—
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Footwear.........................
Men’s:
Shoes, street, oxford.
Shoes, work, h ig h ...
Annual
average
1969
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
131.5
(')
107.9
117.1
133.2
(i)
108 0
118.3
129.4
(>)
107.3
117.4
135.1
O)
107.5
115.7
134.0
125.5
108.1
115.1
132.3
125.4
107.8
114.9
129.8
128.4
108.0
113.7
133.6
131.8
108.0
114.2
136.3
131.7
108.6
114.7
137.4
127.9
108.5
111.1
136.9
(2>
107.7
108.9
135.4
(O
108.0
108.3
134.2
(')
108.1
108.2
134.4
125.8
107.5
109.3
147.5
147.7
147.6
147.2
146.3
145.0
144.4
144.4
143.9
143.3
142.3
141.5
139.9
140.3
142.1
139.5
141.5
139.0
140.1
138.4
138.7
138.1
137.5
137.3
138.4
136.7
145.2
143.4
145.6
143.4
145.3
142.9
144.7
142.6
143.8
142.1
142.3
141.4
141.3
140.9
142.6
139.8
Women's:
Shoes, street, pump...
Shoes, evening, pump.
Shoes, casual, pump—
Houseslippers, scuff..
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
155.5
127.5
137.2
128.2
156 8
126 6
138 3
128.1
157.3
126.7
138.7
127.7
157.3
125.8
138.3
127.7
155.5
125.0
136.3
128.2
151.6
124.8
135.7
127.8
151.8
124.2
134.2
128.0
152.7
123.2
134.0
127.5
152.5
122.9
133.4
127.1
152.0
122.9
132.0
126.6
150.8
122.3
129.6
126.4
149.9
121.8
128.9
125.4
147.3
121.0
126.8
123.9
148.6
120.3
127.7
124.7
Children’s:
Shoes, oxford-------------------Sneakers, boys’, oxford type.
Dress shoes, girls’, strap —
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
147.1
122.9
138.6
147 2
123 2
138.3
146.6
122.6
138.3
146.3
122.0
137.5
146.6
120.7
138.0
145.9
120.0
136.6
144.3
119.6
136.6
144.3
119.5
136.4
143.3
119.3
135.7
142.3
119.1
134.6
141.4
118.9
134.1
140.7
118.1
133.1
140.2
116.9
130.6
140.1
117.2
131.5
105.4
125.4
105 0
127.1
104.9
127.6
104.8
126.8
104.9
125.9
104.3
124.6
104.0
123.3
104.0
123.5
104.1
123.1
103.8
123.5
103.9
123. 2
104.0
123.2
103.5
122.1
103.0
120.9
136.4
114.3
130.3
133.7
126.9
136 3
114 0
130 0
133 3
126.8
136.0
113.2
129.0
128.8
126.5
135.7
113.1
128.8
128.4
126.3
135.2
113.2
128.5
127.7
125.5
134.6
112.3
128.0
127.4
125.0
133.8
112.0
126.8
127.0
124.6
133.3
112.0
126.7
127.4
123.7
132.9
111.8
124.3
127.6
123.6
132.2
111.4
123.8
127.5
122.7
132. 0
111.3
123. 4
126.5
123.1
131.7
111.0
123.2
125.4
121.3
130.5
111.0
123.0
125.2
121.1
130.8
110.1
122.9
124.5
121.3
131.4
130.6
129.9
128.9
127.1
127.3
127.3
126.4
125.6
125.7
123. 6
124.2
124.3
124.2
Private................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Automobiles, new__________
Automobiles, used.............—
Gasoline, regular and premium.
Motor oil, premium................ .
127.2
103.7
131.8
118.7
143.7
126 7
103 8
132 0
117 6
143.0
125.9
104.1
127.5
118.6
142.8
124.9
104.3
121.1
119.2
142.6
123.0
104.4
117.6
115.3
142.3
123.3
104.6
117.8
116.7
141.4
123.3
104.7
120.7
116.6
140.7
123.4
104.9
123.9
116.9
140.2
122.7
105.1
124.9
116.3
140.1
122.8
104.2
125.8
118.0
139.6
120. 5
99.5
121.4
117.7
139.1
121.3
101.0
125.4
118.0
138.7
121.4
101.6
127.0
117.7
138.1
121.3
102.4
125.3
117.0
137.5
Tires, new, tubeless..........—
Auto repairs and maintenance.
Auto insurance rates------------Auto registration-------------- -
119.0
144.3
183.7
140.9
118 0
143 5
181.9
140.9
118.6
142.9
179.5
140.9
118.6
142.1
175.6
140.9
119.4
141.5
176.4
140.3
118.5
140.2
176.0
140.3
118.2
139.2
173.4
140.3
118.2
137.3
171.5
134.2
118.0
136.6
164.6
134.2
117.4
136.1
163.7
134.2
117.0
135.2
163. 2
134.2
116.0
134.5
160.3
134.2
116.3
133.8
159.0
134.2
116.2
133.8
160.2
133.6
Public........................................
Local transit fares...................
Taxicab fares............................
Railroad fares, coach...............
Airplane fares, chiefly coach...
Bus fares, intercity_________
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
170.8
190.9
135.9
121.5
117.9
130.1
167 8
185 8
135 9
121 5
117 9
130.1
166.6
185.2
131.5
121.1
117.8
128.6
165.8
183.9
131.5
121.1
117.8
128.6
165.8
183.8
131.5
121.1
117.8
128.6
165.4
183.8
131.5
117.2
117.4
127.9
165.1
183.3
131.5
117.2
117.4
127.9
153.0
163.2
131.5
117.2
117.4
127.9
151.1
163.0
127.5
115.5
111.6
127.0
150.3
161.7
127.5
115.1
111.6
127.0
150.3
161.7
127. 5
115.1
111.6
127.0
149.7
160.8
127.5
114.9
112.1
122.9
149.5
160.5
127.5
114.9
112.1
122.9
148.9
160.4
126.7
114.0
110.6
122.4
144.3
143.7
142.9
142.3
141.4
140.7
140.1
139.6
139.1
138.6
138.4
137.7
137.0
136.6
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
165.8
102.0
110.5
92.7
112.0
164 7
101 6
109 7
92 6
109.8
163.6
101.4
109.2
92.7
109.2
162.8
100.9
108.6
92.0
108.1
161.6
100.3
107.8
91.7
107.3
160.1
100.0
107.2
90.8
107.4
159.0
99.7
107.2
92.3
106.2
158.1
99.6
107.1
92.8
106.6
157.4
99.6
107.1
92.4
106.2
156.9
99.4
106.9
92.5
106.1
157.6
99.3
106.9
92.4
105.5
156.8
99.3
107.0
92.4
106.8
155.9
99.2
106.9
92.1
106.4
155.0
99.2
106.9
92.4
106.2
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
63
63
63
63
101.7
125.0
112.7
117.5
101 8
122 7
112 7
117.2
101.9
121.4
112.7
116.4
101.9
119.8
112.6
116.0
101.5
119.7
112.2
113.5
101.2
118.2
111.5
113.0
101.3
117.8
111.0
113.4
101.3
117.7
110.5
112.9
101.3
117.1
110.0
114.7
100.8
117.4
109.6
113.7
100.9
117.0
109.1
115.1
100.9
116.5
109.2
114.8
100.8
116.7
109.1
114.8
101.0
116.9
109.2
114.5
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
60
60
60
60
90.7
63.3
114.5
90.7
102.8
90. 6
63 2
114 0
90 8
102.6
90.5
63.1
114.2
90.7
102.4
90.3
63.0
113.7
90.7
102.2
89.7
62.8
112.1
90.0
101.7
89.7
63.0
112.0
90.0
101.6
89.3
62.8
110.6
90.0
101.5
89.1
62.8
110.4
89.8
101.3
89.0
62.8
109.6
89.8
101.3
89.0
63.0
108.9
89.8
101.3
88.8
62.9
107.8
89.8
101.2
88.7
62.9
107.6
89.7
101.0
88.6
62.8
107.1
89.9
101.0
88.6
62.8
107.2
89.8
101.1
118.2
118.1
118.0
118.1
117.1
115.2
112.7
112.0
111.7
111.4
111.1
110.8
110.2
109.4
98.0
103.2
104.3
93.9
97.9
103.1
104.2
94.3
97.7
103.1
103.6
93.9
97.6
103.1
103.3
93.9
97.1
102.9
102.9
93.8
97.1
102.8
103.1
94.3
159.0
161.0
166.2
154.9
145.5
132.6
158.3
160.6
165.9
153.9
144.2
131.7
158.0
160.3
165.6
153.2
144.1
131.7
156.8
158.7
163.9
152.8
142.8
130.9
156.0
158.3
163.8
150.1
140.9
129.3
155.4
157.2
163.3
150.2
141.4
129.1
Miscellaneous apparel:
Diapers, cotton gauze.
Yard goods, cotton__
Apparel services:
Drycleaning, men’s suits and women s
dresses.......... ..................... ...............
Automatic laundry service....... ...........
Laundry, men’s shirts............ ..............
Tailoring charges, hem adjustment-----Shoe repairs, women’s heel lift.......... .
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
T R A N S P O R T A T IO N .
Dec. 63
H E A L T H AN D R E C R E A T IO N .
Medical care.................... . ...............
Drugs and prescriptions— ..........
Over-the-counter Items_______
Multiple vitamin concentrates.
Asplrin compounds-------------Liquid tonics..................... .
Adhesive bandages, package.
Cold tablets or capsules.......
Cough syrup................... .
Prescriptions.................... .
Antl-lnfectlves________
Sedatives and hypnotics.
Ataractlcs___________
Antl-spasmodics............
Cough preparations....
Cardiovascular and antihypertensives_________
Analgesics, Internal—
Anti-obesity...............
Hormones...................
Professional services:
Physicians’ fees...............—
Family doctor, office visits..
Family doctor, house visits.
Obstetrical cases________
Pediatric care, office visits..
Psychiatrist, office visits—
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Mar. 60
60
67
67
67
100.4
105.4
108.1
94.7
100 4
105 4
107.2
94.2
100.4
105.2
107.2
94.2
100.0
105.3
106.0
93.6
99.0
104.7
105.8
93.9
98.8
105.0
105.5
93.6
98.3
104.3
104. 8
93.6
98.0
103.3
104.3
94.2
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
167.8
171.3
176.0
162.2
151.3
135.3
167 3 165.6
170.8 168.3
175.6 173.6
161.8 161.1
151.4 151.3
135.0 1 135.0
164.3
167.3
172.5
159.2
148.7
134.7
163.7
166.6
171.7
159.0
148.5
134.6
151.6
164.0
169.0
157.6
147.7
133.7
160.7
163.1
167.9
155.9
146.5
133.0
160.0
162.4
167.6
155.0
145.9
132.6
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
102
24.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
CONSUMER PRICES
Consumer Price Index-general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items-Continued
Index or group
Other
index
bases
Personal care___ _____________________
Toilet goods........................................
Toothpaste, standard dentifrice .
Toilet soap, hard milled_______
Hand lotions, liquid___________
Shaving cream, aerosol________
Face powder, pressed________
Deodorants,cream or roll-on . . .
Cleansing tissues..___________
Home permanent re fills ...........
Personal care services......................
Men's haircuts______________
Beauty shop services.................
Women’s haircuts.................
Shampoo and wave sets,
plain................... .............
Permanent waves, cold____
Reading and recreation_____ ___ _________
Recreational g o o d s................ ..........
TV sets, portable and console___
TV replacement tu b e s ...............
Radios, portable and table
m o d e l...................................
Tape recorders, portable...........
Phonograph records, stereophonic......................................
Movie cameras, Super 8, zoom
lens__________ __________
Film, 35mm, color____ _______
Bicycle, boys’..............................
Tricycles...................... ...............
Recreational services.......... ...............
Indoor movie admissions......... .
Adult.....................................
Children’s________ ______
Drive-in movie admissions, adult.
Bowing fees, evening..................
Golf greens fees_______ ______
TV repairs, picture tube replacement________ ____ ___
Film developing, black and white.
Reading and education:
Newspapers, street sale and
delivery7_____ ____ _______
Piano lessons, beginner_______
Other goods and services_________________
Tobacco products__________ _____
Cigarettes, nonfilter tip, regular
size_____________________
Cigarettes, filter tip, king size___
Cigars, domestic, regular size___
Alcoholic beverages_________ ____
Beer___ _______ _________ _
Whiskey, spirit blended and
straight bourbon......................
Wine, dessert and table............. .
Beer, away from home................
Financial and miscellaneous personal
expenses:
Funeral services, adult________
Bank service charges, checking
accounts........................ ..........
Legal services, short form w ill...
Sept.
Aug.
