The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW * * ** • r O E l l S m p OFUIOO. M a r i Festival, Parade and Fic-Nic ------ OF TH E----- - TRADE & LABOR UNIONS Under the Auspices of the *I Gentral Labor Union of NewYorkGity and Vicinity, T U E S D A Y , SE PT. 5 t h 1882, -AT- Wendels' Elm Park, 92d St. S: 9tL Avd. ROU TE O F P A R A D E . The F irst D iv isio n will consist of all Unions from Brooklyn, Jersey City, and below Canal S treet, and assemble a t City Hall Park. The Second D iv isio n comprises all Unions on th e Eastside, above Canal St., and form a t Cooper Union. Th C Til i rd D iv isio n consists of all Unions on W estside above Canal Street, to m eet at W ashington Square. A t 10 o’clock, A. M., Sharp, : https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The F irst Division shall move up Broadway, and a t Fourth S treet the Second Division will fall in ; the Third Division to connect at W averly Place. Thence up Broadway to 14 th St. to 4th Ave., to 17th St., to 5th Ave., and dismiss at Reservoir Square (42d St. and 5th Avenue). The procession will be reviewed at Union Square and 17 th Street. C O M M IT T E E . Post C onspicuously. A m A ST Ca»UMU« St., M. Y. Sir?: * BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS REGIONAL OFFICES AND DIRECTORS Region I — Boston: Wendell D. Macdonald 1603 JFK Federal Building, Government Center, Boston, Mass. 02203 Phone: (617) 223-6761 Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR James D. Hodgson, Secretary Region II — New York: Herbert Bienstock 1515 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10036 Phone: (212) 971-5405 New Jersey New York Puerto Rico Virgin Islands BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Geoffrey H. Moore, Commissioner Ben Burdetsky, Deputy Commissioner Region III — Philadelphia: Frederick W. Mueller 406 Penn Square Building, 1317 Filbert Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 19107 Phone: (215) 597-7796 Delaware District of Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia 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. Region IV — Atlanta: Brunswick A. Bagdon 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Ga. 30309 Phone: (404) 526-5416 Alabama Florida Georgia Kentucky Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee 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. Use of funds for printing this publication approved by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget (October 31, 1967) (•'»rosst JMwfrr ^monstration. Sf8, ntt» •Bit Sit «. Arbitri-sK»«0n» CENTRALLABORUNION it* 5. BrjUraiNfr, ©flirts €1* Pari, Üi Stf. i, .%. XJ I JJtosoni I JLT u r II September cover: Reproductions of original posters inviting participation in the Labor Day parade of 1882, from the T. V. Powderly collection, in the library of The Catholic University, Washington, D.C. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Region V — Chicago: William E. Rice 8th Floor, 300 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, III. 60606 Phone: (312) 353-1880 Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota Ohio Wisconsin hsiïï Fs&. finii ni fe-Ik Region VI — Dallas: Jack Strickland 1100 Commerce Street, Room 6B7, Dallas, Texas 75202 Phone: (214) 749-3516 Arkansas Louisiana New Mexico Oklahoma Texas m i ß £ à LAHOR 0 1 0 X 8 Siftfii kber Bei»sf TUESDAY, ikimtf. sm. Sût, 1m, Regions V II and V III — Kansas City: Elliott A. Browar 911 Walnut Street, Kansas City, Mo. 64106 Phone: (816) 374-2481 V II Iowa Kansas Missouri Nebraska V III 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 /T Editor-in-Chief, Herbert C. Morton Executive Editor, Henry Lowenstern Jonathan Grossman 3 F Who is the father of Labor Day? Facts from contemporary records, though insufficient for firm conclusions, shed some light on the issue THREE PAPERS ON MANPOWER Sylvia S. Small 7 Work training programs and the unemployment rate Programs have modest direct impact on the unemployment rate, but over half the enrollees put to work had been out of the labor force G. S. Hamilton, J. D. Roessner 14 How employers screen disadvantaged job applicants New evidence calls into question the relationship between hiring standards and actual tasks a worker must perform Lloyd Ulman 22 Labor markets and manpower policies in perspective How an active labor market policy can be used as an instrument of redistribution or stabilization REVIEW ESSAYS Richard Ruggles 29 Report of the Commission on Federal Statistics C. Lowell Harriss 33 Setting national priorities— the 1973 budget OTHER ARTICLES Joseph P. Goldberg 38 Fruitful results of the 1972 International Labor Conference Maurice P. Moylan 47 Employment in the atomic energy field Toshiko Nakayama 50 Price changes, 2d quarter 1972 Edward F. Hanley, Jr. 55 National Education Association’s 51st convention John Litsas 57 What subcontractors pay construction workers Joseph C. Bush 59 Occupational pay relationships in textiles https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis DEPARTMENTS 2 50 55 57 63 67 68 73 94 Labor month in review Anatomy of price change Union conventions Research summaries Significant decisions in labor cases Major agreements expiring next month Developments in industrial relations Book reviews and notes Current labor statistics SEPTEMBER 1972 VOLUME 95, NUMBER 9 Labor Month in Review W orkmen ’s compensation programs in the United States are generally “inadequate and inequi table,” and in a majority of States the compensation paid by employers and insurance plans for workrelated injuries, disabilities, and deaths is insufficient and unfairly distributed. These findings— and detailed proposals for re form— were included in a July 31 report to the Congress by the National Commission on State Workmen’s Compensation, created by the Occupa tional Safety and Health Act of 1970. The 15member commission, appointed by President Nixon in June 1971, is chaired by Professor John F. Burton, Jr., of the University of Chicago. Defects of the system. Although about 85 percent of employees are covered by workmen’s compensation, the commission pointed out, “those not covered usu ally are those most in need of protection—the non union, low wage workers, such as farm help, domes tics, and employees of small firms.” Even for those included in the system, however, compensation does not provide adequate income maintenance; in most cases, disabled workers receive less than two-thirds of their lost wages. In most States, moreover, the maximum weekly benefits for a family of four are below the poverty level of income. Many States also limit the duration of benefits and the total amount. Further, the commission said, there are substan tial differences in the level of benefits among the various States, as well as differences within the States in some cases. Basically, the commission asserted, there are simply not enough incentives for worker safety built into the programs. Federal takeover opposed. The commission rejected proposals for an immediate Federal takeover of the workmen’s compensation system, recommending in stead that the States move promptly to broaden cov erage, liberalize benefits, and improve medical and rehabilitation services, and that Congress accom plish this improvement by setting minimum national standards for all employers. States would have until 1975 to comply with the “essential elements” of the commission’s recommendations. If by 1975 the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org 2 Bank of St. Louis Federal Reserve r States were still lagging, the report suggested that Congress guarantee compliance through an enforce ment mechanism placing the burden of compliance on employers rather than on the States. That is, in any State with inadequate programs, employers would be required to provide supplementary insur ance or self-insurance. Priority reforms. The 19 “essential elements” of a modern workmen’s compensation program (out of a total of 80 recommendations by the commission) were grouped into seven top priority items: • Weekly cash benefits for temporary or perma nent total disability or death should equal at least two-thirds of the worker’s gross weekly wage. • Payment of weekly cash benefits should not be subjected to arbitrary limits on duration or sum of benefits. • Neither employers nor employees should have the right to reject coverage. (Currently, 17 States have elective laws.) • All employers should be covered, and all occu pational groups, including farm and household workers. (Now, only half the States cover firms with one employee, only a third cover any farm workers, and only a few cover domestic workers.) • Full coverage should be provided for workrelated diseases. • Any work-related impairment should be com pensated with full medical care and physical rehabil itation services, without statutory limits on dollar amounts or length of time. • Employees should be allowed to file claims in the State where injured, or where hired, or where em ployment is principally based. (At present, the com mission noted, an injured worker may “fall between the cracks” of State law coverage.) Permanent commission. The report further recom mended that Congress establish a permanent Na tional Workmen’s Compensation Commission, to replace the present group whose mandate expires this fall. □ Facts from contemporary records, though insufficient for firm conclusions, shed some light on the issue JONATHAN GROSSMAN more than 75 years, a “paternity” battle is still a point of issue between supporters of Peter J. McGuire and supporters of Matthew Maguire as to which one is the father of Labor Day. The difficulty of designating a “father” of Labor Day is inherent in the way the holiday developed. It evolved over a period of time; no one knew that a national holiday was being born. A fter The first parade The year 1882 was charged with excitement for the organized workers in New York City. Strikes for increased wages and demonstrations for social re form abounded. “Every day . . . a strike is going on somewhere,” one newspaper noted.1 Meetings, pa rades, and picnics were held on behalf of penal re form, to support a labor newspaper, or to welcome an Irish patriot. In this atmosphere of enthusiasm, the Central Labor Union of New York, made up of representatives of many local unions, was born and prospered. Here the proposal for a labor festival was made. The minutes of the Central Labor Union have many references to the holiday. On May 14, the minutes report a proposal for a “monster labor fes tival” in which all workers could take part early in September. The following week a committee of five was appointed to obtain a suitable park. Two weeks later the committee reported that it had secured for Tuesday, September 5, Wendel’s Elm Park at 92d Street and 9th Avenue, the largest park in New York City. By June 11, 20,000 tickets had been dis tributed to trade unions. In order to encourage sales, the money from the sale of tickets went to the orga nization selling them. On August 6, the Central Labor Union resolved “that the 5th of September be proclaimed a general holiday for the workingmen in Jonathan Grossman is the Department of Labor Historian. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Who is the father of Labor Day? this city.” 2 Matthew Maguire as Secretary of the Central Labor Union invited T. V. Powderly, Grand Master Workman of the Knights of Labor, to “re view the Procession of the Trade and Labor Unions of New York and Vicinity” at Union Square and ad dress the workers at Wendel’s Elm Park. The Gen eral Assembly of the Knights noted Matthew Ma guire’s communication and took a break to review the labor demonstration.3 There were varying motives behind the parade. On one hand, some radicals had falsely accused the Duryea Starch Co. of Glen Cove, Long Island, of abusing its workers and had attacked officers of the Knights of Labor when they did not support a boy cott against the company. These militants maneu vered to make the parade a display of strength before the delegates of the Knights of Labor who were to convene in New York City that same day.4 On the other hand, the Central Labor Union wanted to im press the people of New York with the power of the labor movement. The New York Herald called the demonstration a “Plain Hint to Demagogues” and the Irish World ran a huge front page cartoon of “The Awakening Labor Gulliver” breaking the bonds of land monopoly, stock speculation, and other evils.5 Idealistically, however, supporters of the parade saw it as a source of inspiration that would improve the lot of their fellow workers.6 Yet several delegates to the Central Labor Union feared failure. Many paraders would lose a day’s pay and a fiasco might damage the emerging labor movement. William McCabe, Grand Marshall of the parade, later recalled that most organizations invited had not responded, and that “the whole thing cer tainly looked dubious.” On the morning of September 5, just before the parade, only a handful of marchers assembled, while hundreds of onlookers jeered from the sidewalk, but the marchers were encouraged by the unexpected arrival of 200 men and a band from the Jewelers’ 3 4 Union of Newark, N J . With McCabe in the van guard and a small police escort for protection, the paraders started to move. At almost every intersec tion the parade was forced to split up, while the police seemed to regard the whole thing as a circus. In the early stages of the parade, policemen along the route stopped McCabe and demanded to see the parade permit, even though “these blue-coated humorists” could easily have gotten the information from the police escort. The parade began to grow when a column of bricklayers with a band joined the marchers. Around Cooper Union, which was popular with labor orga nizations, many more groups started to march, car rying banners with slogans such as “Labor Will Be United;” “Close the Stores at 6 p.m.;” “Less Work and More Pay;” and, “To the Workers Should Be long All Wealth.” The New York Herald reported that “there were perhaps 10,000 in line,” and that they were mostly young, well-dressed, and wore derby hats. They were applauded by thousands of spectators as they passed the reviewing stand at Union Square. The parade was dismissed at the aqueduct at 42d Street and Fifth Avenue. Then many of the marchers met their families and went to Wendel’s Elm Park, which was decorated with American, Irish, French, and German flags. Speeches began at 2:30 and con tinued to nightfall. In the evening a large crowd packed the park for amusements, fireworks, and dancing. It was a big affair, commented one New York newspaper, “and a jolly one as most of the participants can well testify.” Other newspapers agreed that the festival was a success, and one re porter noted it was “indeed a day of the people.” 7 Peter J. McGuire was among the estimated 50 labor figures on the reviewing stand at Union Square. More important, he was one of the principal speakers at the picnic after the parade, and -possibly the only speaker who emphasized the special nature of the occasion. He said it was a festival of rejoicing which he hoped would be repeated annually. The festival would not be to celebrate a victory or a bloody bat tle, but to honor labor’s coming into its own.8 The making of a national holiday The great parade and picnic of 1882 was a single incident which in itself did not create the Labor Day holiday. But it generated enthusiasm which spread the idea like a prairie fire. In 1883, the Central Labor https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 Union repeated the celebration on Wednesday, Sep tember 5, and in 1884 George K. Lloyd, Secretary of the Central Labor Union, resolved “that the Central Labor Union does herewith declare and will observe the first Monday in [September] each year as Labor Day.” 9 Lloyd also introduced a Labor Day resolu tion at the 1884 Convention of the Knights of Labor,10 while A. C. Cameron, a labor leader and editor, introduced a similar resolution at a meeting of the Federation of Organized Trades (the prede cessor of the American Federation of L abor).11 Government recognition followed. In 1885 and 1886 some municipalities made Labor Day an of ficial holiday. By 1887 five States, including New York, had Labor Day laws on their books. The labor movement then pressed for national legislation. In 1894, Senator James Henderson Kyle, Populist from South Dakota, and Representative Amos J. Cummings, Democrat from New York, suc cessfully sponsored congressional legislation and on June 28 President Grover Cleveland signed the bill, making the first Monday in September a legal holi day for workers in the Federal Government, the Dis trict of Columbia, and the territories. This Federal act, along with additional State laws, in effect made Labor Day a national holiday. Conflicting claims Peter J. McGuire, an organizer of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and co founder of the American Federation of Labor, claimed the title of “Father of Labor Day.” Because McGuire was an important member of the union establishment, most of organized labor tended to support him. The October 1889 issue of the Carpenter, pub lished while McGuire as editor, asserted: In the spring o f 1882, General Secretary P. J. M c Guire, of the U nited Brotherhood o f Carpenters first originated the observance of a distinct and a new holiday— with parade and picnic— to be know n as ‘Labor D a y .’12 Eight years later, after Labor Day became a na tional event, P. J. McGuire repeated his assertion: On M ay 8, 1882, the writer, present G eneral Secre tary-Treasurer o f the U nited Brotherhood o f Carpen ters, made the proposition. H e urged the propriety of setting aside one day in the year, to be designated as ‘Labor D a y ,’ . . .13 Repetition made reputation. McGuire’s article in the 5 WHO IS THE FATHER OF LABOR DAY? Carpenter in 1897 has been quoted again and again and these repeated assertions marked Peter Mc Guire’s ascent on the pedestal. Yet the attempt persists to credit Matthew Ma guire instead. Though Maguire seems not to have made the claim for himself that he was the “father of Labor Day,” others have claimed the distinction for him. Perhaps this was a renewed skirmish in the old war between the Knights of Labor and the Amer ican Federation of Labor, since Peter J. McGuire was the Federation candidate. Nine years after the first parade, the New York City Socialist newspaper, the People, featured an article, “Labor Day: Its History and Development in the Land.” The editor and many staff members had been active in the Knights of Labor and may have had first-hand knowledge of events. “The first great labor parade,” the article opened, “was ar ranged by the Central Labor Union through the in strumentality of its first Secretary, Matthew Ma guire.” 14 Fifteen years after the event, William McCabe reminisced how: One Sunday afternoon the secretary o f the central body, M atthew Maguire, a delegate from the Brook lyn K. o f L. A ssem bly . . . suggested that the C en tral Labor U nion call upon the trade and labor orga nizations o f N ew York City and vicinity to join in a labor parade . . .15 T. V. Powderly, in letters written many years after the parade, noted that so many articles mentioned McGuire as the founder of Labor Day that he dis cussed the matter with McGuire himself. Powderly reports that McGuire “never claimed that credit” and allegedly admitted that his name might have been mixed up with that of Matthew Maguire.16 In 1967, George Pearlman, a retired machinist from Paterson, N.J., became a champion of his fel low machinist, Matthew Maguire. He pored over old newspapers, talked to “oldtimers,” and built up an important file of records.17 Evaluation In view of the conflicting claims, how is it pos sible to answer the question, “Who is the father of Labor Day?” As long as it seemed that the big parade would end with a picnic, it did not seem im portant enough for anyone to document its origin. To the list of those who helped make the 1882 parade and picnic a success should be added the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis names of others who contributed to transform the celebration into a bona fide labor holiday. William McCabe of the printers’ union rallied the marchers and worked hard to get union support. Robert Bar tholomew of the Piano Makers Union fought hard to make the affair a success. Louis F. Post, later a key figure in the Department of Labor, worked for Truth, which gave the Central Labor Union and the parade much publicity. Post was an official reviewer and orator. Similarly, John Swinton of the Sun served as publicist, reviewer, and leadoff speaker at the picnic. George Block is mentioned as Chairman of the Committee on Demonstration. Robert Blissert was President of the Central Labor Union. Terence V. Powderly of the Knights of Labor acknowledged each local body as it passed. Robert Price of the Miners’ Union is credited with actually designating the day as “Labor Day.” Alderman Ferdinand Levy of New York City may have been the first to gain the support of a government body when the New York City Board of Aldermen adopted his resolu tion of sympathy with labor and its demonstration. All these men may have some claim for the success of this labor festival.18 In a real sense Labor Day was the creation of the labor movement as a whole, with the cooperation of local, State, and Federal Government. It was a re flection of the growth of the American economy and the role played by labor in that growth. Peter J. McGuire recognized this in words he wrote 15 years after the first parade, giving praise where praise was due: . . . the thought, the conception, yea the very in spiration o f this holiday came from men in the ranks o f working people— men active in uplifting their fel lows, and leading them to better conditions. It came from a little group in N ew York City, the Central Labor U nion, which had just been form ed . . .19 Q --------- FOOTNOTES---------1 Irish World, April 1, 8; June 24, 1882. 2 Truth, May 15, 22, 28; June 5, 12, 19; Aug. 7, 28; and Sept. 4, 5, 1882. Irish World, Apr. 1, July 29, Aug. 5, 12, 1882. 3 Matthew Maguire to T. V. Powderly, Aug. 31, 1882, Powderly Papers, Catholic University, Washington, D.C.; Knights of Labor, Proceedings, Sept. 5, 1882, p. 1. 4Journal of United Labor, November 1882, pp. 379-380; Norman J. Ware, The Labor M ovement in the United States, 1860-95, New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1929, pp. 104-108; People, Sept. 6, 1891; Knight of Labor Proceed ings, 1883, pp. 447-451. 6 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 BN ew York Herald, Sept. 6, 1882; Irish World, Sept. 16, 1882. 8 William McCabe, “Origin of Labor Day,” Cleveland Recorder, Sept. 5, 1897. 7 Cleveland Recorder, Sept. 5, 1897; Irish World, Sept. 16, 1882; Truth, Sept. 6, 7, 1882; New York World, Sept. 6, 1882; New York Times, Sept. 6, 1882; N ew York Herald, Sept. 6, 1882. 8 Irish World, Sept. 16, 1882; Truth, July 17, 1882; New York World, Sept. 6, 1882; Louis F. Post, “Living a Long Life Over Again,” Louis Post Papers, Washington, D.C., Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, pp. 190-191. “Central Labor Union, Official Handbook, Sept. 7, 1891, p. 14. 1,1 Knights of Labor General Assembly, Proceedings, 1884, p. 726. 11 Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions, Proceedings, 1884, p . 16. 12 Carpenter, October 1889, p. 4. 14 People, Sept. 6, 1891. 15 Cleveland Recorder, Sept. 5, 1897. 16 T. V. Powderly to Editor of the Druid, Scranton, Pa., Sept. 12, 1911; T. V. Powderly to James J. Davis, Secretary of Labor, 1922; Powderly Papers, op. cit.; United Mine Workers Journal, Aug. 25, 1913. 11 Much of the material for this article was based on the material that Pearlman located. With wry humor he remarked that those labor historians who have written about Labor Day should have gone into the millinery busi ness because their variations would make them top designers. Pearlman rejected my suggestion that we prepare an article jointly because he is an out-and-out “Matthewite.” Though I have personally studied every source cited, it was Pearl man who dug out most of them. 18 New York Herald, Sept. 6, 1882; N ew York Times, Sept. 5, 6, 1882; New York Sun, March—September, 1882 passim; Truth, March—September, 1882 passim; Louis F. Post, op. cit. 19 P- J- McGuire, “Labor Day, Its Birth and Significance,” Carpenter, September 1897. 13 Carpenter, September 1897. Verse by the first Secretary of Labor William B. Wilson, first Secretary of Labor, was in President Woodrow Wilson’s cabinet from 1913 to 1921. An immigrant boy, he dropped out of school at the age of nine to work as a coal miner. He became a union organizer, and between 1906 and 1912 was a U.S. Congressman. As a hobby, he wrote poetry. In 1903 he published a book of poems called Memories. The book was not for sale, but printed privately and distributed among his friends. Many of the poems were sentimental, describ ing nature, friendship, and so forth. Others dealt with the life of working people, such as “The Coal Miner.” On these topics Secretary Wilson wrote from first-hand experience and observation. The following excerpts from his 16-stanza work, “The Explosion,” are typical: Deep beneath the rolling prairie Shone the miner’s feeble light; All around a dreary darkness, Blacker than eternal night. Hundreds there with pick and shovel, Eking out their daily bread, Heedless of the dang’rous gases Or the treach’rous roof o ’erhead. Oh, how well they knew the meaning Of that distant, dismal roar! Quick they drew their coats about them, Threw themselves upon the floor. Through the headings, airways, chambers, Every open space it came, With a voice more loud than thunder, With a solid wall of flame. Soon the shocking crash was over, Deadly vapors round them crept, Wrapt them in a veil of poison, Lulled the living till they slept. Never men slept more intensely, Never miner breathed more deep, N ot a soul in all the chamber Ever wakened from that sleep. Hundreds, who for years had labored In the mines, from harm exempt, Knowing well its many dangers, Held these dangers in contempt. It was early in the evening, Tools were being laid away, For a week of labor ended With the ending of the day. Rails and sleepers, doors and brattice, Cars and timbers, coal and rock, Crashing, tearing, rushing, roaring, Floew before the mighty shock. Stalwart men were but as feathers, Driven with a cyclone’s ire, Fast their flesh and sinews shrivelled, Scorched and roasted with the fire. One by one the charred and mangled Bodies of the men were found, And with gentle hands were carried To the rough morgue overground. Many hearts were rent with anguish, Many tears of sorrow shed, As with each arrival, loving Loved ones recognized their dead. Men with muscles sore and weary, With a week of toil oppressed, Thanked the Lord Who gave the Sabbath, Gave it for a day of rest; Thanked the Lord, yet while these feelings From their honest bosoms start, Hark! A rumbling in the distance Strikes terror to the heart. Some were hurled against the pillars, Mangled, bleeding, dying, dead; Arms and legs torn from the body, Bodies severed from the head. Loud the shrieks of burned and wounded, Prayers and curses rent the air, Strongmen wept for helpless families, Tore their garments in despair. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis * * * * * — W il l i a m B. W il s o n Programs have modest direct impact on the unemployment rate, but over half enrollees put to work in programs had been out of the labor force SYLVIA S. SMALL E nrollment in manpower work-training programs funded by the Federal Government has grown from 50,000 in the early 1960’s to nearly 1 million per sons in any given month in 1971. Nearly two-thirds of the enrollees received training or work experience designed to meet the employment needs of young people in their teens or early twenties. This article analyzes the statistical effects of aver age monthly enrollment in manpower programs on labor force, employment, and unemployment data in 1971. Labor force status of enrollees in programs is compared with their status in the labor force at the time they entered the programs, and the results are applied to the official monthly measure of labor force activity. The principal finding is that the un employment rate might have been 6.2 percent in 1971 rather than 5.9 percent had these programs not been operative. As indicated later, work-training programs had the effect of drawing about 400,000 people into the labor force, raising the number em ployed by about 600,000, and reducing the number of unemployed by about 200,000. Thus the programs can be said to have resulted in a decrease in the unemployment rate of 0.3 percentage points. There is some evidence that the programs have reduced the rate by similar amounts in recent years.1 Few studies of this type have been made, partly because of the difficulty of obtaining appropriate data. Especially troublesome is determining how program participants are being reported in the regu lar monthly survey of the labor force.2 The question naire used in the household survey does not require information on enrollment, and very few program participants volunteer such information.3 Moreover, it is impossible to determine precisely what the status of participants would have been in the abSylvia S. Small is an economist in the Division of Economic Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Statistical effect of work-training programs on the unemployment rate sence of the programs. Therefore, the estimates which follow involved a number of assumptions. Employment status of enrollees As the number of programs grew, a determination had to be made about how enrollees were to be classified in the labor force to assure consistency of employment, unemployment, and labor force data. In 1964, an interagency committee determined the appropriate status of enrollees and set the standards still followed in the classification process.4 Considera tions included the purpose of each program, whether participants were supposed to work or receive train ing, and their status as wage earners under the In ternal Revenue Code and the Social Security Act. In the final analysis, persons were to be classified as em ployed if they were receiving wages rather than subsistence or other allowances, or if they were getting on-the-job training; as unemployed if they were enrolled in institutional (classroom) training. Job Corps participants were to be counted as not in the labor force. The household interviewers were given detailed instructions for classifying those who volunteered information on participation. Most of the large manpower programs involve placing people in jobs rather than in classroom train ing, and most participants would therefore be counted among the employed. This would probably be true whether or not the household respondent offered any information on the enrollee’s specific program participation, because holding a job and re ceiving wages are fairly clear-cut unambiguous ac tivities. On the other hand, the line of demarcation between being unemployed and outside the labor force is much harder to define. Thus, how partici pants in programs such as the Work Incentive pro gram are actually classified in the official labor force survey is uncertain. Although estimates of the statistical effect of the 7 8 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 programs would be more precise if the labor force survey were able to measure program participation explicitly and directly, experience with the survey has demonstrated that additional questions on work and work-seeking activities could result in a com plete break in the historical series, making the data exceedingly difficult to interpret for quite some time. In addition, it is doubtful that household respondents know the necessary details about program partici pation even if explicitly asked. Thus, for the pur poses of this analysis we have no choice but to assume that enrollees are classified in accordance with the interviewer’s instructions. Exhibit: The major work-training programs The major work-training programs in effect in 1971 generally operate outside the normal educa tional process, enroll individuals for less than a year, provide skill training and job opportunities for non professional jobs, and are targeted toward the dis advantaged portion of the population.5 Programs vary in length from 2 months to 2 years. Average length of enrollment is 6 months. Programs ana lyzed here are described in the exhibit. The earliest programs in operation, the Manpower Development and Training programs, began in 1962. Major Federal work-training programs in fiscal years 1971-72 1 Program First year of operation Type of training Objective Method Eligibility requirements for participants Benefits Manpower develrpment and training (MDTAInstitutional). 1962 Skill center or school. Occupational training for unemployed and underem ployed persons along with supportive services. Training or retraining in skills needed in the local labor market at skill centers or vocational training schools outside the regular school system. Unerrp'oyed household head or member or household with unemployed of underem ployed head. Must have one year of work experience. Eligible parsons receive training, subsistence, and transportation allowance. Manpower development and training on the job 2 (MDTA-OJT). 1962 (ended 1971). On-the-job training. Occupational training in a job, for unemployed and underemployed persons, combined with instruction. Contract with public or private employers. Unemployed and underem ployed persons; at least 2/3 must be "disadvantaged” ; perference to persons over 18 years old. Employer pays beneficiary the going wage for such work in the area. Jobs-Optional (JOP). 1971 (MDTAOJT merged into JOP in 1971). On-the-job training. Training on the job for dis advantaged and non-disadvantaged persons in entry level jobs and upgrading of employees into higher skill shortage occupations. Contract with private em ployers or nonprofit com panies. Unemployed or underem ployed persons; 50 percent must be disadvantaged poor certified by State Employ ment Service or other group designated by Regional Administrator of Manpower. Employer pays beneficiary the going wage, but his addi tional training costs are reimbursed under contract with the Government. Job Opportunities in the Business Sector, federally financed (JOBS). 1969 Actual work on the job with supportive services. Encourage private industry to hire, train and upgrade hard-core unemployed and underemployed. In cooperation with National Alliance of Businessmen, provides technical assistance and grants to offset added costs of remedial education. Poor persons who do not have suitable jobs and who are: (1) school dropouts, (2) under 22, (3) 45 or over, (4) handicapped, or (5) subject to special obstacles to em ployment. Jobs, training, and remedial education for hard-core un employed. Neighborhood Youth Corps— in school and summer (NYC-ln School and NYCSummer). 1965 Work. To provide opportunities for students in low income families to earn enough to enable them to stay in school. Private or public nonprofit agency sets up jobs to per form public service for com munity, using students parttime or during summer. Students from low income families in grades 9-12 or ages 14-21. Jobs— part-time or in summer to fit student schedule. Neighborhood Youth Corps— Out of School Program (NYC-Out of School). 1965 Work and onthe-job training with supportive services. To provide work experience and on-the-job training to school dropouts to encourage them to return to school or acquire skills to improve employability. Private or public nonprofit corporation sets up full-tim e jobs for community service, fu ll time, and provides train ing on the job and in institu tional setting, counseling, and other supportive services. Unemployed out of school youth 16-17 years old. Jobs and training for youth. College Work Study. 1965 Work. To promote part-time em ployment of students from low-income families. Contract with colleges and universities. Federal Govern ment pays 80 percent of student earnings in public service jobs in public or private nonprofit organi zations. Students may work up to 15 hours a week. Full-time undergraduate students whose resources are inadequate to enable them to stay in college. Jobs, at minimum wage. Job Corps. 1965 Training away from home. Training to enable bene ficiary to become productive citizen; also placement in jobs or school or the Armed Forces. Remedial services are stressed. Government funding to train and care for disadvantaged youth while paying them $30-$50 a month. School dropouts 14-21 years old who are unemployed, underprivileged, and in need of a change in environment. School and work training— in a residential facility. See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 9 WORK-TRAINING PROGRAMS AND THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE These programs fall into two major segments: the larger, a program of institutional training, provides classroom instruction in public or private vocational or educational institutions for unemployed and un deremployed persons who cannot obtain full-time employment without training. It provides payment of training allowances, transportation, and subsist ence allowances. Therefore, people in this program are considered unemployed. The on-the-job training part of the Manpower De velopment and Training program (MDTA-OJT) provides Federal funds to pay materials and other training costs to employers; each employer then Exhibit— Continued: pays the trainee the wages prevailing in the indus try in his area for the job being learned. People being trained under this part of Manpower Develop ment and Training, and JOBS-Optional, a similar program, are considered employed. The largest of the programs in effect in 1971 were the Neighborhood Youth Corps In-School and Sum mer program and the College Work Study program. Together, these accounted for a monthly average of more than one-half million participants in 1971. These were programs to enable disadvantaged young people to stay in school by offering them part-time jobs. Under Neighborhood Youth Corps, begun in Major Federal work-training programs in fiscal years 1971-72 1 First year of operation Type of training Objective Method Eligibility requirements for participants Benefits Concentrated Employ ment Program (CEP). 1968 Outreach, counseling, medical, edu cational, & other supportive services, work training, and placement. To coordinate and concentrate Federal manpower efforts to attack problems of the hard est hit of the disadvantaged in urban or rural neighbor hoods that have serious un employment or subemploy ment. Federal funding to develop delivery of a variety of man power programs through a single sponsor— generally a community action agency. Residents of CEP target areas who are disadvantaged, and who meet criteria for JOBS program (above). Education and other supporting services and work-training to aid in placement in a permanent job. Public Service Careers (PSC)— includes New Careers, STEP, and other earlier programs. 1969 To train on the job for govern ment work. To help disadvantaged adults to qualify for jobs with State and local government and private nonprofit agencies. Federal funds to enable State and local governments to train disadvantaged people in subprofessions in health, education, etc. Unemployed or underem ployed persons, 18 years old or over; or people who are so discouraged that they have not looked for work. Permanent employ ment in public service agencies, and upgrading of current employees. Public Employment Program (PEP). 1971 Work at tem porary jobs. To create transitional em ployment when the unem ployment rate has equalled or exceeded 4.5 for 3 consecutive months. Federal funds to help State and local governments hire people to perform needed public services. All unemployed and under employed persons, with priority consideration to be given Vietnam veterans and young persons entering the labor force. Jobs for unemployed persons at the going rate for such jobs. Operation Mainstream. 1968 Work and sup portive service. Work-training and employ ment, with supportive services, to chronically unemployed poor adults. Federal funding of 90 per cent of cost of State and local community beautifi cation projects, or other community services that do not replace existing programs. Poor adults, 22 years old or over, and chronically unem ployed; 40 percent must be over 55 years old. Jobs, especially in rural areas. Work Incentive pro gram (WIN), replaced Work Experience Pro gram which operated from 1965-69. 1968 Work or train ing for people on welfare. To move men, women, and out-of-school youth from welfare rolls into meaningful permanent employment at or above the minimum wage. State Employment Service officers w ill provide place ment or on-the-job training, day care and other supportive services to welfare recipients. Employers w ill be allowed a 20 percent tax credit for wages paid WIN recipients for the first 12 months of employment, provided the employer retains the welfare receipient in a job for an additional 12 months. AFDC recipients referred by welfare officers to the State Employment Service. Public and private jobs for employable adults on welfare with pay at the same rates as other employees. Program 1 Does not include stay in school or summer jobs programs of Civil Service Com mission, or vocational rehabilitation projects of Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 2 National on-the-job training program provides sim ilar project grants to national organizations able to carry out similar objectives. About 17,000 jobs funded in fiscal 1971. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis SOURCES: Manpower Report of the President, 1970, Appendix A: Guide to Fed erally Assisted Manpower Training and Support Programs, pages 193-197; and Execu tive Office of the President, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, 1971. 10 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 1965, Federal funds are used to provide work ex perience—primarily part time and during the sum mer—for teenagers from low-income families in jobs in State and local governments and in nonprofit organizations. Consequently, these youth are con sidered employed. Similarly, under the College Work Study program Federal funds pay 80 percent of the cost of part-time employment of college students in public service jobs in public and private nonprofit agencies. Students in the College Work Study pro gram are paid at or above the minimum wage. Thus, they are also considered employed. Job Corps serves young people who have dropped out of school and are not sufficiently trained to work. It provides Federal funds to move them out of their home environment into another residential setting where -they may receive both educational and voca tional training. They are paid by a monthly allow ance rather than wages. Although they may perform useful work, the emphasis is on schooling and train ing, and participants in Job Corps are therefore classified as being not in the labor force. The fastest growing program, Work Incentive (W IN), begun in 1965 as the Work Experience program, is intended to move adult men and women and out-of-school youth off the welfare rolls and into permanent employment. A major difference be tween this program and earlier ones is that par ticipants now receive a whole package of services, including, for example, job counseling and job referral, as well as on-the-job training. The jobs in Table 1. Current Population Survey employment status classification of people enrolled in work-training programs Program MDTA-On-the-Job Training JOBS-Optional____ Job Opportunities in the Business Sector (federally financed portion) Neighborhood Youth Corps In-School and Summer. . Neighborhood Youth Corps O ut-of-School.. College Work S tu d y.. Public Service Careers___ Public Employment program.. Operation Mainstream Work Incentive program ___ Concentrated Employment program (work training segment). ____ MDTA-lnstitutional program___ Job Corps______ . T o ta l...................................................... C lassification Employed Employed Employed- 1971 average m onthly e n ro llm e n t (thousands) | 53.0 34.0 Employed Employed Employed Employed Employed Employed 20 percent employed 80 percent unemployed 187.6 38.0 358.8 28.6 14.7 21.3 108.5 Employed Unemployed Not in the labor force 36.2 58.0 22.1 960.8 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration, and U.S. Depart ment of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education. Definitions from Current Population Survey interviewer’s manual. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis which training occurs are varied and include all types ranging from jobs on special work relief proj ects to regular public service jobs. Participants in this program are classified as employed if they are working or receiving on-the-job training for pay. They are classified as unemployed if they are re ceiving institutional training or are working but re ceiving no pay other than welfare payments. Thus, most Work Incentive program enrollees would prob ably be considered unemployed according to the labor force classification. In 1971, only about 20 percent were in on-the-job training programs and therefore classified as employed. Employment status of participants in each of the major programs is listed in table 1. Enrollment data in these programs were averaged for the 12 months of the year to make them conceptually consistent with the official labor force survey.6 The enrollees As table 2 indicates, the enrollees tend to be young— 3 out of 4 program participants are under 22 years old, reflecting the fact that the two largest programs, Neighborhood Youth Corps and College Work Study, are directed specifically toward the young. In a large proportion of the programs men predominate, but in the Work Incentive program, the fastest growing one, women are 60 percent of the total. In assessing the statistical effects of enrollments, these proportions should be kept in mind. Since the labor force participation of youth is generally lower than that of the adult population, enrollments of large numbers of young people in the work-training programs are somewhat more likely to draw upon those who would otherwise be out of the labor force than would be the case where the programs are in tended for adults. For example, in 1971 only 51 percent of all persons under age 21 were in the labor force, compared with 60 percent of those over 21. Studies have also shown that young people have high elasticity to changes in employment, indicating that many of the youth drawn into the ranks of the employed had been out of the labor force.7 The increasing proportion of women in the programs— notably in the Work Incentive program—may also have an effect on the statistical impact, because of the differences in labor force participation of women compared with men. Moreover, the impact on the unemployment rate is likely to be greater if blacks 11 WORK-TRAINING PROGRAMS AND THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE Table 2. Selected demographic characteristics of persons in major work-training programs, 1971 Percent of total Program Male Under White 22 8 years of school or less M DTA -lnstitutional..................... ........... ......... JOBS-Optional, and MDTA On-the-Job Training------- ---------------- - --------------- - - Job Opportunities in the Business Sector1----Neighborhood Youth Corps In-School and Summer_____________ . ---------- ------Neighborhood Youth Corps Out-of-School----- 59 40 56 12 74 66 35 45 69 36 15 18 55 51 38 53 Concentrated Employment program---------------Operation Mainstream_____________________ Work Incentive program------------------------------Job Corps_______________ _______________ Public Employment program--------------- --------Public Service C a ree rs..------------ ------------------ 60 73 38 74 72 50 100 94 98 46 5 27 100 11 36 20 29 0 16 45 20 33 7 10 31 64 56 27 71 55 1 Data refer to the federally financed portion. NOTE: Dashes indicate data not available. SOURCE: M anpower Report of the President, 1971, and estimates from U.S. Office of Education. and persons with less than 8 years of school are employed in programs rather than if only white high school graduates are affected. hood Youth Corps would have been likely to have had other jobs, according to these data. People in Project Mainstream would have been least likely to be employed in the absence of the programs, with only 2 percent of these (primarily older workers) employed. The proportion who were previously un employed ranges from less than 10 percent for youth in Neighborhood Youth Corps In-School and Sum mer programs and College Work Study to over 90 percent of those in the Concentrated Employment programs, Project Mainstream, and the Public Em ployment program. And the proportion who would not have been in the labor force ranged from a low of none in the Public Employment program to nearly 70 percent for Neighborhood Youth Corps In-School and Summer enrollees (table 3). Net impact Table 4 compares labor force classification of program participants in 1971 with estimates of their classification in the absence of the programs in ag gregate terms. A monthly average of approximately 961,000 persons were enrolled in the major work training programs in 1971. Of these 794,000 were Prior employment status For the purposes of this analysis, we assume enrollees would have continued their pre-enrollment status in the absence of the programs. In order to estimate what unemployment would have been if the programs had not been in operation, partici pants’ employment status prior to their entry into the programs is compared with their employment status in the programs. For most programs, data on prior employment status of participants were available directly from the agencies administering the programs. However, such data had not been collected for College Work Study, Neighborhood Youth Corps, and Job Corps. For these programs, prior employment status is based on the 1970-71 Census Employment Survey— a comprehensive survey of the employment situation in the low-income neighborhoods of large cities. Employment status data from this survey, which are available by age, sex, race, and school enrollment, are appropriate for this analysis because the Neigh borhood Youth Corps, the College Work Study pro gram, and the Job Corps are all geared to serve the disadvantaged population in low-income areas.8 At the time they entered the programs, nearly half of all youth in Job Corps and the Neighbor https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 3. Distribution of enrollees in major work-training programs by prior employment status, 1971 1 [In percent] Enrollees Program M DTA-lnstitutional________________ JOBS-Optional, MDTA-On-the-Job Training, and Job Opportunities in the Business Sector2. . ................ Neighborhood Youth Corps In-School and Summer___ ____________ . . . Neighborhood Youth Corps Out-ofSchool______________ __________ College Work Study________________ Job Corps________________________ Concentrated Employment pro g ra m ... Public Service Careers_____________ Public Employment program________ Operation Mainstream______________ Work Incentive program____________ total Employed Unem ployed Not in the labor force 100 13.5 72.7 13.8 1971 100 14.6 64.8 20.6 100 21.0 9.9 69.1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 46.0 27.7 50.0 4.6 29.3 9.0 2.2 4.9 21.8 8.3 32.9 92.6 29.2 91.0 93.0 83.9 32.2 64.1 17.1 2.8 41.5 0.0 4.8 11.2 1 As reported upon first enrollment for people entering Manpower Development and Training Act program, Concentrated Employment program, Public Employment program, Operation Mainstream, Work Incentive program, and JOBS-Optional in Manpower Report of the President, 1972. Data for Public Service Careers were obtained by using labor force participation of target group and applying estimates based on partial data from enrollment forms. For all other programs, data were based on the appropriate population group in Employment Profile of Selected Low Income Areas, U.S. Summary, Urban Areas (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1971), Series PHC(3)-1, tables A, F, and D. For Neighborhood Youth Corps, employment status of teenagers was used; for youth in Job Corps, black males age 16-19 out of school; and for College Work Study, college-age youth in school. 2 Data refer to federally financed portion of this program. 12 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 classified as employed, 145,000 as unemployed, and 22,000 as not in the labor force. Only 182,000 of the currently employed group would also have been employed in the absence of the programs; 206,000 would have been unemployed and 406,000 would have been out of the labor force. But most of those now classified as unemployed were unemployed when they enrolled. When all shifts in classifications are applied to the 1971 labor force data, the net result, as shown in table 5, is that the current unemployment rate in 1971 might have been 6.2 percent rather than 5.9 percent had these programs not been oper ating. Thus, it is likely that in 1971, in the absence of enrollments in work-training programs, the un employment rate would have been 0.3 percentage points higher, within the 0.2 to 0.5 range found since the mid-sixties.9 Table 5. Estimates of effect of work-training programs on labor force data, 1971 [Number in thousands] Civilian labor force Item Total Persons in work-training programs: Current classification____________ Classification in the absence of the work-training program s... Effect of work-training program s.............. Employed Unemployed Not in labor force 939 794 145 22 533 +40 6 205 +58 9 328 -1 8 3 428 -4 0 6 Labor force data, 1971: Actual data____________ 84,113 Data in the absence of work-training programs______________________ __ __ 83,707 79,120 78,531 4,993 5,176 55,666 56,072 Unemployment rate, 1971: Actual rate__________________________ Rate adjusted for absence of work-training programs_______ __ _ Effect of work-training programs on unemployment ra te _______ 5.9 6.2 -0 .3 SOURCE: Table 4, this article, and Employment and Earnings, January 1972 Work registration for welfare recipients p. 23. The Talmadge Amendment to the Social Security Act requires that all recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children register for the Work In centive program before they may qualify for wel fare aid. Those who are able must take work or training or risk losing welfare benefits. According to current estimates, about 1.5 million of those now in Aid for Dependent Children programs were re quired to register on July 1, 1972. In 1971, most Aid for Dependent Children recipients were classi fied as not in the labor force. At the moment of registration under the Work Incentive program, their classification changes from not in the labor force to unemployed. Thus they will constitute a net addition to the number classified as unemployed in the labor force data. However, because of budg etary limitations and other startup problems, as well as because of normal turnover, it is considered likely that no more than 200,000 additional Aid for Dependent Children recipients will be enrolled in WIN in any single month within the coming year.10 Moreover, since these added registrants will be phased into the Work Incentive program gradually during the year, the statistical effect on the employ ment rate is expected to be minimal. Table 4. Estimated employment status of enrollees, 1971, compared with prior employment status [Numbers in thousands] Estimates of classification in the absence of the programs Total As a final caveat, it should be pointed out that the impact on the unemployment rate of enrollment is only one measure of the effect of work-training programs. This is especially important since aver age enrollment is only 6 months. This analysis does not attempt to estimate how many of the enrollees obtained regular jobs as a result of participation in the work-training programs. Since training as well as income maintenance is an important policy objec tive, the effects of these programs on long-term employability is a primary consideration. □ Current classification Number Percent distri bution Em ployed Unem ployed Not in the labor force Errp'oyed. Unerrp'oyed. Not in the labor fo rce ... 