July
Annual
average
1969
124.6
149.3
124.6
149.1
146.9
146.0
124.3
149.0
145.5
124.3
148.1
144.9
123.9
148.2
143.9
148.3
146.7
129.7
148.3
145.9
129.5
147.1
145.3
128.9
146.4
144.7
128.8
145.7
144.5
128.3
144.9
143.1
127.4
133.9
119.5
133.8
119.4
132.8
118.5
132.4
118.5
132.2
118.6
131.7
118.0
131.1
117.4
271.6
268.0
261.8
172.8
124.7
267.9
264.1
258.7
170.9
124.7
265.4
261.7
256.1
170.6
124.5
263.8
260.1
254.7
170.9
124.8
102.1
129.1
96.1
114.4
98.6
149.5
158.7
140.0
125.4
128.1
111.6
114.6
123.4
109.1
101.9
127.6
94.5
112.5
98.7
148.5
157.8
138.8
125.2
127.8
111.8
114.7
124.8
109.7
101.6
127.5
95.0
111.8
98.6
147.5
156.4
138.0
124.0
127.3
111.6
114.4
125.1
110.7
102.0
127.2
95.1
109.2
98.5
146.7
155.2
137.7
123.4
259.9
25 ..3
250.8
167.6
123.2
126.8
111.4
113.4
123.3
111.2
102.1
126.6
95.5
109.3
99.1
145.8
154.5
136.6
121.9
256.7
253.0
247.9
166.4
122.7
128.5
112.0
114.1
123.0
109.2
102.1
128.1
96.0
113.8
98.6
148.9
158.0
139.2
125.3
261.9
258.4
252.6
168.7
124.6
127.3
111.7
113.8
126.3
111.1
102.1
126.8
95.3
108.4
99.2
146.5
154.8
137.5
123.2
126.6
111.2
112.9
125.1
110.4
101.4
126.1
95.0
109.3
98.8
145.5
154.7
136.0
121.2
256.0
252.1
247.5
165.2
122.7
126.2
110.7
113.7
124.1
108.6
102.0
125.0
94.9
108.8
98.0
145.2
153.7
136.1
122.0
158.3
109.0
133.6
99.4
79.9
117.3
157.5
108.9
133.2
99.2
79.9
117.3
156.8
107.5
133.1
99.1
80.0
116.6
156.3
107.2
132.7
99.1
80.2
116.3
155.3
107.2
132.3
99.2
80.3
116.3
154.9
107.1
132.0
99.1
80.2
115.9
154.6
107.0
131.6
99.0
80.0
115.7
153.6
106.9
131.2
98.8
79.7
115.4
152.8
106.7
130.7
98.7
79.8
115.6
152.7
106.4
130.5
98.6
80.1
115.5
76.0
90.2
76.1
90.2
76.4
90.0
76.6
91.4
76.9
91.5
76.5
91.4
76.5
90.1
76.5
91.2
76.5
90.3
91.5
91.3
98.3
97.8
98.1
97.9
98.0
98.0
98.0
98.1
97.6
97.7
97.9
97.2
81.4
99.7
110.8
111.6
135.0
215.4
210.9
230.6
168.1
115.2
139.3
81.3
99.7
111.4
111.2
134.1
212.0
207.7
226.7
167.5
114.8
(2)
81.6
99.7
111.2
112.0
133.7
210.5
206.1
225.4
171.6
115.7
145.1
82.0
100.0
110.5
113.1
135.9
217.9
212.8
234.8
168.9
115.2
141.5
167.0
115.0
(2)
82.1
99.1
110.7
112.0
133.9
211.7
207.3
226.9
165.6
115.3
0
82.3
99.1
110.4
111.6
133.2
210.3
205.4
227.1
165.5
113.7
0
83.4
99.1
110.0
111.4
132.6
208.3
203.2
225.4
165.0
113.6
0
83.1
99.4
109.7
111.9
132.1
207.0
201.9
224.5
164.5
112.1
135.5
83.5
99.6
109.9
111.6
131.7
206.5
201.6
223.2
164.1
110.9
135.9
83.4
99.2
109.5
111.2
131.1
204.2
198.8
222.1
163.5
110.3
135.8
83.5
99.1
109.7
109.4
130.1
200.2
194.4
219.6
161.9
110.4
134.7
84.0
99.0
109.0
109.6
129.9
200.6
195.5
217.6
159.9
111. 1
131.8
97.7
116.7
97.6
116.4
98.6
117.7
98.7
117.6
98.9
117.3
99.5
117.7
100.2
117.4
100.2
117.7
100.0
117.9
101.4
117.9
101.0
118.3
101.0
118.4
101.0
118.9
101.7
119.1
166.8
129.0
163.9
128.4
161.5
128.2
158.2
127.3
133.5
153.8
155.8
123.8
133.1
153.1
156.4
126.5
132.2
151.5
155.9
126.1
136.1
156.7
160.2
127.6
133.9
154.1
156.7
126.7
136.7
158.1
160.4
127.8
134.8
155.0
159.8
127.7
137.3
159.7
160.4
128.2
135.6
156.4
131.3
150.6
130.1
148.7
155.2
122.8
129.1
146.7
154.7
123.7
129.0
146.5
167.9
160.2
108.6
123.2
118.2
166.0
158.5
108.6
123.2
118.3
164.4
157.2
108.6
123.1
118.5
164.1
156.8
108.6
122.5
118.2
162.8
154.9
108.7
122.0
117.7
162.7
154.8
108.7
161.4
153.5
110.0
120.6
116.5
160.7
152.6
109.9
120.4
116.6
158.9
151.0
109.4
120.0
116.3
158.0
150.0
109.6
121.4
116.9
161.8
154.0
109.0
121.0
116.5
119.1
116.4
155.8
148.1
108.7
118.2
115.3
153.7
146.2
107.1
117.7
114.8
153.6
145.7
107.6
117.8
114.8
113.1
119.8
129.5
112.7
119.6
129.6
112.5
119.4
129.3
111.8
118.9
128.4
111.6
117.4
128.0
111.3
116.8
127.6
111.2
116.5
127.1
111.5
115.2
125.9
111.4
114.5
125.6
111.3
113.6
125.0
110.4
112.0
123.0
110.1
110.6
122.3
109.8
110.2
121.8
109.9
110.5
121.8
June
130.7
157.5
130.6
156.7
152.8
151.9
129.6
156.1
151.2
128.7
154.2
150.7
127.5
153.8
148.7
126.7
152.6
148.4
126.3
152.3
148.0
147.6
125.2
151.3
147.2
Dec. 63
154.9
150.1
134.8
154.1
149.7
133.6
153.3
148.9
133.2
152.5
148.9
132.7
150.6
146.1
131.7
150.3
145.9
131.3
149.8
146.0
130.6
148.7
147.0
130.2
Dec. 63
138.2
121.9
137.8
121.7
136.9
121.3
136.7
121.2
136.3
120.8
135.7
119.8
134.6
119.6
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
289.1
285.9
277.9
183.6
131.4
284.4
281.1
273.5
181.7
131.4
283.1
279.8
272.3
180.9
129.4
130.6
113.5
113.9
128.3
109.5
102.0
131.9
96.4
117.0
98.8
151.9
162.5
141.2
125.8
130.2
113.3
114.4
127.0
111.2
130.3
113.3
114.4
126.2
111.5
102.1
131.6
95.8
116.4
98.4
151.3
161.0
141.2
126.4
279.0
275.6
268.7
177.7
127.7
129.6
112.9
113.9
125.6
110.5
102.2
130.8
96.1
115.5
98.6
150.1
159.1
140.6
126.1
275.6
271.9
265.9
175.4
125.4
129.0
112.4
114.3
124.3
110.0
101.3
131.4
95.9
116.4
98.3
151.2
161.0
141.0
125.4
282.3
279.1
271.4
180.3
128.1
129.8
113.0
114.7
124.3
117.3
102.3
131.0
95.9
116.0
98.3
150.5
159.7
140.9
126.3
Dec. 63
159.2
109.8
136.6
100.1
79.9
120.6
159.0
110.0
136.1
100.0
80.1
119.3
159.0
109.6
135.2
99.9
80.1
118.3
158.6
109.4
134.4
99.6
80.0
117.5
76.6
89.8
76.6
89.9
76.6
90.4
76.5
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
98.1
98.2
82.3
100.1
110.4
113.7
136.9
220.0
215.6
235.0
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
82.2
100.1
110.7
113.6
137.1
221.4
216.8
237.0
172.3
114.6
145.5
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
63
63
63
63
63
Mar. 59
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
134.3
154.9
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
125. 4
151.6
76.5
Dec. 63
119.9
119.6
119.3
119.0
118.6
118.1
117.7
117.4
117.3
116.9
116.5
115.9
115.5
115.2
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
110.2
149.2
110.3
149.0
110.0
146.1
110.0
145.6
110.1
145.1
110.0
142.7
110.2
142.3
110.3
141.2
109.9
139.5
109.1
139.5
108.3
138.8
103.4
137.8
108.2
135.0
108.3
134.7
i Priced only in season.
1 Not available.
3This item is a replacement for bedroom suites, good or inexpensive quality, which
was discontinued after March 1970.
4This item is a replacement for dining room suites, which was discontinued
after March 1970.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1969
July
HEALTH AND RECREATION—Continued
Medical care—Continued
Professional services—Continued
Physicians' fees—Continued
Herniorrhaphy, a d u lt... ............... Dec. 63
Tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy..
Dentists’ fees................ . ------------Fillings, adult, amalgam, one
surface______ ______ _____ Extractions, adult...........................
Dentures, full upper____________
Other professional services:
Examination, prescription, and dispensing of eyeglasses..............
Routine laboratory tests_________
Hospital service charges:
Daily service charges_____________
Semiprivate rooms_____________
Private rooms._____ ______ _____
Operating room charges___________
X-ray, diagnostic series, upper G.l —
1970
May
s Item discontinued.
6 This item is a replacement for box springs which was discontinued after April
1970.
7June 1970 index revised.
NOTE: Monthly data for individual nonfood items not available for 1968.
CONSUMER PRICES
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
25.
103
Consumer Price Index1—U.S. city average, and selected areas
[1957-59=100 unless otherwise specified]
1970
Annual
avg.
1969
A re a 2
1
J u ly
June
M ay
A p r.
M a r.
F eb.
Ja n.
D ec.
N o v.
O ct.
S e p t.
Aug.
J u ly
1 2 8 .7
1 2 8 .2
1 2 7 .7
( 4>
( 4)
( 4)
1 2 1 .2
1 2 6 .1
( 4)
( 4)
1 3 2 .1
1 2 6 .7
1 2 8 .3
1 3 1 .8
1 2 0 .5
1 2 4 .9
1 2 4 .6
1969
All items
1 3 5 .7
1 3 5 .2
1 3 4 .6
1 3 4 .0
1 3 3 .2
1 3 2 .5
1 3 1 .8
1 3 1 .3
1 3 0 .5
1 2 9 .8
( 4)
( 4)
1 3 9 .5
1 3 3 .6
1 3 5 .2
1 3 7 .9
( 4)
( 4)
1 3 7 .9
1 3 1 .9
1 3 3 .5
1 2 9 .9
1 3 1 .9
( 4)
( 4)
1 3 1 .5
1 3 1 .2
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
1 2 3 .2
1 2 7 .7
( 4)
( 4)
1 3 4 .7
( 4)
1 3 2 .3
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
1 2 5 .3
1 2 9 .3
( 4)
( 4)
1 3 6 .1
B u ffa lo ’ N Y ( N o v . 1 9 6 3 - 1 0 0 ) .........................................................
C h ir.a gn III N o r th w e s te r n I n d ________ _________ - .................. C in c in n a ti, O h io - K e n t u c k y .....................................................- .............
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
1 2 7 .0
1 3 1 .1
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
C le v e la n d O h io
_________________________________
D allas T r x ( N o v . 1963 — 1 0 0 )......... ...................................................
( 4)
( 4)
1 3 5 .5
1 3 4 .3
( 4)
1 3 5 .2
1 3 2 .3
1 2 5 .6
1 3 2 .2
( 4>
( 4)
131. 1
1 2 9 .5
1 2 3 .7
1 2 9 .8
( 4)
( 4)
1 2 9 .2
H o n o lu lu H a w a ii (D e c . 1 9 6 3 = 1 0 0 ) . . ........................... - .............
H o u s to n T e x
__ ____________________________
K a n sa s Ö ity , M o .- K a n s a s .......................................................................
( 4)
1 3 3 .7
( 4)
1 3 2 .9
1 3 7 .9
<4>
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
1 3 0 .9
O)
1 3 3 .2
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
w
1 2 9 .8
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
1 3 1 .4
1 os A n g e le s - L o n g B e s c h , C a lif______________________________
M ilw a u k e e W is
............................................................... ..
M in n e a p o lis -S t. P a u l, M in n __
.................................. ..................
N e w Yorr k N Y - N o r t h e a s t e r n N . J . ..................................................
P h ila d e lp h ia Pa - N .J
_________________________
1 3 5 .1
1 3 1 .6
1 2 8 .5
1 3 1 .2
1 31 .1
1 3 0 .1
1 2 9 .6
( 4)
( 4)
1 3 6 .0
1 3 2 .2
( 4)
1 3 4 .6
1 3 1 .7
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
1 3 0 .3
1 3 4 .1
1 3 1 .2
1 2 8 .5
1 3 0 .1
( 4)
( 4)
1 3 3 .5
1 3 1 .0
P o r tla n d , O re g .-W a s h .s..........................................................................
( 4)
1 3 2 .8
1 3 7 .0
1 3 2 .9
1 2 9 .4
1 3 0 .7
1 3 0 .0
1 2 7 .0
S t L o u is M o —III
_
_________________________________
S a n D ie g o , C a lif. (F e b . 1 9 6 5 = 1 0 0 ) _______________ _________
S an F ra n c is c o - O a k la n d , C a l i f . ........................... ................................
S c ra n to n Pa 5
............... ...................................................
S e a ttle W a sh
.......... ............................................... ..........
W a s h in g to n , D . C . - M d . - V a ......................................................................
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
1 3 0 .7
( 4)
1 1 7 .0
( 4)
<4)
( 4)
( 4)
<4>
( 4)
1 2 9 .2
( 4)
1 2 7 .3
1 3 0 .0
1 3 2 .0
U.S. city average3...................................................................................... ..