794 145 22 82.6 15.1 2.3 182 12 11 206 115 7 406 18 4 Total_____ 961 100.0 205 328 428 100.0 21.3 34.1 44.6 Percent distrib u tio n .. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ----------FOOTNOTES---------1 See Malcolm Cohen, “The Direct Effects of Federal Manpower Programs in Reducing Unemployment,” The Journal of Human Resources, Fall 1969, pp. 491-507. 2 In the Current Population Survey, data about the labor force are collected each month from a representative sample of about 50,000 households on the labor force activity of each person 16 years of age and over during the week that WORK-TRAINING PROGRAMS AND THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE includes the 12th of the month— the survey week. People are counted as employed if during the survey week they either worked as paid employees, worked in their own busi nesses, or worked more than 15 hours as unpaid family workers, or were only temporarily absent from a job be cause of vacation, illness, bad weather, or for personal reasons. They are counted as unemployed if they did not work at all during the survey week, but were looking for work and were available for a job. They are considered to be looking for work if, during the preceding 4 weeks they had made efforts to find work by registering at an employ ment agency, or writing letters of application, or canvassed for work; or if they were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off, or to report to a new job within 30 days, and were not in school; or if they would have been looking for work but were temporarily ill. The total of those counted as employed and unemployed in the survey week constitutes the civilian labor force. People who were not in these categories and not in the Armed Forces are counted as “not in the labor force” during the month. See BLS Handbook of Methods (Bulletin 1711, 1971), p. 8, for a complete description of the concepts and methods used in obtaining unemployment statistics; see also Concepts and Methods Used in Manpower Statistics from the Current Population Survey (BLS Report 313, 1967). 3 John E. Bregger, “Labor Force Classification of Persons in Special Government Welfare, Work-Related, or Training Programs,” unpublished Bureau of Labor Statistics position paper. A proposal has been made to survey a sample of program participants in Work Incentive programs and Manpower Development and Training, so that their re sponses may be compared with their presumed classification. 4 The Interagency Committee on Labor Supply, Employ ment, and Unemployment Statistics made recommendations which were approved by the Policy Committee on the Cur 13 rent Population Survey and the Office of Management and Budget. 5 Manpower Report of the President, 1971, p. 37. 8 Except for College Work Study Programs, enrollment data are now available on a month-by-month basis for the number of people enrolled at the end of the month. Actual enrollments at the end of the month conform more closely to the labor force concept of the number of people at work (or looking for a job) during a specific period of time— the survey week. To avoid seasonal variations— especially in youth programs where enrollments vary in accordance with the school year— the average for the 12 months of the year is used. For College Work Study, averages are based on estimates of program administrators. 7 Hyman Kaitz discusses assumptions underlying analysis of effects of manpower programs on unemployment, and labor force participation of youth, in Youth Unemployment and Minimum Wage (BLS Bulletin 1657, 1970), pp. 34-45. He points out that “Various studies have shown . . . when employment [of youth] rises by 10, unemployment falls by only six; this is an indication that additional people are drawn into the ranks of the employed from out of the labor force. . . .” 8 Employment Profile of Selected Low Income Areas, U.S. Summary— Urban Areas, 1970 Census (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1971), series PHC (3)1, table F, p. 5. These data are referred to as the Census Employment Survey (CES). “Cohen, op. cit., p. 491. His study, using slightly different procedures, showed a reduction of 0.2 percentage points in 1965, 0.3 in 1966, 0.4 in 1967. 18 Statement by Malcolm R. Lovell, Assistant Secretary for Manpower, U.S. Department of Labor, at a press briefing June 28, 1972. Importance of early work experience It is undoubtedly true that many young people suffer little, if any, disadvantage from early hap hazard labor market experience. These are the strong individuals who are able to experiment in the job market and benefit from doing so and those who successfully hunt short-term jobs to earn money for temporary needs while they pre pare themselves for careers at higher levels. There are, however, other youth who never emerge, or emerge only with great difficulty, from their early experiences of unemployment and mar ginal employment. Negroes and high school drop outs stand out prominently among them, but cur rent information is not adequate to isolate other https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis specific groups, such as whites from low-income families. Furthermore, it is not known how many of the youngsters who were “effectively” inte grated into the world of work had to adjust their sights downward. . . . There can be little doubt that those who do not make a satisfactory labor market adjustment while young are subsequently likely to be found among the large pools of disadvantaged middle aged for whom special training programs need to be devel oped or welfare provided. Manpower Report of the President, March 1972. How employers screen disadvantaged job applicants the 1960’s, the Federal Government and em ployers in the private sector have been attempting to foster the integration of disadvantaged persons into the mainstream of the American labor force. Begin ning with the Area Redevelopment Act of 1961 and the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962, government manpower programs increasingly turned toward efforts to remedy training and educa tional deficiencies which barred the disadvantaged from employment. Paralleling the growth of Federal programs were similar activities in the private sector. Confronted with the urban riots of the 1960’s, tight labor mar kets, a labor force with an increasing proportion of disadvantaged members, and continued encourage ment and prodding from the Federal Government, many businesses, particularly the large ones, estab lished in-house, privately financed programs. Train ing efforts, however, are unsuccessful if workers ultimately cannot find jobs utilizing their new skills. The focus of this paper is the critical juncture where jobseekers and employing organization meet: the point at which officials responsible for hiring decide who among applicants will be offered jobs. The paper analyzes the hiring practices of a sample of employers who employed disadvantaged jobseek ers who had participated in one of the largest fed erally supported job training programs: the Work Incentive program (W IN). It describes employer screening practices in terms of the type of organiza tion and type of jobs involved. The Work Incentive program, developed in the S in c e Gloria Shaw Hamilton is a research analyst and J. David Roessner a research associate, Bureau of Social Science Re search. This article is part of a larger study entitled Em ploym ent Contexts and Disadvantaged Workers, conducted for the U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administra tion, by the Bureau of Social Science Research. 14 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis New evidence calls into question the relationship between hiring standards and actual tasks a worker must perform GLORIA SHAW HAMILTON AND J. DAVID ROESSNER late 1960’s, is designed to remove individuals from the welfare rolls into productive employment in jobs that offer career mobility. Aid to Families With Dependent Children recipients age 16 and over are referred by the local welfare offices to the program. The Department of Labor is responsible for actual training and placement. Training varies considerably from modest orientation to work settings to some job-specific skill training. Survey data were collected from a national sample of 280 employers, public and private, who had at least one graduate of the WIN program on their payrolls. Twenty employers were randomly selected in each of 15 Work Incentive program project areas.1 These areas had also been randomly selected from those project areas within the continental United States that included the largest number of organiza tions employing Work Incentive program graduates at the time of the stud)'. Sample firms varied widely by size, industry, and geographic location. In each employing organization, interviews were conducted with a management representative (usually the personnel director) and with the imme diate supervisor of a randomly selected WIN em ployee. While not strictly representative of all em ployers of disadvantaged workers nationally, there is no persuasive reason to assume that the sample employer differed markedly from the population of employers accessible to disadvantaged jobseekers in terms of organizational features, personnel practices, and entry level job structure. Employers are able to screen prospective em ployees according to a number of criteria, only some of which are directly related to an applicant’s ap parent ability to perform the tasks involved. Screen ing can be based on broad educational qualifications (such as the demonstrated ability to read and write), the ability to pass a test, or the need to present evi dence of attainment of some specific level of school- HOW EMPLOYERS SCREEN DISADVANTAGED JOB APPLICANTS ing (such as a high school diploma). It can also be based on job-related criteria such as job experience or training, or on the applicant’s personal character istics and background, such as race, history of social deviance, or personal appearance. Previous studies suggest that employer requirements, though seldom formalized or rigidly adhered to, tend to be un realistically stringent for the actual skills required for the jobs in question.2 We hypothesized that screening patterns could be expected to be associated with the size of the orga nization and the type of employer concerned; for example, larger employers might be expected to place relatively great emphasis on formal require ments such as a high school diploma, literacy, job references, and test passing. Locus of hiring authority was determined by whether the immediate supervisor of the Work Incentive program employee had some, or no, role in hiring for his work unit. We expected that the supervisor who has some role in hiring has a pragmatic, mitigating influence on the managerial tendency to specify unrealistic requirements for jobs. It was hypothesized that white-collar, service, bluecollar, and laboring jobs should be associated with different sets of qualifications and disqualifications; whether the job in question is a “dead end” or not (as defined by the immediate supervisor) was also expected to exert an important intervening influence on these relationships. The employers and the jobs The organizations employing Work Incentive pro gram enrollees vary widely in size; one-quarter of the sample employers had fewer than 20 employees, while about the same proportion had 500 or more. In almost a third of the organizations, one individual functioned as both the owner-manager and the im mediate supervisor of the WIN employee. These organizations all had fewer than 100 employees. The public sector was represented by Federal, State, and local government agencies, public schools, and public hospitals and clinics. Private employers included various private institutions—nursing homes, hospitals, and clinics— as well as manufacturing, construction, transportation, and utilities industries and private businesses of all kinds. Of the 280 sam ple organizations, 66 percent were private businesses, about 13 percent were other private institutions, and 22 percent were public organizations. Geographically, all major areas of the United https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 15 States were represented in the sample. However, be cause of the large numbers of employers on the west coast with Work Incentive program graduates on their payrolls, five sample sites were located there. Therefore, employers on the west coast, particularly in California, are more heavily represented than those in any other single area across the country. About a third of all respondents said that all hiring was done by the “front office;” 11 percent said that only the supervisor did the hiring. (These were largely construction firms in which the supervisor was free to hire his own crews.) About half said that both the supervisor and the front office screened applicants but consulted with each other before final decisions were made. Seven percent claimed some other arrangement. From the additional comments made by respondents, it was clear that there was a great deal of flexibility in these arrangements; it is reasonable to assume that even within a single orga nization the influence on hiring of any single individ ual would vary with the type of job to be filled and with the informal procedures established between an employer and his supervisors. Among organizations in which the roles of imme diate supervisor and manager were performed by two different persons, most gave the immediate su pervisor at least some authority in the hiring process. However, this pattern did not hold among organiza tions with fewer than 20 employees; in these orga nizations the owner or manager exercised such close supervision over the jobs involved that it was felt that supervisors need not have any formal role in the hiring process. As might be expected because of the operation of civil service systems, public em ployers in our sample were more likely than private employers to exclude supervisors from the hiring process. Almost none of the Work Incentive program work ers in the sample had been hired for positions classi fied as professional or managerial, but otherwise the jobs encompassed a wide variety of occupations. More than a third of Work Incentive program work ers were employed in white-collar positions. About one-fourth of the workers were in service occupa tions. About a fifth of the WIN workers were hired as blue-collar employees, and a relatively small pro portion (15 percent) were laborers. The sample em ployers did not seem to hire so large a proportion of blue-collar workers as is typical of the nationwide labor force. Less than a fourth of the supervisors described the worker’s job as a dead-end position with no 16 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 possibility for advancement.3 Jobs without a future tended to occur most often, as one might expect, in small, service organizations such as barber and beauty shops, lunch counters, and restaurants. Three out of every four blue-collar positions held the possi bility of promotion. The proportion was the same for laborers. Among white-collar workers, only 1 in 6 was in a job classified as a dead-end job. Employer screening patterns On the whole, the employers in our sample ap peared to be fairly open-minded in their stipulation of qualifications for the kinds of jobs held by Work Incentive program workers. The great majority of the employers stated that a prospective employee must be able to read and write, but only 28 percent overall said that a high school diploma was necessary.4 The following tabu lation shows the percentage of firms requiring a given characteristic: N ot It R equ ired required depen ds Qualification High school diploma Ability to r e a d ................. Ability to w rite.................. Good personal appearance Work experience, general Job training, specific Experience, sp ecific......... Job references ................. Pass a t e s t ........................ 28 85 85 75 26 28 23 50 35 70 14 14 25 71 69 73 48 64 2 1 1 _ 3 3 4 2 1 The conventional wisdom in the past few decades assumes that many employers felt that a high school education would be a “good thing” for employees at all levels, whether or not there exists any demon strable relationship between years of formal educacation and an employee’s proficiency. At least for the organizations in our sample, this stress on a high school diploma was not apparent. Employers were less willing to commit themselves definitely to a set of disqualifying criteria, as sugdepends” responses: D isqualification Record of alcoholism . . Record of drug use . .. Language problem . . . . Garnishment ............. Overweight............... Other health problems. . Arrest r eco rd ........... Prison reco rd ............. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis W ould disqualify 35 56 39 18 20 59 25 30 W ould not disqualify 44 27 54 68 69 34 48 47 It depends 21 17 7 14 11 6 27 23 A majority of the personnel representatives stated that prospective employees would be disqualified in only two instances—if they were drug users or if they came under a loose category called “health problems.” This seemed a catchall for stipulations that ranged from health specifications legitimately pertaining to the requirements for particular jobs to an outlet for prejudices and arbitrary standards on the part of employers. Not surprisingly, since other studies have turned up similar findings, 52 percent of the employers re garded an arrest record as a reasonable basis for rejection, either absolutely (25 percent) or condi tionally (27 percent), despite the fact that an arrest record implies neither conviction nor sentence. The number of those who either would, or might, reject an applicant with an arrest record is only slightly smaller than the number who would dismiss candi dates with prison records, which at least represents official evidence of a criminal past. Respondents were much less willing to give quali fied ( “it depends”) responses to the list of hiring standards than they were to disqualifying criteria. What such an approach represents is open to debate. Evidently, they are arbitrary in many respects. How ever, the managers’ apparent willingness to consider the circumstances and the individual concerned be fore stating that certain situations or conditions would bar him from employment in their organiza tions indicates a certain degree of flexibility on their part. Since it might be important for the jobseeker to know if employers tend to group any job prerequisites together into a “package,” we paired each job quali fication with all of the others and each disqualifying feature with all other bases for rejection. Formalized, general educational requirements do tend to occur together, although they become less important when the employer is searching for specific abilities more demonstrable through training or experience. The more subjectively determined “good personal ap pearance” does not seem to occur with other criteria in any systematic way, but is paired with almost all of the other job requirements because it is important to most sample employers. Disqualifying attributes are, in general, more “per sonal” than qualifying features and concern primarily an individual’s problem or special characteristics. Although some of them can be documented by the employer if he chooses to do so (such as garnishment and arrest and prison records, under some States’ laws), most are open to a certain degree of subjective 17 HOW EMPLOYERS SCREEN DISADVANTAGED JOB APPLICANTS evaluation. The pairing of disqualifying criteria brought forth no consistent pattern. Only a very few of them occur together systematically, and there does not appear to be any package as exists for the broad educational requirements among job qualifications. One final dimension of interest to a jobseeker is the “stringency” of the job screening procedure he encounters. A crude measure of stringency is the total number of hiring standards mentioned by various employers which would apply regardless of special considerations or circumstances. When divided by size of firm only, 3 percent of all employers fell into the most stringent classification, except for the “large” organizations (100—499 employees). None of these cited as many as 16 or 17 qualifications and disqualifications. Large employers also accounted for the most sizable proportion classified as “least stringent.” Smaller organizations, on the whole, tended to be somewhat more unbending in their approach to hiring standards than larger organiza tions. (See table 1.) When divided into public and private sectors, more public than private employers fell into the more stringent categories because hiring standards in pub lic agencies and institutions are often rigidly defined by civil service or other regulations. However, the great majority of all sample organizations—large or small, public or private—fell into the two middle categories, with more in the moderately stringent group than in the stringent classification. (These are, of course, arbitrary classifications.) Again, it is difficult to determine whether the lack of stringency represents a broadmindedness on the part of employers or merely indicates an unwilingness Table 1. Stringency of hiring standards, by organizational size and type [In percent] O rganizational type O rganizational size Stringency measure 1 Small Me dium Large Very large Public P rivate Most stringent Stringent_______________ Moderately stringent-------Least stringent__________ 3 34 54 9 3 33 50 14 31 51 18 3 23 60 14 4 37 45 14 2 28 57 13 Number____________ 70 94 51 65 51 219 1 If 3 or fewer of the 17 qualifications and disqualifications were stated as positively applying, the firm was placed in the least stringent category; 4 to 8 definite “ yes answers were scored moderately stringent, 9 to 13 stringent, and 16—17 most stringent. The locus of hiring authority in the organization was taken into account. If hiring was done in the administrative offices only, the managers' criteria were counted; if the supervisor had sole authority to hire, his criteria were used; if joint authority was claimed, both sets of criteria were used, divided by two. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 2. Percent of employers stating necessaty qualifi cations for prospective employees, by organizational size and type O rganizational type O rganizational size Q ualification Small Me dium Large Very large Public P rivate High school diploma_____ Ability to read__________ Ability to w rite__________ Good personal appearance. 31 84 86 79 29 88 88 79 24 82 82 69 25 83 82 68 43 88 86 75 23 84 84 74 Previous job experience... Specific training_________ Specific job experience— References_____________ Pass a test_____________ 31 31 26 57 27 28 27 24 46 32 22 24 20 45 28 20 26 22 49 54 28 28 22 49 59 25 27 22 48 28 Number____________ 70 92 52 64 51 217 on their part to commit themselves specifically during an interview. The system is loose enough to allow for the employment of disadvantaged workers or for possible discrimination or favoritism throughout the hiring process by both managers and supervisors. Qualifications Which qualifications are important depends on the size of the organization, but most differences are not large. The abilities to read and write are required by most employers in organizations of all sizes. A good personal appearance is important to large num bers of employers, and is more important in smaller organizations than in large ones. Small firms in gen eral tend to require more employee qualifications than is the case in large organizations. The single exception is that a majority of the larger organiza tions ask that hirees pass a test— smaller organiza tions rarely do so. Very large organizations have the facilities to conduct tests, so that reliance on exami nations of some type can become a very simple screening device for these employers. Large organi zations also have the capacity to conduct training, and often prefer to train their own workers. Not as many of them, therefore, feel that previous experi ence or training is essential as do the smaller em ployers who lack training capabilities. Among all organizations, including the smallest, fewer require specific job experience than look for broader quali fications such as references, training, or previous general work experience. (See table 2.) As stated earlier, a larger proportion of public than private employers require all types of job quali fications for prospective employees, although the 18 differences, again, are not great. The largest differ ence appears for those qualifications most easily checked: evidence of a high school diploma and the requirement that the prospective employee pass a test. To test the hypothesis that supervisors tend to have a more realistic view than managers of necessary qualifications for prospective employees, the data were analyzed in terms of who did the hiring. How ever, the patterns shown in table 2 were altered very little. There was a slight indication that when hiring authority was shared by the worker’s direct super visor, the supervisor helped reduce the importance of the more formal qualifications such as literacy •requirements, appearance, and the need for refer ences. At the same time, regardless of employer size or type, supervisors who exercised some hiring au thority were more likely to cite previous general and specific experience as necessary prerequisites to hir ing. There was a tendency for specific training to be more important in those organizations in which the supervisor had some hiring authority. Although fur ther study is clearly indicated before definite conclu sions can be drawn, it would appear that when hiring is located solely in the “front office” the stress is on more general, formal qualifications. When the hiring decision involves a work supervisor, he tends to shift emphasis away from general criteria toward more specifically job-oriented worker attributes. The type of occupation for which an employee was hired makes a considerable difference in the qualifi cations required. Typically, employers hold bluecollar workers and laborers up to fewer criteria than they do white-collar and service workers, although this is not a completely consistent trend for each separate criterion. (See table 3.) Previous job experi ence and specific experience is required more often of blue-collar employees than of any other type. There appears to be a minimum of importance placed on a high school diploma. Requirements for reading and writing abilities are also progressively reduced for each group of employees, but still seejn to be somewhat high for both blue-collar workers and laborers. Possibly because they have hired disadvantaged workers in the past, this group of employers seems to be less restrictive in their approach to requirements for some employers than is the general practice throughout American business and industry. Even these organizations are, however, not entirely free of inconsistencies of hiring standards. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 Table 3. Percent of employers stating necessary qualifi cations for prospective employees, by employee occupa tion Employee occupation Qualification Whitecollar Service Bluecollar La borer High school diploma_______ Ability to read_____ Ability to w rite...................... Appearance........ ............. 44 97 96 88 31 84 85 89 7 75 77 53 14 69 67 57 Previous job experience___ Specific training______ Specific experience............... References................. Pass a te s t... 25 33 22 51 52 25 32 24 52 37 30 25 27 46 16 24 10 19 45 17 104 70 61 42 Number......................... We found that, although employers may claim that educational requirements are necessary so that workers may take advantage of future opportunities, their stated requirements for employees who were hired for admittedly “dead-end” jobs were not much lower than those from which promotion was possible. Although employers required a smaller number of qualifying characteristics for blue-collar workers and laborers in dead-end jobs than for those who might be promoted, generally they wanted white-collar and service workers in dead-end jobs to come equipped with more qualifications than those placed in units where promotion was possible. (See table 4.) Disqualifying factors Criteria that disqualify candidates, as pointed out above, are more personal, are probably less likely to be covered by stated organizational policy, and are much more open to subjective evaluation than are qualifications. The most frequently mentioned dis qualifications in all organizations are those which are difficult to document: health problems and socialpersonal pathologies. In general, the larger the organization, the smaller the proportion of managers there are who state a given characteristic would disqualify an applicant. But there is almost no difference between public and private organizations with respect to either docu mented or observed incapacities as disqualifying cri teria. The greatest differences are found in the larger proportion of private organizations (40 percent versus 28) who would disqualify an employee for language problems,” and the greater proportion of public employers (28 percent versus 16) who con- HOW EMPLOYERS SCREEN DISADVANTAGED JOB APPLICANTS sider “overweight” disqualifying. Criteria for rejection by occupational type show no clearly discernible pattern. As might logically be expected, white-collar workers more than any other type of worker would be disqualified for language problems. But more laborers than any others would be eliminated from consideration for alcoholism, drug use, and having prison records. In terms of the possibility of promotion, a similar relationship to that found for hiring qualifications became apparent: em ployers with Work Incentive program workers in dead-end jobs often cited more bases for rejection than did employers with jobs that offered future ad vancement. (See table 5.) The relationship is not consistent among all occupations, but is particularly obvious for service occupations, which frequently are those in which the employee has close relation ships with the employer’s clientele. Perhaps employ ers wish to disqualify individuals who they feel would not represent their organizations properly. Nonetheless, inconsistencies in the application of such screening devices suggest that these “disqualifi cations” do not actually represent a worker’s inability to perform the job tasks; rather they give the em ployer leeway to reject certain applicants he finds undesirable for other reasons. We found no discernible differences in the grounds for rejection between public and private firms in terms of who has a voice in hiring. But there is a difference between firms of different sizes. (See table 6.) The inverse relationship between number of Table 4. Necessary qualifications for prospective em ployees by class of employee occupation, controlled for possibility of promotion [In percent] Employee occupation Dead-end job Prom otion possible Q ualification White- Serv Blue- La White- Serv B lu e- La ice collar borer collar ice collar borer collar High school diploma____ Ability to read_________ Ability to w rite________ Good personal appearance________________ 30 95 95 7 64 64 64 64 65 87 100 43 36 29 10 23 52 19 38 31 20 56 44 35 50 40 65 25 21 7 15 50 9 9 9 27 9 31 16 20 14 11 19 71 68 84 55 31 80 82 85 Previous job experience. Specific training________ Specific experience_____ References____________ Pass a test 23 33 23 50 53 22 26 18 47 41 32 30 30 45 21 Number____ ______ 88 51 47 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 47 100 100 6 79 81 43 97 96 19 qualifications and disqualifications and organizational size, pointed out earlier, persists—somewhat strength ened—in those organizations in which the work supervisor has a part in the hiring process. That is, the larger the organization, the fewer the disqualify ing criteria when the supervisor exerts influence. But when the front office is solely responsible for hiring, the relationship reverses. Managers in very large organizations where all hiring is done through the front office stress almost all disqualifying character istics to a greater extent than do smaller employers and emphasize them much more than do managers in very large organizations in which supervisors share in the hiring. We suspect that managers who are removed from the workers and free of the pragmatic influence of supervisors have a more formal view of job qualifications. Relevance of job standards Probably the most important question that can be asked about employer hiring standards is, “How relevant are they?” Even at a time of high unemploy ment, many employers continue to complain that they cannot find workers who meet their standards. Our findings suggest that some of the trouble lies with the standards rather than the jobseekers. Traditionally the world of regular employment has been one in which workers function in an en vironment characterized by a set of norms that specify regularity in hours, promptness, and attend ance; conventional dress and behavior on the job; deference to authority figures in the organization; and adherence to specific sets of rules of conduct that often differ from organization to organization. These prescriptions are derived from organizational im peratives, and are enforced by those in authority in the organization. Historically, most workers at all levels largely have conformed to and supported these norms. Existing studies of hiring standards indicate that, knowingly or not, employers use their screening practices to maintain this time-honored state. But the composition of the work force is changing rapidly: more young people are seeking jobs; women are no longer a rarity in many occupational fields; prospec tive employees who are “different” in race, educa tional attainment, or life style are looking for mean ingful employment. Traditional behavior patterns are finding fewer followers, and experimentation in manner of dress and appearance is no longer re stricted to a single age group, class, or race. Many of the characteristics undergoing change play a role in 20 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 Table 5. Disqualifications for prospective employees by class of employee occupation, controlled for possibility of promotion [In percent] Employee occupation Prom otion possible Dead-end job D isqualification White- Serv Blue- La White- Serv B lu e- La collar ice collar borer collar ice collar borer Alcoholism. Drug use______ ____ Language problem_____ Garnishment____ 30 49 53 15 29 56 37 14 28 47 26 19 42 63 26 13 27 53 56 27 74 75 35 25 29 57 36 29 46 64 9 18 Overweight.. Other health problem s... Arrest record. Prison record. 21 59 30 38 29 64 12 16 15 49 23 26 20 70 26 42 13 50 20 20 20 70 45 45 7 39 14 14 9 46 18 18 88 51 47 31 16 20 14 11 Number___ employers’ screening practices, but few have been shown to have a necessary relationship to the ability to perform a job. By continuing many of their present policies, employers may be screening out those highly creative and innovative persons it would be most advantageous to hire. The data presented here call into question the relationship between employers’ hiring standards and ability of Work Incentive graduates to perform the actual tasks the jobs they seek involve. Employers in our sample placed heavy emphasis on personal ap pearance as a job qualification, while placing far less importance on such directly job-related requirements as previous experience, training, and references. The argument used by many employers as a basis for unreasonably high hiring standards that certain quali fications are necessary because of the likelihood of promotion does not appear to hold water, at least for these employers of Work Incentive program partici pants; in white-collar and service occupations, dead end jobs actually had higher overall requirements than did those jobs where promotion was possible. A similar pattern was found for disqualifying criteria. The evidence also indicates that many managers in large organizations who have sole responsibility to hire may use hiring standards according to their pre conceived view of what constitutes “desirablility.” These managers have been found to be more selec tive than other managers or supervisors in terms of disqualifying criteria, which have no demonstrable connection with job performance, rather than in terms of qualifying criteria, which are closer to being actual prerequisites for job performance.5 Free from https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis the influence of a supervisor with hiring authority, managers who have little contact with workers in entry level jobs may fail to make realistic connections between the criteria they use to select employees and the tasks the employees are hired to perform. Viewed within the perspective of recent efforts to place disadvantaged workers (particularly welfare recipients) in public jobs, it is ironic that employers in the public sector tended to have more stringent hiring standards than private employers. Public em ployers were much more likely to require a high school diploma and a passing score on a test and were more likely to reject a prospective employee because of health problems, overweight, an arrest record, or a prison record. The latter may work more against blacks since they are more likely to be in dicted and convicted than whites arrested for the same offenses.6 Our larger study showed that managers in small organizations assessed their Work Incentive program workers more favorably than did managers in large organizations. The present paper showed that small organizations are more selective in their hiring re quirements than large ones. Conceivably this stringency in hiring actually screened out the less capable workers for small em ployers. On the other hand, none of our data showed that Work Incentive program workers employed by smaller organizations were different in background and characteristics from others. Smaller employers in general also have fewer benefits of all kinds to offer the worker and it is unlikely that they are able to pick and choose among only the most highly “qualified” job applicants. If these workers are more productive in small organizations, a more likely exTable 6. Disqualifications for prospective employees by organizational size controlled for locus of hiring authority [In percent] Supervisor h irin g a u th o rity Some None D isqualification Small Me dium Large Very large Small Me dium Large Very large Alcoholism____ Drug use______ Language problem. . Garnishment___ 55 67 48 28 40 61 76 20 19 53 39 6 8 27 35 12 30 40 10 20 33 53 20 13 20 47 13 13 40 65 50 15 O /erw e ight.._____ . Other health problem s... Arrest record _ Prison record.. 17 54 37 43 18 60 23 34 3 61 19 22 24 61 10 12 10 30 20 30 29 36 47 33 20 67 7 7 50 75 30 40 60 77 36 44 10 15 15 20 Number___ 21 HOW EMPLOYERS SCREEN DISADVANTAGED JOB APPLICANTS planation is that the atmosphere in small organiza tions is conducive to close association between worker and manager, a more sympathetic approach on the part of the owner or manager, and conse quently a higher performance level by the employee. Since small organizations on the whole lack training facilities, Government-sponsored training programs can perform a real service for these employers by helping disadvantaged workers learn skills which can be used by them. Further, efforts should be made to educate smaller employers to the value of disad vantaged workers who have had the experience of Federal training programs. At the same time, small employers should guard against eliminating poten tially successful workers through too rigidly adhered to sets of hiring qualifications and disqualifications. All employers should review the rationale behind the screening practices of their organizations. The data presented in this paper strongly suggests that unrealistic requirements and inconsistencies are not due to employer intent to upgrade workers. Hiring standards have been shown to be largely unrelated to the tasks a worker must perform. If the locus of hiring is widely removed from the work atmosphere, the qualifications which determine which workers get hired and which are rejected tend to become unrealistic to the point of irrelevance. Such hiring practices not only make it more difficult for many capable workers to enter the world of work, but keep the employer himself on a constant search for “really good workers,” workers who might well be the indi viduals the employer screened out last week. □ --------- FOOTNOTES---------1 One WIN site refused us entry, so the final sample included 280, rather than 300, employers. 2 Daniel E. Diamond and Hrach Bedrosian, Industry Hir ing Requirements and the Employment of Disadvantaged Groups (New York University School of Commerce for the U.S. Department of Labor, 1970); Ivar Berg, Education and Jobs: The Great Training Robbery (New York, Praeger Publishers, 1970). 3 Our question was worded: “Can an employee in this (these) job(s) be promoted to a better, higher paying job in this unit, into other units, or is it a dead-end job?” 4 Management representatives were handed cards with the list of job qualifications and disqualifications and asked, “Which of these qualifications (that is, usual requirements) are necessary for someone to be considered for a job like --------- ’s?” and “Would any of these situations disqualify a person from a job like this (these)?” In both instances, qualified responses were coded as “depends.” " Several recent studies conducted for the Department of Labor indicate that “hiring requirements” are not “require ments” at all, but are merely devices to select out certain workers. (See, for example, Howard Rosen, “What Coun selors Should Know (and D o) About Employers’ Hiring Requirements,” a paper presented at the American Per sonnel and Guidance Association meeting, New Orleans, La., Mar. 23, 1970. 0 Edwin H. Sutherland and Donald R. Cressey, Principles of Criminology (Philadelphia, J.P. Lippincott Co., 1966), p. 146. A note on communications The Monthly Labor Review welcomes commu nications that supplement, challenge, or expand on research published in its pages. To be con sidered for publication, communications should be factual and analytical, not polemical in tone. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Communications should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20212. Labor markets and manpower policies in perspective policy in the United States has, in a decade, moved from an initial concern with unem ployment of mature, experienced workers who were presumably the victims of the “new technology” to concentration on the young, the poor, and members of racial and ethnic minorities. In the 10 years since passage of the Manpower Development and Training Act, a bewildering variety of uncoordinated programs have sprung up. Federal outlays increased from less than a quarter billion dollars in fiscal year 1961 to over 3 billions in fiscal 1971. Thus critics could argue that, when manpower policy was young and quantitatively insignificant, the alleged problem to which it was addressed seemed to go away without its help; after the policy had reached an appreciable scale, its new targets would not yield to its approach. To which reply can be made that, for all its growth, the policy is not yet nearly big enough to be effective. But it is big enough to be visible and for its future to be more widely discussed. M anpower Market imperfections and manpower policy Whether or not they might differ in the extent to which they would be willing to deploy active labor market policies, most manpower experts agree that the existence of market imperfections supports the case favoring these policies. In the first place, to the extent that individuals must incur the costs of their own training— especial ly when the skills to be acquired would make them more valuable to other employers as well as their own— there is a case for subsidizing the training of poorer individuals and particularly of those who are Lloyd Ulman is professor of economics and industrial rela tions and Director, Institute of Industrial Relations, Uni versity of California, Berkeley. A modified version of this article will appear in a book to be published by the Johns Hopkins University Press which holds the copyright.1 22 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis How an active labor market policy can be used as an instrument of redistribution or stabilization: a review of current thinking LLOYD ULMAN likely targets of discrimination. Such individuals, as Lester Thurow has pointed out, are likely to have exceptionally high rates of time preference precisely because they are poor— so that the marginal utility to them of a dollar in wages foregone during the training period is exceptionally high— and because their opportunities are limited— so that the private return on a training investment is likely to be ex ceptionally low. Moreover, there can be little doubt that any would-be borrower for whom discrimination had made the labor market imperfect would find himself regarded as an exceptionally poor risk by any potential lender in the capital market. Subsidies, even if provided on a scale sufficient to eliminate or overcompensate for the direct and indirect costs of training, cannot by themselves overcome the obstacles to career development thrown up by poverty and dis crimination, but they would in principle plan a useful role in helping to neutralize those disadvantages. Other types of imperfection, originating both on the buyers’ and on the sellers’ sides of the labor market, also create a case on equitable grounds for the provision of active labor market programs. Oddly enough, they may do so by generating excessive “credentialism”— that is, demand for and supply of labor whose degree of formal schooling is in excess of the requirements of a perfectly competitive labor market. This can result when employers pay wages above market-clearing levels.2 They may do so by design, as in the case of the large, “monopsonistic” employer who seeks the capability of screening job applicants for “quality.” Or they may do so out of compulsion, as in the case of the unionized employer who seeks to absorb part of the increased labor costs resulting from collective bargaining by hiring some labor of presumably higher quality. (A nonunion employer who maintains a union-preventive wage would make the same adjustment.) In either case, the employer must incur selection costs. Moreover, to the extent that his employees’ wages are raised LABOR MARKETS AND MANPOWER POLICIES IN PERSPECTIVE above their “transfer earnings” and that their quit rates are consequently reduced, he finds it profitable to pay for training of a more “general” as well as of a more “specific” nature. Hence he finds that by hiring workers with more impressive educational credentials he can minimize screening costs and, he hopes, training costs as well. Such processes tend to force workers with lower educational credentials into lower paying and otherwise less attractive labor markets. Thus the educational gains registered by Negroes and other nonwhites in the postwar period might have been robbed of a considerable degree of economic payoff. It is understandable that the non white should find conspiracy where others might deduce only the workings of the modern marketplace. Under the circumstances and given that formal edu cational inequalities still exist, some compensatory training— and compensatory credentialing—might be in order. Still another class of labor market imperfections, manifested in the existence of shortages (or bottle necks) in specific skilled occupations, can be gener ated and renewed by cyclical alternation and by growth of demand. The work of Sara Behman, Holt, Schultze, and others establishes the inflationary in fluence of skill shortages during periods of expan sion.3 But why should such apparently serious shortages occur during an upswing, given the existence of excess supplies of skilled (as well as other) workers during the preceding recession? The answer is that it is precisely during the slack period, when there is unemployment and underutilization of skilled labor, that potential, or full employment, shortages begin to build up. This happens because normal withdraw als from the skilled work forces (for example, due to death and retirement, but not discouragement caused by cyclical unemployment) are not wholly replaced. Nor is provision made for increased de mand, which is generated in the course of secular economic growth and realized during upswings in activity. There is little incentive to invest in human as well as physical capital when demand is generally slack; and there is consequently a bunching of in vestment in training in the upswing, as stockpiles of downgraded skilled workers and supplies of avail able rehires begin to dry up. To be sure, supplies in many categories can be replenished by company training, promotion, and increased hiring at low entry levels. In the case of skills recruited directly from the outside, however, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 23 firms bid up wages in the marketplace as the inci dence of quits rises among groups with lateral (inter employer) instead of vertical mobility. Higher wages and more vacancies induce more investment in train ing, but training takes time. Skill shortages thus tend to appear and persist when the economy is still quite short of full employment. To this extent, there is a case for training subsidies during periods of slack activity. Increasing dispersion of unemployment The practitioner, however, is less concerned with the causes of imperfections than with their effects and with evidence of their growth. Increasingly, the inflationary potential of the economy is an increasing function of the dispersion of sectoral unemployment rates (weighted by labor force or by employment). There is little evidence of increasing occupational dispersion and hence, in this respect, of adverse structural changes induced by changes in the compo sition of demand for labor. This might be taken as lack of support for one version of the “skill twist” hypothesis; and the diminishing geographical dis persion of unemployment is further grist for the skeptics’ mill. On the other hand, unemployment dispersion by age and sex increased dramatically with the dis proportionate growth of teenagers and women in the labor force and with the disproportionate rise in their unemployment rates. Associated with these changes has been a very marked decline in the share of the labor force accounted for by men of prime working age and a marked decrease in their unemployment rates relative to the national average. Using demo graphic dispersion of unemployment as an explana tory variable in a wage-change equation, Charles C. Holt and his associates, like George Perry,4 regard the recorded increase in this dispersion as a major inflationary influence. And looking ahead, R. A. Gordon finds little prospect for self-correction. The work force will have a larger proportion of young men out of their teens, but the proportion of primeage males— whose unemployment rates have already sunk to bottleneck levels—will continue to shrink. Moreover, the shares of high-unemployment groups — women and nonwhites— will increase. Although the worsening trade-off between un employment and inflation can thus be associated with changes originating on the supply side of the labor market, bottlenecks could have developed only if 24 employers had been unable or unwilling to substitute labor which had become more plentiful for labor which had become less plentiful. Unwillingness of workers in the former category to apply for jobs of the type performed by workers in short supply could not have played much of a role in producing bottle necks, in view cf the relatively increased rates of unemployment among younger people and women. Employers, on the other hand, might have found it preferable to bid for the services of men in their thirties and forties if they felt that workers in the more plentiful categories had less education or train ing and were less capable on that account. Gordon’s finding of a relatively great decline in labor force participation among the poorly educated is con sistent with this hypothesis. This finding also helps to account for the fact that, while there has been a recent decline in the dispersion of unemployment by color, it has been matched by a relative and absolute decline in participation rates for nonwhite males over the age of 25. The latter are less well educated than whites in the same age group. Another one of Gordon’s findings— that an in creased proportion of the unemployed is accounted for by those without previous work experience—is also consistent with the hypothesis that the more abundant sources of labor supply were imperfect sub stitutes for the scarcer varieties because they had received less training. On the other hand, the young were, by historic standards, very well endowed with formal education; and this should tend to reduce the length and cost of on-the-job training for them. In fact, high unemployment rates among the young and the inexperienced suggests another possible ex planation of the inflationary increase in the demo graphic dispersions of unemployment: rigidity in industrial and occupational wage structures. This hypothesis holds that wage structures have not been sufficiently flexible to make it profitable enough for employers to hire and train less experienced and/or educated people rather than bid up wages of experi enced workers. Under rigid wage structures, it would have been profitable to absorb the former in the increased proportions in which they came onto the market only if changes in technology and/or in the composition of demand indicated substitution in favor of less experienced, trained, or educated labor. Such changes, had they occurred, would have been opposite to those postulated by the proponents of the skill-twist hypothesis. However, some of the same adverse effects attributed by this hypothesis to a https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 relative decrease in demand for untrained labor could have been produced by a relative increase in the supply of such labor, taken in conjunction with an unchanged composition of demand and sufficiently rigid wage structures. Short-term unemployment and high turnover Of course, while many market imperfections are attributable to institutions like collective bargaining and minimum wages, to imitative wage-setting poli cies of employers, and to social discrimination, others in a sense result from changes in conditions of demand or supply, which require time for adjustment. Moreover, the adverse impact of labor market im perfections, whatever their origin, varies with the magnitude of such changes. Nevertheless, dealing ex plicitly with the role of wage structures might help to make more understandable one distinctive char acteristic of recent unemployment. In contrast to unemployment characterized by long duration of joblessness—the type of “structural unemployment” which might be expected to result from massive technological displacement of a group of experienced workers— unemployment in the 1960’s has been characterized by relatively short duration and relatively high incidence of turnover, especially when the overall rate of unemployment has been relatively low. Unemployment character ized by high rates of turnover has usually been de scribed as “frictional;” and, since it results from frequent quitting as well as layoffs, it is often re garded as “voluntary” as well. Hence Thurow argues that manpower policy ought not be directed to reduc ing the minimum achievable rate of overall unem ployment, since “No one is worried about voluntary unemployment at a 3-percent level of general un employment.” But what about sectors of the labor force where high-turnover unemployment greatly ex ceeds the average level and where it is frequently associated with low rates of labor force participation as well? It has been argued that for some such groups un employment, at least in part, might still be regarded as voluntary since, at prevailing wages, members of the “secondary” work force may have preferable nonmarket alternatives at home or in school.5 The latter might thus be contrasted with persons who would be willing to take a job in their line of work at the going wage— or even at a lower wage— if they could find such work. LABOR MARKETS AND MANPOWER POLICIES IN PERSPECTIVE But for many people in high turnover groups, wages are “too low” because their nonmarket alter natives are clearly detrimental to social welfare and destructive of individual self-regard and happiness. Wages are too low for them relative to wages in entry-level jobs which are not available to them; they seem to be locked into “secondary” labor mar kets;6 and they tend frequently to quit—jobs, labor force, and school— out of frustration and resentment at their segregation. Segregation is caused in part by direct discrimination and sometimes by direct re striction of entry; but restriction of entry into pro tected labor markets can result simply from the main tenance of high wages in them. (Hence the old craft disclaimer: “We don’t discriminate on the basis of color; we discriminate against everyone.”) The in verse correlation between industry wage rates and quit rates strongly suggest that wage structure rigidi ties contribute to lack of opportunity and “patho logical instability” (the phrase is Hall’s) in unpro tected labor markets.7 People don’t quit good, highwage jobs as frequently as they quit low-wage, dead end jobs, or for the same reasons. 25 eliminated such shortages, employment in the first type of market would also be increased. 2. An increase in overall demand, which would also increase employment in the “institutionalized” markets but which would concomitantly raise de mand and thus contribute further to wage increases in both sectors (causing the economy to move up along a Phillips curve). 3. An increase in overall demand, as above, but accompanied by an incomes policy, which would permit demand to increase in the institutionalized markets but would hold down the rate of wage increase in those markets (thereby shifting the Phillips curve to the left and downward). 4. An active labor market, or manpower, policy which would simultaneously reduce unemployment and the rate of wage increase by reducing excess supplies of labor and increasing supplies of qualified labor in shortage categories. This would shift the Phillips curve downwards by shifting the sectoral supply curves in opposite directions, rather than by altering relative wages (as is contemplated under both structural reform and incomes policy). It would operate primarily by increasing employment in the excess demand sector rather than in the excess sup Secondary and primary labor markets ply sector. This set of policies could be designed to Indeed, active labor market policy can be defined improve labor mobility by increasing the efficiency and distinguished from certain other policies with of employment agencies and counselling services as respect to labor market imperfections and wage well as by manpower training. rigidities. We have already considered two types of 5. An active labor market policy which would “high-wage” markets: those in which wages are operate by increasing demand selectively— as by pulled up by shortages of highly trained labor, and concentrating reflation in labor-surplus areas. Such those in which wages are pushed up by institutional a policy would be designed primarily to cope with or conventional forces and where shortages are not geographic “compartmentalization;” but it could be prevalent. (In the former supply is highly inelastic; employed in conjunction with policies described in the latter it is highly elastic at the going wage.) above, as indeed it has been in the United States. And we have considered certain groups of unem In fact, selective job creation in the public service ployed and underemployed persons who may be said may be employed on a significant scale in this coun to be excluded from the first type of market by lack try and not solely as a rather temporary, contraof education and training and from the second by cyclical device. Manpower training is presumably of lack of job openings for which they would— or easily only limited effectiveness where the problem is more could— be qualified. The latter in principle might be lack of motivation, induced by low wages and dead end jobs, than lack of capacity. Neither might selec absorbed into more desirable markets in one (or more) of the following ways: tive (relative) reduction in the minimum wage— 1. Structural change, which would induce greater which is the form of structural change most com monly advocated as a cure for certain types of struc flexibility in relative wages and thus more employ tural unemployment—be effective in coping with ment in the second type of market, where wages are “voluntary” unemployment traceable in part to set by collective bargaining or discretionary manage wages that are too low, rather than too high. Thus ment “policy.” If some of the shortages in markets public service employment can be regarded as a of the first variety are caused by institutional (includ branch of manpower policy which at least potening legal) barriers to entry and if structural reforms https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 26 daily might prove a superior substitute for certain types of structural reform and as both substitute for and complement to other types of manpower policy. Manpower policy as an alternative Thus manpower policy can be viewed as an al ternative to structural change in the labor market, to general reflationary measures, or to incomes policy. In Sweden, it has been regarded as an alter native to all three. It was originated there by Gosta Rehn and Rudolf Meidner, who were then econo mists with the Swedish Federation of Labor, because, given the country’s very ambitious unemployment goals, incomes policy was ineffective in preventing wage drift and also because wage drift frustrated the labor movement’s attempts to implement a “solidaristic” (or egalitarian) wage policy. The task of active labor market policy was to introduce reflation by selective measures aimed simultaneously at pockets of unemployment and at labor bottlenecks. This was supposed to reduce the level of aggregate demand required to maintain any given level of employment and, consequently, to reduce the ability of both employers and union groups to generate wage drift. The Swedes have taken their innovation seriously, judging from the documentation of its growth in ex penditure and coverage (to over 4 percent of the labor force). But manpower policy can be regarded as an al ternative to the other policies only to the extent that it is effective in practice. Sar A. Levitan has sub jected many of the programs to strenuous (although sympathetic) criticism.8 He observes that, despite greatly increased budgets, the number of nonagricultural placements made by the public employment service actually declined in the 1960’s. Training sub sidies to employers may have fallen under the curse of their class to the extent that the training would have been provided in the absence of public financial support— and that proposed tax incentives would suffer the same fate. Moreover, some of the training and income maintenance provided directly to the trainee seems to have provided more income mainte nance than training. Nor, in view of experience to date, is Levitan sanguine about the economic pros pects of plans to endow significant numbers of wel fare recipients with marketable levels of productivity. Some of the manpower policies have helped to increase the representation of Negroes in some occu pations, but there seems to be no reason to credit https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 them with narrowing the dispersion of occupational unemployment rates. Thurow questions their effec tiveness in coping with unemployment due to “bad habits and low work standards,” which have to be corrected by “socialization” and “industrial disci pline.” And he, together with other analysts, advo cates more emphasis on “creaming,” or training those already employed to fill skill shortages and thus vacate lower skilled jobs for which the inexperienced and the unemployed might then be trained more efficiently. While increased enrollment in manpower programs has tended to reduce unemployment,9 this could also generate some inflationary effect by re moving people from the work force. (Thus, the programs would simply be moving the economy up an existing Phillips curve rather than shifting the curve downward.) On the other hand, to the extent that labor market policies make information about job openings and worker availability easier and cheaper to come by, they might increase turnover and thus tend to increase unemployment. Moreover, while the idea of a contracyclical labor market policy (the so-called “manpower trigger”) is attractive in principle, its effectiveness, as the policy grows in magnitude, depends increasingly on the efficiency of economic planning and, in particular, on the ability to forecast changes in the pattern of labor demand. Finally, labor market policies have not been able to prevent perverse shifts in inflationunemployment trade-offs in either the United States or Sweden. In the United States this could be taken as evidence of the need for a more ambitious use of the policy; this is essentially the position taken by Holt, MacRae, Schweitzer, and Smith. In Sweden, however, where the policy has already grown to con siderable size, this explanation would be much less convincing. Indeed, the adverse trade-off experience of Sweden and other western countries as well suggests that the somewhat distinctive demographic developments in the United States in the 1960’s might have not exerted as unique an inflationary effect as they are credited with. And if cost-push influences also played a significant inflationary role, how effective could one have expected labor market policies to be? Yet these policies cannot be dismissed as ineffec tive, either here or abroad. The numerous benefit-cost studies of specific programs which have been made are subject to methodological difficulties, notably the difficulty of securing sufficiently comparable “con trol groups” and lack of allowance for the displace- LABOR MARKETS AND MANPOWER POLICIES IN PERSPECTIVE ment of qualified workers who did not undergo train ing in the program in question. On the other hand, the favorable results have been too pronounced and widespread (in Sweden as well as in the United States) to be dismissed by the policymaker. More over, some studies suggest that certain American programs might indeed have been effective in im proving the work habits and outlook of disadvan taged younger persons, and some success is reported in the post-training placement of unemployed or hard-to-place persons under Swedish programs. As far as the inflationary effect of withdrawing trainees from the labor market is concerned, Gordon con cludes that it could not have been great in the case of teenagers and other “secondary” workers whose unemployment rates were already at high levels. And the danger of “bumping” or displacing experienced workers by graduate trainees could be minimized, according to Thurow, by concentrating training dur ing upswings, rather than during downswings, and directing it towards observed vacancies. A supplement rather than a substitute Given a mixed bag of evidence on the perform ance and apparent potentialities of manpower policy, the policymaker might well look upon it more as a supplement to than a substitute for alternative poli cies. But given the limited effectiveness of the alter natives, manpower policy can be a valuable supple ment. Thus, since it is axiomatic that the value of training depends on the availability of jobs for the qualified trainee, a suitably expansive aggregate de mand policy is required. For the same reason, an effective antidiscrimina tion policy is also a necessary complement to man power development programs. However, the latter may be required to give effect to expansionary de mand management, on the one hand, and to antidiscrimination policies, on the other. Manpower de velopment could help to implement antidiscrimina tion policy by furnishing an effective reply to the protest that “we would take more of them in if we could find qualified ones.” Indeed, the existence of trained members of underprivileged minorities can 27 exert a salutary coercive effect on employers and unions, for it represents a potential competitive threat. In this sense, therefore, the provision of training can help to create some of the vacancies for which the training is provided. The strength of such a competitive threat should not be exaggerated, but, in view of the difficulties involved in enforcing antidiscrimination policies in the face of limited eco nomic opportunity, even a modest aid to enforcement should be seriously regarded. the relationship between active labor market policy and incomes policy be regarded as comple mentary? The former, as noted above, originated as an alternative to the latter; and proponents of the two approaches have tended to regard one another as natural enemies ever since. Perhaps this relation ship reflects the rivalry between those two socially pioneering countries, Sweden and the Netherlands (the birthplace of modern incomes policy). Perhaps it reflects the difference in outlook between the De partment of Labor and the Council of Economic Advisers here at home. Perhaps people who are concerned with vertical supply curves resent the concern of others with horizontal supply curves, and vice versa. In the United States, opposition to in comes policy is contributed by (but not restricted to) those who deny the existence of cost-push influences, but in Sweden proponents of labor market policy argued that it was a superior instrument for dealing with cost-push. In any event— and whatever their respective merits and drawbacks on other grounds— the two ap proaches ought not be regarded as mutually exclu sive. Not only do organizational influences coexist with other sources of labor market imperfection, interaction occurs. Unionism can help to cause short ages in some sectors. It might also help to spread shortage-generated wage increases to occupations and industries where labor is in excess supply. Thus, the more effective either policy becomes in its own domain, the more effective it helps to make the other. What helps to clean the pot helps to clean the kettle. □ C an ■FOOTNOTES 1 This article is adapted from a paper presented at a Policy Mix, to be published in early 1973 by the Johns Hopkins Press, which holds the copyright and which has seminar marking the tenth anniversary of the Manpower granted permission for publication in the Monthly Labor Development and Training Act. The original paper will Review. The book, which is edited by Dr. Ulman, includes serve as the Introduction to Manpower Programs and the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 28 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 contributions by R. A. Gordon; Charles C. Holt, C. Duncan MacRae, Stuart O. Schweitzer, and Ralph E. Smith; Lester C. Thurow; Sar A. Levitan; and Rudolf Meidner and Rolf Anderson. Some of their findings are cited in Dr. Ulman’s article. 2 V. Lane Rawlins and Lloyd Ulman, “The Utilization of College Trained Manpower in the United States,” in Higher Education and the Labor Market, to be published by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. 3 Sara Behman, “Wage-Determination Process in U. S. Manufacturing,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 1968, pp. 117-142; Charles L. Schultze, “Has the Phillips Curve Shifted? Some Additional Evidence,” Brookings Papers on Economic A ctivity, 1971:2, pp. 452-468. 4 George L. Perry, “Changing Labor Markets and In flation,” Brookings Papers on Economic A ctivity, 1970:3, pp. 411-441; see also Charles C. Holt and others, “A man power approach to the unemployment-inflation dilemma,” Monthly Labor Review, May 1971, pp. 51-54, and George L. Perry, “Inflation vs. unemployment: the worsening trade off,” Monthly Labor Review, February 1971, pp. 68-71. 5 Jacob Mincer, “Labor-Force Participation and Unem ployment: A Review of Recent Evidence,” in R. A. Gordon and Margaret S. Gordon, eds., Prosperity & Unemployment (New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966), pp. 101-102. 6 P. B. Doeringer and M. J. Piore, International Labor Markets and Manpower Analysis (Lexington, Mass., D. C. Heath & Co., 1971). 7 See Lloyd Ulman, “Labor Mobility and the Industrial Wage Structure in the Postwar United States,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 1965, pp. 73-97. This association holds even after allowance is made for differ ences in skill content, reflecting differences in training in vestments. See Mark A. Lutz, “The Equilibrium Industrial Wage Structure,” University of California, Berkeley, doctoral dissertation. Consistent with the foregoing is the finding by Wachter of “premiums” on the wages of skilled, high-wage labor. See M. L. Wachter, “Cyclical Variation in the Interindustry Wage Structure,” American Economic Review, March 1970, pp. 75-84. 8 See, for example, Sar Levitan and Robert Taggart, Social Experimentation and Manpower Policy: The Rhe toric and the Reality (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press, 1971) and Sar A. Levitan, Garth L. Mangum, Ray Marshall, Human Resources and Labor Markets: Labor and Man power in the American Economy (New York, Harper and Row, Publishers, 1972). e See Sylvia Small, “Manpower training programs and the unemployment rate,” pp. — , this issue. An Age of Symbolic Credentials By now, . . . education, if ever subject to con trol of the market, has passed under the Empire of Affluence in what has become an Age of Sym bolic Credentials. . . . In recent years the “credentials philosophy” has filtered downward, perhaps in response to in crease in the relative number of persons graduating from high school. . . . as educational attainment has risen within the educational range separating primary from higher education, the expectations of employers have been upgraded with respect to the educational qualifications which they demand of those whom they seek to employ. . . . Presumably, the capacity of the “credentials philosophy” to deny employment to those lacking those symbols would be diminished if the latter were offered probationary employment at lower entry or initial rates of remuneration, and for long enough periods to determine their competence. Then, should the results demonstrate such compe tence, the current employment-denying influence https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis of the “credentials philosophy” would be dimin ished. . . . In the United States in particular, many have enrolled in the cult of education for educa tion’s sake, analogue of the 19th century French cult of l’art pour l’art. . . . A result may be ex cessive expenditure upon education, overeducation of specialists (e.g., doctors, teachers), and what could turn out to be a steady increase in societal instability should inflated expectations be frus trated. Another result may be what Clarence Long calls “creeping unemployment.” The incomes of the more favored become elevated while so little is done to increase the productivity of the under privileged that employers cannot afford to hire them on probation and at wages sufficiently above legally defined poverty benchmarks to motivate the unproductive to move from charity rolls to payrolls. . . . — J o s e p h J. S p e n g l e r , “Economic Malfunctioning in the Educational Industry,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, July 1972. RICHARD RUGGLES Federal Statistics: Report of the President’s Commis sion. Washington, the Commission, 1971. Vol ume I, 267 pp.; Volume II, 555 pp. $4, Super intendent of Documents, Washington 20402. Commission on Federal Statistics was established to answer three basic questions (p. 37): What are the present and future requirements for quantitative information about our society? How can we minimize the burden on response and insure that personal privacy and data received in confidence are protected? How can we organize Federal activi ties for the most effective compilation and utilization of statistics? The report of the Commission is con tained in two volumes. Volume I presents a general discussion of Federal statistics, together with the find ings and recommendations, Volume II a series of papers on major topics by experts in different fields. The Commission came up with four general recomendations, as follows (pp. 2, 3): (1) the scope of coordinating activities in the Federal Government should be broadened; (2) more systematic efforts should be made to eliminate obsolete statistical pro grams; (3) public confidence in data gathering should be increased; and (4) means of increasing the com parability of economic statistics through greater inte gration in collection processes should be explored. These recommendations reflect the general ap proach of the report. No major changes are en visaged; instead, recommendations are made which it is believed would generally improve the statistical efficiency of the various Government agencies and the public confidence in these agencies. The Com mission clearly believes that the present state of Gov ernment statistics is of a very high order, if not the best in the world, and that no major changes are needed. In the more detailed discussion of its major T h e P r e s id e n t ’s Richard Ruggles is professor of economics, Yale University. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Report of the Commission on Federal Statistics —a review essay recommendations, the Commission does consider specific problems such as the organization of the Federal statistical system, the role of privacy and confidentiality, the need for new kinds of data, and greater utilization of existing data. The following sections will consider the report in terms of each of these problem areas. Organization of the Federal statistical system The Commission emphasizes that the statistical system includes very different types of producing agencies—general purpose statistical agencies, oper ating and regulatory agencies that generate data and apply statistical methods within their programs, man agement information systems, producers of second ary statistics, and non-Federal Government pro ducing agencies. This diversity, the Commission suggests, makes the creation of a fully centralized system both undesirable and virtually impossible (pp. 37, 38). It finds that the present decentralized system has served the users of statistics reasonably well (p. 177). Much of this general view is supported by the staff report by Paul Feldman, entitled “Com mission on Statistics and Statistics on Commission,” in volume II. In this presentation Feldman observes that organization has fascinated every commission in the past, but that reorganizers have been remark ably unsuccessful (p. 492). He suggests that concen tration on organization arises more from aesthetic reasons than from identifiable systems failure (p. 492). The argument is also made that organizational actions taken by Congress or the executive branch are not related to commission findings (p. 494). The obvious implication of this discussion is that the present Commission is too sensible to indulge in any major consideration of organization. Despite the skepticism of the Commission con cerning organizational matters, some attention to them would have been useful. It would have been 29 30 useful, for instance, if the Commission had reviewed other countries’ experiences in these matters. A con siderable number of countries currently do have cen tral statistical offices and an examination of their experiences would have been valuable. The Commis sion’s pessimism with respect to the usefulness of making recommendations on organizational matters is also unwarranted. The function of a Commission is not to avoid all ideas which might not be imple mented by the legislative and executive branches in the immediate future, but rather to provide ideas which have merit and which may influence the think ing of those responsible for decisions relating to the Federal statistical system. As was evidenced by the first major general rec ommendation, the Commission did recognize that more coordination of statistical activity was needed. In order to accomplish this, it recommended that the Statistical Policy Division in the Office of Manage ment and Budget should be expanded to allow an audit, at appropriate intervals, of the statistical ac tivities of all agencies, including the gathering of data by means other than forms (p. 176). Second, it rec ommended that a National Academy of ScienceNational Research Council committee should be established to provide an outside review of Federal statistical activity (p. 176). The findings of this com mittee would be transmitted through the Director of the National Research Council to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and also should be made public, perhaps through regular publication in statistical journals. It was felt that such an outside committee could review Government statistical acivity objectively. Finally, the Commission did explicitly recognize that certain important functions would not automati cally be performed in the decentralized system. Spe cifically, it recommended that the Bureau of the Census be given the responsibility for creating and maintaining directories and associated unit classifica tions for use in gathering data and for statistical purposes (p. 180). In order to provide for transfers of data between agencies it was recommended that the Federal Reports Act of 1942 be amended to allow the Statistical Policy Division of the Office of Management and Budget to permit access under con trolled conditions to data in confidential records, to be used directly or linked as necessary for research uses. The creation of an all-agency catalog of Fed eral statistics was also recommended, so that the different agencies would be aware of what was avail https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 able within the Federal Government. Although the letter setting up the Commission specifically asked how Federal activity should be organized for the most effective compilation and utilization of statistics, this question was never really considered by the Commission. The report (p. 138) did admit that as statistical activities grow more com plex, periodic rethinking of organizational questions is required. It even goes so far as to note that the present Administration and its predecessors have reviewed issues of statistical organization and have proposed a number of changes in the existing struc ture of agencies and responsibilities, largely in order to achieve efficiency under continuously changing conditions. Although the Commission supports the intent of these proposals, there is at no juncture any discussion of the content of the proposals or the substantive effect which they might have. This is in deed a serious omission. The most charitable inter pretation is that the Commission felt that the Statisti cal Policy Division of the Office of Management and Budget and the recommended advisory group under the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council would be better able to tackle such problems. It is also possible, however, that previous commissions were more correct in concentrating on organizational matters; that they did so not for aesthetic reasons but because organization does have an impact on the statistical system. In a highly de centralized statistical system where relatively little use is made of administrative records, a high degree of duplication will exist, with the consequence that not only will the work within the Federal Govern ment be increased, but respondents will be required to provide similar (but probably not identical) in formation to different Federal agencies. Under a decentralized system, standards of classification are difficult to develop and even more difficult to en force. As a consequence the comparability of statis tics prepared by different Federal agencies is seri ously impaired. Obsolete statistical programs are much more difficult to eradicate under a decentral ized system, since the independent agencies develop vested interests and those in charge of a specific pro gram may have no alternative statistical activity. Conversely, it is also true that a monolithic statistical organization which is divorced from both research activity and administrative operation would not be sensitive to the needs of the user. It is important that the statistical system be responsive to both research and administrative needs. These are difficult prob- FEDERAL STATISTICS lems, and the introduction of a statistical audit by the Statistical Policy Division and the creation of an advisory group under the National Academy of Sci ences and National Research Council will not solve them. Privacy and confidentiality The Commission devoted a large part of its efforts to the questions of privacy and confidentiality. Its members were impressed less with the magnitude of the problem than with the reality of the public con cern which was generated by actions and events be yond their field of reference (p. 219). They were pleased to find little evidence of breaches of confi dence within the Federal statistical system. They recommended, in addition to removing opportunities for misunderstanding and strengthening legal safe guards (pp. 220-222), that a Statistics Advisory Board be established to provide an independent re view of the practices of Federal agencies with regard to privacy and the gathering, handling, and disclosure of information in the Federal statistical system (p. 223). They recommended the establishment of such a board not because they feel that the Federal agen cies need to be policed, but because they feel that such a board is essential for maintaining the neces sary public support (p. 224). It is quite true that the major public concern with respect to privacy and confidentiality lies in Government activities which are outside the statistical system. The Commission recognized that under a decen tralized Federal statistical system, measures taken to insure privacy and confidentiality do result in under utilization of data where the data are located in different agencies. The solution was to permit the Statistical Policy Division to authorize the transfer of data among agencies for statistical purposes (p. 179), under the proper safeguards to insure con fidentiality. But this provision is not sufficient to dis courage the various Government agencies from collecting their own data, even though it duplicates the data being obtained by other Federal agencies. Such duplication results in higher costs for both the Federal Government and the individual respondents, with no improvement in confidentiality. Given the necessity for making special provisions for transfer, Federal agencies will resist giving their data to each other, since doing so might undermine their position in the Federal statistical system. The inadequacy of the Commission’s recom https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 31 mendations in the areas of organization and con fidentiality leaves both of these major problems un resolved. Despite the Commission’s failure to treat the problems, however, some progress is being made. If the group of Federal statistical agencies could be identified, and all of the group placed under the confidentiality rules which now are in force for the Bureau of the Census, this might both improve the level of privacy and confidentiality and simultane ously make possible interchange of data among the Federal statistical agencies. The current reorganiza tion of the statistical activities of the various Federal agencies is in fact going in this direction. The statis tical processing of information is now being con sidered as a separate activity within Federal agencies. Given such reorganization, it would be possible to define these activities in all agencies as part of a Federal statistical organization which had strict rules relating to confidentiality and at the same time com mon access to statistical information in other parts of the Federal statistical system. Such a reorganization would result in divorcing the statistical activities in the Federal agencies from their operational activities. The operational part of the agency would have access only to its own data, and not to the basic records of the whole Federal statistical system. The development of new data The body of the Commission’s report says very little about the need for new data. A few pages and some very general recommendations are devoted to small area statistics, the question of a quinquennial census, and the development of social statistics (pp. 184-188). The substance of these recommendations is that the Commission encourages people to investi gate these areas, especially people outside the Fed eral Government. The Commission was fortunate, however, that a number of excellent chapters were provided on these topics in part II of the report. The problems raised about small area data by Morris Ullman, Herbert Alfasso, and Robert Barraclough provide very useful insights, and in fact go much further than the Commission’s recommendations. Specifically, Barraclough recommends that a national geocoding system be established. This is an excellent recommendation, and the 1970 census did provide the basis for such a geocoding system with the Dual Independent Map Encoding (DIME) files. However, no provision has been made by the Federal Govern ment for extending the system to all areas or for 32 updating. Such a geocoding system is very much needed, and may be as important in the future as standardized industrial classification codes have been in the past. Chapter 7 in part II of the Commission’s report, “Social Reporting for the 1970’s,” by Eleanor Sheldon, also goes much further in its recommenda tion that the Commission. Her recommendations re lating to a number of Federal agencies such as the Bureau of the Census and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare were condensed, in the Com mission’s report, to the single recommendation that the Statistical Policy Division should be given the re sponsibility for and take the leadership in insuring that a long-range program is undertaken to develop social statistics, and that the National Science Foun dation should continue its work in this field. It seems highly probable that—with the other tasks which the Commission has proposed for the Statistical Policy Division, for example, statistical audits and coordi nation— in this period of tight budgets the pursuit by the Statistical Policy Division of long-range pro grams to develop social statistics will be swept under the rug. Another topic covered in part II that did not re ceive the attention it merited in the final report was the use of controlled field studies to improve public policy. The chapter in part II on this topic by Rich ard Light, Frederick Mosteller, and Herbert S. Wincor pointed up the importance of using controlled field studies to obtain evaluations of specific pro grams or as a substitute for advance testing of new programs. It is highly desirable that operating agen cies undertake controlled studies in order to assess the efficiency and equity of their current program, and to obtain information on how to modify their operations. Utilization of existing data Although the Commission recognizes the existence of administrative data, it does not give significant attention to the effective use of the major bodies of such data in the Federal statistical system. There is an implicit realization of the importance of admin istrative data in the discussion of the need for trans fer of data between Federal agencies. There is little https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 consideration, however, of whether or how admin istrative data might be altered to improve the ef ficiency of the Federal statistical system, and to substitute for statistical information obtained by different agencies from the same respondents. Given the relative expenditure of the Government on ad ministrative as against statistical information, this is a major oversight. Careful utilization of administra tive records would not only make many statistical programs unnecessary, but also might in many cases improve the quality of the information that is ob tained. In volume II of the report, Morris Hansen goes into the general problem of the role and feasibility of a national data bank based on matched records and alternatives. This chapter suggests some of the opportunities which are available and the advantages and disadvantages of various procedures. Exact matching of major bodies of data can be costly in deed, and for many statistical purposes may not be needed. Nevertheless, there are many analytic pur poses for which it is important to be able to relate different files of statistical information to each other. Perhaps if the Commission had gone into the area of identifying “the present and future requirements for quantitative information about our society,” this important area would have received more considera tion. The role of the computer Developments in computer technology have had a major impact on the creation, processing, and storage of statistical information, and on the method ology of economic research itself. The availability of large sets of micro-data and the ability to utilize them in simulation models has made new types of analysis possible. Although there is some reference to the computer in terms of the problems of privacy and confidentiality, little consideration was given to this important topic in terms of its impact on the development of the statistical system, its implications for statistical organization, and its consequences for data delivery. Perhaps there should be a Presidential Commission on this topic. C. LOWELL HARRISS Setting National Priorities: The 1973 Budget. By Charles L. Schultze, Edward R. Fried, Alice M. Rivlin, and Nancy H. Teeters. Washington, The Brookings Institution, 1972. 468 pp. $8.95, cloth; $3.50, paper. The present size of Federal spending (almost $1,200 per capita, $4,800 for a family of four), the growth of expenditure (from $112 billion in 1963 to $256 billion in 1973), and strongly supported proposals for new undertakings of major significance —such factors make serious study of Federal finances a matter of profound significance. This volume, the third in what we can hope will continue as an annual series, deserves wide attention. The authors and their supporting staff (and all that goes into rapid production of a volume of this size, including its 98 tables) have given us a most timely analysis— or set of analyses. The volume bears directly upon issues on which Congress may act in 1972 and 1973. More generally, however, “final” decisions will await later action. The scholarly, nonpartisan, and searching substance of these chapters ought to help raise the level of political discussion, so often superficial and even irresponsible. An initial overview sketches a brief history, gives highlights of the budget proposals of January 1972, and indicates what to expect in the remainder of the volume. Four chapters then deal with foreign policy and national security. They recognize the need for “building systematic relationships between military forces and national security interests” (p. 25). This section draws upon exhaustive studies of basic choices—not only for the coming year but for a much longer period. Alternatives are “priced”— seven for strategic forces, four each for navy general C. Lowell Harriss is professor of economics, Columbia University. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Setting national priorities: the 1973 budget —a review essay purpose forces, tactical air forces, and so on. The dollar costs of military manpower are rising rapidly even as the number in service go down, because pay and benefits have gone up substantially, and pension costs mount. The reader can gain insight into at least some of the more difficult aspects of U.S. participa tion on an international scene of uncertainty, of change, of both promise and danger. He can learn about some of the complex issues of the various aspects of the defense organization at a time when weapons are incredibly destructive, increasingly pow erful, and frightfully expensive. I found all the 150 pages dealing with foreign policy and national security both illuminating and sobering. The economic portions about which I might claim some qualifications for judgment rate high and inspire confidence in the rest. But the authors do not pretend to give “the” answers. What with the needs for secrecy, the crucial role of as yet untested tech nology, the long lead-times, and the uncertainty of reactions of potential enemies, the layman— and the typical member of Congress— must take risks. Yet even some of the more expensive alternatives, which presumably involve less risk, would not require the outlays to make defense the chief demander of funds that was the case in the years before Vietnam fight ing. Six chapters deal with selected topics of domestic spending— income support, health insurance, child care, fiscal problems of cities, education, and the en vironment. The authors make efforts, which I rate as successful, to be objective. Even more obviously and more important, they present solid evidence where it is available— and raise questions, lots of questions. Time after time a series of queries leaves no doubt that further evidence and analysis are needed before policy decisions are made. In some cases, perhaps, experiments can serve. But, for each of the six problems examined, the complexities, the complications, the uncertainties, 33 34 the interrelations— and especially in this huge coun try, the diversity— call for more knowledge. Good intentions are net enough. The fervor of advocacy, and on occasion the confidence which results from ignorance, have misled us in the past. A law with a fine title cannot assure the results implied. There must be more— funds, competent people, and knowl edge of how to get human beings to change their ways of acting. Deficiencies of knowledge Moreover, as the authors show more than once, because the problems are so complex and so im portant we cannot know in advance the results of major undertakings. These excellent discussions do, in a sense, have a deficiency which is inevitable in the present state of our knowledge. What would be the effects of, say, one or two of the major programs on others and on the numerous aspects of Federal policy not examined in this volume? Over the years my teaching and other work have made me somewhat familiar with several aspects of Federal spending. But today no one person can possi bly be confident of the quality of accomplishments, relative to costs, of the widely varied programs. He certainly cannot keep abreast of the changes pro posed, on the scale and with the ambitions which now receive serious attention. Advocates with the best of intentions can speak with confidence that may inspire assurance. But the analyses of this volume show, among other things, that each of the problems results from several causes, that the hope for “solu tions” must be tempered by the fact that conflicts of objectives are inescapable. Moreover, the means available are inadequate, not only the dollars but also the skills and other real resources, including knowledge of how people will respond. The excellent chapters on income maintenance and health care (prepared with Karen Davis) com pare various proposals, including those of the present Administration. The authors conclude in each case (p. 211 and p. 250) with what they believe are “gen eral directions.” Included among proposals are (1) a negative income tax and (2) the expansion of health insurance with Government assistance to “meet even the normal cost of adequate medical care” for the poor and provision of aid for middle-income families in meeting “abnormally high medical costs that ac company prolonged illness.” Medical aid plans must seek deliberately to check “the escalation of medical prices and excessive use of services.” https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 The chapter on the problems of cities (prepared with the help of Robert Reischauer) explores the problems and possibilities of reducing the growth of expenditures, raising of revenues through local (in cluding suburban) and State means, and Federal assistance. Inflation “was probably the most import ant factor” in the growth of spending. “By any measure, the recent rise in the compensation of local government employees has been spectacular” (p. 296). Tax resources in some cities are utilized to the point of endangering significantly the economic base. In other cases, however, the city would seem to have capacity for doing more on its own— except that the authors generally favor means, including federally inspired incentives, to attack the problems on a met ropolitan area basis, plus Federal aid. The Adminis tration’s (1971) proposal for “an urban community development revenue sharing program” consolidating a variety of existing programs would not provide much more for large cities. General revenue sharing can help— except that the dollars must come from someone. Federal assumption of more of the costs of welfare would not help most large cities much be cause they, as local governments, are not now re sponsible for financing aid to the poor. “The basic choice that the Federal Government now faces is whether to enlist the cooperation of the States and suburbs in improving the condition of the cities or to face the problem alone” (p. 317). The search for improvements in productivity of local employees de serves unending effort but cannot, realistically, be expected to help greatly from 1 year to the next. The 48-page chapter on education (prepared with Reischauer and Robert W. Hartman) draws upon the work of recent commissions and various other sources. The discussions of fiscal issues, the prop erty tax, local control, inequality, court cases, race, poverty, and conflicting objectives, each includes examination of possible alternatives. The authors summarize the discouraging but challenging findings about the inadequacy of present knowledge concern ing the effectiveness of methods and especially of the means for enhancing the fruitfulness of expenditures of money and effect. HEW and National Education Association data are tabulated (p. 365) to show, for six programs for aid to education, those States that would gain most per pupil and those benefiting least. The differences are striking. New York would be in the top 5 for two programs, in the bottom 5 for one. Mississippi would be two and two. Ohio and Michigan would be in neither. SETTING NATIONAL PRIORITIES-THE 1973 BUDGET 35 Looking ahead to 1975 and 1977, “full employ ment revenues under existing tax laws may not be large enough to match projected expenditures under current programs and policies” (p. 420). Yet major new programs involving large additional outlays are being pressed. Even the adoption of lower military outlays than sketched earlier would not “free up” amounts one-third as large as involved in serious proposals for property tax relief, educational equali zation, pollution control, day care, and “moderate” expansion of health care. One paragraph (p. 421) refers to the two prior volumes in the series with discussions of “Federal expenditures . . . yielding only marginal national benefits.” “. . . unsuccessful experience of several administrations . . . does not warrant optimism about The burgeoning Federal budget the possibility of realizing substantial budgetary sav A few of the wealth of figures given will suggest ings.” Rationally, I cannot deny the validity of this the chief answer to the title of chapter 12, What conclusion. Yet, intuitively, I wonder— has there Happened to the Fiscal Dividend? In the period really been determination, sincere effort to enlist 1960-65, (1) real (2) civilian (3) outlays (4) per public support? capita rose 4.1 percent a year. In the period 1970-73 New expenditure programs to be financed without —again excluding defense, allowing for inflation, and the risk of aggravating inflation will call for more adjusting for population growth—the annual rise was revenue than the present system will yield. Chapter 9.0 percent (p. 399). We got a lot of “dividend,” 14 (prepared with help of Joseph A. Pechman and apparently, in more and better Federal services and Benjamin A. Okner) can hardly in 25 pages do jus aid to State-local governments. But did we not also tice to either the importance of the subject or the receive tax reductions? Yes—but! In 1973 taxes paid authors’ very extensive work. In discussing criteria to Uncle Sam as a percentage of GNP are greater for evaluating alternative taxes, for example, they than those of 1963— 19.5 percent vs. 19.3 percent. cannot give the attention which I would urge to the Payroll taxes almost quadrupled in dollar amount effects of high tax rates on economic progress. (High and nearly doubled as a percentage of GNP. levels of taxes might well be treated more explicitly In accounting for the growth in Federal spending, as sources of apparent need for Government spend the authors would find much company in the writ ing, for example, the extent to which Federal taxes— ings with which I am familiar for their assertion over $4,400 in 1973 for an “average” family of (p. 408), “The people of the United States have four— creates distress, dissatisfaction, and inability come increasingly to believe. . . .” Yet for my part to do more privately.) The authors show the effects I often wonder. What people? How often is it the by income class of structural reforms (loophole clos aspirant for elected office? Or the representative of ing), and various alternatives for raising personal this or that rather limited set of interests? Or the income taxes. official who seeks to disguise and shift a cost—the We know less than we should like about the effects mayor or governor who urges Federal revenue sharing of alternative taxes (rates and structures) upon pro when the benefits to his community will almost cer ductivity and the success of the economy. But the tainly be less than the probable outpayment in taxes? passing references (p. 425) scarcely do justice to the Or the civil servant, now able to press for compensa subject. Earlier I questioned, by implication, whether tion increases (including pensions) greater than those “the public” really wants so much spending growth of the rest of the country? The extent to which there as often urged. But I submit that no one can ques is a true “public” desire for more spending is per tion that the American people expect (not merely haps irrelevant, if only because the pressures are real “want” ) a level of living which requires large growth even if they come from minorities. And we can ex in the capital base. Some tax systems will have pect them to continue when programs are not “price greater effects than others upon saving and capital tagged” in terms of taxes as realistic alternatives. formation. The chapter here does not, in my view, Chapter 11 (prepared with the aid of Ivars Gutmanis) emphasizes, among other things, that in deal ing with environmental problems the Federal Gov ernment will properly have a major role. This role, however, should be not so much budgetary as through regulations which will modify actions in the private and State-local sectors. How? The limitations of administrative capacity to regulate, for example, 40.000 industrial plants under one proposal, lead the authors to endorse the development of incentives, such as effluent charges. I commend this discussion (385 ff.) for its use of economic analysis and realistic appraisal of the administrative ability of govern mental (political) institutions. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 36 introduce this aspect of tax alternatives adequately. In discussing the possible role of a Federal tax on value added to replace some of the property tax, the authors make a valuable and original contribution (p. 445) in estimating the incidence of property tax ation on two alternative assumptions. One assumes that the tax on improvements rests on capital; then considerable, but not smooth, progression is found. But if this portion rests on renters and consumers, there is considerable regressivity under $5,000 and essential proportionality in the ranges which include most of the public. The authors emphasize, among other things, that because property taxation differs widely over the country, “efficient” Federal action can hardly be expected. One cumulative impression of the volume is that apparent aspirations call for an ever more produc tive economy. A bigger pie, certainly, whatever the hope for advancing the “greatest good for the great est number” through redistribution! Tax policy, I suggest, should be examined relatively more from the point of view of the effects on the growth of real output (defined most accurately). ‘What’ — ‘how much’— ‘how’ One central conclusion of the excellent conclud ing chapter, A New Approach to Priorities, emerges from a brief glance backward in time: from decisions about “what objectives” to seek and “how much money” to spend, we have come to a vastly more difficult aspect— “how.” New programs on which we set high hopes require that people change their ways of doing things. “Many of the newer programs sought to change fundamental behavior patterns of individuals and institutions” (p. 453). But there has been disappointment and more failure than perhaps any of us sense, especially if we try to compare achievements with costs. And costs, we must never forget, are the alternatives which taxes, open and hidden, force us to sacrifice, including the “excess burdens” of distortions and misallocations. As shortfalls of accomplishments became evident, various approaches were proposed— “tighter Federal regulation,” “coordination,” “decentralization of de cisionmaking,” “spend more,” and “spend less.” These are “unlikely to lead to a workable new strat egy” (p. 455). How would the authors propose that we proceed? First, they identify three activities for which Federal action is most appropriate— (1) research, demon https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 stration, experimentation, and dissemination of in formation; (2) regulation and inspection of national industries; and (3) redistribution of resources through taxation and subsidy. Each is discussed briefly. Re distribution presents problems which are involved in the implementation of programs discussed in earlier chapters and in the two earlier volumes. To change behavior, and that is the essence of many of the new undertakings being urged upon us, the authors prefer the structuring of incentives over efforts at regulation. Illustrations are drawn from the discussions of “pollution control, ensuring that welfare recipients who can work do so, and con trolling medical costs and quality” (p. 458). Better arrangements than now exist are indicated. But con flicts of objectives are real and must be faced forth rightly, albeit with knowledge which is inadequate. To improve knowledge of how best to proceed, the authors suggest more experimentation. “In many areas of social policy, no one really knows which techniques or approaches are successful and which are not” (p. 463). For reasons which one can under stand, the authors do not mention tax reduction as a possibility. Is it not, however, worth serious consid eration as we think about the actual operations of the functioning of the political process—elections, Congressional decisionmaking, the performance of the civil service? Finally, “the annual budget process is increasingly ill suited to the intelligent setting of national priori ties” (p. 464). Five pages summarize weaknesses, which are serious but to some extent needless. Six suggestions are designed to provide better means for examining the major choices in longer perspective— 5 years in some cases, 3 in others, year by year in some. But always, authorization (substantive) and appropriation legislation should give explicit recog nition of the longer run effects. No r e v i e w can do justice to this volume, tightly written and full of facts, as it deals with widely di versified subjects. Each of the two prior volumes made valuable contributions. (My students have re acted favorably to assigned readings even though aware that much of the specific material would soon become somewhat out of date.) This third deserves careful attention, not least because of the questions it raises without claiming to answer. The “public business” has become big business for every one of us, collectively and individually. Reality cannot compete with dreams, at least not 37 SETTING NATIONAL PRIORITIES-THE 1973 BUDGET “fairly.” How tempting to romanticize about the possibility of improving our lot, or that of others for whom we seek better things, by governmental policy. Mr. Dooley made a point that this volume brings to mind when he said, “A man that’d expect to train lobsters to fly in a year is called a lunatic; but a man that thinks men can be turned into angels by an elec tion is called a reformer and remains at large.” One issue which the authors do not examine as such— they set themselves a different goal— also war rants attention. What is the cumulative result of the expansion and the extension of the political process through expenditure and taxation? As one after an other program has been added— and not always with the specific results expected from it alone— what im provement has there been in the total performance of government? What deterioration? In our proper concern for the “quality” of life, how does the cumu lative increase of the influence of political processes affect our well-being— and what does it portend for our children? “Government,” wrote Alfred Marshall, “is the most precious of human possessions; and no care can be too great to be spent on enabling it to do its work in the best way: a chief condition to that end is that it should not be set to work for which it is not specially qualified, under the conditions of time and place.” □ Changing people— an impossible feat? The prevalent approach in the treatment of our numerous and still-multiplying social problems is . . . the assumption that, if you go out there and get the message across—persuade, propagandize, explain— people will change, that human beings are, ultimately, quite pliable. Both political lead ers and the general public believe that advertising is powerful, that information campaigns work, and that an army of educators, counselors, or re habilitation workers can achieve everything if they are sufficiently numerous,-well trained and richly endowed. . . . Mature people can be taught many things— speed reading, belly dancing, SerboCroatian—usually with more cost, sweat, time, and energy than most beginning pupils suspect. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis When we turn, though, to the modification of ingrown habits, of basic values, of personality traits, or of other deep-seated matters, the impact is much less noticeable. What is becoming increas ingly apparent is that to solve social problems by changing people is more expensive and usually less productive than approaches that accept people as they are and seek to mend not them but the circumstances around them. — A m it a i E t z io n i , “Human Beings Are Not Very Easy to Change After A ll,” Saturday Review, June 3, 1972. Results of the 1972 International Labor Conference A p p a r e n t in the Fifty-Seventh International Labor Conference held last June in Geneva, Switzerland, was the continuing impetus of the reaffirmation of tripartism at last year’s conference.1 The Interna tional Labor Organization’s definitive characteristic of tripartism is viewed as the structural bulwark for the organization’s goals of freedom and improved status for the world’s workers and their dependents. In the spirit of the meeting, there was the continued effort of the President of the Conference to maintain relevancy in any political references in the plenary session discussions of the Director General’s report. When discussions of non-ILO related political issues (e.g., Vietnam, Middle East) exceeded relevancy, the President actively and forcefully required ad herence to the standing orders of the Conference. Concentration on the subject matter of the Con ference as set forth in the Conference agenda was assisted greatly by two factors, despite the efforts of those delegates who sought to raise constitutional and procedural issues on the President’s rulings. The first was the action of the United States in meeting part of its back payments which had not been made since 1971. The second factor was the nondiscussion of the issue of altering the structure of the ILO, agreed to at last year’s Conference, except for action on a constitutional amendment to increase the size of the Governing Body. Technology and its impact, as well as the social repercussions of automation, both generally and with specific reference to dock labor, were the leading technical themes of the Conference. Also under con sideration was the updating of existing ILO conven tions on the minimum age for entry into employment. Joseph P. Goldberg, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics, attended the 57th International Labor Conference as Adviser on the U.S. Government Dele gation and as Reporter of the Conference Committee on Dock Labor. 38 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Technological change and adherence to relevancy stressed JOSEPH P. GOLDBERG Concern with basic ILO goals was reinforced also in the preparatory work for the Conference by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Con ventions and Recommendations, and its use by the Conference committee. The Conference gave especial attention to the committee’s reports on such funda mental instruments as those relating to forced labor and discrimination in employment. Efforts to estab lish dual standards based on differences in social sys tems failed again this year. A discussion of the sub mission of ILO instruments to the “competent authorities” was particularly applicable to several Soviet bloc members, with the question of the re spective roles of the executive and legislative author ities discussed at length. One hundred nineteen nations were in attendance. Bangladesh (admitted by Conference action), Quatar, and the United Arab Emirates were repre sented for the first time. The Conference heard ad dresses by Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi Aryamehr, Shahanshah of Iran; Rudolph A. Peterson, Admin istrator of the United Nations Development Pro gram; and Perez Guerrero, Secretary General of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Develop ment. The U.S. Delegation was fully and actively repre sented in all the phases of the Conference. The U.S. Government Delegate supported the efforts of the President to enforce the standing rules, as did the U.S. Worker and Employer Delegates. The discus sion of the Director General’s report by the three delegates, particularly their observations on multi national business enterprises, provided an object les son in the autonomy of employers and workers in democratic nations. The U.S. Government delegation was led by Ed ward B. Persons, Associate Deputy Under Secretary for International Affairs, Department of Labor, and U.S. Government substitute representative in the ILO Governing Body. Daniel L. Horowitz, Special RESULTS OF 1972 INTERNATIONAL LABOR CONFERENCE 39 selves to deal effectively with the immense social problems which are the corollary of the immense benefits of modern technology,” the report acknowledged that although the response would vary with the social, economic, and cultural frame work of each society, it must be universal. Action to cope with growing “bigness” is imperative. Urban concentration, industrial concentration—in domes tic and in multinational enterprise— and the growth of the role and powers of governments in economic and social affairs raise the problem of balance be tween public control and exercise of the popular will. “In centrally planned economies the problem takes a different form but the difficulties of meeting changing aspirations, controlling and assessing tech Conference officers nology, and allocating priorities and resources among G. M. J. Veldkamp, former Netherlands Minister sectors of production and consumption are acute,” of Social Affairs and Health, was unanimously the Director General said. elected President of the Conference. Vice Presidents Efficiency resulting from the great capacities of elected for the three groups were V. N. Martynenko, computers for data storing and analysis also spells government delegate of the Ukrainian S.S.R., M. the danger of intrusion into privacy, a threat to per Ghayour, employer delegate of Iran, and R. Faupl, sonal freedom. Gains in productivity, improved U.S. worker delegate. earnings, elimination of arduous and hazardous The election of Messrs. Veldkamp and Faupl had tasks, and the changed composition of the labor a special significance in view of the events at the force have accompanied technological advance, but 1966 International Labor Conference. Then, Veld there are also growing indications of alienation and kamp was defeated by one vote in the election of the dissatisfaction at work. The Director General Conference President, with the resultant election of stressed the role of employers and workers as “part the government delegate of Poland. The U.S. work ners in society.” ers’ delegation, led by Mr. Faupl, then withdrew For developing countries, “technological innova from the Conference.2 tion, potentially a great equalizer, has accentuated many existing inequalities and created new ones.” Technology for freedom Machines have been substituted for men in situations where the labor supply was more than ample but The Director General’s report, “Technology for capital was in short supply. New and more selective Freedom,” was a wide-ranging and provocative approaches are needed to adapt technological in statement of the impact of technological advance on novations to the circumstances of developing coun human ecology, the structure of society, personal tries, with accompanying efforts at social and institu freedom, daily work, the role of workers and em tional innovation equally necessary for societal ad ployers, and the impact and prospects for developing justment. countries. The report warned of the existence of a In concluding, the report emphasized that “none “global crisis” resulting from both the opportunities of the major issues to which technology gives rise and the problems created by technological advance. can be effectively tackled without the enlightened, Social development requires that the forces of eco informed and responsible participation and involve nomic growth and technological innovation be ment of employers and workers.” Democratic con intimately related. They must be reconciled with trol, personal freedom, and constructive policy for protection of the environment, hence new approaches technology require their association and involvement. to social and economic policy are needed. Govern The report ended with the question: “Is the ILO, the ments, trade unions, and employers are assuming in only world organization in which representatives of creasingly broad responsibilities for environmental employers and workers enjoy equal status with those conditions. Asking whether we are “equipping our of governments, not in a unique position to make a Assistant to the Secretary of State and Co-ordinator of International Labor Affairs in the Department of State, was the second government delegate. Repre sentatives John N. Erlenborn, Frank Thompson, Jr., and Marvin Esch attended as congressional observ ers. Rudolph Faupl, international representative of the International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, led the worker delegation, and Edward P. Neilan, director of Chanslor Western Oil and Development Company, headed the employer delegation. Both were reelected to membership on the ILO Governing Body. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 40 unique contribution to the formulation of such a policy on the global level?”— a policy to assist initia tives and to provide guidelines for action of indi vidual nations. The debate on the report, in which 236 speakers participated, was marked by the President’s emphasis on relevancy. Political remarks of delegates from Soviet bloc countries were generally circumspect, and political observations by other speakers going beyond ILO concerns and the subjects developed by the Director General in his report were relatively few. Statements by representatives of Cuba and the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen, met by the President’s assertion of responsibility for main taining the relevancy of their debate, as well as by points of order from the floor, produced an effort to challenge the President’s decisions.3 Commenting on the role of the President, Mr. Faupl in his closing statement as worker vice president referred to Mr. Veldkamp’s record as “champion of freedom and democracy” in seeking to ensure that the require ments for these ideals were met in the conduct of the Conference. Congratulating him on embodying “the genuine spirit of the Conference,” Mr. Faupl stated, “May the future Presidents of the Conference be imbued with the same spirit and endowed with the same will and quiet courage to make it prevail.” Mr. Veldkamp, among other observations, left his own impressions of the debate on the report for future consideration. He indicated that his experience in listening to the debates on the report in the plenary session raised doubts for him about the procedure " —''ently followed, particularly when statements were given in a virtually empty hall. He suggested consideration of a procedure whereby the report could be considered by a special committee, which would submit its report to the plenary sitting. As usual, the report provided primarily a basis for describing developments in individual nations. The role of foreign investment in technological develop ment was commented on favorably by representa tives of a number of developing countries. Soviet bloc spokesmen generally criticized the report on the basis that it erroneously attributed all social short comings to technology, and that the crisis was uni versal. In their view, no consideration had been given to the influences of the structure, aims, and principles of the individual countries as explanation for their social problems. While claiming greater ef ficacy for the socialist societies, even the U.S.S.R. Government representative acknowledged the pres https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 ence in his country of complicated problems, includ ing geographic imbalances of manpower, imbalances between youthful vocational aspirations and actual job opportunities, and the need for environmental protection. He went on to cite “certain trends and a number of positive changes in the international sit uation” as evidence that countries with different social and political systems are capable of interna tional collaboration. The observations of the spokesmen for the three sides of the U.S. delegation on the Director General’s report put forth a variety of views and positions, par ticularly as regards multinational corporations. The discussion of multinational corporations was only a preliminary one since the ILO has convened a tri partite meeting, to be held in October, on the rela tionship between multinational corporations and social policy, and the appropriate role of the ILO. In Mr. Persons’ view, “the sweeping general analysis of the ills besetting mankind” in the Director General’s report, “carries us far beyond ILO respon sibility and diverts our attention from those prob lems concerning which the ILO can be useful.” He saw the need, instead “to focus on the mundane but still essential tasks of looking for feasible solutions of the workplace and of industrial relations, and of setting priorities for effective ILO work.” Budget constraints in the foreseeable future would not permit implementation of a program based on this “vision of breathtaking sweep and boldness.” What is needed is a realistic assessment of resources in those estab lished ILO programs where further work can be done, particularly in assisting developing countries. Mr. Persons felt that the report was inconsistent and unbalanced in placing too much emphasis on the role of government while decrying its bigness. Rather solutions should be sought through more emphasis on “intermediary organizations” of society. The pro ducing corporation, socially valuable and irreplace able, has grown large because it has proven to be more efficient; and its output per unit of input has increased, thus enlarging social production and im proving the standard of living of working people. Its role also requires “genuinely independent trade unions to protect workers’ interests, regulatory legis lation to prevent excesses, and adequate competition to stimulate efficient management.” Regarding in creased centralization of political power as the sole remedy for the problems cited in the report, Mr. Persons referred to the U.S. tradition, that of “politi cal federalism and the decentralized competitive RESULTS OF 1972 INTERNATIONAL LABOR CONFERENCE economy.” While agreeing with the report’s reference to “market failure’-namely, the negative external costs of technology, and failure of the market to call forth the production of certain public goods— and the report’s recognition of a governmental role in meeting these problems, he stated that it was a ques tion of the appropriate method of intervention. Rather than assigning or transferring production ac tivity to the government, Mr. Persons stated, it is better to adopt “skillfully designed systems of taxes and subsidies which can modify both the allocation of resources and the distribution of income.” While questioning the role of the ILO in the broad areas of environmental protection, he called attention to the role of Federal, State, and local governments and private industries in the United States in seeking to meet the problem. Mr. Neilan found the report to be generally neg ative in its approach to the problems set forth. In the absence of priorities and the presence of a multitude of questions, he found “a conglomerate of fine words without correlating the numerous questions raised” frustrating efforts to make constructive contributions and suggestions. He pointed out that worldwide practical experience did not support the strong im plication in the report that multinational corporations can nullify the policies of governments and orga nizations for regional cooperation. Rather, “today’s multinational corporation, with very few exceptions, exists as a good citizen trying to participate as a partner in the social and economic development of the country or countries in which it operates.” He cited a U.S. study reporting that U.S. multinationals increased U.S. domestic employment by 31 percent from 1960 to 1970, more than twice the increase in the national employment average; increased exports by 180 percent, more than three times the national average; and imported less than 10 percent of their foreign production (2 percent, if automobiles and Canadian imports are excluded). Elsewhere, there were further benefits. A study showed that in Latin America between 1957-66, Latin Americans em ployed by U.S. multinational companies increased by 50 percent, to 1,230,000. These included 40,000 in senior management posts, and more than 100,000 in highly specialized and technical positions. Another study had shown that in Belgium, U.S. multinational corporations in 1958-68 “led other firms in means of production, did the most research in Belgium, and employed the highest number of Belgian officials, in contrast to other multinationals, which mainly bring https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 41 such officials from their home nations.” Rather than restraining freedom, Mr. Neilan viewed the growth of freedom in the last century as a byproduct of technical advance. He held that in sufficient attention had been given to the role of worker and employer associations and their already manifest awareness “of the need to accept their responsibilities as partners, in working out a viable and improving social structure. This partnership must exist if the world is to reap the benefits of im proved technology, and the ILO should point to the successes rather than the failures.” Speaking for the U.S. worker delegation, Bert Seidman found a crucially important theme in the report that “the fact that a particular change seems to offer a net gain to society as a whole is no reason to ignore those who may be adversely affected by that change.” Excessive harm may warrant slowing down, postponing, or even discarding the change. In the United States, he said, “the trade union move ment has insisted that technological progress must not be permitted to exact a price of massive unem ployment, hardship, and suffering.” He cited the role of collective bargaining in the United States on adjustments to automation, with provisions (such as an advance notice and attrition) in many contracts aimed at controlling the speed and scope of tech nological change. The most beneficial environment to such adjustment is a full employment economy. He emphasized the importance of the workplace en vironment as the appropriate ILO concern, and cited the AFL-CIO’s role in the enactment of a na tional occupational safety and health law. Commenting on multinational corporations, Mr. Seidman stated that “there is no more powerful agent today for the international transfer of tech nology than the multinational corporation.” He cited intracorporate transactions of multinationals as ac counting for “at least 25 percent of what official sta tistics designate as U.S. exports and imports,” with an additional 25 percent between “U.S.-based multi nationals and their foreign licensees and other foreign firms with which they have patent and joint venture arrangements.” To these he attributed “the annual loss of scores of thousands of jobs in many indus tries” affecting all job levels and both small and large cities. He agreed with the influence attributed in the report to multinationals, and commended the ILO for the work started in examining the impact of multi nationals. “The ILO must play a major role in de veloping practical and effective measures to deal 42 with this problem. The American trade union move ment is ready to cooperate fully in this effort.” He stressed the need for continuing and expanding the activities of the ILO Industrial Committees, citing their past work in bringing both the question of multinational corporations and of automation to the fore, and the participation of U.S. trade unionists in these activities for many years. Budget The ILO biennial budget and program having been considered last year, only immediate contingencies were under consideration. The matter of U.S. pay ment of its contributions, which involved arrears from mid-1970, has figured prominently in the finan cial affairs of the ILO during the past 2 years. The U.S. contribution represents 25 percent of the ILO budget. The result had been a curtailment of ILO programs, reduction of planned meetings, and non appointment to vacant staff positions. Congress acted on a supplementary appropriations bill in May to appropriate $7,692,583 in payment of arrears for the remainder of 1970 and the first half of 1971, and President Nixon signed the bill on May 27. This eased the immediate financial situation, and the Di rector General withdrew a proposal for an additional assessment of $4,750,000 in 1973 to meet the in creased expenditures arising from the changes in the relative value of different currencies which occurred since original budget estimates were approved in March 1971.4 Commenting on the U.S. action for payment of the arrears, Mr. Seidman indicated that the A FLCIO had never supported nonpayment despite its strong criticism of recent tendencies in the ILO. While listing developments counterbalancing the de velopments in previous conferences, he stated frankly that “the decision to pay these funds has not set at rest the doubts the AFL-CIO and others in the United States have had about whether the ILO is still committed unreservedly to defending the freedom and safeguarding the welfare of workers all over the world.” ILO structure The continuing and intense discussion of the thorny questions of increasing representation in or altering the structure of the ILO was eased some what for this session by the decision at last year’s https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 Conference to leave most of these matters to the 1973 Conference. Only the question of revision of the ILO constitution to increase the size of the Gov erning Body was considered. By a vote of 371, none against and 2 abstensions, the Conference adopted a proposed instrument, subject to ratification by governments, proposing to increase the size of the Governing Body to 56 from 48, with government representation increased to 28 from 24, and worker and employer representations each to 14 from 12. R. Ago, government delegate of Italy and chairman of the Conference Committee, reported that some in the committee felt this was as far as constitutional re vision should go, while others held that it was only the first step. In his view, the proposed amendment would restore the proportion between Governing Body and the expanded ILO membership; and would also permit better representation “not only to geo graphical regions but to the various systems and tendencies which today have divided the world into different sectors.” He indicated the committee had heard the same arguments on structure that had been heard on previous occasions, and that undoubt edly will be heard in the future. That structural change remains a live issue was apparent from observations made on the amendment and on the elections to the Governing Body held during the Conference. The U.S.S.R. and Cuban Government delegates contended that this revision should have permitted “better representation of dif ferent regions and different tendencies in the three groups.” They were particularly irked by the failure of employer representatives from the Soviet bloc to win election to the employers’ group on the Govern ing Body. S. Koku, government delegate of Nigeria, speaking for the African group, indicated that the group in voting for the proposed amendment had not abandoned its efforts for further reform of the ILO structure “in order to remove the elements of dis crimination, injustice and privilege, now inherent in the obligatory reservation of 10 permanent seats in the Governing Body for the so-called States of chief industrial importance.” 5 The U.S. Government delegates abstained from voting on the proposed amendments, on the basis, first, that the resultant size of the Governing Body, with 56 members and the additional deputy members, would make for an unwieldy directing group re quiring the establishment of an executive committee or some other means to permit effective operation. Mr. Persons said, further, that the intent stated by RESULTS OF 1972 INTERNATIONAL LABOR CONFERENCE some of those supporting the amendment to impose geographical and other requirements on the three groups would undermine the autonomy of the groups. To the contrary, the U.S. Government under stood that it was not the purpose of the amendment to change the tripartite character of the ILO. To charges of the Bulgarian and Polish employer delegates that the representatives of the em ployers’ group represent only private capital, Mr. Neilan replied that the 24 titular and deputy em ployer members elected to the Governing Body “really represent a worldwide group of socialized, nationalized and semiprivate and private businesses and organizations. They are not elected by country or region but by name to represent the common in terests of all employers, regardless of the system in which they operate.” To claims that the “socialist employers” have sought to cooperate with the mem bers of the employers’ group, he observed that the small group of “socialist employers” have consistently voted against the employers’ interests “in group meetings, in committee meetings and whenever the group supported a matter in a Conference Commit tee, or in this Conference itself.” Application of conventions The review of the reports of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations was a highlight of the Conference’s deliberations again this year, following the renewed attention to Soviet bloc countries at the Conference last year. The Committee of Experts has held 42 meetings over the years to examine the information and reports submitted by State members with regard to the action taken on conventions and recommenda tions under the ILO constitution. The 18 members of the committee are distinguished jurists. Mr. Earl Warren, former Chief Justice of the United States, participated for the first time this year.6 The committee emphasized that the numerous in stances of positive action to enforce ILO instruments should not be obscured by its findings regarding sit uations where difficulties were encountered in apply ing ratified conventions or in bringing instruments adopted by the International Labor Conference be fore the competent legislative authorities. It called attention to the numerous instances in which law or practice of many countries have been changed on the basis of past observations or direct requests concern ing ratified conventions. The committee also referred https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 43 to numerous instances where governments have adopted measures in relation to an instrument even if it is not ratified; and where steps taken to comply with a convention serve as a catalyst for additional measures exceeding the convention’s requirements. Developing countries have figured prominently in these positive achievements. The Committee of Experts noted that in 1973 it will be called upon to conduct a comprehensive sur vey of the effect given by all ILO member states to the Freedom of Association Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organize and Collective Bar gaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). Its report con tained observations regarding the adequacy of the information furnished by individual governments, and questions regarding adherence in law or practice to ratified conventions.7 The report contained a sep arate discussion regarding the “nature of the competent authority” to whom all instruments adopted by the Conference—both conventions and recommendations— are to be submitted. The Com mittee of Experts was of the opinion that instruments were to be submitted to legislative bodies. But it pointed out that some governments have taken the position that the authority with the power to ratify (the head of the executive branch) is the competent authority to which instruments adopted by the Con ference should be submitted. The committee called on governments to “submit to the legislative author ity both Conventions and Recommendations, it being clearly understood that governments are free to pro pose what action should be taken in each instru ment.” On specific countries, the report noted that instruments had been submitted to the Presidium of the Supreme Soviets of Byelorussia, Ukraine, and the U.S.S.R., to the Presidium of the National As sembly of Bulgaria, and to the Presidential Council of Hungary, and reiterated its hope that these gov ernments will find it possible to communicate these instruments to the Supreme Soviets or national as semblies. At the Conference Committee, among other mat ters, there was a lengthy discussion of the question of submission to the competent authority. The ex tensive arguments regarding the characteristics of the Soviet constitutional system and the opposite view that a single standard should apply were referred to the Experts Committee for further consideration. With regard to the instances of special problems or difficulties on ratified conventions, the Conference Committee listed specifically the following as in- 44 stances of continued failure to implement the con ventions concerned: Greece (Convention 87, Free dom of Association, and Convention 98, Right to Organize) ; and Upper Volta (Convention 29, Forced Labor). Other countries were listed as having failed to provide certain information. In the case of Czecho slovakia, which had been listed specifically last year in regard to the need to achieve conformity with the Convention on Discrimination (No. I l l ) , its gov ernment representative reported that his government was proceeding with the revision of its labor code, and gave his assurance that the revised code would conform to the provisions of the convention. This will be reviewed at next year’s conference. The Conference Committee limited its discussion of the freedom of association conventions (Nos. 87 and 98) in view of the general survey to be under taken in 1973. It discussed additional ways recom mended by the Experts to promote international labor standards and their implementation. It wel comed the resumption of regional seminars for min istry of labor officials to promote better understand ing and functioning of ILO procedures relating to international standards. The direct contacts proce dure for ILO aid to countries in effectuating the terms of conventions was endorsed, with the under standing that these should include contacts with employers’ and workers’ organizations, as well as with governments of the countries concerned. The need for more explicit rules on direct contacts was ex pressed, and the Committee of Experts was requested to develop them. Additional avenues for promoting tripartism in regard to the implementation of inter national labor standards were suggested, including seminars for members of workers’ organizations and more extensive publicity among workers and em ployers. Technical items The work of the three technical committees of the Conference, as usual, produced important results. It is in these committees that the tripartite structure of the ILO achieves fullest fruition, with close attention being paid to the specialized matters under consid eration by government, worker, and employer mem bers, who are specialists in the fields under consid eration. The Conference adopted a resolution entitled “Labor and Social Implications of Automation and Other Technological Developments,” setting forth https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 guiding principles and programs for governments, workers, and employers. Its operative terms cover labor-management relations, calling for tripartite consultation to examine the new technology, and for devising programs to protect workers against harm ful social effects of technological change. The resolu tion was adopted by a vote of 225 in favor, 0 against, and 10 abstentions. The employer vice chairman, while noting reservations on some provisions, indi cated that “there is a great deal that is good in this resolution” and recommended support. The subject of “Social Repercussions of New Methods of Cargo Handling (Docks)” was under first consideration, with further consideration to fol low next year if the first consideration resulted in decision to support the adoption of one or more in struments. The Conference Committee reached unanimous agreement on the terms of a recommenda tion, and a majority supported a convention as well, with the employers abstaining. In the plenary sitting, the vote on the majority recommendation for a con vention, supplemented by a recommendation, was supported by a vote of 182 for, 0 against, and 75 abstentions. (U.S. Government and worker delegates voted for, and the employer delegate abstained.) The terms of the two draft instruments are closely complementary. The convention contains general terms, with the recommendation including more spe cific terms. Aside from their applicability to dockworkers who are available regularly, with the work of cargo handling as the main source of their in come, the definition of “dockworkers” is left to na tional law and practice. Consultation with worker and employer organizations should be had on these definitions, under the terms of the instruments. The draft convention, in general terms, and the recom mendation, with more specific and comprehensive terms, contain provisions outlining the area of joint worker-employer consideration of the effects of new and changed methods of cargo handling in docks. These include consideration of present and antici pated changes, regularization of employment and in come, appropriate and constructive labor-manage ment relations, approaches to efficiency of work in ports, and arrangements for improving the dockworkers’ conditions of work. The “Minimum Age for Admission to Employ ment” instruments were also under first considera tion. The Committee report for a draft convention and recommendation to be considered at next year’s conference was adopted unanimously. The employer 45 RESULTS OF 1972 INTERNATIONAL LABOR CONFERENCE vice chairman of the committee, while indicating the employer group’s general support for the proposal, expressed reservations on the 18-year minimum for work of a hazardous nature (preferring 16 in the draft convention) and on the prohibition of overtime work, as well as the granting of 4-week holidays with pay for young workers and some other pro visions in the draft recommendation as “unrealistic and impractical.” The draft convention sets the age of completion of compulsory schooling or, in any case, 14 years of age as the minimum age for entry into employment, with 18 years as the minimum age for hazardous work. The recommendation sets 16 years as a social goal for progressive raising of the minimum entry age. Resolutions The Resolutions Committee, which had 27 resolu tions before it, was able to complete consideration of only 5 of these. The order of priority was determined by vote in the committee under the Standing Orders of the Conference. Four of the five resolutions were adopted without a formal vote. A resolution concerning the “Contribution of the International Labor Organization to the Protection and Enhancement of the Environment Related to Work” was adopted unanimously, although some reservations had been expressed in the committee regarding provisions viewed by some government and employer delegates as political concerns outside the sphere of competence of the ILO. The resolution places emphasis on the activities of the ILO related to the work environment, and calls for development of appropriate ILO programs. The resolution “Concerning the Program of In dustrial Activities” of the ILO called for priority to be given to this program. The “Conditions and Equality of Treatment of Migrant Workers” resolu tion reiterated the need for greater guarantees and assistance to migrant workers, and called for imple mentation of recommendations made at last year’s Conference, with the ILO to carry out several activ ities in this field, including consideration at an early session of the Conference. The resoultion concerning women workers called for the development by the ILO of a “coherent pro gram of activities designed to promote true equality of treatment and opportunity for women workers.” Suggested also was consideration of the subject of equality of treatment for women workers at an early session of the Conference. The fifth resolution, concerning the “Policy of Colonial Oppression, Racial Discrimination and Vio lation of Trade Union Rights Pursued by Portugal in Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea (Bissau)” was adopted by a vote of 211 for, 0 against, and 84 abstentions. The U.S. Government and employer delegates abstained and the U.S. worker delegate voted for. The U.S. Government member of the Con ference Committee, along with other government and employer members, had indicated he would abstain since most of the provisions fell outside the scope of ILO competence. The U.S. worker delegate voted for the resolution pledging the ILO’s support for “self-determination and civil and trade union rights,” and cited the AFL-CIO position that the entire free world should support the freedom movement in the Portuguese territories, as well as in South Africa and Rhodesia.8 ILO, like other international organizations, is not removed from the pressures and counterpressures of the surrounding environment of international pol icy. Those who are concerned with the maintenance of the basic purposes and the tripartite structure of the ILO must set their sights by the firmness shown by the President of this Conference which, while pro tecting the exercise of free speech, required its ex ercise within the scope and competence of the ILO. Political acrimony would only frustrate the construc tive thrust of this tripartite organization. □ T he FOOTNOTESMembers of the U.S. Delegation were: Government: Dele gates Edward B. Persons, Associate Deputy Under Secretary for International Affairs, Department of Labor, and Daniel L. Horowitz, Special Assistant to the Secretary of State; Substitute Delegate Allen R. Delong, Department of Com merce; Congressional Advisers Representatives Frank Thompson, Jr., John N. Erlenborn, Marvin L. Esch; Advis ers Harper Barnes, Hudson Drake, Joseph P. Goldberg, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Russell C. Heater, George H. Hildebrand, Robert L. Kinney, Leonard R. Linsenmayer, Dominick J. Manfredi, Thomas M. Phelan, Ben P. Robertson, Roger C. Schrader, William M. Steen, Thomas E. Walsh. Employers: Delegate Edwin P. Neilan; Advisers Joseph T. Bishop, Stephen F. Dunn, William C. Hartman, Robert A. Leavitt, Vernon O’Rourke, James F. Steiner. Workers: Delegate Rudolph Faupl; Ad visers William T. Dodd, Matthew Guinan, Edward J. Hickey, 46 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 Joseph T. Power, Bert Seidman, Hunter P. Wharton. 1J. P. Goldberg, “Tripartism reaffirmed by the 1971 Inter national Labor Conference,” Monthly Labor Review, Sep tember 1971, pp. 30-37. 2 Poland had been found to be in violation of the ILO Convention on Freedom of Association, AFL—CIO News, June 17, 1972. H. M. Douty, “The International Labor Con ference of 1966,” Monthly Labor Review, August 1966, pp. 841-842. 3 With opposition to the President’s rulings by those seek ing to use the ILO as a platform for political polemics, one entire sitting of the plenary session was devoted to a debate on the rulings and the President’s authority to make them (particularly his authority to strike from the record those statements he had ruled out of order). It is clear from that debate that this will remain a serious issue at future conferences. 4 Public Law 92—306, May 27, 1972. Appropriations legislation for Fiscal 1973 is pending, with the House au thorizing $4,000,000 for the ILO and the Senate authorizing $12,617,000, covering all payments through 1972. In with drawing his additional request, the Director General em phasized that the effects of these changes coupled with the continuing high rate of inflation will have to be taken into account in the budget to be considered next year. “We will do our utmost to finance expansion by the economies of efficiency,” Mr. Jenks stated, “but our resources have never been commensurate with our responsibilities.” ■’Cuba also raised the issue of the 10 leading industrial States. The U.S.S.R., one of the 10, did not. 6 The members act as individual experts. The present mem bers are Sir Adetokunbo Ademola (Nigeria), Giinther Beitzke (Federal Republic of Germany), Boutros BoutrosGhali (Egypt), Pralhad Balacharya Gajendragadkar (India), E. García Sayan (Peru), Arnold Gubinski (Poland), Begum Raâna Liaquat Ali Khan (Pakistan), H. S. Kirkaldy (United Kingdom), L. A. Lunz (U SSR ), Jean Morellet (France), E. Razafindralambo (Madagascar), Paul Ruegger (Switzer land), Isidoro Ruiz Moreno (Argentina), Arnaldo Lopes Sussekind (Brazil), Joseph J. M. van der Ven (Netherlands), Joza Vilfan (Yugoslavia), Earl Warren (United States), Kisaburo Yokota (Japan). 7 The only instances of dissent on observations on particu lar countries were those relating to Byelorussia, Ukraine, and U.S.S.R. Professor Lunz (U.S.S.R.), regarding the committee’s findings that Ukases of 1970 contained pro visions falling within the definition of “forced or compul sory labor” of the Forced Labor Convention, No. 29, stated that these did not institute forced labor, their purpose being to reinforce the principle of general obligation to work. On the Freedom of Association Conventions (Nos. 85 and 9 8 ), Professors Gubinski (Poland) and Lunz (U.S.S.R.) dissented from the Expert Committee’s observations, con tending that account should be taken of the economic and social system in these countries. The committee stated that it had applied the same criteria, examining from a purely legal point of view the effectuation in law and practice by the countries of their responsibilities under the ratified conventions, to these as in all conventions. ILO, Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Volume A, General Report and Ob servations Concerning Particular Countries (Geneva, ILO, 1972), pp. 29, 103-5, 151-2. 8 AFL-C 10 News, July 8, 1972. Plato on the division of labor Which would be better—that each should ply several trades, or that he should confine himself to his own? He should confine himself to his own. More is done, and done better and more easily when one man does one thing according to his capacity and at the right moment. We must not be surprised to find that articles are made better in big cities than in small. In small cities the same workman makes a bed, a door, a plough, a table, and often he builds a house too. . . . Now it is impossible that a workman who does so many https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis things should be equally successful in all. In the big cities, on the other hand . . . a man can live by one single trade. Sometimes he practices only a special branch of a trade. One makes men’s shoes, another women’s, one lives entirely by the stitching of the shoe, another by cutting the leather. . . . A man whose work is confined to such a lim ited task must necessarily excel at it. — The Republic of Plato (New York, Oxford University Press, 1969). Employment in the atomic energy field Increased use of atomic energy for peacetime purposes affects industry’s structure and employment MAURICE MOYLAN E m ploym ent in the atomic energy field continued to grow in 1971, according to a survey made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.1 A major factor behind this growth was the expanding peaceful applications of atomic energy, mainly the greater use of nuclear power by private electric utility companies. Employ ment in Government-owned establishments declined for the fifth straight year. Overall, employment in creased by 1.8 percent in the year ending in May 1971. The atomic energy field is composed of two gen eral types of establishments: (1) those owned by the Government and privately operated on a con tract basis, and (2) privately owned establishments. Employment in privately owned establishments in creased by 6,000, offsetting the employment decline in Government-owned establishments of 3,100. The following tabulation shows employment in the atomic energy field by type of establishment: T ype A ll establishments ............ . G overnm ent-ow ned, contractor operated .......................................... Privately o w n e d ................................ 1970 1971 154,100 156,900 9 8 ,609 55,500 95,500 61,500 This movement to private employment continues a trend in evidence since the early sixties. From 1963 to 1971, employment in Government-owned firms declined almost 6 percent, while employment in the private sector grew by almost two-thirds. By 1971, 40 percent of total employment was in the private sector, up from 25 percent in 1963. In 1971 as in 1963, close to three-fourths of all atomic energy workers were employed in four areas: Atomic Energy Commission laboratories and Maurice Moylan is an economist in the Division of Man power and Occupational Outlook, Bureau of Labor Statis tics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis research facilities, atomic energy defense production facilities, reactor and reactor component design, and manufacturing and design and engineering of nuclear facilities. As the demand for nuclear-generated electricity continued to grow during 1971, employment in power reactor operation and maintenance more than doubled, and employment in the design and engi neering of nuclear facilities increased 41 percent. Reductions in Government spending for research and development caused employment in Atomic Energy Commission laboratories to decline by about 4,000 or 8 percent. Although employment in atomic energy defense production increased slightly over 1970, it was 16 percent below 1963 levels (table 1). Occupational specialization Atomic energy activities utilize a highly skilled work force. (See table 2.) In 1971, 45 percent of Table 1. ment Employment in the atomic energy field, by seg Segment All segments 1963 1970 1971 138,500 154,100 156,900 Uranium milling Production of feed materials Production of special materials for use in reactors. _. Fuel element fabrication and recovery activities____ Reactor and reactor component design and manu facturing_____ . 2,700 9,100 1,900 5,200 1,700 6,900 1,700 6,600 1,600 7,100 1,400 6,600 14,300 22,400 22,600 Design and engineering of nuclear facilities________ Power reactor operation and maintenance_________ Radioactive waste disposal______ ___ ________ Nuclear instrument m anufacturing... . _______ Processing and packaging radioisotopes___________ Particle accelerator manufacturing_______________ 2,500 1,100 100 5,800 400 1,100 9,700 2,300 100 6,500 1,100 700 13,700 4,700 1 1,500 5,800 1,100 800 Private research laboratories____________________ Atomic Energy Commission laboratories and research facilities_____ ______________ _____________ Atomic energy defense production facilities________ Industrial radiography__________________________ Miscellaneous_______ _____ ______ __ ______ 2,200 2,800 2,400 46,200 37,500 600 7,700 49,400 31,000 1,700 9,500 45,500 31,500 1,600 9,000 1 Not strictly comparable with earlier data. 47 48 Table 2. pation MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 Employment in the atomic energy field, by occu Occupation 1963 1970 1971 Total employment, atomic energy field Total engineers___ Mechanical.. Electrical and electronic Chemical.. N u cle a r... _ Metallurgical___ Civil____ O ther.. . Total scientists and mathematicians Physical scientists C hem ists... Physicists. M etallurgists... Geologists. _ Other physical scientists Life scientists. Health physicists Medical____ Biological____ Other life scientists. Mathematicians Total technicians. Engineers and physical science technicans.. Electrical and electronic Other engineers, technicians... _ Physicial science technicians______ . Draftsmen. Health physics technicians . __ . . . . Life science technicians.. Other technicians. Nuclear reactor operators. _ Other employees 138,500 20,200 6,400 4,500 2,600 1,700 1,100 1,200 2,700 10,700 8,500 3,800 3,500 600 0) 500 1,200 500 200 500 (■) 1,100 23,500 11,600 154,100 26,000 8,700 5,800 2,100 3,300 1,000 1,440 3,800 12,700 9,200 3,600 4,300 700 100 400 1,700 700 100 800 100 1,800 29,500 14,600 5,400 6,000 3,100 6,100 1,600 600 5,500 1,200 85,900 156,900 27,600 9,200 5,700 2,100 3,700 1,000 1,600 4,300 12,400 8,800 3,700 4,000 600 100 400 1,900 700 100 1,000 100 1,700 29,700 14,100 5,200 5,900 3,000 7,200 1,700 400 5,000 1,300 87,200 3,900 1,700 600 4,600 1,200 84,100 1 Less than 50 employees. NOTE: Dashes indicate data not available. all employees in the atomic energy field were sci entists, engineers, technicians, and nuclear reactor operators. The ratio of scientists and engineers to total atomic energy employment stood at 1 out of 4 in 1971, about the same as in 1963. But some fields have experienced more relative growth than others. Chart 1 shows changes in the proportions in each field since 1963. Engineers’ employment grew the most, registering a 36-percent increase. By 1971, engineers numbered 27,600, up 5.8 percent from the previous year. Although employment of scientists grew 16 percent since 1963, it peaked in 1968 and has continued to decline since then. In 1970-71, employment of scientists declined 4.3 per cent to 12,400. Most of the 25-percent increase in the number of technicians shown on the chart oc curred since 1967. By 1971, technicians numbered 29,700. Movement toward nuclear-generated electricity has accounted for much of the greater relative em ployment growth of engineers and technicians, since they are more likely to be employed in this area than are scientists. The slow decline in the employ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ment of scientists since 1968 reflects reduced re search activities and the leveling off of scientific employment in production of nuclear weapons. By far the largest group of engineers were me chanical engineers (table 2). Together with elec tronic and electrical engineers, they made up nearly 70 percent of all engineering employment. Although engineers are employed in all segments of the atomic energy field, most work in Atomic Energy Commission laboratories, reactor design and manu facturing, and the design and engineering of nuclear facilities. Technicians, the most numerous group, provide strong support to engineers. Their occupations are diverse, ranging from draftsman to nuclear reactor operator. The largest of this group were draftsmen, followed by engineering and electrical and electronic technicians, respectively. Physicists and chemists accounted for more than 85 percent of the physical scientists, and biologists and health physicists made up close to 90 percent of the life scientists. Physical scientists outnumber life scientists by more than 4 to 1. Recently, how ever, life scientists are showing a more rapid rate of growth as new techniques in the field of health such as gamma rays and X-rays which use atomic energy are being developed. Two-thiids of all scientists were employed in private and Atomic Energy Com mission laboratories and defense production faciliChart 1. Changes in employment in the atomic energy field, by occupation, 19 63 -71 [1963 = 100] 1 Excludes nuclear reactor operators. 49 EMPLOYMENT IN THE ATOMIC ENERGY FIELD Table 3. region Employment in the atomic energy field, by 1971 1970 1963 Region Employ m ent Per cent Employ ment Per cent Employ m ent Per cent United States_____ 138,500 100.0 154,100 100.0 156,900 100.0 New England_____ ___ Middle Atlantic_________ East North Central_______ West North Central______ South Atlantic__________ East South Central______ West South Central______ Mountain_______________ Pacific_________________ 7,000 19,300 16,100 11,100 11,000 15,100 1,800 29,100 27,900 5.0 13.9 11.6 8.0 7.9 10.9 1.3 21.0 20.1 5,300 22,400 21,100 11,400 14,600 16,900 3,200 28,700 30,300 3.5 14.6 13.7 7.4 9.5 11.0 2.1 18.7 19.7 5,800 22,800 21,300 11,300 18,000 18,800 3,000 27,600 28,300 3.7 14.6 13.6 7.2 11.5 12.0 1.9 17.7 18.1 NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. ties. Most of these scientists were engaged in research. Research and development In 1971, more than 50 percent of all scientists and engineers were in research and development activi ties. Close to four-fifths of scientific employment was in research and development; less than half the engineers were engaged in these activities. Com bined employment of scientists and engineers in re search and development declined more than 4 per cent over the year, but was still about 10 percent above the 1963 level. About one-third of all re search and development activities were performed at Atomic Energy Commission laboratories. Region Workers in the atomic energy field are employed in nearly every state. Over 35 percent of these workers, however, were employed in the Pacific and Table 4. Employment in the atomic energy field, by size of establishment, 1971 Number of employees All sizes.. 