( 4)
( 4)
1 3 6 .7
142 .1
1 3 7 .4
1 3 4 .6
( 4>
( 4)
1 3 4 .3
1 2 7 .1
1 3 4 .9
( 4)
( 4)
1 3 3 .8
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
1 3 3 .9
1 3 0 .0
1 3 5 .1
1 4 1 .6
1 3 7 .0
1 3 2 .4
( 4)
1 3 3 .8
1 3 0 .0
1 3 4 .1
( 4)
1 2 0 .9
<4)
1 3 7 .5
( 4)
1 3 3 .9
1 3 6 .7
( 4)
1 3 0 .2
( 4)
1 4 0 .7
1 3 6 .5
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
1 3 6 .9
1 3 3 .9
1 3 6 .7
( 4)
1 3 2 .9
( 4)
( 4)
1 2 9 .9
1 2 9 .2
( 4)
( 4)
1 33 .1
1 2 2 .0
( 4)
( 4)
1 3 4 .6
1 3 3 .5
1 3 2 .2
( 4)
1 3 5 .1
1 4 0 .1
1 3 5 .7
1 3 2 .4
1 3 3 .4
( 4)
( 4)
1 39 .1
1 3 5 .4
( 4)
1 3 8 .1
1 34 .1
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
<4>
<4>
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
1 3 2 .4
( 4>
1 1 8 .6
( 4)
1 3 6 .1
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
1 3 4 .4
1 3 2 .2
1 3 4 .6
( 4)
1 2 9 .1
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
1 2 8 .3
1 2 7 .7
( 4)
( 4)
1 3 0 .8
1 1 9 .7
( 4)
1 3 4 .5
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
1 2 6 .9
1 2 9 .3
1 2 8 .6
1 3 0 .4
( 4)
( 4)
1 2 7 .2
125. 5
( 4)
( 4)
1 2 8 .6
1 1 8 .1
( 4)
1 2 7 .3
1 2 1 .2
1 2 8 .5
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
1 2 8 .9
1 2 3 .9
<4)
1 2 5 .3
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
1 2 7 .6
( 4)
1 2 7 .0
( 4)
1 2 6 .3
1 2 0 .3
1 2 7 .1
1 1 7 .0
1 2 7 .0
1 3 0 .1
( 4)
1 2 8 .0
1 3 2 .1
1 2 9 .2
1 2 7 .7
1 2 8 .4
1 2 8 .0
1 2 3 .6
1 2 7 .4
1 3 1 .8
1 2 8 .9
1 2 7 .0
1 2 8 .4
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
1 3 0 .5
1 2 9 .5
1 3 0 .8
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
1 2 7 .5
1 1 5 .1
1 3 1 .1
1 2 9 .2
1 2 8 .3
1 2 9 .5
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
1 3 2 .8
( 4>
1 3 2 .5
1 3 0 .2
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
1 1 6 .0
1 2 8 .6
Food
U .S .city average3..........................................................................................
1 3 3 .4
1 3 2 .7
1 3 2 .4
1 3 2 .0
1 3 1 .6
1 3 1 .5
1 3 0 .7
1 2 9 .9
1 2 8 .1
1 2 7 .2
1 2 7 .5
1 2 7 .4
1 2 6 .7
1 2 5 .5
A tla n ta Ga
........ ........................................................
B a ltim o r e M d
___________ _____ _ _____ __________
B o s to n M a s s
.......... .......................................................__
B u ffa lo , N .Y . (N o v . 1 9 6 3 = 1 0 0 ) ............ ....................... .......................
C h ic a g o , 1II.—N o rth w e s te rn 1nd ______________________________
C in c in n a ti, O h io - K e n t u c k y — ----------- ---------------------------- ---------
1 3 1 .4
1 3 7 .6
1 38 .1
1 2 9 .5
1 3 3 .8
1 3 0 .5
1 31 .1
1 3 6 .7
1 3 7 .0
1 2 8 .6
1 3 3 .6
1 2 9 .7
1 3 0 .0
1 3 6 .5
1 3 6 .6
1 2 8 .1
1 3 3 .1
1 2 9 .1
1 3 0 .6
1 3 5 .9
1 3 5 .9
1 2 8 .4
1 3 2 .6
1 2 8 .6
1 3 0 .5
1 3 6 .2
1 3 5 .4
1 2 7 .3
1 3 3 .0
1 2 7 .9
1 3 0 .7
1 3 5 .4
1 3 5 .0
1 2 7 .0
1 3 3 .2
1 2 7 .8
1 2 9 .0
1 3 4 .9
1 3 4 .3
1 2 5 .4
1 3 2 .8
1 2 7 .2
1 2 8 .4
1 34 .1
1 3 3 .1
1 2 5 .1
1 3 1 .3
1 2 6 .6
1 2 6 .9
1 3 2 .3
1 3 1 .6
1 2 2 .8
1 2 9 .4
1 2 5 .1
1 2 6 .5
1 3 1 .5
1 3 1 .2
1 2 1 .9
1 2 8 .3
1 2 4 .1
1 2 6 .7
1 3 1 .8
1 3 1 .4
1 2 1 .8
1 3 0 .2
1 2 3 .6
1 2 6 .3
1 3 0 .8
1 3 1 .8
1 2 2 .5
1 3 0 .5
1 2 3 .2
1 2 4 .4
1 3 0 .1
1 3 0 .2
1 2 2 .4
1 2 9 .0
1 2 3 .3
1 2 3 .8
1 2 8 .8
1 2 9 .3
1 2 0 .6
1 2 7 .2
1 2 2 .1
C le v e la n d O h io
........................... ......................................—
D a lla s T e x . ( N o v . 1 9 6 3 = 1 0 0 ) ..... ..................................... ......... . . .
D e tr o it, M ic h
......................
..............................................
H o n o lu lu , H a w a ii (D e c . 1 9 6 3 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................ ..
H o u s to n , T e x
_
...............................................................................
K a n sa s C ity , M o .- K a n s a s --------------------- ------------------------------ ---------
1 3 2 .1
1 2 5 .9
1 3 3 .3
1 2 3 .5
1 3 4 .3
1 3 8 .3
1 3 1 .2
1 2 5 .8
1 3 2 .2
1 2 3 .8
1 3 3 .3
1 3 6 .9
1 3 0 .8
1 2 6 .0
1 32 .1
1 2 3 .2
1 3 3 .4
1 3 6 .8
1 2 9 .7
1 2 5 .5
1 3 1 .2
1 2 3 .4
1 3 3 .8
1 3 6 .4
1 2 9 .3
1 2 5 .5
1 3 0 .9
1 2 3 .4
1 3 2 .7
1 3 5 .9
1 2 8 .4
1 2 5 .9
1 3 0 .2
1 2 2 .9
1 3 3 .3
1 3 5 .8
1 2 9 .0
1 2 5 .0
1 2 9 .8
1 2 3 .0
1 3 2 .3
1 3 5 .1
1 2 8 .5
1 2 4 .2
1 2 9 .3
1 2 0 .8
1 3 1 .2
1 3 4 .4
1 2 5 .7
1 2 2 .8
1 2 6 .8
1 1 9 .5
1 2 9 .2
1 3 2 .9
1 2 5 .0
1 2 1 .7
1 26 .1
1 1 9 .7
1 2 8 .7
1 3 1 .2
1 2 5 .1
1 2 2 .0
1 2 6 .5
1 1 9 .1
1 2 9 .2
1 3 1 .9
1 2 5 .2
1 2 1 .9
1 2 7 .3
1 1 8 .0
1 2 9 .0
1 3 1 .3
1 2 3 .3
1 2 0 .6
1 2 6 .5
1 1 6 .9
1 2 7 .7
1 3 0 .7
1 2 3 .2
1 1 9 .8
1 2 4 .3
1 1 7 .4
1 2 6 .9
1 2 9 .4
L os A n g e le s - L o n g B ea ch , C a lif . .........................................................
M ilw a u k e e , W is ........................................................................ .................
M in n e a p o lis - S t. P a u l, M in n _ _ _ ........................................... ............
N e w Y o r k , N .Y .- N o r th e a s te r n N .J .............................................. ..
P h ila d e lp h ia , P a . - N .J ..............................................................................
P itts b u r g h , P a ..............................................................................................
1 2 8 .9
1 3 0 .0
1 3 2 .3
1 3 7 .9
1 3 3 .1
1 2 9 .6
1 2 7 .8
1 2 9 .4
1 3 1 .4
1 3 6 .8
1 3 2 .4
1 2 8 .7
1 2 8 .1
1 2 9 .4
1 3 1 .3
1 3 6 .0
1 3 2 .3
1 2 8 .8
1 2 7 .4
1 2 9 .3
1 3 1 .2
1 3 5 .7
1 3 1 .5
1 2 8 .3
1 2 8 .5
1 2 6 .7
1 3 0 .2
1 3 1 .2
1 35 .1
1 3 2 .0
1 2 8 .2
1 2 7 .2
1 3 0 .1
1 3 0 .6
1 3 4 .7
1 3 2 .0
1 2 8 .0
1 2 6 .2
1 2 9 .5
1 2 9 .5
1 3 3 .8
1 3 0 .7
1 2 7 .5
1 2 6 .7
1 2 5 .8
1 2 8 .4
1 2 8 .2
1 3 2 .9
1 2 9 .7
1 2 7 .1
1 2 4 .7
1 2 7 .8
1 2 7 .2
1 3 0 .6
1 2 8 .0
1 2 5 .7
1 2 4 .0
1 2 7 .6
1 2 6 .5
1 2 9 .6
1 2 7 .0
1 2 3 .3
1 2 4 .4
1 2 4 .0
1 2 7 .9
1 2 5 .9
1 2 9 .1
1 2 7 .2
1 2 3 .2
1 2 3 .9
1 2 7 .6
1 2 6 .4
1 2 8 .7
1 2 7 .2
1 2 3 .9
1 2 4 .0
1 2 6 .5
1 2 5 .4
1 28 .1
1 2 6 .0
1 2 4 .2
1 2 5 .2
1 2 2 .6
1 2 5 .2
1 2 3 .7
1 2 7 .1
125. 5
1 2 2 .4
1 2 4 .0
S t. L o u is , M o .—1I I ...................................... .............................. ............... ..
S an D ie g o , C a lif. (F e b . 1965 = 1 0 0 ).................................................
S an F r a n c is c o - O a k la n d , C a l i f . . . .................................. ....................
S c ra n to n
Pa
S e a ttle , W a s h ...............................................................................................
W a s h in g to n , D . C . - M d . - V a . ...................................................................
1 3 7 .7
1 2 3 .0
1 3 0 .5
1 3 6 .7
1 2 2 .0
1 29 .1
1 3 6 .5
1 2 1 .3
1 2 8 .8
1 3 6 .6
1 2 0 .8
1 2 8 .2
1 3 5 .5
1 2 0 .0
1 2 7 .2
1 3 2 .6
1 1 8 .3
1 2 4 .9
1 2 8 .5
1 3 5 .7
1 2 7 .8
1 3 4 .8
1 2 7 .6
1 3 3 .5
1 2 5 .2
1 3 0 .5
1 2 5 .9
1 3 1 .6
1 3 1 .2
1 1 8 .6
1 2 4 .9
1 2 7 .5
1 2 6 .2
1 3 2 .5
1 2 9 .8
1 1 8 .7
1 2 5 .9
1 3 0 .1
1 3 6 .6
1 3 3 .5
1 1 9 .1
1 2 6 .2
1 3 1 .9
1 2 6 .2
1 3 1 .2
1 3 2 .4
1 1 7 .8
1 2 5 .6
1 3 0 .3
1 3 7 .1
1 3 7 .4
1 2 1 .3
1 2 8 .7
1 3 1 .3
1 2 9 .2
1 3 6 .2
1 3 6 .6
1 2 0 .6
1 2 8 .2
1 3 0 .6
1 3 7 .6
1 3 6 .3
1 2 2 .3
1 2 9 .0
1 3 1 .3
1 3 0 .6
1 3 6 .2
1 2 9 .5
1 1 7 .0
1 2 3 .8
1 2 5 .0
1 2 4 .5
1 2 9 .5
1See table 23. Indexes measure time-to-time changes in prices. They do not indicate
whether it costs more to live in one area than in another.
2 The areas listed include not only the central city but the entire urban portion of the
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined for the 1960 Census of Population;
except that the Standard Consolidated Area is used for New York and Chicago.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1 2 5 .8
1 3 1 .3
3 Average of 56 "cities” (metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan urban places
beginning January 1966).
4 All items indexes are computed monthly for 5 areas and once every 3 months on a
rotating cycle for other areas.
5 Old series.
104
26.
WHOLESALE PRICES
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
Wholesale price indexes,1 by group and subgroup of commodities
[1957-59=100 unless otherwise specified ] 1
1970
Code
1969
Commodity Group
Annual
average
1969
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
ALL COMMODITIES...... __...................... —
117.7
117.0
116.8
116.6
116.6
116.4
116.0
115.1
114.7
114.0
113.6
113.4
113.3
113.0
FARM PRODUCTS AND PROCESSED FOODS
AND FEEDS_________ _____________
119.3
117.5
117.0
117.6
118.8
118.7
118.2
116.4
115.7
114.3
114.3
114.6
115.5
113.5
116.9
116.7
116.6
116.2
115.8
115.5
115.1
114.6
114.2
113.8
113.2
112.8
112.4
112.7
108 5
1110
83 3
118 3
89 8
fi7 1
134 8
112 9
109 ?
109Ì1
INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES.................... .
FARM PRODUCTS, AND PROCESSED FOODS
AND FEEDS
01
01-1
01-2
01-3
01-4
01-5
01-6
01-7
01-8
01-9
Farm products------ -------------- ---------------------------Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables...........
Grains---------------- ------- --------------------------Livestock......................... ...................... .......
Live poultry........ ..........................................
Plant and animal fibers.................................
Fluid m ilk.................................... ................
Eggs-............... - - - - - - - ...........................
Hay, hayseeds, and oilseeds........................
Other farm products......................................
113.1
112.6
89.2
126.2
81.9
66.1
139.7
111.2
116.8
116.5
111.3
122.2
89.2
123.0
77.9
65.7
139.6
85.3
112.6
114.9
111.0
123.5
88.4
122.2
83.7
65.6
139.5
79.7
111.1
115.0
111.3
112.7
87.8
124.8
82.8
65.4
141.1
94.9
109.8
114.7
114.3
118.2
85.5
129.6
90.8
64.9
139.7
120.1
106.3
114.8
113.7
117.2
85.9
124.9
87.1
65.4
140.8
136.9
106.3
115.2
112.5
116.6
85.9
117.3
94.8
65.3
140.5
152.2
107.7
116.3
111.7
112.4
82.9
120.2
86.9
65.7
138.3
155.8
105.1
113.1
111.1
125.3
81.7
116.6
86.3
66.0
137.6
139.8
103.4
115.9
107.9
101.3
84.8
118.7
85.3
66.1
136.8
113.8
101.2
116.7
108.4
103.4
83.4
119.2
89.0
66.4
135.6
122.5
105.7
110.6
108.9
106.7
81.9
123.6
92.3
66.9
135.1
100.5
107.3
109.5
110.5
103.1
83.7
126.8
90.2
67.7
134.9
117.0
111.3
106.9
02
02-1
02-2
02-3
02-4
02-5
02-6
02-71
02-72
02-73
02-74
02-8
02-9
Processed foods and feeds-----------------------------------Cereal and bakery products....................... .