1-9 . 10-49 50-99. . . 100-499 . _ 500-999 1,000-4 999 5 000 and over . . . . ___ . . . ________________ ________ ________________ __________________ ________________ __________ . . _____ Number Percent d is tri bution 156,900 400 3,900 5,000 21,800 18,400 74,800 32,600 100.0 0.3 2.5 3.2 14.0 11.8 47.9 20.9 NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Mountain States in 1971. Employment in the New England States has declined approximately 1,200 since 1963. By 1971, employment in this area ac counted for only 3.7 percent of total employment. The most significant change over the 1963-71 period has been in the South Atlantic States, where in creased demand for electric power in recent years has stimulated employment in the design and engi neering of nuclear facilities, reactor manufacturing, and reactor operation and maintenance. Employ ment in the South Atlantic States increased by more than 60 percent from almost 8 percent in 1963 to 11.5 percent in 1971 (table 3). Source of funding Federal funds supported 67 percent of all scien tists and engineers in atomic energy activities in 1971, down from 72 percent in 1970. In the private sector, 26 percent of the scientists and engineers were paid with Federal funds, com pared with 32 percent in 1970. Approximately onehalf of the scientific and engineering work force in the private sector were paid by companies’ own funds in 1971, up from 43 percent in 1970. Other sources accounting for the remainder in both years were funds from other companies not in the field on a contract basis. Size of establishment As in the past, large establishments dominate employment in the field. In 1971, nearly 110,000 or close to 70 percent of all atomic energy workers were employed in establishments employing 1,000 workers or more (table 4). About 90 percent of employees in government-owned facilities were in establishments of this size; in the private sector, 35 percent. From 1963 to 1971, the proportion of the work force in establishments of 1,000 workers or more declined from 76 percent to 70 percent, reflecting increased employment in the private sector where firms are typically smaller. □ --------- FOOTNOTE--------1 The data were collected from more than 500 establish ments, both government-owned and private, which did work in this field. Excluded were workers in uranium mining, construction, education, and Government. The Anatomy of Price Change PRICE CHANGES IN THE SECOND QUARTER OF 1972 TOSHIKO NAKAYAMA of inflation, as measured by the Con sumer Price Index and the Implicit Price Deflator for private Gross National Product (GNP), slowed markedly in the second quarter of 1972. The Consumer Price Index increased at a sea sonally adjusted annual rate of 2.2 percent for the 3 months ending in June, the slowest rise since early 1967. The rate was down from 3.6 percent in the 3 months ending in March— the first calendar quarter in the post-freeze period of the Economic Stabiliza tion Program. Much of the rise early this year and the deceleration in the second quarter was due to the behavior of the food component of the index. The food index, which advanced at a 7.2-percent rate in the first quarter, was unchanged from March to June. The index for nonfood commodities rose at a 2.7percent rate and services 3.4 percent in the second quarter, about the same as in the first quarter and slower than in the pre-freeze period last year. (See table 1.) During the 10 months following the start of the Economic Stabilization Program last August, the CPI rose at a 2.7-percent annual rate. Excluding the period from August to November when most prices were frozen, the rate of advance through June was 3.1 percent. This compares with the 3.8-percent rate in the first 8 months of 1971 and rates of 6 percent for calendar year 1969 and 5.5 percent for calendar year 1970. The Implicit Price Deflator for private GNP rose at a 1.7-percent rate in the second quarter, the slow est pace since late 1965, except for the period afT h e r a te Toshiko Nakayama is an economist in the Division of Con sumer Prices and Price Indexes, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 50 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis fected by the wage-price-rent freeze last year. The rise in Personal Consumption Expenditures deflator, influenced by changes in the CPI, was moderate and slightly slower than in the first quarter. Rates of advance in other components decelerated after ad vancing sharply in the first quarter. (See table 2.) At the same time the rise in the deflator was slow ing sharply, unit labor costs were edging down— their first decline since 1965. A larger gain in productivity and a slower rise in hourly compensation resulted in a 0.6-percent rate of decline in unit labor costs from the level in the first quarter of the year. Unit non labor costs rose at a 5.9-percent rate, compared with 3.5 percent in the first quarter. Output per man-hour rose at an annual rate of 6.0 percent during the second quarter, compared with 3.3 percent in the first quarter, and 4.3 percent over the year from the second quarter of 1971. The increase in productivity stemmed from a faster rise in private output— at a substantial 10.2-percent rate, compared with 7.0 percent in the first quarter. The rise in man-hours, at a 4.0-percent rate, was larger than in the first quarter. The average workweek changed little but the rise in employment, at a 3.9percent rate, was faster. Although the increase in em ployment continued to be sizable, there was large growth in the labor force so that unemployment was 5.7 percent for the quarter, not much different from the 5.8-percent rate of the first quarter. Compensation per man-hour rose at a 5.4-percent annual rate in the second quarter, considerably slower than in the first quarter and in the first two quarters last year, before the freeze. Wage increases, including benefits, moderated. First-year increases under new union contracts and deferred increases under old contracts were smaller than a year earlier. Because the deflator increased while unit labor costs held steady, the employee share of private GNP declined. This decline is a continuation of the down trend in employee share that began in the second quarter of 1970 and was interrupted by a sharp rise in the fourth quarter of 1971 and first quarter of this year. When the employee share rose in the first 51 PRICE CHANGES, 2d QUARTER 1972 quarter, the shares of private GNP accounted for by capital consumption allowances, business taxes, and interest declined, and the profits share held steady. In the second quarter, taxes and interest shares con tinued to decline but the shares for capital consump tion allowances and profits rose. Although the rise in the CPI and the deflator moderated in the second quarter, the rise in the Wholesale Price Index failed to show any slackening. The WPI rose at a 4.9-percent rate in the first and second quarters of this year, about the same as in the pre-freeze period of 1971. The sharp rise in the first quarter was primarily due to the upsurge in farm product and food prices, particularly livestock and meats and fresh vegetables; these prices rose at a somewhat slower pace in the second quarter. The rise in the index for industrial commodities accele rated, however, moving up as rapidly as it did before the freeze. About a third of the rise in the industrial com modity index in the second quarter stemmed from higher prices for three groups of industrial materials —lumber, hides and leather, and textile products— for which the demand has been strong and develop ments in world markets have affected supplies. In mid-July, the Administration took actions to hold down prices in two of these groups, lumber and hides. Price and wage controls were imposed on 62,000 small lumber companies that had been exempt since May 1 under the general exemption for companies Table 1. with 60 employees or fewer. In the lumber industry, smaller companies collectively account for a large part of the business. In addition, the Forest Service was directed to increase timber cutting. In order to hold down leather and shoe costs by reducing hide prices, export controls were imposed on domestically produced cattlehides. The program restricts hide producers (who are also usually meat packers) from exporting more than 1,350,000 hides a month— the level at which they exported hides in 1971. Prices for other industrial materials such as chemi cals and paper and paper products rose at a slightly faster pace in the second quarter, compared with relatively slow rises for these commodities in the pe riod before the freeze. Heavy expenditures on pollu tion abatement equipment was a factor contributing to the increase in paper prices. The rise in the metals and metal products group slowed considerably in the second quarter. Prices for nonferrous metal prod ucts increased. However, prices for copper scrap, iron and steel scrap, and steel mill products, which rose sharply early in the post-freeze period, declined in the second quarter. Price rises also decelerated in the second quarter for finished goods—capital goods and consumer goods. Consumer goods and services Food. Following the trend in wholesale prices for farm products and processed foods, consumer food prices at wholesale climbed sharply in late 1971 and Changes in Consumer and Wholesale Price Indexes, 1 9 7 1 -7 2 [Seasonally adjusted, annual rate, compounded (except Services)] Percent change Index and item 10 m onths, 7 m onths, 8 m onths p rio r 3 m onths, Phases 1 and II, Phase II, to Phase 1, Phase 1, December 1970 August 1971 to November 1971 August 1971 to June 1972 to A ugust 1971 November 1971 to June 1972 3 m onths ending— M arch 1972 June 1972 CONSUMER PRICE INDEX 3.8 5.0 2.9 4.6 1.9 1.9 0 3.1 3.1 4.0 2.5 3.6 2.7 3.3 1.7 3.4 3.6 7.2 2.4 3.7 2.2 0 2.7 3.4 All commodities________________________________________________ Farm products and processed foods and feeds__________________ Industrial commodities _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ ____ . . 5.2 6.5 4. 7 - 0 .2 1.1 - 0 .5 5.3 7.6 4.4 3.6 5.6 2.8 4.9 7.0 4.2 4.9 4.8 4.9 Selected Stage of Processing indexes: Crude materials except food_______________ _____________ Intermediate materials except food________________________ Producers’ finished goods-------------------------------------- -----------Consumer goods except food------------------------------------------------Consumer fo o d s _______________________________________ 3.3 6.5 3.7 2.2 6.8 2.3 -.7 - 2 .0 -.4 .3 8.5 4.8 4.1 2.9 5.4 6.6 3.1 2.0 1.9 3.8 15.0 3.8 4.9 2.9 3.8 3.8 6.6 3.4 2.5 2.7 All items_____________________________________ _______________ Food______________________________ _____ _______________ Commodities less food______________________________________ Services. _ _______ ___________________ ____ _______________ WHOLESALE PRICE INDEX https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 52 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 early 1972. The increases were reflected in retail food prices in the first quarter. In late first quarter and early second quarter, wholesale food prices declined as livestock marketings and meat production rose and fresh vegetable supplies increased. These de clines resulted in holding the retail food index steady in the second quarter. (See table 3.) By mid-second quarter, wholesale livestock and meat prices started to advance again, more than they usually do in this period. Higher prices were partly due to strong consumer demand for beef. Fresh fruit and vegetable prices also moved up as supplies decreased. With increases in wholesale food prices pointing to a renewed upsurge in retail food prices, several actions were taken by the Administration in late June in an effort to stabilize food prices: import quotas on meats were suspended for the balance of 1972, and stabilization controls were extended to cover wholesale and retail prices of raw food prod ucts such as fresh fruits and vegetables, eggs, and raw seafood. In other categories of food purchased in grocery stores, prices of dairy products and cereal and bakery products declined in the second quarter following a modest rise in the first quarter. The in crease in egg prices was much smaller than in the first quarter. Lower prices for dairy products were partly due to the fact that agricultural support levels were not raised this spring. In addition, the price wars being waged by supermarket chains appeared Table 2. The anatomy of price change Percent change from previous q u a rte r Item 1971 1 Deflator: Private GNP Personal consumption expendltures______ Private construction: Residential. _ NonresidentlaL Producers' durable equipment__ Government purchases cf goods and services 1972 II III IV . II 4.7 4.3 2.8 1.0 4.2 4.0 3.7 2.4 1.2 3.0 2.4 6.1 6.2 4.3 8.4 14.1 3.6 5.0 14.2 1.3 -.8 7.2 - 2 .8 9.8 10.4 6.6 6.2 7.8 2.9 5.0 5.3 .3 -.3 9.1 2.8 4.7 1.1 7.7 6.5 11.3 4.3 4.0 6.1 2.0 4.9 2.8 2.5 6.4 3.8 3.2 1.5 5.6 4.1 0.2 4.2 4.7 8.1 3.3 3.5 1.7 -.6 5.4 6.0 5.9 1.7 U N IT COSTS Total private, all persons Deflator: Private GNP Unit labor costs. Compensation per man-hour. Output per m an-hour.. Unit nonlabor costs 1 Excludes services of government employees. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1.0 to be holding down increases in some retail food prices. Prices of food away from home—restaurant meals and snacks— increased at a 4.1-percent rate in the second quarter, slightly less than in the first quarter of this year and before the freeze last year. The rise in restaurant prices reflected the increase of 12.6 percent since June 1971 in wholesale prices for meats, poultry, and fish (which make up onethird of the dollar value of food purchases by eating places). The rise in average hourly earnings for nonsupervisory workers in eating and drinking places was a more moderate 2.6 percent from May 1971 to May 1972. Commodities less food. In the first two calendar quarters in the post-freeze period of the Economic Stabilization Program, the index for nonfood com modities rose at a moderate pace at wholesale and retail. The rise at wholesale was 2.9 percent in the first quarter and 2.5 percent in the second quarter. Wholesale prices for most nonfood commodities rose at a slower pace in the second quarter, except ap parel which increased at a slightly faster rate and footwear which accelerated sharply. At retail, the nonfood commodity index rose at a 2.4-percent rate in the first quarter and 2.7 percent in the second. The rise in the second quarter was faster primarily because of a more than seasonal upturn in used car prices and larger increases in house prices (neither of these two items are in the Wholesale Price Index). In addition, price rises accelerated noticeably for footwear and slightly for furniture. Gasoline prices declined much less than in the first quarter. On the other hand, price rises for apparel and new cars were significantly slower than in the first quarter. Although the rise in retail footwear prices acceler ated, the increases have not been as large as those which have occurred at wholesale in the first and second quarters of this year. Before limitations were imposed on hide exports in late June, the Price Commission had changed the method of treating leather costs by shoe manufacturers. While granting price increases to shoe manufacturers in late May, the Commission limited the increases to a dollar-fordollar pass-through of leather cost increases, instead of treating new leather costs as subject to customary profit margin determination in figuring prices. In granting the increases, the Commission ordered the companies to roll back any price boosts they had been permitted previously and to apply the new 53 PRICE CHANGES, 2d QUARTER 1972 Table 3. Changes in wholesale and retail prices for consumer goods and services [Seasonally adjusted compound annual rates] Percent change fo r 3 months ending— Relative im portance, December 1971 Item CPI Consumer goods.. _________ . . . -------------- Food. . . ______ _______ ____ Commodities less food__________ ____ Nondurables less food--------------------- Apparel, less footwear_________ F oo tw ear...................... ............... Gasoline________________ - . . Durables... _________ ______ . . New cars____ __________ ____ Furniture____________________ Appliances, including radio and TV Services1. . . .............................. Rent1 Household less rent Medical care . Transportation. .. Other services.______ ________________ WPI September March June 3.0 4.7 3.0 July March June 2.6 3.6 2.2 3.3 December 100.0 CPI WPI 2.8 5.2 4.9 2.9 1.7 -.4 2.0 5.8 3.8 2.8 2.0 2.5 3.7 5.7 CPI WPI 6.0 11.6 5.6 4.6 .7 - 5 .1 5.1 14.4 7.2 3.8 0 39.2 2.7 2.6 9.8 60.8 CPI WPI 1.4 2.2 4.2 1.5 2.1 2.2 .7 1.1 2.4 2.9 2.7 2.5 3.1 2.5 37.2 CPI WPI 1.7 1.5 3.5 .7 3.8 2.9 1.4 0 2.4 2.5 1.4 2.9 1.7 2.5 CPI WPI 1.7 .4 3.4 .7 1.0 10.7 4.3 2.0 1.1 3.0 .7 .3 1.4 -1 .3 2.1 2.1 CPI WPI 3.0 9.4 3.7 2.4 2.0 0 2.3 -.3 2.0 10.6 3.6 21.9 3.9 16.7 5.3 CPI WPI - 7 .2 -5 .0 - 1 .1 -6 .9 13.0 7.4 - 2 .9 - 1 .5 - 5 .8 5.0 - .4 4.0 7.4 2.6 23.6 CPI WPI 2.1 2.2 4.2 2.9 .3 1.8 0 2.5 2.8 2.5 3.1 2.1 5.2 2.5 CPI WPI 5.1 3.3 3.6 3.6 -1 8 .1 .4 - 1 .5 5.8 9.1 4.3 3.6 12.7 1.0 2.5 1.4 2.7 CPI WPI 2.1 2.9 4.1 4.6 2.0 2.5 1.3 0 1.3 2.8 1.7 2.1 1.3 1.4 3.5 CPI WPI 1.1 1.2 1.9 0 .8 1.6 -.4 - 1 .9 .8 -.8 - .4 -.4 .4 .0 CPI CPI CPI CPI CPI CPI 3.2 4.7 - 4 .2 7.0 10.7 5.8 5.2 4.6 5.7 7.2 8.2 3.3 5.1 3.2 6.2 5.5 2.4 4.3 3.1 2.8 6.4 1.5 .3 2.0 3.7 2.8 5.1 2.7 0 1.9 100.0 35.5 64.5 37.8 7.5 2.5 4.7 26.8 3.4 2.2 2.7 100.0 13.5 41.1 14.8 14.9 15.7 1972 1971 Index - 3.4 3.8 4.4 3.9 3.0 1.6 3.4 3.1 5.3 3.3 4.2 2.3 1 Total services and rent not seasonally adjusted. NOTE: Relative importances are for consumer goods portion of CPI and WPI. For all items in the CPI, consumer goods represent 62.6 percent and services represent 37.4 percent. CPI durables also include home purchases and used cars which are not included in WPI. For WPI, consumer goods represent 33.3 percent of all commodities, standards to the base-period prices that existed during the 90-day wage-price freeze. Furthermore, shoe prices are to be reduced if cost of raw materials fall. Retail furniture prices rose at a slightly faster rate in the second quarter than in the first, reflecting increases at wholesale. A shortage of skilled workers, which has been developing over the years, and higher prices for hardwood lumber were among factors which contributed to the increase in wholesale furniture prices. The rise in hardwood lumber prices, in turn, was due in part to increased demand for furniture stemming from expansion in housing starts and the growth in sales by furniture warehouse out lets. From January through May, sales in retail furni ture stores were up 13 percent from the same period of last year. The decline in retail gasoline prices was con siderably smaller in the second quarter than in the first, as oil companies attempted to restore prices to the pre-freeze level. This was done by withdraw ing discounts, which help retailers maintain profit margins during price wars. The attempt was not completely successful because of competition from low-price volume selling service stations. Prices at the refinery level—included in the Wholesale Price Index— rose in the first and second quarters because consumption of gasoline had been brisk, gasoline stocks were below levels of a year ago, and the in crease in refinery output had not been enough to meet demand. Although retail sales of furniture and appliances, new and used cars, and gasoline had been brisk, sales https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 54 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 in apparel stores from January through May were just 1 percent higher than in the same period last year. This may account in part for the modest rise in retail apparel prices in the second quarter— at an annual rate of 0.3 percent. This was the smallest quarterly increase since 1965. The rise in wholesale prices for apparel was also moderate, although slightly faster than in the first quarter. Higher prices for materials— cotton, wool, and manmade textile products— as well as increases in nonmaterial costs such as labor contributed to the increase in wholesale prices. Services. The index for consumer services rose at a slightly slower pace in the second quarter than in the first because of a deceleration in charges for house hold services. The indexes for rent, medical care services, and transportation services increased at a faster pace than in the last two quarters of 1971, but considerably slower than in the first half of 1971. The slower rise in the household service index in the second quarter was due mostly to smaller in creases in property taxes (which are exempt from controls) and charges for utilities—two principal sources of the sharp rise in this index earlier this year and in late 1971. In addition, mortgage interest rates (which are also exempt from controls) declined from November of last year through May before moving up in June. Charges for all utilities advanced sharply following the end of the freeze in late 1971 and in early 1972 before the Price Commission instituted a new freeze on utility rates from February 10 through March 25. In the second quarter, charges for gas services declined and telephone charges rose slightly. Electricity bills, however, rose substantially due to rate increases, adjustments for higher fuel costs, and tax increases. The rise in home repair and mainte nance charges accelerated in the second quarter, but the increases were smaller than usual for this period. The index for transportation services, which held steady in the first quarter on a seasonally adjusted basis, increased at a 3.0-percent rate in the second quarter. Large increases in parking fees, particularly municipal parking fees (which are exempt from controls), accounted for much of the rise. Auto insurance rates did not decline as much as in the first quarter, but the rise in auto repair services decelerated. Increases in local transit and intercity bus fares also moderated. Airplanes fares declined slightly and railroad fares dropped sharply. Charges for medical care services rose at a sea sonally adjusted annual rate of 3.9 percent in the second quarter, faster than the 2.7-percent rate in the first quarter, primarily because of larger increases in doctors’ and dentists’ fees. Charges for hospital services moderated. The index for other services such as apparel, per sonal care, recreational, funeral, and legal service, as a group, rose at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.9 percent in the first quarter and 1.6 percent in the second. The increase at a 1.8-percent rate for the 6-month period was the smallest since late 1964. Because of decreased spending and smaller increases in prices, receipts in establishments providing per sonal services such as laundries and drycleaning, beauty and barbershops, and funeral services declined 3 percent in the first 5 months of 1972, compared with the same period last year. On the other hand, receipts for motion picture, amusement, and recrea tion services rose 11 percent. □ Distribution problems In viewing the aggregative data for the Ameri can economy, . . . one may be tempted to con clude that the share of income going to labor is determined at the bargaining table and that the national data is merely a sum of individual wage decisions made by thousands of employers and employees subject to local labor market pressures. This is both true and false in a very subtle and complex way, and it would be improper to con clude that the balance of union and employer https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis strength is the prime determinant of various in come shares. It would be more appropriate to say that tentative decisions are made at the level of the firm and the industry but that they are ratified or altered at the macroeconomic level. . . . — A llan M. C artter and F. R ay M a r s h a l l , Labor Economics: Wages, Employment, and Trade Unionism (Homewood, 111., Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1972). NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION’S 51ST CONVENTION EDWARD F. HANLEY, JR. of the National Education Association, meeting at Atlantic City June 26-30, considered two issues which have long-term significance for teachers: a new constitution giving more power to elected NEA officials, and a new policy on merger with the quarter-million-member American Federation of Teachers (A FL-C IO ). Because of the recent NEAAFT merger in New York, affecting 195,000 teach ers, the delegates were aware that the million-mem ber organization faced a major turning point. D elegates New constitution A major item before the delegate assembly was action on a new constitution, drafted earlier in the year at a constitutional convention. After consider able floor debate, the new constitution was endorsed by a substantial margin (4,154 to 2,175), but must now be ratified by the NEA membership. The new document resulted from efforts to stream line the management of the organization and to place more responsibility in the hands of elected officials. The constitution proposed two major changes: (1) to decrease the size of the board of directors to 30 from 100 and replace State with regional and at-large representation; and (2) to lengthen the presidential term from 1 year to 2 and allow the president to serve up to three consecutive terms. Executive Secretary Sam Lambert, the senior NEA staff official, was critical of the proposed constitu tion, arguing that “these documents in some respects are one more step in NEA’s gradual drift toward unionism.” He feared that by approving the proposed constitution, the membership might be subjecting itself to domination by the national president. Lambert also criticized the relationship of the NEA national to the State organizations under the proposed constitution, which he claimed were subor dinated to the national-to-local relationships. Consid ering recent court decisions against the use of the local property tax as a primary means of financing public education, Lambert predicted a marked in crease in State financing of schools and, conse quently, an increase in the scope of items negotiable at the State level. Already tenure laws, retirement systems, negotiation statutes, and basic salary sched ules are generally administered, if not always nego tiated, State-wide. According to Lambert, “The time will come, and it’s not far off, when practically all bargaining for salaries and general financial support will take place at the State level.” He called for pow erful State associations which could secure increased benefits for teachers in the years to come. In his report to the assembly, outgoing president Donald Morrison asked for ratification of the pro posed constitution, pointing out that the professional membership of the organization was “capable of determining who is to lead us at any time.” He dis agreed with Lambert on the role the president would play, saying to the delegates, “if you want your wishes and your aspirations reflected through elected leadership, in my opinion you cannot leave the presidents in there 1 or 2 years and change them and throw them out each time.” Most organizations and agencies, he asserted, “have little confidence in dealing with the president who is going to be done in a few months.” On the question of State-national relationships, Morrison contended that complete State representation on the board of directors would create a body too large “to effectively take care of corporate matters of this association.” Merger and the AFL-CIO Edward F. Hanley, Jr., is a labor economist in the Division of Industrial Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The NEA showed interest in a national merger with the American Federation of Teachers, abandon55 56 ing its 1970 position barring any merger talks at all on the national level, but prohibited affiliation with the AFL-CIO. By a vote of 3,723 to 2,051, the delegates forbade the NEA or any of its State and local affiliates (except those where mergers were already in progress) from agreeing to a merger which would require AFL-CIO membership. Executive Secretary Lambert opposed any actions which would tie the NEA to the AFL-CIO. “The hottest issue is not merger per se,” he said, “but AFL-CIO affiliation, which goes contrary to our belief in a completely independent teaching pro fession.” He referred to a survey conducted by the NEA research staff which indicated that 61 per cent of NEA members would discontinue member ship with a merged NEA and AFT, if affiliation with the AFL-CIO was required. Many Southern and Border States would split with the NEA, he argued, in a merger which included AFL-CIO affiliation. Those advocating merger generally dismissed any role the AFL-CIO would play in a united profession. In a meeting off the convention floor, Tom Hobart and Albert Shanker, co-presidents of the recently merged Congress of New York Teachers, argued that teachers’ problems were too immediate for orga nization rivalries to get in the way. Shanker said performance contracting, voucher systems, and at tacks on tenure made unity a necessity. President Morrison, a merger advocate, acknowl edged the A FL-CIO’s “historical support to public education.” He maintained, however, that the growth of the AFT “is a phenomenon of our neglect of the financing of schools and not a great commitment of these teachers to organized labor.” He proposed a merger compromise in which the NEA would deny membership to administrative personnel, and the AFT, which represents only teachers, would, in re turn, sever its national connections with the A FLCIO. He argued, though, that locals should be free to decide on AFL-CIO affiliation for themselves. Morrison also claimed that, by failing to merge, the NEA and AFT risked becoming racially distinct organizations, since AFT affiliates are located mostly in urban centers, where the percentage of minority groups in the population is steadily increasing. Ac cording to Morrison, the ethnic backgrounds of the teachers will increasingly reflect those of the students, resulting in an AFT composed primarily of minority teachers and an NEA preponderantly white. Merger would contribute to a more integrated organization and society, Morrison asserted. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 Despite its policy on AFL-CIO affiliation, the NEA has demonstrated willingness to work with labor organizations, most notably in lobbying and legal activities. Together with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the Firefighters Union, they have drafted and plan to have introduced in Congress legislation calling for the establishment of a National Labor Relations Board for the public sector. If passed, the bill will grant all public employees the right to organize and bargain collectively. As a substitute to merger, the NEA resolved to seek to establish an independent Confederation of Public Employes, to work for the achievement of goals common to public employees. Two unions, the American Federation of State, County and Munici pal Employees and the AFT (both A FL-C IO ), were specifically mentioned as possible members. Other issues Teacher strikes, which decreased in the 1971-72 school year to one-half the 1969-70 level, were discussed by NEA General Counsel Robert Chanin. He attributed the decline to the increased sophistica tion and experience of both school boards and teach ers in negotiating salaries and benefits. Chanin sug gested that future strikes and teacher-school board clashes will probably be centered on matters relating to curriculum and class size, since recent court deci sions in several localities have included these items among those for which teachers can bargain. School boards have traditionally exercised almost complete power over these matters. The delegates were unified in demanding more say in class size and curriculum. Teachers could very well be bringing these issues to the tables for negotiation, most likely after the em ployment picture in their profession improves. At tempts to acquire more control over such policies may raise serious new questions over the role of teachers’ organizations in education. Incoming president Catherine Barrett, an advocate of organizational autonomy, pledged an active role for the NEA in politics, working for “friends of edu cation.” Helen Wise will assume the presidency after the 1973 convention in Portland, Oreg. There the delegates will have an opportunity to evaluate the im pact of policies established at Atlantic City and at the American Federation of Teachers convention held in August. □ WHAT SUBCONTRACTORS PAY CONSTRUCTION WORKERS JOHN LITSAS construction industry, subcontractors are en gaged by general contractors to perform a single activity such as plumbing, electrical work, masonry or painting. They produce nearly half of the contract construction industry’s total product and employ half of its work force.1 In 1969, an estimated 140,000 subcontractors employed 1,628,000 workers. Total compensation, including payments for legally required and for voluntary retirement and welfare plans, stood at $5.47 a work hour for construction workers in 1969 and with a few exceptions (notably bituminous coal mining) was the highest for bluecollar workers in any industry. (See table 1.) How ever, at $4.78 a work hour, direct pay was the Nation’s highest for blue-collar wage earners and accounted for 87.3 percent of compensation. Pay for working time was $4.73 an hour and rep resented 86.3 percent of compensation. The only other relatively important elements of compensation were employer expenditures for retirement, amount ing to 33 cents a work hour and 25 cents for life insurance and health benefit programs. These pay ments represented 6 percent and 4.6 percent of com pensation, respectively. The remaining portion of compensation (3 percent) consisted of low payments for leave time (except sick leave), 1.7 percent; in significant nonproduction bonuses, 0.3 percent; and payments for unemployment insurance, 1 percent.2 Unlike other goods-producing industries, the pro duction center in construction is always shifting. When a project is finished, the work force disbands or moves to another site, usually to work for another contractor. Because of this continual movement from I n the John Litsas is an economist in the Division of General Compensation Structures, Office of Wages and Industrial Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis one firm to another, there is no way that an employer can establish a plan for paid vacations and holidays, or a pension and welfare program. Thus, the empha sis of the worker on obtaining a high wage rate and as much overtime as possible. For the nonunion worker, pay for working time accounted for as much as 88.8 percent of compensa tion. For retirement, accident insurance, and health benefits, he had to rely mostly on Social Security and workmen’s compensation, which are not affected by labor turnover. Many union contracts establish pension, health benefit, and vacation and holiday funds to which em ployers contribute an amount per work hour or per cent of gross payroll. Employer payments for legally required and private retirement and welfare plans, as well as for multiemployer funds, amounted to 93 cents a work hour, or 14.1 percent of compensation, compared with 33 cents, or 8.8 percent, respectively, for the nonunion sector. Consequently, pay for work ing time in the union sector declined to 85.4 percent of compensation. In the table, the structure of compensation for production workers in manufacturing is presented. Although not strictly comparable, it helps point up differences in the structure of compensation between that for construction workers and for production workers in other goods-producing industries. Somewhat more than three-fifths of the workers in the industry were employed by union firms— those where a majority of workers were covered by contracts. Their total compensation averaged $6.57 a work hour compared with $3.78 for those in non union firms. The striking differential partly reflects the prevalence in this industry of either all-union or all-nonunion firms. Thus, the high average hourly compensation in union firms is not diluted by low nonunion rates, and conversely the average hourly compensation in nonunion firms is unaffected by high union rates. The three largest branches of the industry, plumb ing, electrical work, and masonry, accounted for 57 58 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 more than half of the workers employed by subcon tractors. Electrical contracting had the highest level of compensation, $6.08 a work hour, followed by plumbing with a level of $5.75, and masonry with $5.36; the average for all other branches of the in dustry combined was $5.10. Again, the degree of unionization was a factor. Table 1. In the industry as a whole, 63 percent of construc tion workers were employed in union establishments. Electrical contracting had the highest degree of un ionization, with 77 percent of its workers employed in union establishments. Plumbing firms were second with 67 percent, followed by masonry with 60 per cent. The degree of unionization for all other indus- Compensation paid by construction subcontractors and by manufacturers to blue-collar workers, 1969 C onstruction A ll establishm ents M a n u fa c tu rin g 1 Union establishm ents 2 Nonunion establishm ents 2 A ll establishm ents Union establishm ents 2 Nonunion establishm ents 2 Compensation item Percent of comperisation Dollars per w ork hour Percent of compensation Dollars per work hour Percent of com perisation Dollars per w ork hour Percent of compensation Dollars per w ork hour Percent of compensation Dollars per w ork hour Percent of compensation Dollars per work hour T otal com pensation______ 100.0 $5.47 100.0 $6.57 100.0 $3.78 100.0 $3.96 100.0 $4.37 100.0 $3.27 Pay for working tim e_________ Straight-tim e pay__________ Premium p a y ... . . Overtime, weekend and holiday w o rk ... Shift differentials______ 86.3 83.6 2.7 4.73 4.58 .15 85.4 82.6 2.8 5.61 5.43 .18 88.8 86.2 2.6 3.35 3.26 .10 80.9 76.7 4.2 3.20 3.04 .17 79.4 74.8 4.6 3.47 3.27 .20 84.4 80.7 3.7 2.76 2.64 .12 2.7 (3) .15 (3) 2.8 (3) .18 (3) .10 ( 3) ( 3) 3.3 .8 .13 .03 3.4 1.2 .15 .05 3.1 .6 .10 .02 1.7 ..3 .3 .10 .02 .01 1.8 .1 .1 .12 .01 .01 1.5 .9 .6 .06 .03 .02 ( 3) ( 3) ( 3) ( 3) ( 3) .24 .14 .09 .01 6.9 4.1 2.3 .2 .30 .18 .10 .01 4.6 2.8 1.8 .1 .15 .09 .06 ( 3) 6.0 3.5 2.2 .2 ( 3) 1.2 .06 1.6 .10 ( 3) ( 3) .1 .2 .01 (3) (3) Employer expenditures for retirement programs____ Social security___ Private plans_______ _____ 6.0 3.5 2.5 .33 .19 .14 6.6 3.3 3.3 .43 .21 .22 4.4 4.0 0.4 .16 .15 .01 6.9 3.5 3.2 .30 .15 .14 5.5 3.7 1.8 .18 .12 .06 Employer expenditures for life insurance and health benefit programs____________ Life, accident and health insurance___________ __ Sick leave____ Workmen’s compensation___ 4.6 .25 5.0 .33 3.5 .13 4.9 .19 5.5 .24 3.7 .12 2.2 (3) 2.3 .12 (3) .12 2.8 (3) 2.1 .18 (3) .14 0.8 0.1 2.6 .03 (3) .10 3.5 .3 1.1 .14 .02 .04 4.1 .5 .9 .18 .02 .04 1.8 .6 1.2 .06 .02 .04 1.0 1.0 .05 .05 1.0 .9 .06 .06 1.0 1.0 .04 .04 1.1 .8 .04 .03 1.1 .7 .05 .03 .9 .9 .03 .03 (3) ( 3) ( 3) ( 3) ( 3) ( 3) ( 3) ( 3) ( 3) ( 3) ( 3) Pay for leave time (except sick leave)___________ ________ Vacations___ _ . ____ Holidays____ Civic and personal leave____ Emlpoyer payments to vacation and holiday funds___ Employer expenditures for unemployment benefit programs___ Unemployment insurance___ Severance pay___________ Severance pay funds and supplemental unemployment benefit funds______ Nonproduction bonuses________ Savings and th rift plans________ Wages and salaries (gross payroll)4_____________ Supplements to wages and salaries5_____________ .3 .02 ( 3) ( 3) .2 .01 6.4 3.6 2.7 2 ( 3) .7 .03 .5 .1 (3) .25 .14 .11 ni 01 .02 .2 .1 .01 ( 3) (3 \ .8 .1 (3) ( 3) .03 ( 3) ( 3) ( 3) ( 3) ( 3) ( 3) 87.3 4.78 85.8 5.64 91.1 3.44 87.9 3.48 87.0 3.80 90.2 2.95 12.7 .70 14.1 .93 8.8 .33 12.1 .48 13.0 .57 9.8 .32 1 Interpolated from the 1968 and 1970 surveys of Employee Compensation in the Private Nonfarm Economy. 2 A "union establishment” is that where the majority of workers is covered by union contracts, a "nonunion establishment” where the majority is not covered. However, the total work force of the establishment is counted as “ union” in the first case and as "nonunion" in the second. 3 Less than 0.05 percent or $0,005. 4 Wages and salaries include all direct payments to workers. They consist of pay for working time; pay for vacations, holidays, sick leave, and civic and personal leave; severance pay; and nonproduction bonuses. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2.6 ( 3) ( 3) ( 3) 5 Supplements to wages and salaries include all employer expenditures for compen sation other than for wages and salaries. They consist of expenditures for retirement programs (including direct pay to pensioners under pay-as-you-go private pension plans); expenditures for health benefit programs (except sick leave); expenditures for unemployment benefit programs (except severance pay); payments to vacation and holiday funds, and payments to savings and th rift plans. NOTES: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. Dash (— ) indicates zero. 59 WHAT SUBCONTRACTORS PAY CONSTRUCTION WORKERS try branches combined was 57 percent. As the degree of unionization rose, the average level of compensation increased. For example, if all branches had the same degree of unionization as that of the construction special trade industry as a whole, total compensation for practically all branches would not vary much from the industry’s $5.47 per work hour average. At this assumed level of unionization, compensation per work hour would average $5.64 in plumbing, $5.60 in electrical work, $5.40 in masonry and $5.24 in all other branches combined. In the union sector, total compensation per work hour was $6.88 in electrical work, $6.86 in plumb ing, and $6.08 in masonry. In the nonunion sector, it was $3.60, $3.72, and $4.32. Thus, total com pensation in the union sector exceeded that in the nonunion sector by 91 percent in electrical work, by 84 percent in plumbing, but by only 41 percent in masonry. These differences resulted primarily from the greater tendency of firms to be all-union or all nonunion in the electrical and plumbing branches than in the masonry branch. Survey data suggest that it was unusual for plumbing firms to pay union wages and benefits to part of the work force and nonunion to the other and even rarer for electrical work firms to do so. On the other hand, this practice was not un common in masonry. For detailed statistical data, see Employee Com pensation and Payroll Hours: Construction— Special Trade Contractors, 1969 (BLS Report 413, 1972). □ Table 1. Occupational pay relationships: Average hourly earnings for selected jobs as percentages of averages for weavers in yarn and broadwoven textile mills [Weavers=100] Wool tex tile mills Cotton-manmade fiber textile mills Selected occupations Sep tember 1968 Worsted operations Woolen operations No August August No August 1971 vember vember 1971 1971 1966 1966 Card tenders Doffers, spinning fra m e ... Drawing frame tenders___ Inspectors, cloth machine. 81 92 84 81 80 90 82 81 80 75 83 85 Loom fixers_____________ Section men (spinning fixers) Slubber tenders, long draft Spinners, fram e_________ 115 114 106 106 101 100 92 84 90 82 82 86 82 86 100 81 100 80 Twister tenders, ring frame Warper tenders Weaving machine operators Winders, yarn___________ 86 83 94 79 94 — Ill 76 115 94 98 86 81 78 79 78 87 80 94 105 76 98 78 75 96 78 NOTE: Dashes indicate no data reported or data that do not meet publication criteria JOSEPH C. BUSH few years, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics surveys.1 Yarn winders and ring-frame spinners, for example, averaged about 20 percent less than weav ers in cotton and manmade fiber textile mills in September 1968 and August 1971. (See table 1.) In the limited number of comparisons available in wool mills, wage relationships shifted somewhat for woolen jobs, but held steady for worsted occupations. Among the occupations selected to represent various pay levels in cotton and manmade fiber tex tile mills, straight-time averages ranged from $3.11 an hour for loom fixers to $1.94 for janitors. Yarn winders, the most numerous group studied, averaged $2.18 an hour— 5 cents less than spinners and twist ers on ring-frames. Other numerically important jobs and their averages included handtruckers or bobbin boys, $2.01 an hour; battery hands, $2.07; card tenders, $2.17; inspectors on cloth machines, $2.19; warper tenders, $2.35; doffers of spinning frames, $2.46; and weavers, $2.72. For a number of jobs in the wool textile segment of the survey, workers were classified in each mill by the type of yarn they processed. In woolen opera tions, yarn winders averaged $2.35 an hour; cloth menders, $2.51; spinning frame doffers and frame relationships for numerically important jobs in textile mills showed little change over the past Joseph C. Bush is an economist in the Division of Occupa tional Wage Structures, Bureau of Labor Statistics. ----------FOOTNOTES---------1 The contract construction industry accounts for about half of the Nation’s construction product. 2 Unemployment insurance payments were scarcely above the Nation’s all-industry average of 0.9 percent for bluecollar workers. Federal Unemployment Tax Act contribu tion rates reflect unemployment experience as related to an employer’s regular work force. The high unemployment rate for construction includes a large number of workers laid off by other industries who, while they are looking for tem porary work, in construction and therefore listed as con struction unemployed, continue to be carried by their regu lar employers for unemployment insurance purposes. OCCUPATIONAL PAY RELATIONSHIPS HOLD STEADY IN TEXTILES W age https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 60 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 spinners averaged $2.56 and $2.57 an hour, re spectively; and weavers, $2.85. In worsted opera tions, earnings for most of these jobs averaged some what less: Spinning frame doffers, $2.17 an hour; yarn winders and frame spinners, $2.22; cloth menders, $2.32; and weavers, $3. All production and related workers in yarn and broad woven textile mills averaged $2.35 an hour in August 1971. In cotton-manmade fiber mills, the 315,700 workers in the regular textile departments (through cloth room) averaged $2.34. The 27,000 production workers in wool mills averaged $2.48. Differences in location, size of mill, and union contract status were among the factors affecting wage levels in each textile sector. Nearly nine-tenths of the production workers in the cotton-manmade sector were employed in the Southeast region, nearly three-fourths of the workers were in nonmetropolitan areas, and a slightly higher proportion were in mills employing 250 workers or more. In the wool sector, only one-half of the workers were in the Southeast (New England and the Middle Atlantic States ac counted for 34 and 8 percent, respectively), about three-fifths were in nonmetropolitan areas, and slightly more than half were in mills having 250 workers or more. Establishments with union con tracts covering a majority of their workers accounted for one-sixth of the cotton-manmade work force and one-fourth of the wool work force. Paid holidays, paid vacations, and at least part of the cost of life, hospitalization, and surgical insur ance were provided to nine-tenths or more of the workers in both sectors. A number of other health and insurance benefits, as well as retirement pension plans, also applied to a large majority of the workers. A comprehensive report on the study, including an analysis of occupational pay relationships in ear lier surveys, will be issued this fall. Summary tabu lations, providing national and regional data, and separate releases for important States and areas in the textile industries are available upon request to the Bureau or any of its regional offices. □ ----------FOOTNOTE--------1 See Charles M. O’Connor, “Wages in Textile Mills,” Monthly Labor Review, June 1969, pp. 60-61, and Edward J. Caramela, “Earnings in Wool Yarn and Broadwoven Fabric Mills, 1966,” Monthly Labor Review, June 1967, pp. 59-62. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MANPOWER TRAINING PROGRAMS AID THE HANDICAPPED A lmost 64,000 handicapped persons received job and work training services through the U.S. Depart ment of Labor during fiscal year 1972, according to a recent report from the Manpower Administration. These services included: Number handicapped Cost estimate (estimate) $122,689,000 63,923 Total .......................... 55,555,000 21,872 MDTA (c la ssr o o m )............. 2,144,000 7,145 On-the-Job T rain in g............. 1,716,000 5,720 Jobs Optional (JOP) ......... Neighborhood Youth Corps 6,279,000 3,240 (out-of-school) ............... 5,958 25,322,000 Operation M ainstream ......... Public Service Careers 3,159,000 (Plans A and B) ............. 1,886 Concentrated Employment 12,778,000 Program ............................. 6,892 2,708 4,874,000 NAB/JOBS ........................... Work Incentive (W IN) 10,398,000 Program ............................. 8,239 464,000 New C a reers.......................... 263 Program A handicapped worker is defined as one who has a physical, mental, or emotional impairment or chronic condition that could limit work activities. Many are disabled Vietnam veterans, who are given first priority on any available jobs or training under the various manpower programs. A good part of the activity aimed specifically at helping the handicapped individual train for and ob tain suitable employment is carried out by State Em ployment Service offices. A summary of the States’ annual plans of service to the handicapped for fiscal 1972 is available from the Manpower Information Office, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20210. □ CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE OF CENSUS BUREAU INTERVIEWERS F or agencies and individuals undertaking research involving field interviewing, it is important to know the attributes of interviewers and the elements that contribute to production and quality performance. 61 RESEARCH SUMMARIES A recent working paper from the U.S. Bureau of the Census summarizes their work in the area of inves tigating interviewer characteristics, attitudes, and performance. The paper covers seven major topics: Characteris tics of census interviewers; performance as related to characteristics; performance in general— analyses of production and quality; interviewers’ attitudes and opinions about their work and training; turnover; areas of application; and future research. A bibliog raphy of work done at the Census Bureau is included. Working Paper No. 34, Investigation of Census Bu reau Interviewer Characteristics, Performance, and Attitudes: A Summary, was issued by the Research Center for Measurement Methods, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. 20233. □ DISABLED WIDOW’S ANNUITIES UNDER THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT I n the 4 years since the Railroad Retirement Act included provisions for annuities to disabled widows under 60, the Railroad Retirement Board has awarded monthly benefits in about 3,700 cases. According to a recent article in the RR B Quarterly Review,1 the average annuity award has increased from $93 in 1968 to $116 in 1971, largely because of general increases of 15 and 10 percent provided by the 1970 and 1971 amendments to the Railroad Retirement Act and by related Social Security amendments. A disabled widow is eligible for a lifetime annuity as early as age 50, if she .meets requirements of the Railroad Retirement Act.2 Annuity provisions for disabled widows are basically the same as those for aged widows (60 and over) under the act, except that the amount is reduced 0.3 percent for each month the disabled widow is under 60 when the annuity begins. Since almost two-thirds of those awarded annuities began receiving benefits at ages 55-59, this reduction amounted to an average $13 in 1968 and rose to $22 in 1972. The increase is due to two factors: (1) the decline in average age of those entering the rolls from 55.8 years in 1968 to 55.1 years in 1971, which increased the number of months used in computing the reduction, and (2) the larger annuity amount to which the reduction was applied in 1970 and 1971. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Despite the decline in age of award recipients, the average age of disabled widows in current-payment status (3,200 persons in 1971) has increased from 57 years in 1968 to 58.5 years in 1971. By the end of 1971, 35 percent of those on the rolls had attained age 60. The average annuity to those in current-payment status was $117. Over three-fourths of these widows were being paid under special guaranty provisions of the act, which grant 10 percent above the benefits provided by the standard RRA “railroad formula” or by Social Security, whichever is higher. These widows received an average $130, compared with $77 received by disabled widows whose annuities were computed under the railroad formula. How ever, most of the latter (20 percent of all recipients)3 were also receiving Social Security benefits averaging $113 based on their own earnings, bringing their average monthly income to about $190. The number of dual recipients has grown from one-eighth of all disabled widows in the program in 1968 to one-fifth in 1971. □ --------- FOOTNOTES---------1 “Disabled Widow’s Annuities Under the RRA,” RRB Quarterly Review, January-March 1972. pp. 16-18. "A disabled widow’s annuity is payable to an unremar ried widow of a completely insured employee (one who has 10 years of creditable railroad service and a “current con nection with the railroad industry” at death) if she is unable to engage in any regular employment. Her dis ability must have begun no later than 7 years after her husband’s death unless she received other monthly survivor benefits, in which case it must have begun within 7 months after those benefits ended. The annuity is payable for life unless the widow recovers from her disability before age 60 or remarries at any age. The special guaranty seldom applies to dual beneficiaries, as the guaranty amounts are reduced by the full amount of any social security benefit, while under the railroad formula only a partial offset is applied. DECLINE IN U.S. FARM POPULATION CONTINUES I n 1971 about 1 out of every 22 Americans was living on a farm, compared with about 1 out of 12 in 1960 (and 1 out of 3 in 1916, when the U.S. farm population was at its peak). Since 1960 the farm population has declined at an annual average rate of MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 62 4.6 percent; the relative loss among Negroes and other races has been greater than among whites, 9.7 percent compared with 3.9 percent. The farm population is becoming older, also. Of the estimated 9.4 million persons living on farms in rural territory in April 1971, 25 percent were under 14 years of age, compared with 32 percent in 1960. The proportion of persons age 55 and older rose from 18 percent in 1960 to 24 percent in 1971. The trend toward employment of farm residents in nonagricultural industries continues. In 1971, 44 percent of the labor force living on farms worked in nonagricultural industries, up from 33 percent in 1960. On the other hand, 38 percent of the 3.7 mil lion persons employed in agricultural industries in 1971 were nonfarm residents, compared with 25 per cent of the 5.4 m illio n so em p lo y ed in 1960. Farm Population of the United States: 1971, a 12-page report prepared by the Bureau of the Census in cooperation with the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is available for 15 cents from the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D.C. 20402, or any of the field offices of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Refer to Cur rent Population Reports, Series P-27, No. 43. □ SOURCES OF DATA ON WOMEN AND WOMEN WORKERS To a ssist employers and other interested persons in acquiring statistical data needed in the development of affirmative action programs for women workers, the U.S. Women’s Bureau has compiled a list of suggested source materials. The listing identifies se lected publications currently available or soon to be published on persons by sex, race, educational attain ment, labor force participation, occupation, and in dustry. The publications are grouped under five topics: Population; education; civilian labor force, employment, and unemployment; occupation and in dustry; and labor force reserve. Availability of data by region, State, Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, or other area is designated. The 15-page Guide to Sources of Data on Women and Women Workers for the United States and for Regions, States, and Local Areas is available from the Women’s Bureau, Employment Standards Ad ministration, U.S. Department of Labor, Washing ton, D.C. 20210 (single copies free while supply lasts). □ Redefining the hard core Early definitions of “hard-core” unemployable in the labor market centered around demographic variables. “Hard core” tended to be defined as older persons, less well-educated, usually part of some minority ethnic group . . . In other words, these were persons most likely not to have jobs and therefore the hard-core of the labor market in terms of employability. . . . [However, data now available] on success of various groups in a hard-core training program that is literally open to all comers [suggests] some need to redefine the concept of hard-core in motivational rather than demographic terms. In general, . . . one main factor emerged to separate transfers (successful) from terminees (unsuccessful)— age. Older trainees were more likely to succeed. [In comparing] achievement test scores for the various groups, . . . in nearly every group, terminees score better on tests than transfers . . . the trend is strong, indicating that https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis the person less likely to obtain a job is better on the tests and, one suspects, more intelligent. This fact coupled with the age differences found suggests the hypothesis that older, less smart indi viduals are better bets to succeed in this program. The true “hard-core” then may not be the older person with few skills, but the younger, brighter individual. . . . All of this suggests that defining the hard-core as persons who have trouble finding jobs is out moded. Apparently, older, less intelligent minority individuals who are last to get jobs, if given the opportunity, can succeed to an appreciable degree. Hard-core now should be used more exclusively as a term for the nonmotivated individual who . . . can be reasonably well-educated and young, but who doesn’t “make it.” — W a y n e K. K ir c h n e r a n d J u n e A. L u c a s , “The Hard-Core in Training— Who Makes It?” Training and Development Journal, May 1972. Significant Decisions in Labor Cases Political contributions by unions U.S. S u p r e m e C o u r t ’s recent decision in Pipefitters Local 562 1 may have appeared to be a breakthrough for the proposition that labor unions have the right to provide financial and material sup port to candidates in Federal elections. In reality, organized labor has taken this right for granted as a matter of statutory provisions that have been on the books for many years now. Even the prosecution in the present case admitted that the principal law involved here—the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, section 610—does not prohibit labor unions from making political contributions and expenditures from funds financed by their members’ voluntary donations; and the High Court agreed. It was the Court’s opinion on when a union fund designed for political purposes ceases to be legal that was of primary significance in the above deci sion. “Knowing free-choice donations” of union members, handled as a “segregated fund,” even though under the union’s control, constitute the cri teria of such a fund’s legality, ruled the Court by interpreting the pertinent laws. The issue of the suit— that is, the question of whether the Pipefitters’ local was guilty of main taining an unlawful political fund—remained unde cided. The High Court ruled in favor of the union by reversing an appeals court’s decision,2 but only because that court had upheld the trial court’s er roneous interpretation of the law in instructing the jury. For a number of years, the Pipefitters’ local maintained a fund for political purposes, to which its members and other employees working under its jurisdiction contributed regularly. At one time the donations were required of all members, but later they became voluntary, even though the local’s agents T he “Significant Decisions in Labor Cases” is written by Eugene Skotzko, Office of Publications, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis collected them at job sites “in the regular systematic method . . . at a prescribed rate based on hours worked.” (Sup. Ct.’s language.) In a “voluntary contribution agreement,” an employee specified what percent of his wages he would contribute and author ized the fund’s management to spend the money, “in their sole judgment and discretion, for political, edu cational, legislative, charity, and defense purposes,” though reserving for himself the freedom “to revoke this agreement by a written notice.” He further stated that the donations were “no part of the dues or finan cial obligations” of the local, and that the union “has nothing to do with this fund.” (Quotations from the authorization card.) Some employees did not con tribute. As various witnesses testified in court, the contributions were usually “referred to— and actually understood by some to be— assessments, or that they [the employees] paid their contributions voluntarily in the same sense that they paid their dues and other financial obligations.” (Sup. Ct.’s language.) A prin cipal union officer was the fund’s director, with un limited power to control its disbursements. And there was a record of substantial political contributions (about $150,000) to candidates for Federal offices. In its action against the local, the Department of Justice, without challenging the union’s right to have an independent fund for political purposes, main tained that the existing fund was not a separate or ganization independent of the union, but was a front for the union’s illegal use of its money in violation of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act. In fact, the prosecution charged, union officials were in conspira cy 3 to commit this violation. As it later said in its brief for the Supreme Court, “The essential charge of the indictment and the theory on which the case was tried was that the [Pipefitters] fund, although formally set up as an entity independent of Local 562, was in fact a union fund, controlled by the union, contributions to which were assessed by the union as part of its dues structure, collected from nonmembers in lieu of dues, and expended, when deemed necessary, for union purposes and the per63 64 sonal use of the directors of the fund.” The union and some of its officers were indicted and later convicted for the alleged violations. The local was fined $5,000, and the individuals were sen tenced to pay $1,000 each and to serve 1 year in prison. The Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, sec tion 610 (original section 313, amended by section 304 of the Labor Management Relations Act and coded as 18 U.S.C. section 610) reads in part: It is unlawful . . . for any corporation whatever, or any labor organization to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election at which Presidential and Vice Presidential electors or a Sena tor or Representative in . . . Congress are to be voted for, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candi dates for any of the foregoing offices. . . . As can be seen, the provision does not specifically permit corporations or unions to organize and main tain separate financial organizations for the support of political candidates of their choice. But neither does it forbid them to do so; it does not prohibit political contributions and expenditures so long as the money does not come from a union’s treasury. The basic question in the present suit, then, was, when is such a fund separate and, therefore, legal?— or in the Supreme Court’s language, “when [do] po litical contributions and expenditures by a union fall outside the ambit of section 610” of the Corrupt Practices Act? In pursuit of the answer, Justice Brennan, who delivered the opinion of the Court, rather extensively reviewed labor’s past practices in the area of political financing, as well as the legislative histories of the amendments to the Corrupt Practices Act and their incorporation in two different statutes. He found that during the 1940’s, prior to the enactment of the Labor Management Relations Act which extended the ban on political contributions to labor organiza tions and added to it the word “expenditures,” labor set a precedent of financing its political activities from members’ free donations. Leading in this respect at that time was the Political Action Committee (PAC) of the Council of Industrial Organization (CIO), which beginning with 1944 observed the principle of voluntariness in collecting money for its purposes. But the CIO, certainly, did not abstain from con trolling PAC’s funds or determining its program. In fact, as Justice Brennan observed, PAC’s “connec tion to the CIO was close at every level of organiza tion.” https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 During the 1947 congressional debate on exten sion of the ban to labor organizations, the state ments of the LMRA’s sponsors, particularly those of Senator Robert A. Taft, made it clear that the ban was intended to prevent unions from exerting too much influence on political processes of the country by using their “aggregated wealth,” said the Justice; but that the unions still were free to organize finan cial assistance to candidates of their choice on the basis of voluntary donations of members. Congress further modified the ban in 1971 and incorporated it in a new statute, the Federal Election Campaign Act (section 205). The amendment— an addition to section 610, called Hansen Amendment4 — was virtually nothing more than codification of the old law, that is, a detailed statement of its pro hibitions. But it did change the ban in one respect— it permitted the use of union money to cover the costs of establishing and maintaining a political fund. For it provided that the prohibited “contributions or ex penditures . . . shall not include [expenditures in connection with] the establishment, administration, and solicitation of contributions to a separate segre gated fund to be utilized for political purposes by a corporation or labor organization: Provided, That it shall be unlawful for such a fund to make a con tribution or expenditure by utilizing money or any thing of value secured by physical force, job discrimi nation, or financial reprisals, or the threat of force, job discrimination, or financial reprisal; or by dues, fees, or other moneys required as a condition of membership in a labor organization or as con dition of employment, or by moneys obtained in any commercial transaction.” Thus, section 205 gave unions a responsible role in political fundraising, at the same time sternly warning them against coercion in collecting donations. Justice Brennan gave a close scrutiny to this modification of the Corrupt Practices Act. He an alyzed its language and concluded that a “separate segregated” fund means one that need not be com pletely apart from the union but must be segregated from the rest of the union’s moneys. A “threat” of reprisal for refusal to donate to the fund, Justice Brennan said, must not be understood only as “the creation of an appearance of an intent to inflict injury” but also as “the creation of an appearance of an intent to inflict injury even without a design to carry it out”— in short, a threat that is intended to do no more than engender fear. Contributions thus collected cannot be considered voluntary donations. SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS IN LABOR CASES Further, “dues, fees, and other moneys required as a condition of membership . . . or as a condition of employment,” which cannot be used for political purposes, must not be construed as “only actual dues and assessments,” such as are traditionally collected for the maintenance and operation of unions. The money thus defined, said the Justice, “includes con tributions effectively assessed even if not actually required for employment or union membership” (em phasis added). (Of course, this interpretation leaves open the question of whether a union’s constitution could provide for a political assessment as a condi tion of at least membership if not employment.) Finally, Justice Brennan stressed that the ban now does not apply to the use of union money for the purpose of organizing a political fund and soliciting donations. From this interpretive analysis by Justice Brennan emerged the answer to the central question of when political contributions and expenditures of labor unions are lawful. His conclusion can be summarized as follows: • Union contributions and expenditures in support of candidates in Federal elections must come “from political funds financed in some sense by the volun tary donations of employees.” • The test of voluntariness of such donations “focuses on whether the contributions solicited . . . are knowing free-choice donations.” In the language of the law (the Hansen Amendment), political financing may not be made “by utilizing money or anything of value secured by physical force, job discrimination, financial reprisals, or the threat [of such retaliation].” • A union may establish and administer such a political fund, and may fully control its disburse ments. The fund need not be a separate entity com pletely detached from the union, but it must be “seg regated” from the rest of the union’s moneys. • Political contributions and expenditures must not be made from union money— dues and assess ments— paid by employees as a condition of mem bership in the labor organization or of employment, or from union’s commercial transactions. Nor may they come from employees’ payments “effectively assessed even if not actually required for employment or union membership.” • A union may use money from its treasury in connection with political fundraising, but only for the purpose of establishing, administering, or solicit ing members’ contributions to a political fund. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 65 As already mentioned, the question of whether the Pipefitters’ fund was lawful remained unresolved. Two points of impropriety that occurred in the lower courts precluded the High Court’s decision on the merits of the case. The Government had failed to state the union’s offense under the law, merely in sisting that the fund in question “was in fact a union fund, controlled by the union” (U.S. brief for the Sup. C t.); but this did not constitute an offense since the law permits unions to maintain and control such funds. Only an allegation of improper acquisition of a fund’s money could constitute an offense; but the Government’s position was that regardless of whether the fund consisted of free donations, it belonged to the union and, therefore, its political disbursements were unlawful. As a result, the indictment failed to allege that payments to the fund were involuntary. The trial judge upheld the prosecution’s argument and, in instructing the jury, failed to stress that a finding of the fund’s being financed by free donations would provide no ground for conviction. The court of appeals upheld the lower court, saying that “the issue of whether the payment to the fund is volun tary . . . is not controlling.” The High Court considered the instructions to the jury as a “plainly erroneous” interpretation of the law. “The instructions . . . clearly permitted the jury to convict without finding that donations to the Pipe fitters fund had been actual or effective dues or as sessments.” The appellate decision was reversed and the case remanded for further proceeding consistent with this opinion. Justice Blackmun did not participate in the Court’s deliberations or decision. Justice Powell, joined by Chief Justice Burger, dissented on the ground that, generally, the majority’s opinion contradicted the “clear and unambiguous” statute. The dissent con cluded: “In sum, the opinion of the Court today, adopting an intepretation of section 610 at variance with its language and purpose, goes a long way toward returning unions and corporations to an un regulated status with respect to political contribu tions. This opening of the door to extensive corpo rate and union influence of the elective and legisla tive processes must be viewed with genuine concern. This seems to me to be a regressive step. . . .” Duties of successor employer More than 2 years ago, the National Labor Rela tion Board ruled that when a change in ownership 66 of a unionized establishment occurs, the new owner is dutybound to recognize and to bargain with the union of the predecessor’s employees and to honor its collective bargaining agreement, unless he sub stantially changes the nature of the acquired busi ness.5 A court of appeals agreed with the Board as regards bargaining but rejected the idea that a successor owner is bound by the provisions of the inherited labor contract.6 The Supreme Court recent ly upheld the appellate decision. (Burns International Security Services.7) The facts in the case were: A detective agency won a bid to provide plant security for the Lockheed Corp., displacing another agency whose employees were represented by a certified union. The new agency hired most of the predecessor’s guards but asked them to join a union representing its employees in various places. It refused to honor the existing contract or to bargain with the incumbent union when the contract expired. It was the opinion of the Supreme Court that since the Board has the power to determine bargaining units, the new employer in this case was obligated to recognize the unit in question and to bargain with its representative. It said: . . . It has been consistently held that a mere change o f employers or o f ownership in the em ploy ing industry is not such an ‘unusual circum stance’ as to affect the force o f the Board’s certification . . . if a majority of em ployees after the change o f owner ship or managem ent were em ployed by the preceding employer. . . . [Therefore], where . . . the bargaining unit remains unchanged and a majority o f the em ployees hired by the new em ployer are represented by a recently certi fied bargaining agent there is little basis for faulting the Board’s im plem entation of the express mandate of section 8 ( a ) ( 5 ) and section 9 (a ) [to bargain with the em ployees’ representative] by ordering the em ployer to bargain with the incum bent union. . . . MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 . . . Here, Burns had notice o f the existence o f [its predecessor’s] collective-bargaining contract, but it did not consent to be bound by it. The source o f its duty to bargain with the union is not the collective bargaining contract but the fact that it voluntarily took over a bargaining unit that was largely intact and that had been certified w ithin the past year. N othing in its actions, however, indicated that B um s was assum ing the obligations o f the contract. The Court also gave a practical consideration to the matter. It said: W e also agree with the court o f appeals that hold ing either the union or the new em ployer bound to the substantive terms o f an old collective bargaining con tract may result in serious inequities. A potential em ployer may be w illing to take over a moribund business only if he can make changes in corporate structure, com position o f the labor force, work, loca tion, task assignment, and nature o f supervision. Saddling such an em ployer with the terms and con ditions o f em ploym ent contained in the old [labor] contract may make these changes im possible and may discourage and inhibit the transfer o f capital. . . . The Court disagreed with the NLRB’s contention that the 1964 decision in Wiley* was controlling in the present case. (There the Supreme Court held that a successor employer may be compelled to arbi trate the extent to which he is to be bound by the old contract.) The Court said, “Wiley [case] arose in the context of a section 301 [of the LMR/1] suit to compel arbitration, not in the context of an unfair labor practice proceeding where the Board is ex pressly limited by the provisions of section 8 (d )” (duty to bargain in good faith). □ --------- FOOTNOTES---------1 Pipefitters Local No. 562 v. United States (U.S. Sup. Ct., No. 70-74, June 22, 1972). 2 434 F.2d 1127 (C.A. 8, No. 19466, 1970— final re hearing of the court en banc). The court’s earlier decision in the case is at 434 F.2d 1116. 3 Under 18 U.S.C. section 371. But the High Court was of different opinion as regards the predecessor’s contract. It cited the express statement of section 8(d) of the LMRA that the obligation to bargain “does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession” (section 8(d) language). Further, the Court pointed to its ruling in H. K. Porter8 that the Board cannot “compel a company or a union to agree to any substantive contractual provision,” and concluded: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4 Introduced by Representative Orval Hansen from Idaho. = William J. Burns International Detective Agency, 182 NLRB No. 50 (1970); see Monthly Labor Review, August 1970, pp. 72-73. “ 441 F.2d 911 (C.A. 2, Nos. 401 and 402, 1971); see Monthly Labor Review, August 1971, p. 68. 7 NLRB v. Burns International Security Services, Inc. (U.S. Sup. Ct., Nos. 71-123 and 71-198, May 15, 1972). 8 376 U.S. 543 (1964); see Monthly Labor Review, May 1964, p. 564. M ajor Agreem ents Expiring Next Month 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 Union 1 American Standard, Inc., Westinghouse Air Brake Co.: Signal & Communications Division (Swissvale, Pa.)_ Production and Maintenance (Swissvale, Pa.).......... Production and Maintenance (Wilmerding, Pa.)........ Appleton Electric Co. (Chicago, III.).................................... Electrical products. ____do..................... Transportation equipment. Electrical products............. Electrical Workers (UE) (Ind .). ____do........................................... .do. Electrical Workers (IBEW). Bayly Manufacturing Co. (Interstate)..................................... ............................... Birdsboro Corp. and Birdsboro Armorcast, Inc. (Birdsboro and Reading, Pa.). A p p a re l... Machinery. Clothing Workers. Steelworkers____ Number of workers 1,350 1,100 2,300 1,000 1,500 1,000 Collins Radio Co. (Cedar Rapids, Iowa)................................................................. Electrical products. Electrical Workers (IBEW)__. 3,250 D.C. Transit System, Inc., and Washington, Virginia, and Maryland Coach Co., Inc. (D.C., Maryland, and Virginia). T ransit................... Amalgamated Transit Union- 2,400 Federation of New England Bakery Employers (Interstate)............................................. First National Stores, Inc. (New Jersey and New York)................................................... Food Fair Stores, Inc. (New Jersey and New Y ork)......... ....................... ......................... Food products. Retail trade__ ___ do.............. Teamsters (In d .). Meat Cutters........ Retail Clerks........ 2,000 1,600 1,250 Gas Service Co. (Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri). U tilities. General Dynamics Corp., Stromberg-Carlson Division (Rochester, N.Y.). Electrical products............. District 50, Allied and Technical Workers (Ind.). Electrical Workers (IU E)_______ 1,000 General Telephone Co. of Illinois, Plant Department (Illin o is )................. Communication..................... Electrical Workers (IB E W )_____ 2.500 1,600 Grinnell Corp. (Columbia, Pa.)............. ................................... .......... ......... Fabricated metal products. Molders.......... .............................. 1,200 Hughes Aircraft Co., Tucson Division (Tucson, Ariz.). Ordnance............... Machinists........................... 1,200 Infant & Juvenile Manufacturers Association, Inc. (New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut). ITT World Communications, Inc. (Interstate)................................................... Apparel................... Clothing Workers................ 5.000 Communication___ Communications Workers. 1.000 Kelvinator, Inc. (Grand Rapids, M ich.).......................................................................... ....... Electrical products. Auto Workers (In d .)_____ 2 1,400 National Electrical Contractors Association, Inc., Nassau/Suffolk Chapter (New York) Construction.......... Electrical Workers (IBEW). Olin Corp., Energy Systems Division, Indiana Army Ammunition Plant (Charlestown, In d ). Outboard Marine Corp., Johnson Motors Division (Waukegan, III.).................................. Ordnance................ Firemen and Oilers; and Chemical Workers. Independent Marine and Machinists Association (Ind.). Plain Dye and Machine Print Companies (Interstate)3....................... . Prudential Insurance Co. of America (Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Ohio). T e x tile s ... Insurance. Textile Workers U n ion.. Insurance Agents (Ind .). 6.500 2.000 Restaurant League of New York, Inc. (New York, N.Y.)........................... Retail Baking Industry in the Chicago Area (Chicago, III.)3...................... Restaurants. Retail trade. Hotel and Restaurant Employees. Retail Clerks................................... 1.500 Scovill Manufacturing Co. (Waterbury and New M ilford, Conn.). Screen Print and Screen Makers Agreement (Interstate)3.......... Fabricated metal products. Textiles................................ Auto Workers ( In d .) ... Textile Workers Union. 3,300 Timex Corp. (Oakville and Middlebury, Conn.). Instruments. Waterbury Watch Workers’ Union, Directly Affiliated-AFL-CIO. 1,350 Union Carbide Corp., Union Carbide Nuclear Co., Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant (Oak Ridge, Tenn.). United Parcel Service (Los Angeles, C a lif.).................................................................... Chemicals... Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers. 1,000 Trucking___ Teamsters ( In d .) .. ...................... . 1,600 Western Airlines, Inc., Clerical (Interstate)2......................................... Wire & Metal Products Manufacturers Guild, Inc. (New York, N.Y.). Air transportation.............. Fabricated metal products. Railway Clerks. _. Teamsters (Ind .). 4,000 1,800 1 Union affiliated with AFL-CIO except where noted as independent (Ind.). 2 Information is from newspaper. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Machinery.............. 1,850 14,550 3.000 1,200 1,000 1Industry area (group of companies signing same contract). 67 Developm ents in Industrial Relations $1.90 pay exemption voided On July 14, District of Columbia Judge William B. Jones ruled that the Cost of Living Council had exceeded its authority when it exempted from wage controls those workers earning $1.90 or less. The Council’s action, taken in February (Monthly Labor Review, April 1972, p. 58), had set off a storm of criticism, with organized labor charging that the implied intent of Congress (when it amended the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970 to exempt the working poor from controls) called for a cutoff figure of at least $3.35 an hour. The ruling was in response to suits filed by the Electrical Workers (IUE) and the Meat Cutters unions. Although Judge Jones did not order the Council to adopt the $3.35 figure, he did find ques tionable “the assumptions of [the Council] in adjust ing the level of exemption from controls downward from approximately $3.35 per hour to $1.90 per hour.” He enjoined the Government from enforcing the Council’s $1.90-an-hour rule, holding that “it wasn’t necessary to freeze workers at the poverty level to carry out the stated aims” of the Stabilization Act. The $1.90 cutoff exempted about 9 million workers from controls. It was estimated that a rise to $3.35 would affect an additional 14 million. On July 26, the Cost of Living Council raised the cutoff to $2.75 an hour, exempting an additional 10 million workers from Phase 2 controls. Council Di rector Donald Rumsfeld said other factors that led to the Council’s action were “moderate increases in the cost of living since the $1.90 figure was established” and an expected rise in the $1.60 minimum wage. The Electrical Workers union said $2.75 was still too low and that it would ask the judge to set the cutoff at about $3.80. The union also objected to the July 15 effective date set by the Council, asserting that regardless of whatever figure was finally imple mented, it should be retroactive to when controls were established. As a result of the latest exemption, combined with the earlier decision to exempt most small businesses from controls, 56 percent of the nearly 58 million private nonfarm workers would be exempt from Pay Board controls, according to the Cost of Living Council, compared with 39 percent under the $1.90 cutoff. An undetermined number of government and farm workers also were affected. In a related action, the Council approved a 65-cent raise in the District of Columbia minimum wage, to $2.25 an hour. The ruling covered 41,500 hotel, restaurant, and apartment house employees. In June, the panel had blocked the full rise, allowing a boost only to $1.90. In another Phase 2 development, 62,000 lumber companies that were among the 5 million firms with 60 or fewer employees exempted from wage and price controls on May 1 (Monthly Labor Review, July 1972, p. 48) became subject to controls again in mid-July. The Council’s reimposition of controls for the lumber firms was explained by Director Rumsfeld as having been prompted by Internal Rev enue Service surveys showing that “in recent months exempt lumber firms have increased prices consider ably more rapidly than those remaining under con trols.” (Of the 62,000 firms, 17,000 were manufac turers and processors, 10,000 wholesalers, and 35,000 retailers.) Rail manning disputes settled “Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by Leon Bornstein and other members of the staff of the Division of Trends in Employee Compensation, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is largely based on information from secondary sources. 68 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis In a historic settlement ending one of the longest labor-management disputes in American history, the Nation’s railroads and the United Transportation Union agreed to eventually eliminate the job of fire man on diesel freight locomotives. On July 20, they 69 DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS announced the new agreement, under which the rail roads will fill all engineer vacancies from the ranks of the 18,000 firemen on freight trains. The provi sion was to remain effective until all firemen are so employed or retire, resign, or die. Firemen must now retire at age 65, a provision speeding the phase-out. Generally, management has agreed that firemen should be kept on passenger trains for the sake of passenger safety. The carriers also agreed to rehire some 2,000 of the firemen furloughed as the result of prior arbitration rulings. About 75 percent of railroad firemen are employed on freight trains. The dispute began in 1937, when the railroads started replacing steam locomotives with diesels and firemen were no longer needed to shovel coal. Fire men then began serving as lookouts. The carriers claimed they were superfluous, while the unions re sisted efforts to phase them out. In 1959, the rail roads began a campaign to eliminate certain crew members, including firemen, on freight trains. The dispute subsequently involved presidential panels, arbitration boards, Congress, and the courts. Under the settlement, committees were established to study work rules affecting firemen’s duties and to evaluate the results of the agreement. Both sides stressed that the settlement was achieved through voluntary negotiations. A settlement of the manning dispute on the Penn Central was reached on July 21. Assistant Secretary of Labor William J. Usery said the railroad had reached agreement with the United Transportation Union on a “formula designed to deal with the ques tion of how many men should make up a train crew.” Mr. Usery declined to reveal the terms until union representatives could discuss them with other offi cials. The settlement averted a crisis on July 26, when the railroad planned to implement its program to cut freight crews from four to three men. Under the plan, which was approved by Federal Judge John P. Fullam, overseer of the bankrupt railroad, the reduction would have been accomplished partly through attri tion, and workers would have been accorded job protection equal to their seniority, up to 6 years. The Penn Central had originally announced its crewreduction plan in March, but the move was delayed by court tests and a strike threat that led to President Nixon’s invocation of the emergency provisions of the Railway Labor Act (Monthly Labor Review, August 1972, p. 59). https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Transportation strike bill shelved On July 21, Secretary of Labor James D. Hodgson commented on an Administration decision not to push for passage of the Crippling Strikes Prevention Bill this year. He said the bill had no chance of passage in this session of Congress. He added that no emergency disputes were likely to occur in transpor tation this year and that many unions and much of management objected to the bill and wanted to con sult further with the Department. Mr. Hodgson said one of the main points to be resolved was whether the bill should still apply to the same five industries— trucking, airlines, railroads, maritime, and longshoring. Social Security benefits increased A 20-percent increase in Social Security benefits was signed into law by President Nixon on July 1. The increase, effective September 1, raises the aver age monthly benefit for an individual to $161, from $133, and for couples to $270, from $223. The President, who had backed a 10-percent increase, approved the larger increase because it was tied to a vital bill maintaining the public debt ceiling at $450 H o u rly E arnin gs Ind ex The Hourly Earnings Index rose 0.6 in July to 137.5. The Index measures earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers in the private nonfarm econ omy. It is adjusted to exclude (1) the effects of inter industry employment shifts, (2 ) overtime premium pay in manufacturing, and (3) seasonal variations. Data for periods prior to July 1972 are also shown in the accompanying tabulation (1967 = 100). January . . . . February . . . March ......... April ........... M a y ........... .. J u n e ............... July ............. August . . . . September . . October . . . . November . . December .. . . . . . . . . . . . 1969 1970 1971 1972 110.0 110.8 111.4 112.0 112.7 113.3 113.9 114.4 115.1 115.8 116.5 117.0 117.4 118.0 118.8 119.3 120.0 120.6 121.4 122.5 123.2 123.4 124.1 125.0 126.0 126.7 127.3 128.1 129.1 129.3 130.0 130.9 131.3 131.4 131.6 133.5 134.5 134.7 135.5 136.6 136.8 p 136.9 p 137.5 p = Preliminary. 70 billion. Mr. Nixon said the increase would boost the Federal deficit for fiscal 1973 by $3.7 billion. Begin ning Jan. 1, 1973, the Social Security tax rate paid by both employers and employees will be 5.5 percent of the first $10,800 of annual earnings, a maximum payment for each of $594. The base will rise to $12,000 in 1974, bringing the maximum tax for each to $660. Beginning in 1975, benefits will be automatically adjusted whenever the Consumer Price Index rises by at least 3 percent. This feature would be financed by further increases in the taxable annual base. Previously, the tax was 5.2 percent of the first $9,000 and was scheduled to rise to 5.65 percent of the first $9,000 in 1973. The President also signed a bill extending the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 1971 for 6 months. The extension adds 13 weeks of benefits for workers who have exhausted their bene fits in States with high unemployment levels. The measure brings total jobless benefits to 52 weeks. Boyle sentenced to 5 years W. A. (Tony) Boyle, who was convicted in April of making illegal political contributions, was sen tenced to 5 years in prison and fined $130,000. The sentence was imposed by Federal Judge Charles R. Richey on June 27. In May, Federal Judge William B. Bryant upheld charges of irregularities in Mr. Boyle’s 1969 reelection and ordered a new election (Monthly Labor Review, August 1972, p. 59). Judge Richey ordered that the fine be paid out of the union chief’s own funds and restrained Mr. Boyle from “dissipating his assets” until the fine was paid. In addition, Mr. Boyle was ordered to repay to the union treasury $49,250 in funds contributed between 1967 and 1969 to various political campaigns. Mr. Boyle, who was initiating an appeal, received two concurrent 5-year terms. He was convicted of conspiring to convert money from the union’s general fund to the use of others and of converting union funds for political campaigns in violation of the Landrum-Griffin Act. Each count also brought a $10,000 fine. Judge Richey also imposed $10,000 fines for each of 11 other counts, and placed Mr. Boyle on 2 years’ probation. The 11 counts charged specific contributions to political campaigns in violatin of the Corrupt Practices Act. The probation, effective after completion of the prison term, was conditioned on the repayment of the $49,250 in union funds. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 In an unrelated development, the executive board elected Leonard J. Pnakovich, 53, to the union’s vice presidency, to succeed George J. Titler, 77, who re signed because of poor health. Mr. Pnakovich had been president of District 31 in Northern West Vir ginia and was the union’s acting safety director. He was scheduled to run on the Boyle slate in the new election ordered in May by a Federal judge who had set aside Mr. Boyle’s 1969 election after finding election law violations. On July 17, United Mine Workers officials Albert E. Pass, 51, and William J. Prater, 53, were indicted and charged with murder in connection with the December 1969 slaying of union dissident Joseph A. Yablonski and his wife and daughter. Mr. Pass, a member of the union’s executive board, had been arrested in May (Monthly Labor Review, July 1972, p. 49), and was scheduled to go on trial October 16, as was Mr. Prater, an international organizer of the union. Five other persons have been implicated in the slayings, including Silous Huddleston, 63, presi dent of a Tennessee local, who in May pleaded guilty to three charges of murder. Paul Gilly, 38, a son-inlaw of Mr. Huddleston, and Aubran Martin, 23, are appealing their first-degree murder convictions. Pipefitters upheld on donations The Supreme Court, in a 6—2 vote, reversed the Justice Department’s first “successful” prosecution of labor leaders charged with making illegal cam paign contributions. The Court rejected the Govern ment’s contention that unions (and corporations) can only raise or spend money for Federal political campaigns through political funds independent of union or corporate control. The ruling reversed and sent back to a Federal district court in St. Louis the conviction of Pipefitters Local 582, which collected nearly $1 million for political purposes from 1963 to 1968. The Government had contended that the Pipefitters’ Voluntary, Political, Educational, Legis lative, Charity, and Defense Fund was organized as a front for making illegal union campaign contribu tions. (For details, see pp. 63—65, this issue.) In May, similar charges against the Seafarers Union were dismissed by a New York Federal district judge (Monthly Labor Review, August 1972, p. 60). Dockers yield on pay raise In late June, Thomas W. Gleason, president of the International Longshoremen’s Association, and 71 DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS James J. Dickman, president of the New York Ship pers Association and head of the council of North Atlantic Steamship Associations, announced accept ance of the Pay Board’s decision to pare the first-year wage increase for 45,000 East and Gulf Coast long shoremen from 70 cents an hour to 55. The 3-year settlement, reached in January, had also called for 40-cent-an-hour increases in the second and third years. The Pay Board approved the contract’s first and second year benefit improvements and the sec ond year wage increase, but did not rule on the thirdyear provisions. The panel, on June 6, had rejected a unionmanagement request that it let the 70-cent boost stand. Mr. Gleason estimated that the longshoremen would now receive some $60 million in retroactive pay to Nov. 14, 1971, when Phase 2 began. How ever, details on whether the back pay increases were to be handled in lump-sum payments or spread over a period of time had not been worked out. Accept ance of the reduction was reportedly influenced by the Cost of Living Council’s decision to allow North Atlantic longshore employers to pass along to their customers the full cost of the contract (estimated at 10.9 percent the first year by management), rather than forcing the employers to absorb increased labor costs above 5.5 percent. Marine Engineers settle The 11,000-member Marine Engineers Beneficial Association reached a 3-year agreement with the Maritime Service Committee and the Tanker Service Committee. The contract provided for a 6-percent increase in base and supplemental wages and im proved vacation and pension benefits. The contract also provided for wage reopeners in June of 1973 and 1974. Pay Board trims increase On June 29, the Pay Board announced it had sliced to 5.5 percent a first-year pay increase of 19 percent negotiated by the Philadelphia Food Store Employers Labor Council and seven locals of the Retail Clerks International union (Monthly Labor Review, March 1972, p. 66). It also allowed a 1.17-percent increase in fringe benefits. Wendell Young, president of one of the locals, said the decition would be appealed and that the cut would reduce the average employee’s wage increase from $26 a week to a little more than $7. The Board did not https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis rule on the balance of the 20-month agreement, which included a $10 wage increase. Wage concessions Electrical Workers (IU E) at Pittsfield, Mass., ratified a General Electric Co. proposal to convert 2,300 incentive workers to the straight hourly pay system already in use for the 2,300 other production workers at the plant. At the end of a 61-week transi tion period, the former would reportedly be earning an average of $4.06 an hour, compared with their current $4.68. The company said the change was necessary because of a severe cost-price squeeze in the transformer industry and that union acceptance would lead to a $12-14-millon plant modernization and return of some work that had been transferred out of Pittsfield. Members of Plumbers Local 719 agreed to a con tract with the Hydro-Mechnical Contractors of Bro ward County (Fla.), Inc., which calls for a $3.80an-hour reduction in pay for work in “low-rise” construction projects. The new rate will be $6.90 an hour; workers in high-rise projects will continue to earn $10.70 an hour. Dwight Hall, business manager of the 730-member local, said wages had “gotten out of hand” and that it was hoped the wage cut would help members in competing with nonunion plumbers. NEA curbs mergers The recent trend of mergers between units of the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers (AFL-CIO) apparently ended when delegates to the NEA’s annual conven tion banned any further mergers that would require affiliation with the AFL-CIO. However, the dele gates rescinded a bylaw forbidding merger negotia tions with the AFT, indicating the 1.1-millionmember organization was willing to negotiate with the 260,000-member union if the latter withdrew from the AFL-CIO, a development considered un likely by labor observers. Since 1969, several units of the two organizations have united, most recently the New York State bodies. See pp. 55-56 for a de tailed report on the convention. Union cards for managers? An American Management Association survey of “middle managers” has found a surprising degree of prounion sentiment. The findings were based on 536 72 replies to questionnaires mailed to 3,000 middle managers in nontechnical fields. The survey classi fied middle managers as those below corporate or division vice presidents, but above first-line super visors. The survey showed that nearly half of the respondents favored new laws to require companies to bargain with managers’ unions; 35 percent would consider joining such unions, and about 75 percent favored having “informal associations” of middle managers at individual companies to deal with top management on working conditions. About 50 per cent of the participants expected to see the unioniza tion of management ranks, with most of them expect ing it within this decade. The most common complaint was that economic gains for blue-collar unionized workers exceeded those of the managers. Other complaints included low salaries, job inse curity, lack of involvement in decisionmaking, and increased responsibilities without more authority. Chicago construction strike ends A 2-week strike that had idled 100,000 construc tion workers ended July 7, when Cement Masons and Carpenters ratified settlements with the MidAmerica Regional Bargaining Association, consisting of 1,000 contractors in the Chicago area. The Car penters contract, which covered 30,000 workers, provided for a 65-cent-an-hour wage increase retro active to June 1 and 35 cents on December 1, which would bring the hourly rate to $8.65. In addition, the employer payment for benefits was increased to $1.15 an hour, from $1. The Cement Masons con tract provided for a 5.5-percent increase in wages and benefits, bringing the total to $10.24 an hour. The settlements were subject to approval by the Construction Industry Stabilization Committee. Women take the wheel After conferring with the Equal Employment Op portunity Commission, United Parcel Service, Inc., agreed to hire women to fill 1 out of every 4 driver vacancies that occur during the next 12 months in its Pacific region. The Commission said United Parcel initiated the talks, although no discrimination charges had been filed against it in the five-State region. The Commission would not disclose whether charges had https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 been filed in other regions. The parties said the ac tion was designed to ensure equal job opportunities for women in cases where they are no longer re stricted by State job protective laws. These laws, which many courts have held to be discriminatory, limit hours women can work and weights they can lift. Electrical Workers convene In Washington, D.C., delegates to the Electrical Workers’ (IUE) 15th biennial convention focused on stemming the transfer of jobs to other countries and on expansion of the union’s membership. Senator George McGovern addressed the convention on its final day. He said he didn’t believe “American com panies should be skipping the country—with the encouragement of our tax laws—to make American brand products for the American markets in overseas plants.” The delegates approved a $300,000 loan from the union’s defense fund to be used by the in ternational for organizing activities. President Paul Jennings and Secretary-Treasurer David J. Fitzmaurice were reelected to 2-year terms. Union president dies Charles Feinstein, President of the Leather Goods, Plastics and Novelty Workers, died on July 3. Two weeks earlier he had been elected for a 5-year term. Prior to becoming president in 1970, Mr. Feinstein had served as a vice president and member of the executive board. Executive Vice President Ben Feld man was to complete the term of office. Progress report on job training Secretary of Labor James D. Hodgson announced that over 887,000 “disadvantaged” and “underem ployed” persons had been hired and trained in the Job Opportunities in the Business Sector (JOBS) program since it began in May 1968. Some 262,000 were employed this year under the program, devel oped and sponsored by the National Alliance of Businessmen. Of this number, 37,000 were being trained with Labor Department funds. Mr. Hodgson said that 606,000 of the 887,000 hired and trained under JOBS were in programs sponsored solely by Alliance employers. □ M Book Reviews and Notes A judicious view of unorthodox thinking John Kenneth Galbraith and His Critics. By Charles H. Hession. Introduction by Robert Lekachman. New York, New American Library, 1972. 239 pp. $6.95. Charles H. Hession, professor of economics at Brooklyn College, has written a useful book on the economics of John Kenneth Galbraith. Only passing references are made to the wide spectrum of Gal braith’s extensive writings. Attention is focused on three major economic works: American Capitalism (1952), The Affluent Society (1958), and the The New Industrial State (1967). Hession has two chap ters on each of these three books. One chapter in ji !: jj I jM . |j [j each case is a summary of the contents of a Gailbraith book, and a second chapter discusses the views of Galbraith’s critics. Since Galbraith has never been one to shun controversy, he has many critics even among those who are in basic agreement with his unorthodox thinking. The review of reviews includes several types of critics: fellow professionals in tech nical journals, popular journals of opinion, and foreign as well as domestic critics. Hession injects his own views sparingly, and he might have written a better book if he had included more of his own ideas. He is judicious in presenting the views of Galbraith’s critics and also in his own evaluations of Galbraith. Hession sees Galbraith as a major, original contributor to the discipline of economics. The reviewer acquiesces in this judgment Books reviewed in this issue Charles H. Hession, John Kenneth Galbraith and His Critics. Reviewed by Dudley Dillard. Cyril Sofer, Organizations in Theory and Practice. Reviewed by Chris Argyris. Donald A. Schon, Beyond the Stable State. Reviewed by Michael Michaelis. Lloyd G. Reynolds, The>Three Worlds of Economics. Reviewed by E. M. Kassalow. National Planning Association, U.S. Foreign Economic Policy for the 1970’s: A New Approach to New Realities. Reviewed by Irving H. Siegel. Alexander Eckstein, editor, Comparison of Economic Systems: Theoretical and Methodological A p proaches. Reviewed by James H. Street. John P. Powelson, Institutions of Economic Growth: A Theory of Conflict Management in Development Countries. Reviewed by Joel B. Dirlam. Gaston V. Rimlinger, Welfare Policy and Industrial ization in Europe, America, and Russia. Reviewed by Robert Campbell. Benjamin Aaron and others, A Review of Industrial Relations Research, Volume II. Reviewed by Harry P. Cohany. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Robert H. Bates, Unions, Parties, and Political D e velopment: A Study of Mineworkers in Zambia. Reviewed by Robert J. Alexander. Howard M. Bahr, Bruce A. Chadwick, Robert C. Day, editors, Native Americans Today: Sociological Perspectives. Reviewed by Calvin A. Kent. Sar A. Levitan, Martin Rein, David Marwick, Work and Welfare Go Together. Reviewed by Leonard Goodwin. Ronald A. Buel, Dead End: The Automobile in Mass Transportation. Reviewed by Edmond L. Kanwit. Raanan Weitz, From Peasant to Farmer: A Revolu tionary Strategy for Development. Reviewed by Vernon W. Ruttan. Marcus A. Foster, Making Schools Work: Strategies for Changing Education, and Joseph Turner, Mak ing New Schools: The Liberation of Learning. Re viewed by Joseph B. Giacquinta. Peter N. Stearns, editor, The Impact of the Industrial Revolution: Protest and Alienation. Reviewed by Robert F. Banks. Erling Olsen, International Trade Theory and Regional Income Differences: United States 1880-1950. Re viewed by M. E. Bond. 73 74 but suspects that a majority of professional econ omists in the United States do not. Nevertheless, Galbraith occupies (1972) the prestigious position of president of the American Economic Association, which suggests that his thinking and force of per sonality have made some impact on professional economists. The dust jacket hails Galbraith as “the most widely read economist of all time,” which seems an exaggeration, but he is surely the professional economist currently most widely read by nonecono mists. Hession’s book is intended mainly for non professionals and is self-contained in the sense that it does not presuppose that the reader has studied Galbraith’s writings in the original. The reader comes away from Hession’s book with a sense of the evolution of Galbraith’s thinking to ward a more radical view of economic theory and policy. The dominant concept in American Capital ism, “countervailing power,” is permeated with com placency about the operation of the American economy. In The Affluent Society the imbalance be tween the poverty of the public sector and the affluence of the private sector is presented as a funda mental but remediable flaw in the American eco nomic system. In keeping with his emphasis on the neglect of the public sector, Galbraith opposed the 1964 Kennedy-Johnson tax cut, which was favored by nearly all American economists. The New In dustrial State represents a more fundamental attack on American corporate capitalism and also marks the beginning of a system of microeconomic analysis. Galbraith’s fundamental analytical question is, What is the characteristic behavior of an economic system dominated by large firms? This contrasts with traditional economic theory that starts with a model of many small firms operating in a system of what is euphemistically called pure or perfect competition. Galbraith breaks cleanly with the orthodox tradition that competition is essential as the scientific basis for economic theory. Galbraith’s realistic assumptions appeal to non economists, who are not burdened with all the doc trines and dogmas of traditional economics. Business as a system of power, for example, is built into Galbraith’s economics from the start, whereas pure competition has no place for power because the impersonal market supposedly dictates the behavior of many small firms each of which is rendered power less by market forces. From Galbraith’s microeconomics flows the case for wage and price restraints as a necessary anti https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 inflationary policy. For a long time he has been per haps the most prominent advocate among American economists of this policy. Galbraith’s microeconom ics, which argues for price and wage restraints, complements Keynesian macroeconomics, which argues for fiscal and monetary restraints against inflation (as well as stimulus against deflation). While Galbraith has not yet provided the analytics in microeconomics equivalent to Keynes’ contribu tion to macroeconomics, he has taken an important step in that direction. Further developments in micro economics along the road charted by Galbraith may provide the integration of macroeconomic and microeconomic analysis which economic theory urgently needs in the present stage of its broad development. — D u d l e y D il l a r d Professor of Economics University of Maryland Intellectual development of organizational behavior Organizations in Theory and Practice. By Cyril Sofer. New York, Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1972, 419 pp. $12.50. In addition to its scholarly qualities, this book is well-written, organized in an innovative manner, and full of interesting ideas. After defining organizations, Sofer exposes the reader to those individuals and groups that have made landmark contributions to the field. He in cludes Taylor, Myers, Mayo, Lewin, Sherif, Asch, Simon, Lindblom, Fayol, and Urwick. Each contri bution is discussed thoughtfully and its strengths and limitations presented fairly. More important Sofer identifies those contributions from each scholar that have continued to the present. The reader soon realizes that through these discussions he is learning about the intellectual development of the field of organizational behavior. Some readers might criticize Sofer for certain omis sions. If Asch’s and Milgram’s works were included, why not the research on consistency-dissonance and attribution theories? The former is centrally relevant in understanding the way human beings deal with dissonance, and organizations, as Sofer shows, are full of dissonance-producing situations. The latter is especially important in understanding interpersonal relations. Some sociologists may wonder why Weber was not included in this section (although his work 75 BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES is cited elsewhere). To the writer, Sofer does illus trate the Weberian view by discussing the contribu tions of scientific management. The writers identified with this field have had a significantly greater in fluence on present-day organizations than has had Weber. Another innovation is that Sofer provides an ex tended biography to help the reader in understanding why he has organized his book as he has. Sofer is a behavioral scientist; a scholar at home on several different levels of analysis. He has conducted research in urban studies, economics, race and industrial re lations, organizational diagnosis and change, social consultancy within organizations, consumer behavior, and group relations training. In part III, Sofer illustrates, by the use of the work of the Tavistock group and of Samuel Stouffer and his colleagues, how social scientists can use social science technology to analyze and help solve real and important problems in our society. The discussion is well organized and complete. It would have been helpful if Sofer extrapolated from these discussions the major lessons learned and went on to develop some generalizations about how social science would be utilized even more effectively in the future. Part IV describes Sofer’s view of propositions on organizational behavior that emerge from his analy ses. Examples are: (a) Organizations as subsystems of larger collectives; (b) technology and task as de terminants of internal structure, style of behavior, and personnel composition; and (c) the organization as a role system. Although I found these generalizations helpful, they lacked, as Sofer admits, the conceptual structure of a set of interrelated concepts that would indicate the beginnings of a theory of organizations. The generalizations offered are more in the form of guideposts than statements about what happens under a given set of conditions. Finally, the book closes with two sections that consist of essays on the way bureaucratically admin istered organizations actually work and on leader ship, conflict, and change. These essays provide case material for the reader to test and enlarge his learn ing as well as to see the limits of the present state of organizational behavior. I especially liked the essay on organizational decisionmaking and organizational change. The former illustrates how one can present a behavioral point of view to enlarge the maps pres ently available from scholars such as Simon and Lindblom. Sofer’s decisionmakers seem more real https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis because he shows them to be more than rational and illustrates how feelings and defenses can influence muddling through. The latter includes new concepts such as distin guishing between “decentralization” and “debureau cratization,” between a shift towards greater dele gation of powers and a shift towards greater flexibil ity. It also makes important points, such as: the purpose of an organizational change is not necessarily to increase productivity; the time perspective of a change program is crucial; and increase in pro ductivity may have little or nothing to do with par ticular organizational changes introduced. — C h r is A rgyris James Bryant Conant, Professor of Education and Organizational Behavior Harvard University To avoid a ‘perpetual coming apart’ Beyond the Stable State. By Donald A. Schon. New York, Random House, Inc., 1971, 254 pp. $7.95. The paradox of our time is the inconceivable amount of knowledge now at man’s disposal— to gether with his inconceivable confusion about his choices and priorities. Thus the tragedy of our time is man’s inability to use his knowledge to satisfy his needs. The vast amount of knowledge greatly increases the number and kind of choices potentially available. It thus creates both fear and optimism. Fear due to the threat of uncertainty in face of prospective change; optimism born out of the realization that anything man can conceive he can achieve. Donald A. Schon’s book Beyond the Stable State discusses this dilemma. He asserts that “No estab lished institution in our society now perceives itself as adequate to the challenges that face it . . . e.g., the American Labor Movement suffers from what the more articulate of its leaders are calling ‘a failure of success’ . . . A leader like Walter Reuther asked what new missions are appropriate to Labor? What will sustain its mission and vitality?” Schon does not offer specific answers to particular sectoral problems. Indeed, there is nothing parochial about the phenomenon. It cuts right through society: The m ost important feature o f the threat to stable institutions and to stable anchors for identity is the sense in w hich they have caused us to lose faith in 76 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 the stable state itself. N o t only do w e regard our established institutions as inadequate to the chal lenges they face; w e find it increasingly difficult to believe in the feasibility o f developing new institu tions w hich will be stable. In face of this uncertainty, our institutions— our social system— exhibit resistance to change in the form of “dynamic conservatism” (as Schon terms it), that is to say, they fight to remain the same. But in a period when the stable state has been lost, the forms taken by dynamically conservative institutions condemn them to increasing irrelevance. Or, if the loss of the stable state means that dynamically con servative institutions must yield to change of state, and if they can do so only through crisis and disrup tion, then we must look forward to a period of continuing disruption— to an era of perpetual com ing apart. Schon therefore postulates that dynamic conserva tism must operate at such a level and in such a way as to permit change of state without intolerable threat to the essential functions the system fulfills. He suggests that we must therefore invent and develop institutions which are “learning systems,” systems capable of bringing about their own continuing trans formations. If continuing change is the norm for tomorrow, the most crucial capability of a “learning system” must be to develop projective models of its future. As Schon defines it; These are ‘m odels’ in the sense o f being conceptual descriptions which relate characteristics o f action, situation, and outcom e at som e level o f generality. T hey are ‘projective’ in the sense o f being projected on to the next situation, always as a perspective on that situation and always subject to transformation through contact with that situation. Dr. Schon’s profound, original research into inno vation and change has contributed substantially to the formulation of public policies in this field. Those of us who have been similarly engaged find provoca tive stimulation in this book. Even so, it is not a book destined primarily for the esoteric expert. It should be compulsory reading for political, business, labor, and financial leaders. It offers imaginative and courageous guidance to those whose actions will shape the future. We must learn to manage change as brilliantly as we have learned to create the knowl edge that makes change possible. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis — M ic h a e l M ic h a e l is Arthur D. Little, Inc. Washington, D.C. A redefinition of economics The Three Worlds of Economics. By Lloyd G. Reynolds. New Haven, Conn., Yale University Press, 1971, 344 pp. $12.50, cloth; $3.45, paper. This is a highly useful book. In it Lloyd Reynolds, Chairman of the Inter-University Committee on Comparative Economics (the volume is the 12th in the series of studies sponsored by the committee), covers three somewhat widespread subject areas; (1) The structural characteristics and pressing policy issues in the three major economic systems (capital ist, socialist, and less developed); (2) the different branches of modern economic theory and their use fulness in “different institutional settings” (the same three worlds); and (3) an exploration of fruitful future directions in comparative economics research and teaching. Space prevents my treating this third area, but suffice it to say I must personally note that teaching comparative economics can never be the same in the future, as a result of reading Reynolds’ chapter on “Comparative Economic Studies.” Turning to the first of his subjects, one welcomes Reynolds’ up-to-date analysis of the key institutional features as well as the critical policy priorities facing all three worlds. His review of the “reform” efforts in the East European Soviet style economies is par ticularly fresh and stimulating. The enormous diver sity of the less developed countries leads to more superficial treatment, but Reynolds’ chapters on these countries are nevertheless full of comparative in sights. Of greatest interest in the descriptive part of the volume, however, is the author’s summation of similarities and differences between the three worlds. He tentatively concludes that as regards major char acteristics today (size of agricultural sector; income per capita; income distribution; population; and so forth), “the capitalist and socialist groups resemble each other more closely than either resembles the less developed economies. The reason is perhaps that both groups are on a more secure growth path.” As for policy issues in the three worlds, Reynolds finds that while there is some overlap, “more striking is the extent to which” the areas diverge in terms of pressing policy priorities. For example; managing a steady expansion of aggregate demand is still a key problem in the “Keynes world of the West,” but not in the other two worlds; implementing a detailed plan is a central problem for the socialist countries, 77 BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES but beyond the capacity of less developed areas; lay ing down infrastructure— physical, human, institu tional—is a central issue in less developed countries, but not in the other two worlds; the capitalist and socialist economies do not face high rates of popula tion growth which plague the less developed coun tries; and so on. In the light of this great divergence between sys tems as regards policy priorities, it is not surprising that Reynolds is forced to conclude that a good deal of modern economic theory and theorizing in the West has only limited value for socialist and less developed economies, even when adapted to their needs. In what is something of a tour de force Rey nolds runs through the eight or nine main branches of Western economic theory (microeconomics, growth theory, welfare economics, and so on) and “tests” these against the pressing needs of each of the three worlds. Generally speaking, he seems to find most of the mathematically oriented branches of theory least use ful in all three worlds. (Incidentally, he neatly dis poses of the idea that computers are ushering in a “computopia,” so far as solving economic problems in any of the three worlds!) Reynolds’ broad survey of the three worlds, and the world of the economist, finally leads to a call for a redefinition of economics. The profession has too long been burdened with Robbins’ useful but overly limited definition of economics as ‘the science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.’ This has its place, but in the three worlds of today, economics . . . is concerned also with changes over time in resource supplies, technology, and the organization of production; with short-term fluctuations in resource use; . . . with long-term trends in the size and com position o f national output, . . . with the be havior o f econom ic decisionm akers, in the public as well as the private sector; and with econom ic orga nization, in the sense o f structure-performance rela tions. Its scope is not limited to the Western market econom ies, but extends to the curious variety o f national econom ies throughout the world. Reynolds has written a valuable and provocative book which will be of interest to economists in all three of today’s worlds. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis — E. M. K ASSALOW Professor of Economics University of Wisconsin Self-exhortation and restatement U.S. Foreign Economic Policy for the 1970’s: A New Approach to New Realities. A Policy Report by an NPA Advisory Committee, with Support ing Papers by C. F. Bergsten and others. Wash ington, National Planning Association, 1971, 216 pp. $2.50. This is an uneven and, perhaps, redundant addi tion to the growing literature on the chosen subject; but it does have some redeeming features, and it also has some documentary or archival value as the con tribution of a nonprofit organization “devoted to planning by Americans in agriculture, business, labor, and the professions.” It virtually ignores multi national corporations, which received much adverse notice in another nongovernment report on foreign trade policy, issued by AFL-CIO Industrial Union Department in October 1971. It is similar in struc ture to, but much less comprehensive and thorough than, the three-volume report of the Williams Com mission, release of which was deferred until Sep tember 1971, a month after the President’s announce ment of a “New Economic Policy.” This policy was tellingly influenced by a much slighter Peterson report, which had been briefed to the President, the Cabinet, and members of the Congress for months prior to publication in December 1971. The NPA study, on the other hand, could well have helped to shape at least the title of a report issued by the House Subcommittee on Foreign Economic Policy in Feb ruary 1972. The first quarter of the NPA volume consists of the Advisory Committee’s policy report and its mem bers’ qualifying notes; the rest of the book comprises six supporting papers, with an addendum on some international statistics. The policy report is liberally sprinkled with recommendations. The qualifying notes are occasionally sprightly. The supporting essays are competent, but they are not well inte grated with the policy report, and the topics seem to have been selected almost at random. These essays relate to trading blocs, nontariff barriers, monetary reform, balance-of-payments adjustment, defense commitments in Europe and Asia, and programs of adjustment assistance. The main trouble with this book is that it has difficulty living up to its title, that it says little “new” about either “approaches” or “realities.” Many of the recommendations are only self-exhortations, re statements of problems in pseudo-operational lan- 78 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 guage. For example, the Committee’s members gra tuitously “urge that both parties now cooperate as fully as possible in working toward the attainment of the hitherto elusive national goals of full employ ment and stable prices.” The policy report volunteers that agreement on measures for meeting the “new realities” was hampered by “insufficient information about the nature and significance of the basic de velopmental trends likely to shape the economic systems of the OECD countries during the 1970’s and beyond.” Besides, the Committee did not have “the time and the funds for commissioning the nec essary additional research and analysis.” Differences of opinion in the Committee are acknowledged on such basic questions as the comparative advantage of U.S. manufactures and the benefits of direct in vestment abroad, but harmony was restored by “general agreement” on the need for “more and better data and analyses.” The future, alas, always comes to pass much sooner than the results of the research that is always seen to be necessary for dealing with it. In short, we shall have to forge “U.S. foreign economic policy for the 1970’s,” without the benefit of knowledge that may not even be available by the 1980’s. — I r v in g H. S ie g e l Consulting Economist Bethesda, Md. Ideology and performance Comparison of Economic Systems: Theoretical and Methodological Approaches. Edited by Alexan der Eckstein. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1971. 366 pp. $15.75. The study of comparative economic systems has changed markedly over the period since World War II with the increasing realization that national econ omies rarely correspond closely to the pure ideologies with which they have been identified. Even the most polarized systems such as the United States and the Soviet Union have shown significant changes over time, and according to the much discussed “con vergence hypothesis” may be developing functional similarities under common pressure of growth. At the same time, the accumulation of data and the develop ment of new research techniques has made possible more refined analyses of the comparative perform ances of such systems. In view of these changes, the aim of this collec https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis tion of essays is to provide a more rigorous and sys tematic basis for comparing systems, to consider alternative methodological approaches now avail able, and to probe some theoretical issues that have arisen. The essays emerged from a conference held at the University of Michigan in November 1968. Participants included distinguished students of the Soviet system as well as eminent economists with other, though related, backgrounds. In general the papers are of a high order, though they will appeal primarily to specialists in the field. Alexander Eck stein, the editor, has provided an introduction which effectively summarizes and synthesizes the respective contributions in the collection. An opening essay by Tjalling C. Koopmans and John Michael Montias on “The Description and Comparison of Economic Systems” is intended to construct a comprehensive terminological frame work for the comparison of all economic systems and their variants. At such a level of generality, the treatment is necessarily formalistic and abstract. It seems more suited to a pre-Darwinian form of taxonomy than to an operational and qualitatively meaningful description of evolving systems. Similarly abstract, though mathematically rigorous, is a general model by Leonid Hurwicz designed to permit a complex comparison of degrees of cen tralization and decentralization in market vs. com mand economies. These models appear to have had little influence on the remainder of the volume, which reflects vigorously independent approaches and points of view. An empirical analysis by Abram Bergson, con tinuing the work for which he is well known, compares the economic performance of the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. for the year 1960. He concludes that Soviet productivity, in relation to its produc tion possibilities, falls notably short of that of the U.S.A. In a lively exchange with Evsey D. Domar, Bergson acknowledges that the difference in calcu lated efficiency may not be attributable solely to the relative superiority of the capitalist over the socialist system, but may be due partly to the late start of the U.S.S.R. toward industrialization and the asso ciated inferiority of Soviet to U.S. technological knowledge. However, he clearly believes that by 1960 these gaps were steadily closing, and that diffi culties in centralist planning bear a large share of the responsibility for inferior performance by the U.S.S.R. A provocative essay by Simon Kuznets examines 79 BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES the effect that stages of economic growth resulting from major epochal innovations, such as atomic energy, space exploration, and the discovery of DNA, may have on modern economic systems. Such innova tions seem to be bringing forth variants cf the freemarket, individual enterprise state and of the Com munist economies that may be more significant than the conventional descriptions of these systems. These variants he designates as the new industrial state, the new military state, the new welfare state, and the new scientific state. The underdeveloped countries, he believes, must be typed separately, since they have been subject to other cultural and historical influ ences. His discussion is modestly speculative but strongly suggestive of the impact of economic de velopment theory on its sister field of comparative systems. The volume also contains a brief debate by Alexander Gerschenkron and Albert O. Hirschman on the degree to which ideology may actually de termine an economic system, and an essay by Alexander Erlich on a comparison of capitalism and socialism as seen from a shifting Marxist-Leninist point of view. — J a m e s H. S t r e e t Professor of Economics Rutgers University Evaluating institutional effectiveness Institutions of Economic Growth: A Theory of Con flict Management in Developing Countries. By John P. Powelson. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 1972. 275 pp. $10. Powelson’s book sketches a general theory of in stitutions in a context of growth, drawing on his extensive consulting and teaching experience in Latin America and, to a lesser extent, East Africa. In the first summary chapter, Powelson insists on the im portance of conflict resolution as the function of economic institutions, defined as organizations or modes of behavior, although he recognizes that in stitutions are not ordinarily analyzed so exclusively from this standpoint. The next four chapters spell out the theory in greater detail. Chapter 2 analyzes the nature of conflicts result ing from growth. Powelson believes that institutions should first be capable of resolving such conflicts in such a way that, during the takeoff period, a con sensus on goals will be reached. This will permit https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis later solutions to move out to a new production possibility curve and benefit all parties. The more developed societies must understand that the pro posals initially emanating from the less developed societies will not, therefore, always increase total product nor make possible rising incomes for all. Instead of measuring effectiveness by the conven tional input-output efficiency tests, chapter 3 devel ops “a new concept of institutional effectiveness.” It is the ability of institutions to identify conflicts, devise rules for their settlement, and command gen eral approval for the decisions that should be the measure of success. As an illustration, Powelson hypothesizes the differing standards that might be applied by an engineer and by an economist in reviewing loan applications for a development bank. In an appendix, William Loehr applies the tech nique to the rural credit program in Nicaragua, show ing the consequences of differences in the approaches of the field and the office staffs. In chapter 4 Powelson addresses himself to the process of creating institutions necessary to further growth. He attempts to measure the costs and bene fits as they might manifest themselves to partici pants. “Usually the cost to power groups consists of the expenditures of effort toward increasing the opportunity cost to other groups . . . of maintaining obsolete institutions.” This “micro-theory” of insti tutions is extended in the succeeding chapter by a “macro-theory” that turns into a plea for U.S. toler ance of ideologies, such as the Chilean, appropriate for development when value systems differ from our own. For Powelson, the nationalist bias of what he calls the “third ideology,” which denies the benefits of foreign investment, may have positive value. In an interesting appendix, Powelson shows how, con trary to his model, the Alliance for Progress is “de signed to inculcate into Latin American countries the cultural values and institutions of the United States.” In his conclusion Powelson tries to explain why some nations have institutions superior to others and have better growth response. His model would have GNP depend on five variables: the quantity of pro ductive factors; the level of education; the stock of technology; entrepreneurial capacity; and the na tional ratings for aggregate institutional effective ness. Both the value and the novelty of his model, according to Powelson, derive from the fifth variable, which integrates a multitude of important factors, such as political stability, consensus on goals, and 80 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 administrative efficiency, that are closely related to growth, but difficult to handle if separately considered. Among model-builders, Powelson must surely be one of the most reasonable and catholic. And in an effect to appeal to all social scientists, regardless of discipline, he has developed his argument with what is, for a tightly knit theoretical discussion, excep tional clarity. Unfortunately, to apply many of the key components in Powelson’s system would require precise measurement of subjective reactions. And even though he may be justified on the basis of expe rience in Mexico and Venezuela in proposing a coalition of left-wing intellectuals and progressive businessmen to offset dogmatic Marxism, it is not clear that the model is required to reach this con clusion. Moreover, it would be difficult to avoid a post-hoc, propter-hoc bias in evaluating institutional effectiveness. On balance, I believe Powelson’s most important contribution is his demonstration that growthmen of all persuasions should gear their pro grams to prevailing value systems and ideologies. — J o e l B . D ir l a m Professor of Economics University of Rhode Island The origins of social security Welfare Policy and Industrialization in Europe, America, and Russia. By Gaston V. Rimlinger. New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1971. 362 pp. $10.95. The author says that he was motivated to write this book to bring to life some basic issues in social security programs by showing how this institution emerged from and was molded by political and ideological forces attending the development of modern industrial societies. He succeeds admirably in his aim, basing his study on variations in the experience of several societies—England, France, Germany, the United States, and Russia. One of his most interesting achievements is showing how the timing of the adoption of these programs and the form they have taken have depended on variations in the political power of class groupings and on differences in the ideological climate, domestically and generally. Part I shows how the mercantilist efforts and institutions aimed at controlling poverty and idle https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ness gave way before the force of “liberal” ideas, which counted on individual freedom and self-reli ance to eliminate these problems. This was ultimately succeeded by a new legitimation of the notion that some social intervention was needed in response to the increasingly demonstrable need for protection against the insecurities of modern industrialism. But there were great differences in the way this double transition took place in different countries. It was smoother in Germany because liberalism was never so powerful a force. In France, the double transition barely missed being telescoped into one, since the “liberal” elements in revolutionary thought were accompanied by ideas about rights and humanitarian concerns as well. The material likely to be most novel to many is the section on the Russian case, spanning both the Tsarist and Soviet periods. One of the most inter esting aspects of Soviet experience is how the Stalin ist version of social security echoes the mercantilist effort to use it for the purpose of introducing disci pline and industriousness into the labor force as much as to provide security. The section on the German experience is also long and detailed, and to the reviewer seemed an extremely informative and successful illustration of the complexity of social and political forces that must be managed to obtain adoption of social security measures. The book concludes with a kind of comparativesystems analysis of how differences in economic systems should affect the design of an optimal pro gram. This section seemed to the reviewer less con clusive and illuminating than it might have been, probably because it lacks an adequate theoretical framework. Social security (and the author never really gives a satisfying explanation of the considera tions he thinks should govern the scope of this con cept) is a peculiar blend of (a) coercion designed to correct market failure and individual shortsighted ness, (b) a purely humanitarian impulse to cope with dire need, and (c) an equity-rationalized pro gram to redistribute income. It seems to the reviewer that any interpretation of social security would benefit from some discussion in terms of such rele vant underlying ideas as the theory of public goods, grants economics, and so on. One of the conse quences of Professor Rimlinger’s historical approach is to make one aware of how much the nature of the problem of social security and attitudes toward it can change with economic development. This naturally stimulates our imaginings about possible 81 BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES future scenarios—such as possible integration and rationalization of the “welfare mess” under the general rubric of income maintenance. Some inter pretation of the past in terms of more general theo retical underpinnings would help that transition in our thought. — R obert C a m pb e l l Professor of Economics Indiana University Summarizing a decade of research A Review of Industrial Relations Research, Volume II. By Benjamin Aaron and others. Madison, Wis., Industrial Relations Research Associa tion, 1971. 230 pp. $5. That industrial relations research is no longer the stepchild it once may have been is amply demon strated in the second Industrial Relations Research Association volume, which reviews a vast array of publications and their findings issued, for the most part, during the last decade. (For a review of Volume I, see the July 1971 issue of the Monthly Labor Review.) Benjamin Aaron and Paul S. Meyer discuss Public Policy and Labor-Management Relations in an essay largely devoted to decisions handed down by courts and administrative agencies. One may argue that in this case the term “research” is perhaps mis applied, since most of the sources cited are law review articles and similar commentaries, often polemic in nature, not the type of research one usually en counters in the social sciences. Two observations by the authors are worthy of special note. One, the conclusion that none of the writers in the field pre dicted the rise of collective bargaining in the public sector and, thus, practitioners and academicians alike found themselves overwhelmed by develop ments in the mid and late 1960’s. The other is the frank admission, after a painstaking review of the voluminous literature on emergency disputes, that “no fundamentally new approaches to the problem have been presented.” Garth Mangum’s essay on “Manpower Research and Manpower Policy” deserves to be singled out for special commendation, written as it is with the sure hand of the insider who has followed changes in policies and thus research programs from close up. As Mangum points out, generous government https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis research grants were readily available and this, rather than deepseated commitments or interests, accounts for the large output in the manpower area. This, however, is a flimsy base on which to build for long term results. In his own words, “researchers . . . tend to go where the headlines and the money are.” Little, he notes, has emerged from universityfunded research or from unsubsidized individuals. Nevertheless, a sizable research cadre has now come into existence, but, if the past is any guide, the impact of research results on policy decisions is likely to be minimal. And perhaps for good reason, since the methodology of manpower program evaluation still leaves a great deal to be desired. “Cost-benefit and cost effectiveness analysis may have its day in manpower policy, but not yet.” To this must be added the difficulty of “attracting the attention of program administrators with a vested interest in ignoring unpleasant findings.” In “Collective Bargaining Trends and Patterns,” James Stern summarizes the literature on automa tion, developments in the public sector and in agriculture, strikes, and selected noneconomic agree ment terms, particularly grievances and arbitration, and changes in bargaining structure. The data now available to practitioners and academicians are indeed enormous, but, regrettably, Stern has little to say about their quality or usefulness. He also notes without further comment that the period 1954-66 saw a vast outpouring of literature on automation. Has the problem been solved or have the predictions been way off the mark? There must be a lesson in all this somewhere. The final essay in the volume, “Industrial Rela tions in Western Europe and Canada” by John Crispo, while it does not deal with research and is thus outside the task assigned to the authors, is nevertheless an excellent synopsis of the legal and institutional framework in England, Germany, Sweden, and Canada, with scattered references to other countries. The sections dealing with incomes policies and industrial democracy rate high marks for a succinct treatment of difficult topics. The essayists, while they have given us a thorough and very readable rundown of the literature, have often, contrary to their instructions, failed to give us an appraisal of its value and effectiveness in solving specific problems. Except for Mangum, none has singled out existing problems or pointed to new directions. Should the IRRA decide to issue a followup volume in 1980, it may want to keep 82 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 these shortcomings in mind. An assessment of dif ferent types of research methodologies would also be helpful. — H arry P. C ohany Chief, Division of Industrial Relations Bureau of Labor Statistics Interaction between politics and unionism Unions, Parties, and Political Development: A Study of Mineworkers in Zambia. By Robert H. Bates. New Haven, Conn., Yale University Press, 1971. 291 pp. $12.95. This is a fascinating study of the interactions of trade unionism and politics in a developing country. Although it deals only with Zambia, and within that country only with the copper mine workers, it re flects the kind of problems which are widespread throughout the so-called Third World. In Zambia two movements developed during the same period. One of these was the trade union move ment among the African workers in the mines. The other was the drive for black control of the political process in what was then the British colony of Northern Rhodesia. Until the achievement of inde pendence by Zambia under an all-black government, the two movements were allies and had basically the same objectives. The independence movement, and the United National Independence Party, which by the beginning of the 1960’s held the predominant role in that movement, counted upon, and received, strong support from the African Mineworkers Union. The great majority of Union members, as well as virtually all of their leaders, belonged to the United National Independence Party. However, this did not mean that they would allow the government party to dictate who their leaders should be or the policies those leaders should follow. Even before independ ence, there were conflicts over the party’s attempts to mobilize the union behind tactical maneuvers of the party’s drive for independence, maneuvers which did not necessarily conform to the material welfare of the union members. Once independence had been achieved, the im mediate interests of the unionists and the govern ment tended increasingly to diverge. Two basic issues tended to cloud their relations: party control over the union, and wage policies which the government urged upon the union. Since copper provided virtually all https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis of the country’s exports and foreign exchange, the government was vitally interested in keeping costs of production as low as possible, in maintaining steady production, and in diverting income arising in the copper industry for use in its overall economic devel opment program. The workers, on the other hand, were interested in continuing to increase their own incomes and to improve their living and working conditions. These kinds of problems are by no means confined to Zambia. Much of that part of the world which has emerged from colonial status since World War II has seen a trade union movement which was a major support for the drive for independence come into conflict with the government and its dominant party once independence had been achieved. One of the major virtues of this volume is that it gives a detailed case study of this widespread phenomenon. Dr. Bates, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the California Institute of Technology, sketches the history of the African Mineworkers Union, and gives details on its structure and organization. He also traces the struggle for independence and the evolution of the parties fighting for it. He studies in detail the interaction between the political and trade union movements. The author gathered his informa tion at first hand, during a long stay in Zambia, in the process of which he interviewed a wide range of participants in politics and the union, attended numerous union meetings, and studied the func tioning of both labor and political organizations on the spot. This book should have a varied audience. It should be of interest to Africanists, students of industrial relations, and those concerned with economic and political development. — R obert J. A lexander Professor of Economics Rutgers University Focus on American Indians Native Americans Today: Sociological Perspectives. Edited by Howard M. Bahr, Bruce A. Chad wick, Robert C. Day. New York, Harper and Row, Publishers, 1972. 547 pp. $4.95, paper. This collection of writings concerning the current status of the North American Indian is both excel lent and uneven. As the editors admit, this is due 83 BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES to the state of research in the field, which has long been almost the exclusive prerogative of the anthropoligist. This book is important, if for no other rea son, because it summarizes investigations done from the point of view of the sociologist. From the book’s summary, it is obviously that only a few areas (edu cational failure and alcoholism) have received more than cursory attention from scholars. For those interested in researching Indian life, the book is a clear indication of the paths that their inquiries might follow. But this collection is important also because it is good. The editors have generally selected articles of quality and readability. I know of no other single source where a reader can learn as much about the Indians in as few pages. The scope of this collection is commendable. “The Setting” provides the reader with the needed background for the works to come. “Patterns of Prejudice and Discrimination” includes a collection of studies attempting to document what almost every one knows, that Indians are not fully accepted into the dominant society. From the standpoint of re search quality, the third chapter, “Indian Education,” is the best, presenting both the extent of failure and the causes. The fourth chapter, “Acculturation and Identity,” least impressed this reviewer. The editors indicate that the term “acculturation” lacks precise definition, and the articles in this section suffer from this imprecision. This is not the fault of the editors, but reflects on the primitive state of research in the area. The fifth chapter, “Crime and Deviant Be havior,” details the problems produced by poverty, isolation, and dependency. The last two chapters must be given special men tion. “The Urban Indian” is the first collection drawn from the sparse literature on this subject. With more Indians in cities than on reservations, the neglect of the urban Indian is inexcusable. The final chapter, “Red Power, Action Programs, and the Future,” captures the dilemmas and directions of the “new” Indians. Those interested in the contemporary mood of younger, more articulate Indian leaders can be satisfied with this chapter. This reviewer is an economist who has worked with economic development on the Sioux reserva tions. To him the book reflects the failure of econ omists and sociologists to talk to each other on this subject. The authors in this collection are con tent to describe the Indian’s economic condition. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Research on Indians would be strengthened if there was a realization that economic forces determine many social conditions, and that changed economic conditions would lead to solutions of old problems and the creation of different sociological perspec tives. Each chapter is prefaced by a short but fully adequate summary of the articles to follow as well as the research which was not included. The authors wrote this book as a text for minority studies. It is more than that. On the basis of both content and style, it merits reading by all with an interest in native Americans today. — C a l v in A. K ent Associate Professor of Economics University of South Dakota The continuing dilemma of ‘welfare reform’ Work and Welfare Go Together. By Sar A. Levitan, Martin Rein, David Marwick. Baltimore, Md., Johns Hopkins Press, 1972, 137 pp. $6 cloth, $2.50, paper. This brief book provides a handy reference to figures and charts regarding the growth of welfare rolls, attempts to train welfare recipients in man power programs, and the problems associated with various proposals at welfare reform. The chapters flow easily in logical order, examining such specific issues as welfare benefits in cash in relation to those in-kind such as food stamps. Available evidence on the willingness of recipients to work is summarized. The failure of manpower training programs, such as the Work Incentive Program, in lowering welfare rolls is discussed. There is little in this material that is new to those who are familiar with issues of welfare reform and manpower training. But it would be a useful primer for those having general interest in, or just entering, these fields. The authors are concerned, however, not merely with past welfare and manpower efforts, but with current policy issues. The preface states their interest in examining “options available in developing a wel fare system that encourages recipients to supplement their incomes, even though they may not achieve complete self-support.” Thus the authors opt for providing welfare recipients with ample incentives to work. They point out in their last chapter that irreducible 84 conflicts emerge in pursuit of this goal. Work incen tives can be increased by making low base welfare payments. But low payments provide less than a minimum level of subsistence to those who cannot work. On the other hand, high base payments and low tax rates on earned income make the support program very expensive. Congress and the public, they point out, are unwilling to spend large sums of new money on such a scheme. The authors then correctly point out that the in ability to reach a policy that satisfactorily balances work incentives, adequate subsistence, and reason able costs leads to “a diffuse sense of malaise and dissatisfaction.” There is little in their policy dis cussion to relieve that uncomfortable feeling. There is a suggestion in the last chapter that man power programs be consolidated administratively and channeled through one congressional committee. This does not really address the dilemma posed. Another suggestion is that “there is a pressing need for careful demonstration projects of the principles of welfare reform.” The precise nature of these principles and how the dilemma mentioned above is to be resolved by a demonstration project remains unclear. If the authors are saying that the Government should be prepared to spend many billions of dollars in subsidizing work for welfare recipients, they are not making this clear. If they think that costs need to be kept within current limits, it seems improbable that work incentives will be present. A fundamental problem with the policy analysis in this book is unwillingness to confront the possi bility that the “welfare problem” exists because afflu ent people are unwilling to provide the poor with equal opportunity to advance in our society. There is evidence, not cited in this book, that discrimination exists against poor people in educational institutions and in the job market. If it is true as the authors suggest, and this reviewer’s research supports, that poor people want to work and do work, then, dis cussion of policies to help them cannot avoid the issue of providing them with opportunity to advance equal to that of affluent persons. The authors might still not wish to suggest spending the money needed to meet such a challenge, but the reader would be given a better sense of the context within which discussions of welfare reform should take place. In summary, this is a useful book for those who wish a quick overview of some issues involved in welfare and manpower training problems. The policy discussion is useful with respect to highlighting cur https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 rent dilemmas, but little is offered in the way of new options. More serious is omission of discussion of how blocked opportunity for the poor relates to the welfare problem. — L e o n a r d G o o d w in Brookings Institution Wheels Dead End: The Automobile in Mass Transportation. By Ronald A. Buel. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972. 231 pp. $6.95. Mr. Buel, now employed in the office of the Com missioner of Public Safety of Portland, Oreg., has written a popular book of breadth and passion, de crying the role of the automobile and its supporting industries in American life. The book presents in short, well-written chapters an analysis of the auto mobile in the economy, the main facts on highway carnage and associated crime, and the threat of air pollution emanating from the automobile. Then, seriatim, Buel considers freeway design and displace ment and the privileged position of the oil industry. Two chapters discuss quickly and incisively highway transportation and the poor, and the various alterna tives to auto-dominance in our cities and suburbs. The last chapter deals with the power of the highway lobby, corporate domination of the channels of opinion-molding, and the kind of grass roots revolt necessary to change it all. The book is well documented from a wide-ranging selection of quotations from newspaper and maga zine articles. The literature on the subject in book form is much less adequately represented. The book is highly polemical and not, in the judgment of this reviewer, very well-balanced. There is almost no material on how much the transportation planning process has changed in response to public opinion in recent years as far as social and environmental impact is concerned. The example of Interstate 40 as planned through the black quarter of Nashville describes how the route was planned before a Su preme Court decision stopped it cold, in 1969, but does not tell how it was subsequently modified. Bus and rail transportation is not always prefer able to the auto, especially with the level of service public transportation provides today. It is hard to believe that Buel believes the approach of the road bureaucracy is “penny-pinching.” We certainly have done more than “executed it” (the Interstate Pro- 85 BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES gram) without regard to the simplest of design principles. Buel’s chapter on the environmental, economic, and political sins of the oil industry is perhaps the best in the book; the rapacity and machinations of American oil barons have, if anything, become more unconscionable since the days of the founder of the Rockefeller dynasty. Mr. Buel is least convincing on his proposed al ternatives to the automobile. If rail transit and free ways were the answer, New York would have the problem solved. Somehow in the welter of ideas, Buel has never understood that the basic cause of our difficulty is irrational land use, and that both rail and highway have aided the increasing separa tion of where people live from where they work and carry on their other activities. There is a sug gestion of this in the oft-quoted Jane Jacobs, but neither Buel’s proposed hardware solutions nor his proposals for political reform show any real under standing of the basic issue. However, the present reader, who has spent many years in the area of urban transportation, benefited from a reading of the book. The inside story of the promotion of BART (the Bay Area Rapid Transit system) and the frank and valid critique of schemes, largely unsuccessful, to move ghetto dwellers to sub urban employment were special dividends. In summary, Mr. Buel believes that the gross effects of the automobile on our culture have been negative. Perhaps so, on net balance, but there is a vast amount to be said on the other side in terms of reduced isolation, mobility, services, and emptying out the slums. I, for one, believe that the future will be better served by curtailing the excesses of high way lobby, arrogant manufacturers, corrupting oil magnates than by the kind of dubious newfangled and unproved transportation systems in which Buel rather naively places his trust. — E d m o n d L . K a n w it Urban and Transportation Economist Washington, D.C. A 3-stage evolution From Peasant to Farmer: A Revolutionary Strategy for Development. By Raanan Weitz. New York, Columbia University Press, 1971. 292 pp. $10. The literature of agricultural development is now well into its third stage. In the 1950’s, discussion of https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis the problems of agricultural development was con fined primarily to the professional journals and the annual reports and fugitive literature of the spe cialized international agencies and agricultural min istries. The late 1950’s and the 1960’s were marked by the publication of a substantial body of scholarly monographs, conference proceedings, and collections of the best of the literature from the professional journals. More recently we have seen the publica tion of a number of important books designed to provide the educated layman, the development ad ministrator, and the undergraduate student with greater insight into agricultural development proc esses, programs, and problems. The Weitz book falls into this third group. The distinctive feature of the Weitz book is its emphasis on the central role of the farm and the farm operator in the agricultural development proc ess. He continuously stresses the importance of in stitutional innovations designed to achieve consist ency between the objectives of individual farm operators and the objectives of national develop ment policy, if planning for agricultural develop ment is to be effective. Another distinctive feature is the emphasis on the evolutionary character of the economic organization of agricultural production. He visualizes an evolu tion through three stages—from subsistence agri culture, through small-scale mixed farming, to spe cialized commercial farms. He regards the familyoperated farm production unit as the most efficient form of organization in all three stages— “With the aid of technology and supporting services and through increasing specialization, the family farm has been able to circumvent the limitations set by the size of the family labor force. This seemingly feeble institution— strengthened by sophisticated technological, scientific and managerial innovations — has displayed extraordinary powers of survival.” Weitz also stresses the importance of political organization at the farm level to assure effective performance by the rural development bureaucracies. In spite of this emphasis, Weitz remains too com mitted to an “altruistic” view of bureaucratic be havior. He views rural organization as a useful “tool in the hands of policymakers and planners.” My own “economic” view of bureaucratic behavior leads me to emphasize, even more strongly than Weitz, the essential role of a viable indigenous political organization in rural areas. In contrast to several other recent popular treat ments of agricultural development, Weitz emphasizes 86 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 the role of institutional rather than the role of tech nological change. There is, in my judgment, inade quate recognition of the role of technical change as a source of change in the behavior of individuals and institutions in agricultural development. If I were assembling a reading list for an under graduate course in agricultural development, or selecting references on agricultural development for a course in economic development, I would want to balance the strengths and the weaknesses of Weitz’ treatment with assignments in recent books by Lester R. Brown, Willard W. Cochrane, Arthur T. Mosher, and Theodore W. Schultz. — V ernon W. R u t tan D irector Economic Development Center University of Minnesota Shibboleths of change in education Making Schools Work: Strategies for Changing Edu cation. By Marcus A. Foster. Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 1971. 171 pp. $5.95, cloth; $2.65, paper. Making New Schools: The Liberation of Learning. By Joseph Turner. New York, David McKay Co., Inc., 1971. 