Meats, poultry, and fish.................................
Dairy products..................................... .........
Processed fruits and vegetables____ _____
Sugar and confectionery....... .........................
Beverages and beverage materials________
Animal fats and o ils .. .................................
Crude vegetable oils___________________
Refined vegetable oils___ ______ ________
Vegetable oil end products______________
Miscellaneous processed foods......................
Manufactured animal feeds......... ...............
126.6
125.8
126.3
135.7
118.9
132.3
120.4
111.3
103.0
103.8
113.2
128.2
127.4
124.8
124.6
123.7
135.4
118.5
130.4
120.3
111.5
105.3
102.8
113.2
126.7
120.8
124.1
124.6
122.5
135.4
118.1
129.4
120.3
116.8
106.6
106.4
113.1
124.1
119.4
124.9
124.6
124.9
135.1
117.5
128.7
118.8
118.8
114.7
107.7
113.6
125.8
121.4
124.9
123.7
127.1
133.1
116.5
127.4
118.4
133.7
110.7
111.9
112.4
127.1
119.0
125.2
123.3
124.9
134.1
117.3
127.7
118.3
115.7
99.5
99.8
107.5
127.4
131.3
125.1
122.3
125.8
133.9
116.9
129.1
117.4
111.0
86.4
97.8
107.5
126.5
131.7
122.6
122.0
121.9
133.9
116.4
127.1
116.1
115.6
86.1
97.9
108.0
126.4
121.8
121.8
121.9
120.5
131.2
116.3
127.9
116.0
123.0
97.0
91.1
106.5
127.2
119.5
121.6
121.2
120.2
130.7
116.0
127.7
115.0
118.3
88.4
88.9
104.7
131.6
119.9
121.3
120.4
122.9
133.4
116.6
127.2
113.1
104.0
79.8
85.0
102.1
121.2
119.3
121.5
120.1
124.5
133.0
116.8
127.2
112.6
105.0
80.0
84.7
102.1
119.8
118.2
122.0
119.9
127.5
133.0
116.6
122.3
112.6
96.4
80.0
89.4
102.1
119.5
118.7
iV s
118] 2
03
03-1
03-2
03-3
03-41
03-5
03-6
03-7
Textile products and apparel....... ...............................
Cotton products........... ..................................
Wool products........ .............. ............. ..........
Manmade fiber textile products_____ _____
Silk yarns...................... ................................
A pparel...................... ...............................
Textile housefurnishings.............................
Miscellaneous textile products___________
109.2
105.8
102.6
88.4
201.0
118.4
109.8
125.5
109.3
105.9
102.8
89.0
199.5
118.4
109.7
124.3
109.3
105.8
103.8
89.5
204.8
118.0
108.7
125.6
109.3
105.8
104.0
89.9
201.3
117.9
108.6
121.4
109.5
105.8
104.4
90.4
194.2
117.9
108.6
126.5
109.4
106.1
104.3
91.0
196.3
117.5
109.0
124.3
109.5
106.1
104.3
91.5
193.5
117.2
109.1
129.0
109.2
106.1
104.3
91.1
191.1
116.9
108.1
127.8
109.2
106.0
104.6
91.5
184.6
116.7
108.0
129.6
109.1
105.8
104.5
91.6
183.9
116.5
108.0
127.2
109.0
105.9
105.0
92.1
181.2
116.2
107.3
121.4
108.7
105.7
104.8
92.7
177.1
115.8
104.7
119.6
107.7
105.3
105.0
92.6
168.2
113.9
104.2
120.3
108.0
105.2
104.6
92.2
169.7
114.5
106.7
122.8
04
04-1
04-2
04-3
04-4
Hides, skins, leather, and related products..................... 127.1
Hides and skins.......................... .................
90.8
Leather...................... ................................... 119.8
Footwear................ ................. .................... 137.9
Other leather and related prod u cts............ 121.0
127.3
93.8
119.8
137.9
120.9
127.9
101.8
120.4
137.8
120.4
128.5
106.6
120.4
138.4
120.0
126.8
99.4
118.2
136.9
119.9
126.7
101.1
117.3
136.9
119.8
126.6
102.8
119.6
135.9
119.2
126.5
108.9
119.7
135.0
118.5
126.8
110.4
119.6
135.5
118.6
127.4
118.0
120.3
135.2
118.4
128.2
128.7
121.7
134.9
117.9
126.4
123.1
121.0
132.7
117.6
126.4
123.0
121.2
132 7
117.5
125.8
116.9
119.9
133.2
116.9
05
05-1
05-2
05-3
05-4
05-61
05-7
Fuels and related products and power..........................
Coal................................................................
Coke......... ............... ...................................
Gas fuels (Jan. 1958 = 100)........ ...................
Electric power (Jan. 1958 = 100)............... .
Crude petroleum............................................
Petroleum products, refined..........................
108.9
155.5
141.0
137.0
104.8
103.3
102.4
108.6
152.8
139.6
136.3
104.3
104.5
102.2
109.1
146.9
139.6
136.1
104.2
104.5
104.2
107.5
145.9
139.6
136.2
103.7
104.5
101.3
106.3
133.4
126.9
135.0
103.6
104.5
100.8
106.4
131.7
126.9
135.2
103.6
104.5
101.2
105.6
125.4
126.9
132.4
103.4
104.5
101.0
106.1
124.6
126.9
131.8
103.4
104.5
102.2
105.5
123.5
126.9
128.8
103.4
104.5
101.6
105.4
120.6
126.9
128.7
103.7
104.5
101.6
104.7
115.9
120.3
123.0
103.5
104.5
101.8
104.7
115.5
120.3
121.8
102.4
104.5
102.5
105.0
115 4
120 3
121 6
102 5
104 5
103.2
104.6
116.2
122.0
124.5
102.7
103.7
101.8
06
06-1
06-21
06-22
06-3
06-4
06-5
06-6
06-7
Chemicals and allied products.......................................
Industrial chemicals........ ............... ......... .
Prepared p ain t............................................
Paint materials_______________________
Drugs and pharmaceuticals..........................
Fats and oils, inedible........................ ..........
Agricultural chemicals and chem. products..
Plastic resins and materials................ ..........
Other chemicals and allied products.............
100.9
98.8
122.8
91.5
95.0
107.7
91.0
80.8
118.4
100.5
98.0
122.8
91.8
94.8
108.1
91.8
80.2
117.8
100.6
98.2
122.8
93.2
94.7
106.8
91.7
80.6
117.7
100.4
97.9
122.8
92.6
94.7
107.6
92.4
81.1
116.8
100.0
97.3
122.8
92.6
95.0
102.2
92.0
81.2
116.5
99.5
97.7
122.0
92.8
94.6
94.3
91.4
80.3
115.7
99.1
97.9
121.7
93.4
94.5
95.0
87.6
80.0
115.5
98.8
97.8
120.3
93.4
94.6
92.8
86.7
80.1
115.1
98.9
97.8
120.3
93.1
94.2
100.5
86.7
79.6
114.9
98.6
97.6
120.3
93.9
94.0
98.9
86.3
80.2
114.3
98.9
98.2
119.2
93.3
94.0
102.1
87.4
81.0
113.9
98.7
98.2
119.2
93.3
93.8
99.3
88.4
80.7
112.9
98 2
97 7
119.2
93 2
93 8
90 5
88 6
80 2
112.8
98.3
97.7
119.2
92.8
93.8
88.7
89.8
80.7
112.9
07
07-11
07-12
07-13
07-21
Rubber and plastic products........... ............................
Crude rubber________________ ________
Tires and tubes.................... .........................
Miscellaneous rubber products___ _______
Plastic construction products (Dec.1969 = 100)
105.6
86.0
107.5
116.5
96.8
104.1
86.8
101.7
115.7
97.4
104.2
87.1
101.7
115.7
97.6
104.2
87.5
101.7
114.3
98.7
104.4
87.6
•101.7
114.3
99.1
104.6
89.4
101.7
114.3
99.1
104.7
89.3
101.7
114.0
99.8
104.5
88.1
101.7
113.4
100.0
104.4
88.7
101.7
113.0
103.5
89.7
100.6
111.7
102.7
90.6
99.2
110.7
103.0
92.5
99. 2
110.8
102.5
90 7
98 4
111 0
102.1
89.4
98.2
110.8
08
08-1
08-2
08-3
08-4
Lumber and wood products......................................
Lumber...........................................
M illwork...........................................
Plywood___ _____ ____________
Other wood products (Dec. 1966 = 100).........
119.6
121.8
131.1
98.5
119.4
120.2
123.0
131.1
98.5
119.3
121.0
124.3
131.1
99.5
119.3
120.1
123.5
130.8
97.2
119.3
119.5
123.3
130.7
94.5
119.5
120.2
124.1
130.7
96.3
119.5
121.6
126.9
131.5
95.5
119.5
122.5
128.2
131.7
96.9
118.4
123.9
129.3
133.2
99.6
116.7
122.6
128.0
133.9
95.8
116.7
123.2
129.5
134.4
94.4
116.5
124.0
131.1
135.1
93.6
116.8
125.3
133.4
135.6
93.9
115.6
132.0
142.6
132.2
109.3
114.8
1?n‘ ?
119 5
ni 9
11 s’ 7
1?V 6
11? 9
inn 3
83 5
90 3
INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES
See
footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
WHOLESALE PRICES
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
26.
105
Wholesale price indexes,1 by group and subgroup of commodities—Continued
[1957=100 unless otherwise specified]2
1970
Codo
1969
Annual
average
Commodity Group
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Pulp, paper, and allied products------ -------— . ------------
112.5
112.2
112.3
112.5
112.1
111.8
111.1
109.5
109.3
109.0
Pulp, paper, and products, excluding build
ing paper and board— ............................
Woodpulp.................................. - ..................
Wastepaper..................... ........ ................--Paper....................... ...................................
Paperboard__________________________
Converted paper and paperboard products...
Building paper and board...............................
113.3
109.6
95.3
121.9
95.5
113.7
93.2
113.0
105.0
99.0
121.7
95.5
113.6
93.3
113.0
105.0
104.2
121.6
96.7
113.4
93.3
113.2
105.0
108.5
121.6
97.0
113.5
93.4
112.9
104.7
108.5
121.6
97.0
112.9
92.9
112.5
104.7
108.2
121.5
97.1
112.2
93.0
111.8
103.7
107.5
120.3
96.0
111.9
93.4
110.1
98.0
106.7
117.4
96.0
110.7
93.9
109.9
98.0
107.0
117.0
96.0
110.6
94.4
109.6
98.0
107.2
116.5
95.9
110.3
94.6
129.0
120.4
122.8
152.6
126.1
126.3
125.1
103.3
119.1
131.2
129.1
120.2
122.0
155.0
125.0
125.9
124.7
102.4
118.1
130.4
128.7
118.9
120.5
157.2
125.0
125.4
124.0
101.7
117.3
128.3
127.8
117.3
118.7
157.1
125.0
125.2
123.2
101.3
116.4
127.5
127.0
117.7
118.4
153.4
125.0
124.9
122.8
100.5
116.0
127.1
126.1
117.0
117.7
152.8
125.0
124.7
122.8
99.9
114.6
125.2
124.9
114.6
115.5
152.8
120.6
124.2
122.8
99.7
114.0
124.9
123.8
113.9
116.4
150.1
120.6
123.0
122.8
99.7
113.7
124.5
122.9
113.7
116.4
146.4
120.6
122.7
122.2
99.3
113.6
124.4
122.4
113.7
116.4
144.8
120.6
122.2
120.8
98.7
113.4
124.4
124.7
137.4
141.2
142.2
129.8
124.1
137.1
141.0
141.7
128.2
123.7
137.4
140.9
141.3
127.9
123.4
137.3
140.8
140.3
127.6
123.1
137.1
140.6
139.8
127.1
122.8
137.2
140.3
139.3
126.5
122.5
136.7
140.2
138.6
126.1
121.9
136.4
139.8
138.0
124.8
1 2 1 .0
135.8
138.6
136.5
123.7
135.1
108.6
123.0
134.3
108.2
123.1
134.0
107.5
122.9
133.6
107.3
122.8
133.6
107.2
122.3
133.4
106.9
121.7
133.3
106.8
121.5
132.8
106.2
121.0
108.8
126.3
127.6
92.7
94.9
77.2
135.8
108.6
126.0
127.6
92.6
94.9
77.0
135.5
108.3
125.9
125.1
92.8
94.9
77.0
135.3
108.3
125.6
125.1
93.1
94.8
77.0
135.6
108.1
125.3
124.9
93.4
94.7
77.2
134.6
107.9
125.1
124.5
93.5
94.4
77.2
134.8
107.5
124.3
124.4
93.5
94.4
77.2
133.0
118.1
122.1
122.4
118.3
121.3
125.7
92.0
100.7
120.9
113.9
117.9
121.6
122.3
118.1
121.2
125.8
92.7
100.7
120.9
113.7
117.9
121.1
122.1
117.4
121.2
126.1
95.1
104.0
120.9
113.7
117.8
121.5
121.9
117.2
120.9
125.9
95.1
105.6
120.9
113.5
117.3
119.9
120.8
117.0
119.8
125.4
97.8
107.0
120.9
112.4
116.9
119.0
120.6
116.4
119.4
125.1
100.8
108.3
120.9
111.0
103.1
109.3
118.8
103.2
109.4
118.7
102.9
109.1
117.7
1969
Aug.
July
108. 8
108.7
108.4
108.2
109.3
98.0
108.4
116.5
95.9
109.8
95.1
109.2
98.0
110.3
117.2
95.8
109.2
95.2
108.9
98.0
111.2
117.1
93.7
109.0
95.9
108.6
98.0
108.3
116.6
94.4
108.8
97.1
121.7
113.2
115.5
120.3
121.0
120.2
98.0
112.8
124.2
120.4
112.7
115.4
139.5
119.7
120.6
119.4
97.7
112.6
123.2
118.7
111.1
113.6
136.1
119.7
120.5
119.4
97.7
112.0
121.3
118.9
111.0
113.7
137.4
119.7
120.5
118.7
97.6
111.5
122.0
120.5
133.2
137.7
135.4
123.4
119.9
133.0
136.1
134.4
122.6
119.1
132.3
134.9
133.5
121.8
119.0
132.3
134.8
133.3
121.5
119.0
132.8
135.5
133.4
121.4
130.6
106.0
120.4
130.2
105.6
120.0
129.6
105.4
119.2
129.2
104.7
118.5
129.2
104.8
118.1
128.7
104.8
118.1
107.2
123.6
124.1
93.1
93.6
77.8
133.3
106.9
123.6
124.0
93.1
93.6
77.7
131.1
106.5
123.3
122.4
93.1
93.1
77.9
131.2
106.4
123.0
121.7
93.2
93.0
77.9
131.4
106.2
123.0
119.5
93.2
93.0
77.9
131.4
106.1
122.8
119.5
93.2
93.0
77.9
131.2
106.1
122.3
120.0
94.1
93.0
78.2
130.6
116.5
118.4
120.1
115.9
119.4
123.5
101.8
107.3
120.9
111.0
114.5
117.8
116.7
114.2
118.5
120.9
101. 2
104.3
116 1
110.6
113.9
116.2
116.7
113.6
118.5
117.2
94.0
109.8
116.1
110.6
113.8
116.2
116.6
113.5
117.8
117.2
96.7
105.9
116.1
110.6
113.5
116.2
116.5
113.2
117.5
117.2
95.7
106.1
113.0
116.2
116.1
112.4
117.0
117.0
96.7
103.2
116.1
109.2
113.0
116.2
116.1
112.3
116.9
113.6
100.9
104.9
116.1
109.0
112.8
114.6
115.6
112.2
117.0
115.1
98.3
106.4
116.1
109.1
102.9
109.1
117.4
102.7
109.0
115.7
102.7
109.0
115.1
102.3
108.7
115.1
100.0
106.1
99.9
106.0
114.3
100.4
106.6
114.3
100.7
107.0
112.4
INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES— Continued
09
09-1
09-11
09-12
09-13
09-14
09-15
09-2
10
1 0 -1
10-13
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-7
10-8
11
1 1 -1
11-2
11-3
1 1 -4
11-6
11-7
11-9
Metals and metal products..............................................
Iron and steel..............................................
Steel m ill products...... ..................................
Nonferrous metals— ................................. .
Metal containers................ ........... .............
Hardware___________________________
Plumbing fixtures and brass fittings-----------Heating equipment____________________
Fabricated structural metal products...........
Miscellaneous metal products........................
Machinery and equipment..--------- ---------------- ------- -
Agricultural machinery and equipment____
Construction machinery and equipment____
Metalworking machinery and equipment___
General purpose machinery and equipment..
Special industry machinery and equipment
(Jan. 1961 = 100).... ...................................
Electrical machinery and equipment...........
Miscellaneous machinery..............................
1 4 3 .5
12
12-1
12-2
12-3
12-4
12-5
12-6
Furniture and household durables....................................
13
13-11
13-2
13-3
13-4
13-5
13-6
13-7
13-8
13-9
Nonmetallic mineral products...........................................
14
14-1
14-4
Transportation equipment (Dec. 1968=100).............
Motor vehicles and equipment.....................
Railroad equipment (Jan. 1961 = 100)............
103.2
109.4
119.3
103.3
109.5
119.3
103.2
109.4
119.0
15
15-1
Miscellaneous products...................................................
121.4
121.0
118.2
117.8
117.8
117.5
117.4
117.0
117.0
116.7
116.4
115.9
115.5
114.7
Toys, sporting goods, small arms, ammuni
tion.............................................................
Tobacco products...........................................
Notions_______ ______________ _______
Photographic equipment and supplies_____
Other miscellaneous products.................... .
115.9
131.7
109.8
117.0
118.2
115.8
132.3
109.4
116.1
116.8
115.1
124.1
109.0
116.2
116.6
115.0
124.1
109.0
116.2
115.0
115.3
124.1
109.0
115.9
114.8
114.2
124.0
109.0
115.8
114.8
114.1
124.0
107.2
115.7
115.1
112.7
124.0
107.2
115.3
114.9
112.8
124.0
107.2
115.0
114.9
112.3
123.8
106.7
114.9
114.8
1 1 2 .1
111.8
123.5
106.7
111.4
114.2
111.2
123.4
102.0
111.4
114.1
111.3
120.8
103.6
113.0
113.1
15-2
15-3
15-4
15-9
Household furniture.......................................
Commercial furniture______ ______ _____
Floor coverings______ _______ _________
Household appliances........... .........................
Home electronic equipment.........................
Other household durable goods........ ............
Flat glass..................... .............................. .
Concrete ingredients................................... .
Concrete products........... ..............................
Structural clay products exc. refractories___
Refractories......... .............. ...........................
Asphalt roofing..............................................
Gypsum products....... ............ ......................
Glass containers................ ..........................
Other nonmetallic minerals..____________
i As of January 1967, the indexes incorporated a revised weighting structure reflect
ing 1963 values of shipments. Changes also were made in the classification structure,
and titles and composition of some indexes were changed. Titles and indexes in this
table conform with the revised classification structure, and may differ from data pre
viously published. See Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes. January 1967 (final) and
February 1967 (final) for a description of the changes.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1 1 6 .1
109.6
1 1 4 .4
123. 8
106. 7
113.9
114.3
2As of January 1962, the indexes were converted from the former base of 1947-49 =
100 to the new base of 1957-59 = 100. Technical details and earlier data on the 1957-59
base furnished upon request to the Bureau.
NOTE: For a description of the general method of computing the monthly Wholesale
Price Index, see BLS Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies (BLS Bulletin 1458,
October 1966), Chapter 11.
106
27.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
WHOLESALE PRICES
Wholesale price indexes for special commodity groupings 1
[1957-59=100, unless otherwise specified]2
1970
1969
Annual
average
Commodity group
1969
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
___________
118.1
124.9
126.7
117.6
123.5
125.2
117.4
122.8
124.6
117.2
123.2
125.4
116.8
124.9
125.7
116.6
124.5
124.6
116.3
125.0
124.5
115.4
123.3
122.8
115.0
123.1
122.1
114.7
119.8
121.8
114.1
120.1
121.6
113.8
119.9
121.9
113.6
120.7
122.5
113.4
119.0
119.9
Textile products, excluding hard and bast
fiber products____________________
Hosiery............ .............. ..........................
Underwear and nightwear.........................
Refined petroleum products......................
East Coast............... ..........................
Mid-Continent______ ___________
Gulf Coast______ _______________
Pacific C oast................................ .
Midwest (Jan. 1961 = 100)_________
99.6
92.2
117.0
102.4
115.0
104.7
97.8
92.3
101.3
99.9
92.2
116.9
102.2
113.2
101.4
97.5
94.8
100.9
100.2
92.3
116.7
104.2
110.2
111.7
99.6
94.8
101.8
100.4
92.3
116.7
101.3
103.6
98.5
98.6
94.0
99.3
100.6
92.4
116.4
100.8
103.4
99.2
99.3
92.2
96.8
101.0
92.8
116.4
101.2
103.4
102.2
99.3
91.2
98.0
101.3
92.8
116.2
101.0
103.4
101.2
98.4
92.5
98.0
101.0
92.7
115.9
102.2
103.4
103.9
100.7
92.5
99.1
101.1
92.7
115.7
101.6
103.4
102.5
99.8
92.5
98.4
101.1
92.7
115.7
101.6
103.4
98.7
101.4
92.3
97.4
101.3
92.7
115.6
101.8
103.4
98.0
101.4
94.9
97.0
101.3
92.7
115.6
102.5
103.4
103.9
101.4
94.9
97.0
101.0
92.7
115.6
103.2
103.4
98.8
104.8
94.9
97.0
101.0
92.7
115.0
101.8
103.4
102.0
100.7
93.0
97.5
All commodities—less farm products...................
All foods_____________________________
Processed foods_______
Pharmaceutical preparations....................
Lumber and wood products excluding
millwork and other wood products3___
Special metals and metal products4.........
Machinery and motive products................
Machinery and equipment, except electrical._____ ____________________
Agricultural machinery, including tractors.
Metalworking machinery...........................
Total tractors..... .......................................
Industrial valves.......................................
Industrial fittings......................................
Abrasive grinding wheels.........................
Construction materials.............................
97.1
96.9
96.9
96.8
97.4
97.0
97.0
97.1
96.7
96.5
96.5
96.2
96.3
96.3
116.5
123.3
119.8
117.4
123.4
119.5
118.6
123.1
119.3
117.3
122.5
119.0
116.4
122.0
118.9
117.5
121.4
118.6
119.3
120.6
118.4
120.6
119.9
117.9
122.2
119.2
117.4
120.1
118.8
116.9
120.8
117.5
115.5
121.7
116.6
115.1
123.5
115.7
115.2
134.6
116.0
115.3
134.9
139.6
149.7
134.3
139.4
149.0
134.1
139.8
148.3
133.7
139.7
147.1
133.3
139.6
146.6
132.9
139.7
146.0
132.6
139.3
145.2
131.9
139.1
144.6
130.6
138.5
143.6
129.9
135.5
143.4
129.0
135.3
141.7
128.3
134.6
140.9
128.1
134.7
140.9
128.1
135.2
140.5
142.6
133.7
127.7
107.1
118.8
142.6
131.8
124.2
107.1
118.6
142.8
131.2
124.2
107.1
118.5
142.8
130.1
124.2
107.1
118.0
142.9
130.0
124.2
107.1
117.5
143.0
129.4
124.2
107.1
117.4
142.8
128.5
123.2
107.1
117.4
142.5
127.3
119.4
107.1
116.9
141.3
125.8
118.6
107.0
116.9
139.4
125.8
118.0
102.6
116.3
138.4
124.8
118.0
102.6
115.9
137.1
124.8
115.3
102.6
115.7
137.0
125.8
115.3
102.6
115.9
138.1
124.2
115.9
103.3
117.7
•See footnote 1, table 26.
2See footnote 2, table 26.
2 Formerly titled “ Lumber and wood products, excluding millwork.”
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4 Metals and metal products, agricultural machinery and equipment, and motor
vehicles and equipment.
WHOLESALE PRICES
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
28.
107
Wholesale price indexes,1 by stage of processing
11957-59=100] a
1970
1969
Annual
average
1969
Commodity group
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
ALL COMMODITIES................................... ..............
117.7
117.0
116.8
116.6
116.6
116.4
116.0
115.1
114.7
114.0
113.6
113.4
113.3
CRUDE MATERIALS FOR FURTHER PROCESSING___________________ ________
113.8
113.0
112.8
113.4
114.2
113.0
110.7
109.9
109.0
108.7
108.7
109.5
110.2
107.9
Foodstuffs and feedstuffs________ ____ _
116.6
114.8
114.4
115.3
117.3
115.5
112.9
112.2
111.0
110.5
110.4
112.1
113.8
110.4
Nonfood materials exceptfuel__________
104.4
102.9
121.0
105.9
104.6
120.7
106.9
105.6
120.3
107.0
105.8
120.2
106.6
105.6
118.0
106.9
105.9
117.5
105.3
104.3
116.4
104.2
103.2
115.3
104.0
103.0
115.3
104.0
103.0
115.1
104.8
103.9
114.9
104.1
103.2
114.1
102.6
101.6
114.1
102.0
101.0
114.0
Manufacturing industries..............
Nonmanufacturing industries.........
135.9
129.3
144.8
134.4
128.1
143.0
131.8
126.2
139.2
131.5
126.0
138.8
125.2
121.5
130.3
124.7
121.2
129.4
122.2
119.6
125.8
121.5
118.8
125.0
121.1
118.6
124.5
119.9
117.8
122.8
118.1
116.7
120.1
117.2
115.6
119.4
117.1
115.5
119.3
117.6
116.0
119.8
INTERMEDIATE MATERIALS, SUPPLIES AND
COMPONENTS.................................... .......
116.4
115.9
115.7
115.3
114.8
114.7
114.4
113.5
113.1
112.8
112.4
111.9
111.4
111.8
115.7
124.3
115.4
123.0
115.3
122.5
115.0
123.4
114.4
122.9
113.9
121.5
113.6
121.1
112.9
119.9
112.6
120.0
112.2
119.2
111.8
118.3
111.4
118.4
110.6
117.8
110.8
116.8
102.6
102.4
102.8
102.7
102.4
102.3
102.3
101.6
101.7
101.5
101.7
101.7
101.2
101.2
125.5
120.3
125.6
119.7
125.4
119.0
124.5
118.7
123.4
118.3
122.7
118.0
122.1
117.7
121.4
117.0
120.4
116.7
120.0
116.1
119.6
115.1
118.7
114.3
117.4
113.9
118.1
114.0
Materials and Componentsfor Construction..
119.1
118.9
118.6
118.2
117.7
117.3
117.3
116.8
116.7
116.2
115.8
115.5
115.4
116.9
Processed fuels and lubricants......................
105.5
108.2
101.3
104.8
107.6
100.4
105.1
107.3
101.6
103.6
106.7
98.8
103.0
106.1
98.3
103.0
106.0
98.3
102.4
105.3
97.8
102.7
105.1
99.0
102.1
104.5
98.4
102.3
104.8
98.4
101.0
103.2
97.6
100.6
102.3
97.8
100.8
102.4
98.4
100.9
103.1
97.4
Containers.................... .............................
119.1
118.7
118.5
118.5
118.1
117.6
116.2
114.8
114.6
114.5
114.2
113.7
113.3
113.3
Supplies..................... ...... ........................
Manufacturing industries.......... .
Nonmanufacturing industries.........
Manufactured animal feeds____
Other supplies........................ ..
120.7
122.3
119.2
119.4
115.2
118.9
122.1
116.8
112.9
114.8
118.3
121.9
116.0
111.4
114.5
118.5
121.7
116.4
113.2
114.2
117.6
121.1
115.4
110.7
113.9
120.1
120.9
119.1
122.8
113.4
119.7
120.5
118.6
123.7
112.3
116.9
119.4
115.1
114.1
111.8
115.9
118.7
113.9
111.6
111.4
115.6
118.0
113.9
112.3
111.0
115.1
117.8
113.3
111.7
110.4
114.4
117.4
112.4
110.5
109.7
114.3
116.8
112.5
110.8
109.7
114.4
117.0
112.5
110.6
109.8
FINISHED GOODS (Including Raw Foods and
Fuels)................................................. .........
119.7
119.0
118.7
118.6
119.0
118.8
118.8
118.0
117.6
116.5
116.0
115.7
115.9
115.3
118.0
125.9
118.3
127.3
116.0
108.3
117.3
124.2
115.4
125.8
115.9
108.1
117.0
123.6
115.0
125.2
115.6
108.0
116.8
124.1
114.3
125.9
114.9
107.8
117.4
126.0
123.3
126.4
114.7
107.8
117.3
125.9
128.0
125.4
114.6
107.6
117.3
126.4
131.6
125.3
114.2
107.4
116.5
124.5
129.5
123.5
114.1
107.2
116.2
123.9
131.0
122.5
113.8
107.1
115.1
121.2
114.2
122.4
113.6
106.9
114.7
121.6
116.9
122.4
113.3
105.3
114.4
121.2
112.4
122.8
113.0
105.2
114.8
122.3
114.9
123.7
112.6
105.6
114.0
120.3
117.5
120.7
112.3
105.8
124.6
130.6
119.2
124.2
129.9
119.0
124.0
129.5
118.8
123.7
129.1
118.7
123.5
128.9
118.5
123.1
128.4
118.2
122.9
128.0
118.0
122.3
127.5
117.4
121.5
126.2
117.0
120.8
125.8
116.1
119.9
125.0
115.0
119.3
124.4
114.4
119.3
124.4
114.5
119.3
124.1
114.7
Crude materials for further processing, excluding
crude foodstuffs and feedstuffs, plant and animal fibers, oilseeds and leaf tobacco...............
118.0
119.5
120.0
120.3
118.5
118.5
116.0
114.5
114.1
113.7
113.9
112.5
110.7
110.5
Intermediate materials supplies and compo
nents, excluding intermediate materials for
food mfg., and mfr.’d animal feeds_______
115.6
115.4
115.2
114.7
114.2
113.9
113.5
112.9
112.6
112.2
111.8
111.3
110.9
111.3
Consumer finished goods, excluding consumer
foods................................... ..........................
113.1
112.9
112.7
112.2
112.1
111.9
111.7
111.5
111.3
111.1
110.3
110.1
110.0
109.9
Manufacturing________________
Construction.......... .. ..................... ..
Crude fuel............ ....................... - ...........
Materials and Components for Manufacturing___ ___________________
Materials for food manufacturing...
Materials for nondurable manufactu rin g ..-------- ------------- ---------------Materials for durable manufacturing...................... ......................... —
Components for manufacturing—
Manufacturing industries.............
Nonmanufacturing industries_____
Consumer Goods.......................................
Foods___ ___________ ________
Crude..........................................
Processed__________________
Other nondurable g oo d s...............
Durable goods........... .....................
Producer Finished Goods______________
Manufacturing industries................
Nonmanufacturing industries.........
113.0
SPECIAL GROUPINGS
1See footnote 1, table 26.
9See footnote 2, table 26.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: For description of the series by stage of processing, see Wholesale Prices
and Price Indexes, January 1967 (final) and February 1967 (final).
108
29.
WHOLESALE PRICES
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
Wholesale price indexes,1 by durability of product
11957-59=100]*
1970
1969
Commodity group
Annual
average
1969
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
All commodities.............................................
Total durable goods.................... .......
Total nondurable goods___________
117.7
121.6
114.8
117.0
121.5
113.8
116.8
121.3
113.6
116.6
120.9
113.6
116.6
120.5
113.9
116.4
120.0
113.9
116.0
119.6
113.4
115.1
119.0
112.4
114.7
118.4
111.9
114.0
117.9
111.2
113.6
117.1
111.1
113.4
116.5
111.1
113.3
116.1
111.3
113.0
116.6
110.3
Total manufactures____________________
Durable_______________________
Nondurable.................................... .
118.0
121.5
114.5
117.4
121.3
113.6
117.1
121.0
113.4
116.9
120.5
113.4
116.6
120.1
113.2
116.4
119.7
113.2
116.1
119.4
113.0
115.3
118.8
111.9
114.9
118.3
111.6
114.6
117.9
111.4
113.9
117.0
111.0
113.6
116.4
111.0
113.5
116.1
111.0
113.3
116.6
110.1
Total raw or slightly processed goods.................
Durable_______________________
Nondurable____________________
115.7
124.4
115.2
114.7
128.9
113.9
114.5
131.9
113.6
114.7
131.9
113.8
116.3
134.0
115.3
116.0
133.8
115.1
114.8
128.9
114.1
113.9
125.3
113.3
113.1
124.0
112.5
111.0
122.8
110.3
111.6
123.7
110.9
111.5
119.7
111.1
112.2
114.8
112.1
110.9
115.8
110.7
* See footnote 1, table 26.
* See footnote 2, table 26.
30.
NOTE: For description of the series by durability of product and data beginning with
1947, see “ Wholesale Price and Price Indexes, 1957” (BLS Bulletin 1235,1958).
Industry-sector price indexes for the output of selected industries1
[1957-59=100 unless otherwise indicated]
1963
SIC
Code
Industry
1969
Other
bases
1968
Dec.*
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
1211
1311
1421
Anthracite............. ............................—.
Bituminous coal.-- _ _ _ - - _ _ _
Crude petroleum and natural gas.
Crushed and broken s to n e .______ _
118.4
124.9
110.9
114.5
114.9
124.2
110.9
114.5
111.4
121.3
110.8
114.2
111.4
116.2
110.9
114.2
108.0
116.1
110.6
113.6
108.0
116.0
110.5
113.6
104.2
115.0
110.6
113.6
104.2
114.1
110.7
112.6
106.2
113.4
110.9
112.5
107.4
113.1
109.9
112.5
107.4
113.1
106.6
112.5
107.0
113.1
106.5
112.5
107.0
113.1
106.4
111.3
109.0
116.7
110.0
113.4
1442
1475
1476
1477
Construction sand and gravel________
Phosphate rock________
________
Rock salt________________________
Sulfur... _____ _ _____________
123.0
147.4
107.0
115.8
123.0
147.4
107.0
115.8
123.0
147.4
107.0
124.1
122.5
147.4
107.0
165.4
121.5
147.4
107.0
165.4
121.5
147.4
107.0
165.4
120.7
147.4
107.0
165.4
120.6
147.4
107.0
165.4
120.8
147.4
107.0
165.4
120.6
147.4
100.8
165.4
119.8
147.4
100.8
165.4
119.8
147.4
100.8
173.7
118.6
147.4
100.8
173.7
121.4
147.4
105.5
154.4
2011
2013
2015
2021
2033
Meat slaughtering plants____________
Meat processing plants... . . . .
Poultry dressing plants_____ . ._
Creamery butter____ _ _ . . . _____
____
Canned fruits and vegetables..
12/66
12/66
114.0
121.3
105.7
106.3
109.8
113.5
118.5
103.3
105.1
109.7
113.8
119.1
101.7
105.1
109.5
116.2
120.3
104.0
105.1
109.0
117.4
122.0
107.8
104.9
108.7
121.7
118.7
103.3
104.9
108.7
121.2
117.0
101.7
104.8
107.7
114.8
109.7
102.3
104.8
107.7
108.0
104.8
96.1
104.9
107.8
104.6
103.4
99.6
103.4
107.7
103.9
101.7
98.5
103.3
107.6
104.2
100.3
95.9
103.4
107.4
100.1
100.7
90.4
105.0
107.3
113.1
101.7
104.7
108.4
2036
2044
2052
2061
2062
2063
Fresh or frozen packaged fish________
Rice milling_________ _____ _ ____
Biscuits, crackers and cookies________
Raw cane sugar____ . . . _ __ .
Cane sugar refining______ . ______
Beet sugar______ _________
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
150.8
94.0
109.7
107.0
108.9
106.1
154.1
94.0
109.7
110.1
109.3
106.6
146.5
94.0
108.0
110.5
109.2
106.7
145.9
93.1
107.1
109.6
108.4
106.4
143.8
92.6
104.5
108.9
108.1
106.3
146.4
92.6
104.4
104.5
107.6
105.7
139.9
93.8
104.4
109.5
107.6
106.7
140.4
93.8
104.4
109.5
107.2
104.9
136.8
93.8
104.3
109.0
105.8
105.0
141.7
93.8
104.3
108.5
103.9
102.3
141.4
93.8
104.3
107.7
103.6
102.2
140.1
93 8
104.3
107.5
103.6
102.6
139.0
93.8
104.3
106.8
103.2
102.5
144.0
93.6
105.8
108.5
106.9
105.1
2073
2082
2083
2084
2091
2092
Chewing g u m . . ________ _ _____
Malt liquors______________________
Malt_______________________
Wines and brandy... . . . . _ _ ._
Cottonseed oil mills_______________
Soybean oil mills__________________
106.2
107.3
96.8
118.3
99.4
88.6
106.1
107.3
96.8
118.3
95.8
88.0
106.1
107.7
96.8
118.3
91.5
91.0
106.1
107.1
96.8
115.5
97.0
85.7
106.1
107.2
96.8
115.5
97.2
87.4
106.1
107.2
96.8
115.7
98.3
87.1
106.1
106.7
96.8
115.7
92.9
87.0
106.1
106.0
96.8
115.7
92.7
86.3
106.1
104.9
96.8
115.7
93.9
85.6
106.1
104.9
96.8
115.7
93.6
84.8
106.1
104.9
96.8
115.5
93.7
83.1
106.1
104.9
96.8
115.5
95.0
83.3
106.1
104.9
96.8
115.5
94.5
82.2
106.1
106.3
96.8
116.3
Ô5.1
86.5
2094
2096
2098
2111
2121
2131
Animal and marine fats and oils___
Shortening and cooking oils_______
Macaroni and noodle products________
Cigarettes_____________________
Cigars____ ____ . _ . . . ___
Chewing and smoking tobacco___ ____
12/66
96.4
108.8
101.9
125.1
107.3
141.4
104.9
107.2
101.9
125.0
107.3
140.6
102.1
105.5
101.9
125.0
106.8
138.5
105.8
102.6
101.9
125.0
106.8
138.3
104.6
102.5
101.8
125.0
105.2
138.1
99.6
102.3
101.9
125.0
103.8
138.1
93.8
103.3
101.8
124.9
102.7
137.1
89.0
103.1
101.8
117.5
102.7
137.0
88.9
103.2
101.5
117.5
102.7
136.0
85.1
103.1
100.4
117.4
102.1
134.7
82.9
102.9
100.3
117.4
102.0
134.7
81.3
101.0
100.3
117.4
102.0
132.4
79.7
100.3
100.3
117.4
101.7
132.4
94.5
103.8
101.5
121.9
104.3
137.2
2254
2311
2321
2322
2327
Knit underwear mills___
. . ____
Men’s and boys’ suits and coats______
Men’s dress shirts and nightwear... . .
Men’s and boys’ underwear___ . ___
Men’s and boys' separate trousers___
12/66
12/66
12/66
107.8
142.7
122.1
109.1
106.9
107.7
142.2
121.0
109.0
106.8
107.7
140.4
121.0
109.0
106.8
107.7
139.4
120.6
107.9
106.4
107.7
138.5
120.6
107.9
106.3
107.7
137.1
118.3
107.7
106.1
106.3
135.8
118.2
106.9
106.1
106.4
134.4
118.2
107.0
104.8
106.3
134.7
118.8
107.1
104.8
106.3
134.3
118.8
107.1
104.7
106.3
134.3
118.9
107.0
104.7
106.3
134.2
118.7
106.9
104.7
105.7
133.4
115.5
106.4
103.9
107.0
137.3
119.6
107.7
105.8
2328
2381
2426
2442
2515
Work clothing..
______
Fabric dress and work gloves___
Hardwood dimension and flooring. .
Wirebound boxes and crates...
Mattresses and bedsprings____ _____
12/66
12/67
12/66
119.1
137.1
116.5
110.7
108.2
119.0
135.4
116.6
110.0
108.7
119.0
135.4
116.7
110.0
108.5
118.3
134.8
117.2
110.0
108.5
117.7
132.1
117.3
108.6
108.5
117.4
131.9
117.8
108.3
108.3
117.4
131.9
119.0
107.4
108.2
116.6
131.9
120.7
107.4
108.2
116.6
131.7
121.1
106.5
108.3
116.6
130.8
120.6
106.4
108.2
116.6
130.6
118.8
106.4
108.2
116.5
130.1
116.5
106.3
106.7
115.1
128.4
114.7
105.6
104.3
117.6
132.8
118.2
108.2
108.2
2521
2647
2654
Wood office furniture_________ .
Sanitary paper products_____________
Sanitary food containers_____________
12/66
12/66
139.2
115.3
101.3
138.9
115.3
101.2
137.6
113.9
100.6
135.9
113.5
100.4
134.3
113.1
100.4
134.3
112.3
100.1
134.3
111.5
100.7
133.4
100.6
132.8
111.1
100.6
132.2
111.1
100.4
131.7
110.2
100.7
131.1
108.0
100.8
131.1
108.0
100.5
134.6
112.2
100.7
MINING
mi
MANUFACTURING
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
111.1
1 1 2. 8
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
30.
109
Industry-sector price indexes for the output of selected industries ^Continued
1969
1963
SIC
Code
WHOLESALE PRICES
Industry
1968
Other
bases
Annual
Average
1969
Dec.2
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
96.0
95.6
96.0
96.0
95.6
96.0
96.0
95.6
96.0
96.0
95.6
96.0
95.9
95.6
96.0
95.9
95.6
96.0
95.9
95.6
96.0
95.9
95.6
96.0
95.8
95.6
96.0
95.3
95.8
96.0
95.3
95.8
96.0
94. 5
95.8
96.0
94.7
95.7
96.0
95.7
95.7
96.0
85.0
90.6
117.1
97.8
120.4
118.3
85.0
90.6
117.3
97.3
120.5
117.2
85.4
91.2
117.3
97.3
121.2
117.4
88.3
92.7
117.4
97.5
122.3
117.6
88.5
92.6
117. 5
98.1
121.5
118.2
88.7
93.1
117.4
98.8
121.7
117. 5
99.2
93.3
117.5
98.8
122.1
113.5
99.2
93.3
116.9
98.0
122.2
115.4
99.2
93.3
115.0
98.0
122.8
112.0
99.4
93.9
114.8
97.1
116.7
111.5
99.4
93.7
114.1
95.1
116.7
110.5
99.6
94.1
114.1
94.7
117.0
109.7
100.3
94.8
114.6
95.1
116.1
111.0
93.1
92.7
116.4
97.4
120.4
114.9
MANUFACTURING-Continued
2822
2823
2824
Synthetic rubber___________________
Cellulosic man-made fibers__________
Organic fibers, noncellulosic------- ---------
2871
2872
2892
2911
3111
3121
Fertilizers. -----------------------------------Fertilizers, mixing only----------------------Explosives. ----. . . .
Petroleum refining________ . . . . . .
Leather tanning and finishing------------Industrial leather belting---------------------
3221
3241
3251
3255
3259
Glass containers___________________
Cement, hydraulic_________________
Brick and structural clay tile--------------Clay refractories____ _ . . . . . . .
Structural clay products, n.e.c...
—
116.1
114.9
125.1
126.2
116.4
116.1
114.9
125.1
122.2
116.4
116.1
114.9
124.4
122.2
115.9
116.1
114.9
124.4
122.2
115.1
116.1
114.8
123.5
122.0
115. 0
116.1
114.8
123.5
117.8
114.4
116.1
114.8
123.4
117.8
114.8
116.1
114.8
123.2
117.8
115.3
116.1
114.8
123.0
117.8
115.3
116.1
114.7
121.5
116.7
115.3
116.1
111.7
121.5
116.7
115.1
116.1
108.5
121.4
116.7
115.0
110.3
105.9
121.2
116.7
114.1
116.1
114.0
123.3
119.7
115.3
3261
3262
3263
3271
3273
3275
3312
3315
Vitreous plumbing fixtures------------------Vitreous china food utensils------ ---------Fine earthenware food utensils-----------Concrete block and brick___ _____ . .
Ready mixed concrete...
-------------Gypsum products.
.
------------Blast furnace and steel mills_________
Steel wire drawing, etc______ _
. .
104.6
143.7
131.2
115.4
115.7
104.7
115.3
.108.6
104.2
143.7
131.2
115.0
114.9
110.1
115.3
108.5
103.4
139.8
130.9
114.9
114.7
106.2
115.2
108.4
102.4
139.8
130.9
114.6
114.4
106.4
114.4
107.5
102.4
139.8
130.9
114. 5
113.7
103.6
114.3
107.0
102.4
139.8
130.9
114. 5
113. 5
105.2
112.5
106.4
100.9
137.2
127.0
113.7
112.7
108.9
111.8
106.3
100.8
137.2
127.0
114.2
112.6
108.9
111.7
105.9
99.8
137.2
127.0
114.2
112.3
106.5
110.8
105.1
99.8
134.3
123.3
114.5
112.0
106.5
110.6
105.1
99.7
134.3
123.3
113.4
111.8
106.5
109. 5
105.1
99.5
134.3
123.3
112.9
-111.7
106.5
109.3
104.5
99.1
134.3
123.3
111.7
110.3
106.5
107.7
103.7
101.7
138.4
128.1
114.3
113.3
106.7
112.6
106.5
3316
3317
3333
3334
3339
3351
3411
Cold finishing of steel shapes--------------Steel pipe and tube......... ....................
Primary z in c ................ ...................... Primary aluminum_________________
Primary nonferrous metals, n.e.c_____
Copper rolling and drawing...................
Metal cans......................................... .
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
113.6
110.5
107.7
114.0
134.8
171.4
109.0
113.7
110.4
107.7
114.0
138.9
166.4
109.0
113.7
110.4
107.4
114.0
133.9
166.4
109.0
112.1
108.4
105.6
110.0
131.8
l6b. 9
109.0
112.1
107.8
100.9
110.0
123.8
16U. 6
109.0
109.0
107.7
100.6
110.0
120.5
154. 5
108.9
109.0
107.3
100.5
109.0
120.1
152.3
108.9
108.7
107.3
100.4
109.0
120.1
151.7
108.9
107.5
107.2
97.1
109.0
120.3
147.8
108.9
107.4
105.7
96.9
109.0
119.5
144.6
108.9
107.4
105.6
96.9
109. 0
119.8
142.8
108.8
107.2
104.8
97.2
106.1
122.3
142.8
106.3
107.0
104.7
93.9
105.4
119.4
134.3
106.2
110.1
107.8
101.6
110.3
125.5
155.6
108.7
3423
3431
3493
3496
3498
3519
Hand and edge tools...............................
Metal plumbing fixtures..........................
Steel springs_______________ _____ _
Collapsible tubes__________ ________
Fabricated pipe and fittings... .........
Internal combustion engines----------------
12/67
110.8
100.4
107.2
103.8
130.9
110.9
110.6
100.3
107.2
103.7
130.8
110.8
109.6
99.8
107.2
103.7
130.4
110.1
108.4
99.4
106.8
103.7
130.4
109.7
108.4
98.8
106.8
103.6
130.3
109.1
107.8
98.7
106.8
103.6
130.3
108.0
107.1
97.3
106.3
103.5
129.7
108.3
106.9
96.6
106.0
103.2
129.7
108.3
107.2
95.8
105.9
103.2
129.7
107.9
106.3
95.8
105.8
103.1
123.4
107.5
105.9
95.7
105. 8
103.0
123. 4
106.9
105.0
95.3
105.8
102.9
123.4
106.7
104.8
95.0
105.2
101.5
122.7
106.6
107.8
97.8
106.5
103.4
128.5
108.7
3533
3534
3537
3562
3572
Oil field machinery------------- --------------Elevators and moving stairways.............
Industrial trucks and tractors............... .
Ball and roller bearings..........................
Typewriters.......
............................
12/66
12/66
125.1
110.5
134.0
105.7
103.9
122.7
107.7
133.9
103.7
103.8
122.5
107.7
133.6
103.7
103.2
122.4
107.6
132.6
102.6
103.1
121.8
107.6
131.2
102.6
103.1
121.5
107.6
131.2
102.2
101. 5
121.0
104.5
130.5
102.2
101.4
120.8
104.5
129.1
102.1
101.3
120.4
104.5
128.6
102.1
100.5
120.0
104.5
128.6
102.1
100.6
119.1
103.9
128.2
102.1
100.6
119.0
103.9
128.1
101.6
100.6
118.0
103.9
127.2
101.6
100.6
121.4
106.2
130.8
102.7
102.0
3576
3612
3613
3624
3635
3641
Scales and balances..... .......... ...............
Transformers_____________ ______ _
Switchgear and switchboards.............
Carbon and graphite products.................
Household vacuum cleaners............ .......
Electric lamps_____ ____ _______ ___
12/66
12/66
12/67
12/66
12/66
133.4
100.3
107.1
104.8
99.9
98.4
133.2
99.3
106.7
104.4
99.9
98.5
133.0
100.2
105.7
104.4
99.9
99.2
133.0
101.6
105.9
104.3
99.8
101.1
129.9
101.6
103.6
104.3
99.8
100.3
129.9
101.3
104.4
104.3
99.8
99.6
128.6
101.1
104.9
103.0
99.8
104.1
127.0
100.2
104.0
101.1
99.8
103.1
127.0
100.8
103.6
101.0
99.8
103.6
126.9
102.2
104.3
101.0
99.8
102.7
126.9
102.3
104.9
101.0
99.7
103.0
126.3
104.6
104.8
101.0
99.7
103.0
126.4
104.6
104.4
101.0
99.5
103.0
129.6
101.3
105.0
102.9
99.8
101.4
3652
3671
3672
3673
Phonograph records..............................
Electron tubes, receiving ty p e ...............
Cathode ray picture tubes___________
Electron tubes, transmitting___ ______
12/66
12/66
12/66
123.5
121.2
87.5
103.2
123.5
121.3
89.7
103.2
123.5
121.3
90.0
103.1
123.5
121.2
90.0
103.0
122.6
117.8
90.0
102.9
122.6
117.8
90.0
102.9
122.6
117.8
89.9
102.1
122.3
117.8
89.9
102.1
122.3
117.8
89.9
102.0
122.3
117.7
89.9
102.0
122.3
109.6
89.8
102. 0
121.3
105.9
89.9
102.1
119.8
105.9
92.4
102.0
122.7
117.3
89.7
102.6
3674
3692
3693
3941
Semiconductors____ _______________
Primary batteries, dry and wet..............
X-ray apparatus and tubes..................
Games and toys__________ _________
92.7
115.4
117.4
112.1
92.8
115.4
115.6
112.2
92.7
115.3
115.4
111.4
92.6
115.2
113.1
111.4
92.7
115.2
112.8
111.4
92.6
115.2
112.8
111.1
92.6
115.2
112.5
111.1
92.7
115.2
112.6
111.1
92.7
115.2
111.0
111.2
92.6
114.9
111.3
111.1
92.4
113.8
111.4
111.2
92.4
112.5
111.1
110.3
92.5
111.3
107.7
110.1
92.6
114.9
113.1
111.3
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
1958
12/66
12/66
12/66
1958
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/67
12/66
1 For a description of the series, see BLS Handbook of Methods for Surveys and
Studies (BLS Bulletin 1458), Chapter 12. See also. "Industry and Sector Price indexes."
in Monthly Labor Review, August 1965, pp. 974-982.
2 Current monthly industry-sector price indexes are not available for this issue. At
the beginning of each calendar year, changes in the sample for some indexes must be
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
made and necessary internal reweighting accomplished; this has caused the delayindexes beginning with January 1970 will be published iri a later report.
NOTE. Beginning in January 1967, index weights and classifications are based on the
1963 Censuses of Manufactures and Minerals. They were formerly based on the 1958
Industrial Censuses.
110
31.
LABOR-MANAGEMENT DISPUTES
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1970
Work stoppages resulting from labor-management disputes 1
Number of stoppages
Month and year
Beginning in
month or year
Workers involved in stoppages
In effect during
month
Beginning in
month or year
(thousands)
In effect during
month
(thousands)
Man-days idle during month or year
Number
(thousands)
Percent of esti
mated working
time
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
.................... - ..........
........- .......... ............. ...........
.................... .......
........... .............
4,750
4,985
3i 693
3; 419
3i 606
3,470
4,600
170
L 960
3i 030
38,000
116’ 000
34| 600
34| 100
50,500
0 31
1* 04
* 30
*28
* 44
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
..................... .
.....................
_______________
_____ ____ _____
...................... ..........
4,843
4i 737
5; 117
5', 091
3,468
2,410
2; 220
3, 540
2 ,400
l ’ 530
38 800
22’ 900
59^ 100
2 i , 300
22| 600
33
* 18
* 48
*22
* 18
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
_________ ________
........... ..........
_____________
______________
....................... .
4,320
3 ; 825
3i 673
3; 694
3i 708
2,650
i; 900
l| 390
2; 060
1,880
28,200
33’ 100
16| 500
23j 900
69| 000
22
* 24
* 12
* 18
* 50
I960
1961
1962
1963
1964
............... .........
_______________
..........................
_______________
........... ............. .......
3,333
3; 367
3 ; 614
3,362
3,655
1,320
1,450
l ’ 230
'941
1,640
19,100
16| 300
18i 600
16 100
22,900
14
’h
* 13
1965 _____ _____ _____ 1966
_______ _________
1967
......................
1968.._____ ____________
1969
_________
3,963
4,405
4,595
5,045
5, 700
1,550
1,960
2,870
2,649
2, 481
23,300
25,400
42j 100
49j 018
42’ 869
15
* 15
25
28
24
1967: January_________ _
February----------------March---- ------- ---------
286
292
368
443
485
545
94.4
104.1
129.9
163.5
159.2
195.4
1,247.9
1,275.8
1, 507.8
.09
.10
.10
A p ril.................... .
May................... .........
June_______ ____ _
462
528
472
638
769
759
397.6
277.8
211.8
438.8
584.9
405.0
2, 544.8
4,406. 4
4,927. 4
.19
.30
.33
July______________
August____________
September_________
389
392
415
682
689
681
664.6
91.3
372.8
865.5
233.1
473.6
4,328.7
2, 859. 5
6,159.8
.32
.18
.45
October................. .
November............. .
December.................
449
360
182
727
653
445
178.8
277.1
74.4
458.7
559.5
209.5
7,105. 6
3,213.2
2, 546. 5
.47
.22
.18
1968: January......................
February__________
March____________
314
357
381
483
569
618
187.8
275.0
174.5
275.7
451.3
368.7
2,668. 5
4,104.1
3,682. 0
.18
.29
.26
April____ _________
May...........................
June....... ...................
505
610
500
748
930
810
537.2
307.3
168.5
656.7
736.2
399.9
5,677. 4
7,452. 2
5, 576.8
.38
.49
.40
J u ly . ............... .........
August____________
September.......... .......
520
466
448
880
821
738
202.0
153.8
169.8
465.1
359.6
349.0
4,611.9
4, 048. 9
3, 081.1
.30
.26
.22
October................... .
November_________
December_____ ____
434
327
183
741
617
408
279.0
129.9
64.1
414.5
306.1
189.2
3,991.7
2,430.5
1,692. 5
.25
.17
.11
1969: January___________
February.. _______
March____________
342
385
436
511
578
651
184.9
177.1
158.1
264.3
339.9
386.3
3,173.3
2, 565. 8
2,412.5
.21
.18
.16
April....... ....................
May...... .....................
June______________
578
723
565
831
1,054
911
309.7
286.3
214.6
462.3
507.7
500.0
3,755.0
4, 744. 7
4, 722. 7
.24
.32
.31
July............................
August____________
September_________
528
538
554
883
915
904
255.0
191.2
185.6
461.5
394.8
274.5
4,311.0
3, 634.3
2,193.4
.27
.24
.15
October___________
November_________
December...............
531
324
196
850
611
446
337.0
131.0
50.8
420.9
367.6
276.0
3,167. 5
4, 307.6
3, 881.8
. 19
.31
.24
1970: January” __________
February” _________
March” ..... .................
260
290
390
420
460
570
55
106
294
233
296
364
3, 730
1,820
2, 230
.25
.13
.14
April ” ......... ..............
May ” ______ ______
June ” ........................
600
750
600
810
960
840
319
309
212
385
470
428
4,181
7,516
5,040
.26
.52
.31
July ” ........................
490
750
192
354
4,378
.28
2;
i The data include all known strikes or lockouts involving 6 workers or more and
lasting a full day or shift or longer. Figures on workers involved and man-days idle
cover all workers made idle for as long as 1 shift iu establishments directly involved in
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
* 15
a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or secondary effect on other establishments
or industries whose employees are made idle as a result of material or service shortages.
»^Preliminary.
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
32.
PRODUCTIVITY
111
Output per man-hour, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, private economy, seasonally adjusted
[Indexes 1957-59=1001
Output per
man-hour
Man-hours
Output
Compensation
per man-hour1
Year and quarter
Private
Private
nonfarm
Private
110.6
109.5
110.3
111.0
115.5
114.9
115.3
116.1
Private
nonfarm
Private
Private
nonfarm
Private
132.4
134.7
135.2
135.3
128.4
129.8
130.9
130.9
Real compensa
tion per
man-hour2
Private
nonfarm
Private
147.6
150.4
152.4
154.3
143.3
145.6
147.8
149.7
Unit labor
costs
Private
nonfarm
Private
128.7
130.3
130.6
131.1
125.0
126.0
126.6
127.2
Unit nonlabor
payments2
Private
nonfarm
Private
111.5
111.7
112.8
114.1
111.7
112.1
113.0
114.4
117.7
118.8
119.9
120.6
Implicit price
deflator4
nonfarm
farm
1st q tr..............
2d qtr_______
3d qtr...............
4th qtr______
146.4
147.5
149.1
150.1
148.2
149.1
150.9
152.0
Ann. Avg__________
148.3
150.1
110.3
115.4
134.4
130.0
151.2
146.6
130.1
126.2
112.5
112.8
119.2
1968:
1st qtr_______
2d qtr_______
3d q tr..........
4th qtr.............
152.4
155.1
156.7
157.9
154.3
157.4
159.0
160.1
111.3
112.3
112.9
113.2
116.5
117.7
118.5
118.9
136.9
138.1
138.8
139.5
132.4
133.7
134.2
134.6
158.5
160.8
164.1
167.5
153.6
155.7
158.4
161.7
133.3
133.7
134.7
135.9
129.2
129.5
130.1
131.3
115.8
116.5
118.2
120.1
116.0
116.5
118.1
120.2
120.4
122.3
122.0
122.3
Ann. Avg_____ ____
155.5
157.7
112.4
117.9
138.3
133.7
162.8
157.4
134.4
130.0
117.7
117.7
121.7
122.1
119.2
119.3
1st qtr_______
2d qtr..............
3d qtr_______
4th q tr______
159.0
159.8
160.9
160.4
161.1
162.4
163.4
163.1
114.2
115.1
115.3
114.8
120.1
121.2
121.7
121.4
139.3
138.9
139.5
139.7
134.1
134.0
134.2
134.3
170.0
172.4
175.9
179.6
163.9
166.2
169.2
172.4
136.3
136.0
136.8
137.8
131.5
131.1
131.6
132.2
122.1
124.2
126.1
128.6
122.2
124.1
126.1
128.4
122.8
123.2
123.6
123.3
123.0
123.0
123.5
123.2
122 4
123 8
125 2
126.6
122 5
Ann. Avg__________
160.0
162.5
114.9
121.1
139.3
134.2
174.5
167.9
136.8
131.6
125.3
125.2
123.2
123.2
124.5
124.5
1st qtr........ .
2d qtr f . . ........
159.2
159.3
161.9
161.9
114.7
113.8
121.4
120.4
138.9
139.9
133.3
134.4
182.6
184.9
175.1
177.5
138.0
137.5
132.3
132.0
131.5
132.2
131.4
132.1
122.7
125.2
122.0
124.7
128 3
129.5
127 9
129.4
89
1967:
1969:
1970:
113 R
144 3
115 5
116.5
m n
m fi
11S fi
116^ 7
119.4
115.1
115.2
120.8
122.7
122.6
122.7
117 5
118 7
119 fi
120.9
119 7
121.'1
117.9
118.8
120.3
120.8
117 8
118 8
178. 7
125 1
126.4
Percent change over previous quarter at annual rates
1st q t r . . . ........
2d qtr_______
3d qtr_______
4th q tr_______
- 1 .3
3.0
4.3
2.9
- 2 .2
2.5
4.8
2.9
0.0
- 3 .8
2.9
2.5
- 0 .3
-2 .1
1.6
2.7
- 1 .3
7.0
1.4
0.3
- 1 .8
4.6
3.2
0.3
3.1
7.8
5.4
5.1
4.3
6.3
6.3
5.4
2.4
4.8
1.2
1.6
3.6
3.4
2.0
1.9
4.4
0.7
4.0
4.7
6.2
1.6
3.1
5.1
- 1 .0
3.8
3.9
2.3
- 1 .6
2.9
5.2
1.8
2.3
1.9
4.0
3.8
1st q t r . . ........ .
2d q t r . . . ..........
3d qtr_______
4th q tr_______
6.1
7.2
4.3
3.1
6.2
8.2
4.2
2.8
1.1
3.7
2.0
1.2
1.5
4.2
2.8
1.3
4.9
3.4
2.2
1.8
4.6
3.9
1.4
1.4
11.2
6.1
8.4
8.5
10.6
5.7
7.0
8.7
6.7
1.2
3.1
3.6
6.2
0.9
1.9
3.8
6.0
2.6
6.0
6.5
5.7
1.8
5.5
7.2
- 0 .8
6.6
- 1 .0
1.1
0.0
6.4
- 0 .4
0.4
3.3
4.1
3.3
4.4
3 ?
4.6
1969:
1st qtr_______
2d qtr...............
3d q tr...............
4th qtr_______
2.8
2.1
2.5
- 1 .0
2.6
3.1
2.5
- 0 .6
3.4
3.3
0.9
- 1 .8
4.2
3.6
1.9
- 1 .0
- 0 .5
- 1 .1
1.6
0.8
- 1 .5
- 0 .4
0.6
0.3
6.2
5.9
8.2
8.8
5.5
5.8
7.3
7.7
1.2
- 1 .0
2.3
3.0
0.5
- 1 .0
1.4
1.9
6.7
7.1
6.5
7.9
7.1
6.3
6.6
7.3
1.4
1.5
1.1
- 0 .8
1.1
0.0
1.5
- 1 .0
4.7
4.9
4.5
4.7
4 8
3 9
4 7
4.3
1970:
1st qtr_______
2d qtr p........ .
- 3 .0
0.1
- 2 .9
- 0 .1
- 0 .5
- 2 .9
- 0 .1
- 3 .3
- 2 .5
3.1
- 2 .9
3.3
6.8
5.1
6.6
5.6
0.5
- 1 .3
0.3
- 0 .9
9.6
1.9
9.8
2.2
- 2 .0
8.2
- 3 .8
9.3
5.3
4.1
4 8
4.6
1967:
1968:
8 2
? i
3.9
3 5
.3 S
Percent change over previous year6
1969:
1st qtr_______
2d qtr_______
3d q tr .. ...........
4th qtr______
4.3
3.1
2.7
1.6
4.4
3.2
2.8
1.9
2.6
2.5
2.2
1.4
3.1
3.0
2.7
2.1
1.7
0.6
0.4
0.2
1.3
0.2
0.0
- 0 .2
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.3
6.7
6.7
6.8
6.6
2.3
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.8
1.3
1.2
0.7
5.4
6.6
6.7
7.1
5.4
6.5
6.8
6.8
2.0
0.8
1.3
0.8
1.8
0.2
0.7
0.4
4.1
4.3
4.6
4.7
4 0
4.1
4 5
4.4
1970:
1st qtr_______
2d qtr i>______
0.2
- 0 .3
0.5
- 0 .3
0.5
-1 .1
1.1
- 0 .6
-0 .3
0.8
- 0 .6
0.3
7.4
7.2
6.8
6.8
1.2
1.1
0.6
0.7
7.8
6.4
7.5
6.5
0.0
1.6
- 0 .8
1.4
4.8
4.6
4 4
4.6
1 Wages and salaries of employees plus employers’ contributions for social insurance
and private benefit plans. Also includes an estimate of wages, salaries, and supple
mentary payments for the self-employed.
2 Compensation per man-hour adjusted for changes in the consumer price index.
2 Nonlabor payments include profits, depreciation, interest, rental income and
indirect taxes.
4 Current dollar gross product divided by constant dollar gross product.
5 Percent change computed from original data.
6Current quarter divided by comparable quarter a year ago.
NOTE: Data for 1967,1968, 1969, and the first quarter of 1970 have been adjusted
to new benchmarks and are not comparable to those published in the Monthly Labor
Review prior to September 1970.
SOURCE: Output data from the Office of Business Economics, U.S. Department of
Commerce. Man-hours and compensation of all persons from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
” = Preliminary.
Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series, October 1970
Title
Employment situation____________________________ ____ _
Wholesale Price Index, final_________________________ ________
Consumer Price Index________________
Work stoppages_______________________________
Wholesale Price Index, preliminary— _____________
. ______
Factory labor turnover_____________________________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Date of release
October 2
October 12
October 22
October 26
October 28
Octnher 28
Period covered
September____
September
September
September
Octnher
September
MLR table
numbers
1-14
26-30
24-25
31
26-30
15-16
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1970
O — 3 9 9 -8 7 3
i
cations
Occupational Outlook Handbook, 1970-71 Edition. Bulletin 1650.859 pp. $6.25.
U.S. ECONOMY
The U.S. Economy in 1980: A Summary of BLS Projections. Bulletin 1673.59 pp. 65 cents.
BUDGET
3 Budgets for a Retired Couple in Urban Areas of the United States, 1967-68. Bulletin 1570-6. 74 pp.
70 cents.
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Major Collective Bargaining Agreements: Administration of Negotiated Pension, Health, and Insurance
Plans. Bulletin 1425-12. 53 pp. 60 cents.
LABOR HISTORY
A Brief History of the American Labor Movement, 1970 edition. Bulletin 1 0 0 0 .143 pp. $1.
MANPOWER
Ph. D. Scientists and Engineers in Private Industry, 1968-80. Bulletin 1648. 20 pp. 30 cents.
The Long-Duration Unemployed. Special Labor Force Report 118.9 pp. (Free).
WAGES
Youth Unemployment and Minimum Wages. Bulletin 1657. 189 pp. $1.50.
Send check or money order to any of the Bureau’s regional offices listed on the inside front cover. Copies
may also be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washing
ton, D.C. 20402.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
A new decade
A new job market
A new OCCUPATIONAL
OUTLOOK HANDBOOK
The decade of the 1970's promises un
precedented changes in job patterns
and employment opportunities. Your
guide to tomorrow's jobs is the new
1970-71 edition of the Occupational
Outlook Handbook. The Bureau of La
bor Statistics' revised encyclopedia of
employment information reports on
training and educational requirements,
working conditions, salaries, and em
ployment prospects through the 1970's
for more than 700 occupations and 30
major industries.
Each occupational discussion in the
latest 850-page Handbook has been re
evaluated to reflect changes in auto
mation, technology, and the economic
climate expected during the decade
ahead. The 1970-71 Handbook is "must"
reading for young people choosing a
career and all people concerned with
occupational trends. Price $6.25.
Occupational Outlook Handbook
Mail Order Form to:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402, or to any Regional office of
the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
1603-A Federal Bldg.
Boston, Mass. 02203
219 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, III. 60604
1317 Filbert St.
Philadelphia, Pa.19107
411 N. Akard St.
Dallas, Tex. 75201
341 Ninth Ave.
New York, N.Y.10001
911 Walnut St.
Kansas City, Mo. 64106
Please send m e _____ copies of the Occupational Outlook Handbook
at $6.25 each.
Payment enclosed: $________ (Make check payable to Superintendent
of Documents.)
Name........... ... ...................................................................................................
Address_______________
City, State, and Zip Code
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1371 Peachtree St., NE.
Atlanta, Ga. 30309
450 Golden Gate Ave., Box 36017
San Francisco, Calif. 94102
For Use of Supt. Docs.
.... Enclosed ..........................
To be mailed
----- later .......... ....................
-----Subscription ...................
Refund ............ ..............
Coupon refund
Postage.... ................. .....
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
Division of Public Documents
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20402
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Postage and fees paid
U.S. Government Printing Office
¡FJRST CLASS MAIL_]
@FedFRASER