302 pp. $5.95, cloth; $2.95, paper. Marcus Foster’s Making Schools Work and Joseph Turner’s Making New Schools are additions to the growing educational change literature. Foster, re counting some of his successful experiences as an administrator in the Philadelphia public schools, argues that under proper leadership ghetto schools can be changed. Turner’s basic objective, in pre senting discussions of actual and proposed experi ments in both public schools and higher education selected from the literature and his personal experi ences, is to convince readers that experimentation and innovation in all aspects of American education are not only warranted but critically needed. The authors have chosen serious educational is sues: How is successful change in education brought about? and What innovations in education should be tried? Both books read easily. One can hardly wait to reach the end of each of the Foster episodes for each problem’s resolution. Turner’s most detailed and interesting discussion was about the ESS (ele mentary school science) curriculum, which empha sizes classroom activities that hopefully teach chil https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis dren how to learn (the process) as well as specific subjects. Unfortunately, neither book is potentially useful to educators, informed public officials and parents, or social scientists concerned with education. In Making Schools Work first a set of leadership prin ciples are delineated, 11 in all and many rather simplistic— for example, “People are always more important than the system.” “To move people, start where they are.” “Massive problems are solved little by little.” The thesis is that successful change re sults from behavior guided by these principles. But the vignettes recounted fail to demonstrate clearly how Foster’s reported actions indeed conformed to the espoused principles and, furthermore, how these actions, and not a multitude of other factors, led to the reported successful outcomes. Which principles, for example, were operative and how did they ac count for the averting of the teacher-parent conflict over a “racist” school book and the subsequent chan neling of tempers into constructive dialogue and curriculum development, or for the building of a needed addition to Gratz High School and the devel opment of community cohesion after it appeared that political conflicts would thwart construction of the addition? The reader is told at the end of each epi sode that the author’s actions, presumably reflective of his principles, were related to the success, but no objective data are presented to document the alleged success nor are explicit, systematic connections made between it, the principles, and Foster’s actions. Analysis of a few Foster mistakes would have given the book greater credibility. (It is reasonable to assume that he made at least a few while in Phila delphia, and that, despite his successes, some of his actions were in error.) Comparison of some less successful episodes to the more successful ones would have clarified whether the principles were more operative during the successes and, therefore, whether they really made a significant difference. Lastly, not even cursory mention is made of the voluminous literature on leadership, group conflict and its resolution, the process of educational change, and the politics of education, even though subtitles such as “The New Role of Leadership,” “The So ciology of Conflict,” and “Retooling Schools,” are employed. Making Schools Work presents a melo dramatic picture of educational reality, an oversim plified portrait of “how to do it,” which sheds no new light. Instead of presenting challenging new ideas that would lead to greater understanding and new per- 87 BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES spectives, Making New Schools contains a series of brief, largely superficial discussions of many peren nial educational topics including: making education “less dreary,” what is worth knowing and who should decide, who should teach and how should they be prepared, the value of and criteria for processoriented curricula, inservice training, evaluating ex periments, and a number of specific innovations such as ESS science, “black” English, the use of artists as teachers, and decentralization. To be sure, the last words have not been spoken about these topics and innovations but nothing new is added to the already voluminous pertinent literatures to which little reference is made. Paraphrasing the rather fatuously presented edu cational philosophy permeating the book is Mon taigne’s idea that children should not be subjected to “thundering in their ears,” which Turner equates with the traditionally heavy emphasis on lecturing. They should instead be permitted to “taste things with their minds and thereby to choose and discern them,” which Turner equates with the heavy em phasis on discovery in process-oriented education. The issue of when “thundering” might be more effec tive than “tasting” is never raised. In addition, the book abounds with seemingly glib opinions such as: “The schools have destroyed the connection between reading and life; the task is to restore it,” and “I am not all that enthusiastic about TV, but it is a model of art children possess of necessity, and teachers should work with it. Teachers should also introduce students to other models.” The book’s major shortcoming, however, has to do with achieving its objective, convincing others to experiment. This requires that one marshal available evidence to show how specific changes are indeed better than what is presently being used, or, in the absence of evidence, a sound logical analysis of why improvement is expected with the innovation. No data are offered, other than a few personal experi ences and testimonials, and instead of systematic logic a melange of current shibboleths about change are offered. Unfortunately, those searching for sound criteria with which to judge or make educational changes will not find Making New Schools palatable. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis — Jo seph B. G ia c q u in t a Associate Professor of Educational Sociology New York University The rich fabric of experience The Impact of the Industrial Revolution: Protest and Alienation. Edited by Peter N. Stearns. Engle wood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972. 186 pp. $5.95. Traditionally, the social history of industrializa tion has been written in terms of great men, new inventions, and social movements. However, in recent years the writings of historians like Marc Bloch, Georges Lefebvre, Albert Soboul, George Rude, and E. P. Thompson have examined the social, political, and economic consequences of industrialization “from below” through detailed investigations of its impact on the “common man”—the displaced agri cultural worker, the urban industrial proletariat, the new industrialists, and the preindustrial middle class. Peter Stearns’ edited book of readings on the impact of the industrial revolution, which is in accord with this new emphasis in social history, makes a sig nificant contribution to the literature of the field. This collection is organized into four groups of readings which focus respectively on “early industrial protest,” “industrial protest,” “the middle classes,” and “the workers.” The documents in each section were chosen because of their contribution to an understanding of a range of major issues reviewed by Dr. Stearns in separate introductory essays. The section on “early industrial protest” is concerned with the extent, character, and sources of social dis content in the early years of the industrial revolution. The documents on “industrial protest” are directed to an exploration of the significance of strike activity, the relative importance of revolutionary versus “ameliorative” industrial protest, and the role of trade unions and socialist parties in protest activities. The section on “the middle classes” emphasizes the divergent responses of the “new” and “old” middle classes to industrialization. Finally, the readings on “the workers” explore the widely variable impact of industrialization on working class living standards, values, and attitudes in the 18th and 19th centuries. Professor Stearns’ book of readings is particularly valuable for three reasons. First, the selected docu ments range widely in terms of groups covered and countries selected, with British, French, and German materials being most prominent. Traditional sources, such as presentations on the Luddites, British Parlia mentary inquiries, and the writings of Cobbett and Smiles are included along with selections from local police reports, the demands of particular worker 88 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 groups, and statements from little known industrial ists. Second, each introductory essay discusses the reliability of the source materials and heavy emphasis is placed properly on the various limitations of the perspectives supplied in the documents for making broad generalizations about the behavior of partic ular classes and groups. Third, great care is taken to show the extent of divergent attitudes toward and responses to the industrial revolution among both the lower and middle classes. In sum, the Steams reader supplies both a rich fabric of material for study by social historians and an important caveat to those sociologists who might otherwise draw broad and over-simplified generalizations about the impact of industrialization in Western Europe during the last two centuries. — R obert F. B anks Dean James Madison College Michigan State University Income differentials International Trade Theory and Regional Income Differences: United States 1880-1950. By Erling Olsen. Amsterdam, North-Holland Pub lishing Co., 1971. 218 pp. $13. Within the study area of international economics, numerous researchers have tested existing theories on trade and have hypothesized new forms that account for the resource impact of trade. Mr. Olsen’s work constitutes a new addition to the literature within this area. His work can best be summarized as an amalgamation of previous work into a new theoreti cal model of trade along with an empirical test of his model. His research has been carefully docu mented and his empirical work is presented in an orderly manner. It is for these reasons that his objec tives of the book are satisfied; interested economists will find this work a net contribution to the literature. A review of the book shows three distinct parts. Part 1 is a succinct review of theories of interna tional trade, including Heckscher-Ohlin, Burenstam Linder, and the Social Physics models, and a careful comparison of the assumptions and conclusions of each theory. Part 2 is a development of Mr. Olsen’s model, which is a mixture of certain of the models in Part 1, and the reasons behind his model. It is a recursive https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis model, designed for the computer, and developed to test the reasons for changes in income through time. Part 3 is a test of the model; the data used in the test are U.S. regional data for the 1880-1950 time periods. As with any specialized piece of work, there will be those who will find the results useful and those who will find them not so useful. I found two aspects of the book to be quite praiseworthy. First, the care ful review of the main theories of international trade and income distribution undoubtedly is a result of the author’s critical examination of them. Readers of the book will find this a convenient reference review. Second, Mr. Olsen’s model (Part 2) is an addition to the literature. Although there will be those who will not agree with his entire formulation, the model is carefully structured and well documented with his reasoning for it. The major limitation of the work is largely outside the direct control of the author—he faced a near impossible data problem for the empirical test. Inasmuch as his test gave somewhat inconclusive results of the explanatory efficacy of his model, the entire Part 3 becomes an exercise in methodological gymnastics. The merit of this exercise is to caution others against following the same path. Few research benefits result from his work when his model is crammed with forced data so that a determined fit results— see pages 133, 141, 147, and 175. Sections of the book are also quite involved with the computer program—rather than the economics of the author’s work. For example, the discussions on pages 82-83 and 96 detract from the main theme and therefore could easily be placed in an appendix. Finally, Mr. Olsen notes (p. 173) that the model tested better for the first half of the period than the second half. The “fundamental” feature that might explain this is the technological changes that occurred during the period and the resultant impact on re gional output. Clearly his model could not accom modate these technological changes. In conclusion the book is a net contribution to the specialized literature on income differentials. My view is that it is a blend of theoretical review, new model building, and computer gymnastics in the testing of the model. — M . E. 4 4 B ond Associate Professor of Economics Arizona State University f BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES Other publications Economic growth and development Buggie, Frederick D. and Richard Gurman, Toward Effec tive and Equitable Pollution Control Regulation. New York, American Management Association, 1972, 41 pp. (An AMA Research Report.) $5, members; $7.50, nonmembers. Editors of Fortune, Challenges for Business in the 1970’s. Boston, Little, Brown and Co., 1972, 178 pp. $6.95, cloth; $2.95, paper. Helpern, Seymour, “A Major Obstacle to Worldwide En vironmental Accord,” Atlantic Community Quarterly, Summer 1972, pp. 239-246. Jaffe, Eugene D., editor, Social, Cultural, and Economic Changes in the 70’s: Interpreting the Trends, and papers from the White House Conference on the In dustrial World Ahead, held in Washington, D.C., February 1972. Rochelle Park, N.J., Edward E. Eman uel & Co., Inc., 1972, 204 and 178 pp. $19.95, Edward E. Emanuel & Co., Inc., 50 Essex Street, Rochelle Park, N J . 07662. Madden, Carl H., “A New Knowledge Strategy,” Looking Ahead, National Planning Association, June 1972, pp. 1-7. Nelson, Lowry, Cuba: The Measure of a Revolution. Min neapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1972, 242 pp. $ 89 1972, 76 pp. $4.50, Columbia University Press, New York. Guthrie, Harold W., “Microanalytic Simulation Modeling for Evaluation of Public Policy,” Urban Affairs Quar terly, June 1972, pp. 403-418. Morton, J. E., “A Student’s Guide to American Federal Government Statistics,” Journal of Economic Literature, June 1972, pp. 371-397. Education Coombs, Philip H. and Jacques Hallack, Managing Educa tional Costs. New York, Oxford University Press, 1972, 288 pp. (Published with the agreement of UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning.) $7.50. Myers, Robert G., Education and Emigration: Study Abroad and the Migration of Human Resources. New York, David McKay Co., Inc., 1972, 423 pp. $8.95. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Education in Economics for Workers and Their Repre sentatives. (Regional Trade Union Seminar, Düssel dorf, November 9-12, 1971: Supplement to the Final Report.) Paris, OECD, 1972, 160 pp. (International Seminars 1971-2.) Zukosky, Jerome, “Equalizing Educational Opportunity: Taxes and Schools,” New Republic, June 17, 1972, pp. 20-23. 10. Organization of American States, “The Presidents’ Program for the Educational, Scientific, and Technological De velopment of Latin America, 1968-1971,” Americas, April 1972, Special Supplement, pp. S -l-4 8 . Oxford University Institute of Economics and Statistics, “Symposium on the Little-Mirrlees Manual of Indus trial Project Analysis in Developing Countries,” Bul letin of the Institute, February 1972, pp. 1-168. Rothman, Harry, Murderous Providence: A Study of Pol lution in Industrial Societies. New York, Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1972, 372 pp. $7.95. Ward, Barbara and René Dubos, Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet. (An unofficial report commissioned by the Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environ ment, prepared with the assistance of a 152-member committee of corresponding consultants in 58 coun tries). New York, W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1972, 225 pp. $6. Industrial health and safety Bolinder, Erik and Gideon Gerhardsson, “A Better Environ ment for the Worker,” International Labor Review, June 1972, pp. 495-505. Hovey, Marcia J., “Complying with OSHA Noise Stand ards,” Safety Standards, July-August 1972, pp. 7-12. International Labor Office, Control and Prevention of Oc cupational Cancer. (Report V I I (l), International Labor Conference, 58th Sess., Geneva 1973.) Geneva, ILO, 1972, 36 pp. Murphy, Michael T., “A Case for Air Pollution as a Mandatory Bargaining Subject,” Oregon Law Review, Fall 1971, pp. 223-234. Industrial relations Barrett, Jerome T., “Governmental Response to Public Unionism and Recognition of Employee Rights: Trends and Alternatives for Resolving Issues,” Oregon Law Review, Fall 1971, pp. 113-133. Economic statistics Goldston, Eli, The Quantification of Concern: Some Aspects o f Social Accounting. Pittsburgh, Pa., Carnegie Press, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Brinker, Paul A., “Common Situs Picketing by Construc tion Unions Since 1958,” Labor Law Journal, June 1972, pp. 323-341. 90 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 Burton, John F., Jr., “Local Government Bargaining and Management Structure,” Industrial Relations, May 1972, pp. 123-140. Newborn, Norton N., “The Strange Career of Moore v. Illinois Central Railroad,” Labor Law Journal, June 1972, pp. 361-375. Cole, Gordon H., “Compulsory Arbitration: N o Help Down Under,” American Federationist, June 1972, pp. 16-19. Patrick, Floyd, “The Monopoly Power of Organized Labor,” Business and Society, Roosevelt University, Spring 1972, pp. 22-27. Cullen, Donald E., “Recent Trends in Collective Bargaining in the United States,” International Labor Review, June 1972, pp. 507-530. Schneidereit, Peter M., “Codetermination in West Ger many,” Oregon Law Review, Fall 1971, pp. 214-223. Gilroy, Thomas P. and Anthony V. Sinicropi, “Impasse Resolution in Public Employment: A Current Assess ment,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, July 1972, pp. 496-511. Grodin, Joseph R., “Either-Or Arbitration for Public Em ployee Disputes,” Industrial Relations, May 1972, pp. 260-266. Grodin, Joseph G. and Mark A. Hardin, “Public Employee Bargaining in Oregon,” Oregon Law Review, Fall 1971, pp. 7-69. Hilke, Charles, “The Oregon State Labor-Management Re lations Board,” Oregon Law Review, Fall 1971, pp. 235-248. Hines, Robert J., “Mandatory Contract Arbitration— Is It A Viable Process?,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, July 1972, pp. 533-544. Howells, John M., “Causes and Frequency of Strikes in New Zealand,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, July 1972, pp. 524-532. Ingrassia, Anthony F., “The Maturing Federal Labor-Man agement Relationship,” Civil Service Journal, April— June 1972, pp. 6-10. Jones, Ralph W., “Union Discretion and the Abridgement of Employee Rights,” Oregon Law Review, Fall 1971, pp. 248-260. Kagel, John, “Grievance Arbitration in the Federal Service: How Final and Binding?,” Oregon Law Review, Fall 1971, pp. 134-150. Kleinsorge, Paul L. and Lafayette G. Harter, Jr., “Criteria for Impasse Resolution in Public Employee Labor Disputes: An Economic Analysis,” Oregon Law Re view, Fall 1971, pp. 202-213. Koshiro, Kazutoshi, “Prospects for Collective Bargaining in the 1970’s: (II), The Spring Wage Offensive and Its Effect on Wages and Prices,” Japan Labor Bul letin, May 1, 1972, pp. 4-10. Kramer, Jay, “The New York State Labor Relations Board: An Evolutionary Instrument for Social Justice Eco nomic Progress,” Labor Law Journal, June 1972, pp. 342-360. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Shaw, Lee C. and R. Theodore Clark, Jr., “Determination of Appropriate Bargaining Units in the Public Sector: Legal and Practical Problems,” Oregon Law Review, Fall 1971, PP- 152-176. Stevens, Carl M., “The Management of Labor Disputes in the Public Sector,” Oregon Law Review, Fall 1971, pp. 191-201. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Analysis of Work Stoppages, 1970. Washington, 1972, 62 pp. (Bulletin 1727.) 65 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington 20402. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, A Directory of BLS Studies in Industrial Relations, 1960-71. Washington, 1972, 13 pp. Single copies free. Wollett, Donald H., “The Bargaining Process in the Public Sector: What is Bargainable?,” Oregon Law Review, Fall 1971, pp. 177-182. Wright, John C., Jr., “The Pennsylvania Public Employee Relations Act,” Oregon Law Review, Fall 1971, pp. 183-190. International economics Beman, Lewis, “How to Tell Where the U.S. is Competi tive,” Fortune, July 1972, pp. 54-89, 98, 102. Branson, William H., “The Trade Effect of the 1971 Currency Realignments,” Brookings Papers on Eco nomic A ctivity, 1972:1, pp. 15-69. Brecher, Irving and S. A. Abbas, Foreign A id and Indus trial Development in Pakistan. London, Cambridge University Press, 1972, 271 pp. $19.50. Labor force Bloom, Gordon F. and F. Marion Fletcher, The Negro in the Supermarket Industry. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, Industrial Research Unit, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, 1972, 226 pp. (Racial Policies of American Industry, 25.) $5.95, paper. Business and Professional Women’s Foundation, Career Counseling: New Perspectives for Women and Girls— A Selected Annotated Bibliography. Washington, 1972, 44 pp. 50 cents, the Foundation, 2012 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington 20036. BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES Endicott, Kenneth M., “The Doctor Dilemma,” Manpower, July 1972, pp. 3-9. Gaston, Robert J., “Labor Market Conditions and Employer Hiring Standards,” Industrial Relations, May 1972, pp. 272-278. Harrison, Bennett, “Employment, unemployment, and structure of the urban labor market,” Wharton Quar terly, Spring 1972, pp. 4-7. Niland, John R., “Allocation of Ph. D. Manpower in the Academic Labor Market,” Industrial Relations, May 1972, pp. 141-156. Oswald, Rudy and Phillip Ray, “Who Is Unemployed— A National Profile,” American Federationist, June 1972, pp. 11-15. Reid, Graham L., “Job Search and the Effectiveness of Job-Finding Methods,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, July 1972, pp. 479-495. Ritchie, Robert, “The Economic Situation of Blacks: Nota ble Gains But Gaps Remain,” Business Review, Fed eral Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, June 1972, pp. 9-13. U.S. General Accounting Office, Efforts to Employ Disad vantaged Persons in the Federal Government, Civil Service Commission, Department of Labor. (Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States.) Washington, 1972, 61 pp. (B -163922.) Labor organizations Doherty, William C., Jr., “Building Latin Unions— A 10Year Report,” American Federationist, June 1972, pp. 20-24. Lieberman, Myron, “The Union Merger Movement: Will 3,500,000 Teachers Put It All Together?,” Saturday Review, June 24, 1972, pp. 50-56. Schultz, Michael John, Jr., The National Education A sso ciation and the Black Teacher. Coral Gables, Fla., University of Miami Press, 1971, 224 pp. $7.95. 91 Shepard, Jon M., editor, Organizational Issues in Indus trial Society. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972, 449 pp. $9.95. Manpower training and development Borland, Barry L., Franklin E. Williams, David Taylor, “A Survey of Attitudes of Physicians on Proper Use of Physicians’ Assistants,” Health Services Reports, May 1972, pp. 457-472. Engleman, Stephen R., “Job Corps: Some Factors Affecting Enrollee Earnings,” Industrial Relations, May 1972, pp. 198-215. Fottler, Myron D., “Administrative View of Manpower Utilization in the Hospital Industry,” Personnel Journal, July 1972, pp. 505-510. Ginzberg, Eli, “The Role of Training in National Man power Policy,” Training and Development Journal, July 1972, pp. 30-34. Hardin, Einar and Michael E. Borus, “Benefits and Costs of M DTA-ARA Retraining,” Industrial Relations, May 1972, pp. 216-228. Rawlins, V. Lane, “Manpower Programs for Disadvantaged Youths,” Industrial Relations, May 1972, pp. 184-197. Rowan, Richard L. and Herbert R. Northrup, Educating the Employed Disadvantaged for Upgrading: A Report on Remedial Education Programs in the Paper Indus try. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, Indus trial Research Unit, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, 1972, 168 pp. (Industrial Research Reports, Miscellaneous Series, 18.) $5.95, paper. Schneider, Daniel J. and Robert Bilgrad, “A Prospective for Health Manpower Planning,” Health Services Re ports, May 1972, pp. 399-405. Schriver, William R. and Robert L. Bowlby, “Vocational Training and the Income-Education Linkage,” Indus trial Relations, May 1972, pp. 229-244. Management and organization theory Taggart, Robert III, The Prison of Unemployment: Man power Programs for Offenders. Baltimore, Md., Johns Hopkins Press, 1972, 116 pp. $6, cloth; $2.50, paper. Cleveland, Harlan, The Future Executive. New York, Harper & Row, Publishers, 1972, 144 pp. $5.95. Monetary and fiscal policy Herman, Donald H. J., “Privacy, the prospective employee, and employment testing: the need to restrict polygraph and personality testing,” Washington Law Review, October 1971, pp. 73-154. Minter, Robert L., “Human Rights Laws and Pre-Employ ment Inquiries,” Personnel Journal, June 1972, pp. 431-433. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Okun, Arthur M., “Fiscal-Monetary Activism: Some Analytical Issues,” Brookings Papers on Economic A c tivity, 1972:1, pp. 123-172. Pechman, Joseph A. and Benjamin A. Okner, Individual Income Tax Erosion by Income Classes. Washington, Brookings Institution, 1972, 40 pp. (Reprinted from The Economics of Federal Subsidy Programs. A Com- 92 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 pendium of Papers Submitted to the Joint Economic Committee, Part I, General Study Papers, 92d Cong., 2d sess., 1972, pp. 13-40. Brookings Reprint 230.) Schnitzer, Martin and Yung-Ping Chen, editors, Public Finance and Public Policy Issues. Scranton, Pa., Intext Educational Publishers, 445 pp. $7.95. Schultze, Charles L. and others, Setting National Priorities: the 1973 Budget. Washington, Brookings Institution, 1972, 468 pp. $8.95, cloth; $3.50, paper. Silk, Leonard, Nixonomics: How the Dismal Science of Free Enterprise Became the Black A rt of Controls. New York, Praeger Publishers, 1972, 212 pp. $6.95. Upton, Letitia and Nancy Lyons, Basic Facts: Distribution of Personal Income and Wealth in the United States. Cambridge, Mass., Cambridge Institute, 1972, 31 pp. Prices and living conditions Ackley, Gardner, “Observations on Phase II Price and Wage Controls,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1972:1, pp. 173-194. Daly, D. J., editor, International Comparisons of Prices and Output. New York, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1972, 417 pp. (Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 37, by the Conference on Research in Income and Wealth.) $12.50, Columbia University Press, New York. Fiedler, Edgar R., “The Price-Wage Stabilization Program,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1972:1, pp. 199-206. Hotson, John H. and Hamid Hababagahi, “Comparative Static Analysis of Harrod’s Dichotomy,” Kyklos, Vol. 25, 1972, Fasc. 2, pp. 326-344. Houthakker, Hendrik, “Thoughts on Phase II,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1972:1, pp. 195-198. Juster, F. Thomas and Paul Wachtel, “Inflation and the Consumer,” Brookings Papers on Economic A ctivity, 1972:1, pp. 71-121. Phelps, Charles E. and Joseph P. Newhouse, “Effect of Coinsurance: A Multivariate Analysis,” Social Security Bulletin, June 1972, pp. 20-28, 44, 68. Scitovsky, Anne A. and Neida M. Snyder, “Effect of Coin surance on Use of Physician Services,” Social Security Bulletin, June 1972, pp. 3-19. Productivity and technological change Connolly, D. J., “Social Repercussions of New Cargo Handling Methods in the Port of London,” International Labor Review, June 1972, pp. 543-568. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Ginzberg, Eli, James W. Kuhn, Beatrice G. Ruebens, Private and Public Manpower Policies to Stimulate Productiv ity. Washington, National Commission on Productiv ity, 1972, 13 pp. Hatry, Harry P. and Donald M. Fisk, Improving Productiv ity and Productivity Measurement in Local Govern ments. Washington, National Commission on Produc tivity, 1972, 73 pp. Korsakov, E., “Technological Progress and its Effect on Soviet Dockworkers,” International Labor Review, June 1972, pp. 531-542. Kranzberg, Melvin and William H. Davenport, Technology and Culture: An Anthology. New York, Schocken Books, 1972, 364 pp. $10. Laserson, Gregory L. and JoAnn Sperling, The Survival of R&D in American Industry. New York, American Management Association, 1972, 32 pp. (An AMA Re search Report.) $5, members; $7.50, nonmembers. McKersie, Robert, Lawrence Hunter, Werner Sengenberger, Productivity Bargaining: The British and American Experience. Washington, National Commission on Pro ductivity, 1972, 19 pp. Rosenberg, Nathan, Technology and American Economic Growth. New York, Harper & Row, Publishers, 1972, 211 pp. $2.95, paper. Social institutions and social change Greeley, Andrew M., That M ost Distressful Nation: The Taming of the American Irish. Chicago, Quadrangle Books, 1972, 281 pp. $7.95. O’Neil, Robert M., “The Private Lives of Public Em ployees,” Oregon Law Review, Fall 1971, pp. 70-112. Rogler, Lloyd H., Migrant in the City: The Life of a Puerto Rican Action Group. New York, Basic Books, Inc., Publisher, 1972, 251 pp. $8.95, Rubin, Israel, Satmar: An Island in the City. Chicago, Quadrangle Books, 1972, 272 pp. $8.95. Wages and compensation American Chemical Society, “New Work Week Concepts Taking Hold,” Chemical and Engineering News, July 10, 1972, p. 2. Anderson, Clifford H., “Wage Spillover Mechanisms: A U.S.-Canadian Analysis,” Industrial Relations, May 1972, pp. 172-182. Bureau of National Affairs, Wage and Salary Administra tion. Washington, Bureau of National Affairs, 1972, 34 pp. (Personnel Policies Forum, Survey No. 97.) $2. CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS Great Britain, Department of Employment, “A new index of salaries and other indices of earnings,” Department of Employment Gazette, May 1972, pp. 431-434. Haynes, Marion E., “The Minimum Wage: Where Are We Headed?,” Personnel Journal, June 1972, pp. 407-412. International Labor Office, Paid Educational Leave. (Re port V I(1 ), International Labor Conference, 58th Sess., Geneva 1973.) Geneva, ILO, 1972, 58 pp. Levy, Robert, “How’s the Four-Day Week Working?,” Dun’s, July 1972, pp. 52-54. Milkovich, George T. and Keith Campbell, “A Study of Jacques’ Norms of Equitable Payment,” Industrial Relations, May 1972, pp. 267-271. Rosenthal, Edmond M., “Are Workers Up to the Four-Day Workweek?,” Management Review, July 1972, pp. 14-19. 93 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Survey of Pro fessional, Administrative, Technical, and Clerical Pay, June 1971. Washington, 1972, 79 pp. (Bulletin 1742.) 75 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington 20402. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Union Wages and Hours: Building Trades, July 1, 1971. Washington, 1972, 49 pp. (Bulletin 1747.) 55 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington 20402. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Union Wages and Hours: Local Truckdrivers and Helpers, July 1, 1971. Wash ington, 1972, 40 pp. (Bulletin 1756.) 50 cents, Super intendent of Documents, Washington 20402. U.S. Civil Service Commission, “Report to the President on job evaluation and pay,” Civil Service Journal, April-May 1972, pp. 12-15. Welfare programs and social insurance Saso, Carmen D., 4/40: The Four-Day Workweek. Chicago, Public Personnel Association, 1972, 15 pp. incl. ap pendix, bibliography. $1.50, members; $2.50, non members. Strober, Myra H., “Lower Pay for Women: A Case of Economic Discrimination? Criticism and Comment,” Industrial Relations, May 1972, pp. 279-284; reply, Richard C. Mancke, pp. 285-288. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Area Wage Survey: The Huntsville, Ala., Metropolitan Area, February 1972. Washington, 1972, 24 pp. (Bulletin 1725-50.) 35 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington 20402. Other recent bulletins in this series include the metro politan areas of Newark and Jersey City, N.J.; York, Pa.; Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, Iowa-Ill.; Lub bock, Texas; Albuquerque, N. Mex.; and South Bend, Ind. (Bulletins 1725-52, 54, 55, 57, 59, 60.) Various pagings and prices. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Industry Wage Survey: Communications, 1970. Washington, 1972, 14 pp. (Bulletin 1751.) 30 cents, Superintendent of Docu ments, Washington 20402. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Industry Wage Survey: Petroleum Refining, April 1971. Washington, 1972, 34 pp. (Bulletin 1741.) 50 cents, Superintendent of Docu ments, Washington 20402. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis California Department of Industrial Relations, “Health and Welfare Plans Under Collective Bargaining, California 197-0,” California Industrial Relations Reports, April 1972, pp. 5-73. Goodwin, Leonard, Do The Poor Want to Work? A SocialPsychological Study of Work Orientation. Washington, Brookings Institution, 1972, 178 pp. $6.50, cloth; $2.50, paper. Hill, C. Russell, “Two Income Maintenance Plans, Work Incentives and the Closure of the Poverty Gap,:” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, July 1972, pp. 545-555. Kirkpatrick, Elizabeth Kreitler, “Children’s Allowances in Japan,” Social Security Bulletin, June 1972, pp. 39, 43. Kleiman, Ephraim, “The Frustration and Enhancement of Income Redistribution,” Kyklos, Vol. 25, 1972, Fasc. 2, pp. 288-305. Lyday, James M., “An Advocate’s Process Outline for Policy Analysis: The Case of Welfare Reform,” Urban Affairs Quarterly, June 1972, pp. 385-402. Roach, Jack L. and Janet K. Roach, Poverty: Selected Readings. Baltimore, Md., Penguin Books, Inc., 1972, 350 pp. Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical se rie s ........................................................................................... 95 Employment and unemployment— household data 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Employment status of noninstitutional population, 1957-71 ................................................................................ Employment status, by color, sex, and age, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages......................................... Full-time and part-time status of civilian labor force, seasonally a d ju s te d ............................................................ Employment and unemployment, by age and sex, seasonally a d ju s te d ................................................. Employment totals, by occupation, with unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages......... Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally a d ju s te d ............................................................ Unemployment rates, by age and sex, seasonally a d ju s te d .................................................................................... Unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted ............................................................................. Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted ...................................................................................................... 95 96 96 97 97 98 98 99 99 Unemployment insurance 10. Unemployment insurance and employment service o p e ra tio n s .............................................................................. 100 Nonagricultural employment— payroll data 11. 12. 13. 14. Employment Employment Employment Employment by by by by industry, 1947-71 ............................................................................................................................... S ta te ...................................................................................................................................................... industry division and major manufacturing g ro u p ........................................................................... industry division and major manufacturing group,seasonally a d ju s te d ....................................... 101 101 102 103 Labor turnover and job vacancies 15. 16. 17. Labor turnover in manufacturing, 1962 to date ............................................ Labor turnover in manufacturing, by major industry group .................................................................................. Job vacancies in m a n u fa c tu rin g ................................... 104 105 105 Hours and earnings— private nonagricultural payrolls 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Hours and earnings, by industry division, 1947-71 .................................................................................................. Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing g r o u p ....................................................................... Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally a d ju s te d ...................... Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing g r o u p .................................................................. Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group ................................................................ Spendable weekly earnings in current and 1967 d o lla rs ............................................................................................ 106 107 108 109 110 I l l Consumer and Wholesale Price Indexes, 1949-71 .................................................................................................... Consumer Price Index, U.S. average, general summary and selected ite m s .......................................................... Consumer Price Index, selected a re a s ......................................................................................................................... Wholesale Price Index, by group and subgroup of commodities ......................................................................... Wholesale Price Index, for special commodity g ro u p in g s ........................................................................................ Wholesale Price Index, by durability of p ro d u c t.......................................................................................................... Wholesale Price Index, by stage of p ro c e s s in g ........................................................................................................ Industry-sector price indexes for output of selected in d u s trie s .......................................................................... 112 112 118 119 121 121 122 123 Prices 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Labor-management disputes 32. Work stoppages resulting from labor-management disputes .................................................................................. 125 Productivity 33. Indexes of output per man-hour, hourly compensation, and unit labor c o s ts ........................................................ 94 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 126 CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS HOUSEHOLD DATA 95 Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series, October 1972 D a te o f re le a s e T itle Employment situation ............................................................... Wholesale Price Index ............................................................. Consumer Price In d e x ............................................................... Major collective bargaining se ttle m e n ts................................ Productivity and costs ............................................................. Work stoppages ........................................................................ 1. M L R t a b le n u m b e r P e r io d c o v e r e d September September September 3d quarter 3d quarter September October 6 October 5 October 20 October 27 October 27 October 31 1-14 27-31 25-26 33 32 Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, 19 4 7 -7 1 [In thousands] C ivilian labor force T o ta l labor force Year T otal non in s titu tio n a l population Number Percent of population Not in labor force Unemployed Employed Total Total A g ric u ltu re N onagric u ltu ra l indu stries Number Percent of labor force 1 9 4 7 .. .. _______ ______________ 1948__________________________ 1949__________________________ 1950......... ........... ............... ............... 103,418 104,527 105,611 106,645 60,941 62,080 62,903 63,858 58.9 59.4 59.6 59.9 59,350 60,621 61,286 62,208 57,039 58,344 57,649 58,920 7,891 7,629 7,656 7,160 49,148 50,713 49,990 51,760 2,311 2,276 3,637 3,288 3.9 3.8 5.9 5.3 42,477 42,447 42,708 42,787 1951..................................................... 1952_______ _____ _____________ 1953_______ __________________ 1954__________________________ 1955______ _____ _____________ 107,721 108,823 110,601 111,671 112,732 65,117 65,730 66,560 66,993 68,072 60.4 60.4 60,2 60.0 60.4 62,017 62,138 63,015 63,643 65,023 59,962 60,254 61,181 60,110 62,171 6,726 6,501 6,261 6,206 6,449 53,239 53,753 54,922 53,903 55,724 2,055 1,883 1,834 3,532 2,852 3.3 3.0 2.9 5.5 4.4 42,604 43,093 44,041 44,678 44,660 1956..................... .............. ............... 1957________ _________ _______ 1958__________________________ 1 9 5 9 ........................ ....................... 1960............. ........... ................. ......... 113,811 115,065 116,363 117,881 119,759 69,409 69,729 70,275 70,921 72,142 61.0 60.6 60.4 60.2 60.2 66,552 66,929 67,639 68,369 69,628 63,802 64,071 63,036 64,630 65,778 6,283 5,947 5,586 5,565 5,458 57,517 58,123 57,450 59,065 60,318 2,750 2,859 4,602 3,740 3,852 4.1 4.3 5.5 5.5 44,402 45,336 46,088 46,960 47,617 1961............................. ....................... 1962_____ ________ ___________ 1963........... ................... ............ .. 1964________________ _______ _ 1965_________ ________________ 121,343 122,981 125,154 127,224 129,236 73,031 73,424 74,571 75,830 77,178 60.2 59.7 59.6 59.6 59.7 70,459 70,614 71,833 73,091 74,455 65,746 66,702 67,762 69,305 71,088 5,200 4,944 4,687 4,523 4,361 60,546 61,759 63,076 64,782 66,726 4,714 3,911 4,070 3,786 3,366 6.7 5.5 5.7 5.2 4.5 48,312 49,539 50,583 51,394 52,058 1966............... ......... ........... ............... 1967........................... ............ ........... 1968________ _____ ________ _ 1969__________________________ 1970__________________________ 131,180 133,319 135,562 137,841 140,182 78,893 80,793 82,272 84,239 85,903 60.1 60.6 60.7 61.1 61.3 75,770 77,347 78,737 80,733 82,715 72,895 74,372 75,920 77,902 78,627 3,979 3,844 3,817 3,606 3,462 68,915 70,527 72,103 74,296 75,165 2,875 2,975 2,817 2,831 4,088 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.5 4.9 52,288 52,527 53,291 53,602 54,280 1971.......................... .......... .......... 142,596 86,929 61.0 84,113 79,120 3,387 75,732 4,993 5.9 55,666 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 6 .8 96 2. HOUSEHOLD DATA MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 Employment status, by color, sex and age, seasonally adjusted,1 quarterly averages [N um bers in thousands] Annual average 1969 Characteristic 1970 1971 1972 1970 1971 2d 3d 4th 1st 2d 3d 4th 1st 2d 3d 4th 1st 73,518 42,464 24,616 6,440 74,7.90 43,088 25,030 6,672 71,508 41,646 23,737 6,125 72,019 41,863 23,970 6,186 72,417 41,936 24,121 6,360 73,174 42,267 24,450 6,457 73,324 42,473 24,459 6,392 73,604 42,514 24,687 6,403 74,210 42,712 24,916 6,582 74,317 42,709 24,930 6,678 74,422 43,050 24,777 6,595 74,843 43,250 24,980 6,613 75,673 43,362 25,434 6,877 76,417 43,618 25,584 7,215 76,768 43,891 70,182 41,093 23,521 5,569 70,716 41,347 23,707 5,662 69,307 40,884 22,945 5,478 69,667 41,023 23,144 5,500 70,052 41,078 23,289 5,685 70,389 41,180 23,524 5,685 70,134 41,158 23,425 5,551 70,070 41,013 23,536 5,521 70,220 41,035 23,622 5,563 70,237 40,983 23,617 5,637 70,328 41,268 23,458 5,602 70,762 41,484 23,662 5,616 71,572 41,665 24,081 5,826 72,402 41,959 24,370 6,073 72,733 42,183 24,371 6,179 3,337 1,371 1,095 871 4,074 1,741 1,324 2,201 2,352 840 826 686 2,365 858 832 675 2,785 1,087 926 772 3,190 1,315 1,034 841 3,534 1,501 1,151 882 3,990 1,677 1,294 1,019 4,080 1,726 1,313 1,041 4,094 1,782 1,319 993 4,081 1,766 1,318 997 4,101 1,697 1,353 1,051 4,014 1,659 1,214 1,141 4,035 1,708 1,326 1,001 4.5 3.2 4.4 13.5 5.4 4.0 5.3 15.1 3.3 3.3 3.8 1 .8 2 .0 2 .0 2 .6 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.8 1 0.6 11.1 1 0.6 1 2.0 4.4 3.1 4.2 13.2 4.8 3.5 4.7 13.8 5.4 3.9 5.2 15.5 5.5 4.0 5.3 15.6 5.5 4 1 5 3 15.1 5.5 4 1 5.3 15.1 5.4 3.9 5.3 15.3 5.3 3.8 4.7 15.8 5.3 3.9 5.2 13.9 9,197 4,461 4,726 808 9,322 4,773 3,769 781 8,870 4,550 3,539 781 8,978 4,583 3,597 798 9,073 4,631 3,620 822 9,188 4,697 3,656 835 9,225 4,703 3,695 827 9,208 4,765 3,656 787 9,188 4,755 3,649 784 9,270 4,748 3,741 781 9,272 4,752 3,748 772 9,388 4,792 3,797 799 9,372 4,805 3,791 '776 9,506 4,767 3,897 842 9 577 8,445 4,461 3,412 573 8,403 4,428 3,442 533 8,286 4,385 3,320 518 8,395 4,409 3,375 611 8,510 4,454 3,428 628 8,552 4,490 3,439 623 8,466 4,436 3,434 596 8,429 4,478 3,399 552 8,342 4,437 3,375 530 8,386 4,426 3,428 532 8,351 4,424 3,405 522 8,442 4,431 3,461 550 8,427 4,427 3,473 527 8 503 4 435 3 545 523 752 265 252 235 919 345 326 248 584 165 219 583 174 222 636 207 217 200 187 563 177 192 194 759 267 261 231 779 287 257 235 846 318 274 254 884 322 313 249 921 328 343 250 946 361 336 249 945 378 318 249 1,003 33? 35? 319 6 .6 6.5 3.8 8 .2 8.5 3.6 9.5 6 .2 25.6 23.4 5.7 7.1 27.9 6 .0 6 .2 9.2 6.7 7.5 32.4 9 9 6 9 9 2 32.4 2d WHITE Civilian labor force________ Men, 20 years and over__ Women, 20 years and over. Both sexes, 16-19 ye a rs ... Employed________________ Men, 20 years and over__ Women, 20 years and over. Both sexes, 16-19 ye a rs ... Unemployed_____________ Men, 20 years and over__ Women, 20 years and over. Both sexes, 16-19 years... Unemployment rate_______ Men, 20 years and over__ Women, 20 years and over. Both sexes, 16-19 ye a rs ... NEGRO AND 1,010 762 792 647 3.1 7,180 OTHER Civilian labor force_______ Men, 20 years and o v e r ... Women, 20 years and over. Both sexes, 16-19 ye a rs ... Employed________________ Men, 20 years and o v e r ... Women, 20 years and over. Both sexes, 16-19 years.. . Unemployed_____________ Men, 20 years and o v e r ... Women, 20 years and over. Both sexes, 16-19 ye a rs .._ Unemployment rate .. ____ Men, 20 years and o v e r ... Women, 20 years and over. Both sexes, 16-19 ye a rs ... 8 .2 5.9 5.3 29.1 9.9 7.2 8.7 31.7 212 6.9 4.4 5.9 25.4 6 .2 3.8 5.3 23.6 1 These data have been adjusted to re fle c t seasonal experience through December 1971. For a discussion of seasonal adjustm ent procedures and the 3. 25,697 7.0 29.9 h is to ric a l seasonally 6 .8 8.4 31.9 adjusted series, 1 10 1 in 7 5 7 9 4 32.1 7 0 9 0 37.9 10 8 8 31.2 see the 8 February 4! 842 3,878 857 8 fi31 4,500 3,546 585 9 4 fi 34? 332 272 fi 1972 9 9 7 1 8.6 31.7 issue of Employment and Earnings. Full-time and part-time status 1 of the civilian labor force, seasonally adjusted 2 [Num bers in thousands] 1971 Employment status 1972 July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.3 Feb. Mar. Apr. May June 71,995 6 8 i128 3,867 5.4 72,218 68,209 4,009 5.6 72,341 68,284 4,057 5.6 72,550 68,643 3,907 5.4 73,021 68,890 4,131 s 7 73,169 69,022 4,147 5.7 73,261 69,279 3,982 5.4 72,997 69,123 3,874 5.3 73,714 69,734 3,980 5.4 73,691 63,725 3,966 5.4 74,032 69,918 4,114 5.6 74,333 70,643 3,690 5.0 74,218 70,437 3,781 5.1 11,954 10,918 1,036 8.7 1 2 ,2 1 1 12,293 11,280 1,013 12,190 11,158 1,032 8.5 12,125 11,094 1,031 8 S 12,083 11,072 12,595 11,476 1,119 8.9 12,540 11,482 1,058 8.4 12,596 11,497 1,099 8.7 12,466 11,369 1,097 12,406 11,403 1,003 11,867 10,825 1,042 12,208 11,211 997 8.2 July FULL TIME Total, 16 years and over: Civilian labor force Employed. Unemployed Unemployment rate. _ PART TIME Total, 16 years and over: Civilian labor force Employed_______ . Unemployed Unemployment rate______ ______ 11,086 1,125 9 2 8 .2 1 Persons on part-tim e schedules fo r economic reasons are included in the fu ll-tim e employed category; unemployed persons are allocated by w hether seeking fu ll-tim e or part-tim e work. 2 These data have been adjusted to re fle c t seasonal experience through De cember 1971. For a discussion of seasonal adjustm ent procedures and the h isto rica l seasonally adjusted series, see the February 1972 issue of Em ployment and Earnings. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1 ,0 1 1 8.4 8 .8 8.8 3 Figures fo r periods prio r to January 1972 in the tables are not s tric tly comparable w ith curre nt data because of the intro duction of 1970 Census data into the estim ation procedures. For example, the civilia n labor force and em ploym ent to ta ls fo r January 1972 were raised by more than 300,000 in the census adjustm ent. An explanation of the changes and an indication of the differences appears in “ Revisions in the C u rrent Population Survey” in the February 1972 issue of Employment and Earnings. CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 4. HOUSEHOLD DATA 97 Employment and unemployment, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted 1 [In thousands] Annual average 1972 1971 Employment status 1970 1971 July 85,903 86,929 82,715 78,627 3,462 75,165 4,088 84,113 79,120 3,387 75,732 4,993 Aug. Sept. 86,727 87,088 83,930 79,014 3,374 75,640 4,916 84,313 79,199 3,407 75,792 5,114 Dec. Jan.2 Feb. 87,812 87,883 88,301 85,116 80,020 3,419 76,601 5,096 85,225 80,098 3,400 76,698 5,127 85,707 80,636 3,393 77,243 5,071 Oct. Nov. 87,240 87,467 84,491 79,451 3,363 76,088 5,040 84,750 79,832 3,416 76,416 4,918 Mar. Apr. May June 88,075 88,817 88,747 88,905 88.788 88,855 85,535 80,623 3,357 77,266 4,912 86,313 81,241 3,482 77,759 5,072 86,284 81,205 3,324 77,781 86,486 81,394 3,353 78,041 5,092 86,395 81,667 3,337 78,330 4,728 86,467 81,682 3,445 78,237 4,785 July TOTAL Total labor force____ ____ Civilian labor force_______ Employed______________ Agriculture_________ Nonagriculture. Unemployed __ . . . . 5,079 MEN, 20 YEARS AND OVER Total labor force__________ 49,948 50,308 50,369 50,458 50,492 50,530 50,527 50,463 50,498 50,373 50,714 50,711 50,760 50,904 50,979 Civilian labor force________ 47,189 45,553 2,527 43,026 1,636 47,861 45,775 2,446 43,329 2,086 47,949 45,879 2,449 43,430 2,070 48,057 45,893 2,462 43,431 2,164 48,113 45,969 2,435 43,534 2,144 48,179 46,124 2,494 43,630 2,055 48,200 46,066 2,503 43,563 2,134 48,169 46,080 2,439 43,641 2,089 48,259 46,247 2,442 43,805 2,012 48,181 46,255 2,394 43,861 1,926 48,582 46,569 2,400 44,169 2,013 48,614 46,541 2,370 44,171 2,073 48,700 46,628 2,404 44,224 2,072 48,882 46,919 2,437 44,482 1,963 48,961 47,032 2,474 44,558 1,929 28,279 26,932 549 26,384 1,347 28,799 27,149 537 26,612 1,650 28,594 26,964 529 26,435 1,630 28,826 27,144 543 26,601 1,682 28,960 27,319 548 26,771 1,641 29,082 27,471 530 26,941 1,611 29,254 27,571 528 27,043 1,683 29,284 27,592 547 27,045 1,692 29,424 27,794 564 27,230 1,630 29,358 27,878 575 27,303 1,480 29,574 27,972 620 27,352 1,602 29,508 27,913 563 27,350 1,595 29,625 27,883 551 27,332 1,742 29,657 28,029 496 27,533 1,628 29,789 28,078 556 27,522 1,711 7,246 6,141 386 5,755 1,105 7,453 6,195 404 5,791 1,257 7,387 6,171 396 5,775 1,216 7,430 6,162 402 5,760 1,268 7,418 6,163 380 5,783 1,255 7,489 6,237 392 5,845 1,252 7,662 6,383 388 5,995 1,279 7,772 6,426 414 6,012 1,346 8,024 6,595 387 6,208 1,429 7,996 6,490 388 6,102 L506 8,157 6,700 462 6,238 1'457 8,162 6,751 ’ 391 6,360 1,411 8 lf il 6 883 898 6 485 1,278 7,856 6,719 404 6,315 1,137 7,717 6,572 415 6,157 1,145 Employed______________ Agriculture_________ Nonagriculture______ Unemployed______ ____ WOMEN, 20 YEARS AND OVER Civilian labor force_______ Employed_________ ___ Agriculture_______ Nonagriculture______ Unemployed____________ BOTH SEXES, 16-19 YEARS Civilian labor force______ . Employed______________ Agriculture_________ Nonagriculture______ Unemployed_______ . _ 2 See footnote 3, table 3, regarding the introduction of 1970 census population controls. 1 These data have been adjusted to reflect seasonal experience through December 1971. For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally adjusted series, see the February 1972 issue of Employment and Earnings. 5. Employment totals, by occupation, with unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted,1 quarterly averages Annual average Characteristic 1970 1971 1969 2d 3d 1970 4th 1st 2d 1971 3d 4th 1st 2d 1972 3d 4th 1st 2d EMPLOYMENT (in thousands). 78,627 79,120 77,575 78,126 78,577 78,875 78,610 78,531 78,550 78,546 78,723 79,221 79,984 80,833 81,422 White-collar workers... ___ 37,997 11,140 38,252 11,070 36,699 10,750 36,961 10,742 37,445 10,918 37,940 11,055 38,004 11,139 37,970 11,226 38,074 11,143 37,938 10,872 38,004 11,081 38,456 11,139 38,612 11,192 38,710 11,232 38,788 11,387 8,2894,854 13,714 8,765 5,066 13,440 7,998 4,660 13,291 7,983 4,714 13,522 8,122 4,777 13,628 8,220 4,787 13,878 8,295 4,813 13,757 8,259 4,877 13,608 8,381 4,934 13,616 8,646 5,074 13,346 8,642 5,018 13,263 8,799 5i 037 13,481 8,612 5,133 13,675 7,988 5,300 14,190 7 860 5’ 360 14,181 27,791 27,184 28,006 28,428 28,332 28,203 27,768 27,653 27,566 27,071 27,051 27,090 27,524 28,295 28,595 10,158 13,909 3,724 10,178 12,983 4,022 10,054 14,260 3,692 10,200 14,570 3,658 10,235 14,369 3,728 10,235 14,196 3,772 10,135 13,957 3,676 10,124 13,793 3,736 10,149 13,696 3,721 10,106 12,912 4,053 10,119 12;958 3,974 10,111 12,946 4,033 10 373 13,116 4,035 10,910 13,346 4,039 131557 4,205 Service workers______ ____ 9,712 10,676 9,494 9,509 9,594 9,610 9,620 9,814 9,804 10,627 10,607 10,715 10,751 10,852 11,078 Farm workers____ 3,126 3,008 3,393 3,229 3,121 3,141 3,206 3,108 3,033 2,988 3,033 2,992 3,023 3,030 2,928 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE 4.9 5.9 3.5 3.6 3.6 4.2 4.8 5.2 5.8 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.7 White-collar workers______ 2.8 2.0 3.5 2.9 2.0 1.3 2.2 1.4 2.1 1.5 2.4 1.8 2.7 1.9 2 9 2.0 3 4 2.4 1 fi 3.2 2.9 2^9 2.7 2.2 1.3 3.9 4.0 1.6 4.3 4.8 .9 2.9 2.8 .9 3.0 3.2 1.0 2.8 3.1 1.1 3.3 3.4 1.3 3.9 3.9 1.4 3.9 4.1 1 6 4.6 4.8 1 6 4.2 4.9 1 fi 4.5 4.8 1 S Professional and technical. Managers and administrators, except farm ____ Sales workers___________ Clerical workers.. Blue-collar workers.. ___ Craftsmen and kindred workers___ ____ . Operatives_____________ Nonfarm laborers Professiona and technical. Managers and administrators, except farm ____ Sales workers.................... Clerical workers_________ in R3 3 JTj 4.4 4.9 3 .0 1 8 3 .9 4 .8 4 .2 4 .8 4.1 5.0 Blue-collar workers_______ 6.2 7.4 3.8 3.9 Craftsmen and kindred workers____ _ ______ Operatives______________ Nbnfarm laborers............... 4.3 5.0 6.0 6.8 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.5 7.4 7 .0 6.6 3.8 7.1 9.5 4.7 8.3 10.8 2.1 4.3 6.4 2.1 4.4 7.0 2.3 4.9 7.1 2.7 5.8 7.9 3.9 6.6 9.2 4.5 7.5 10.3 4.6 8 6 10.8 4.7 8 5 10.6 4.3 S 5.3 fi 4.7 4.2 4.5 1 0.9 10.3 11.4 1 1.7 ervice workers____ _____ 5.3 6.3 4 .4 4.5 4.0 4.7 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.1 6 .3 6 .5 6 .4 6 .2 6 .0 arm workers____ _____ 2.6 2.6 1.9 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.6 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.1 2 .7 2 .8 2 .4 2 .6 1 These data have been adjusted to re fle c t seasonal experience through adjustm ent procedures and the the Ftbruary 1972 issue of 1971. For a discussion of seasonal Digitized forDecember FRASER h isto rica l seasonally adjusted series, see https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Employment and Earnings. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 8 ? 7 7 1 0 .4 NOTE: Comparisons w ith data p rio r to 1971 are affected by the re c la s s ifi cation of census occupations, introduced in January 1971. For an explanation of the changes, see “ Revisions in O ccupational C lassifications fo r 1971” in the February 1971 issue of Employment and Earnings. 98 6. - MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 HOUSEHOLD DATA Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted 1 * LNumbers in thousands] * 1972 1971 Reason for unemployment July July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June 2,280 510 1,534 570 2,460 572 1,509 651 2,369 583 1,536 603 2,206 541 1,486 663 2,360 629 1,493 651 2,365 2,169 564 1,652 742 2,077 603 1,503 713 2,118 674 1,542 737 2,040 611 1,557 917 2,199 649 1,460 802 2,2 1 0 1,432 736 624 1,238 621 2,093 616 1,455 564 100.0 1 00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 00.0 100.0 46.6 10.4 31.3 47.4 46.5 11.5 30.2 45.1 46.0 12.3 29.1 12.7 45.5 42.3 1 2.8 1 1.0 27.5 14.2 32.2 14.5 42.4 12.3 30.7 14.6 41.8 13.3 30.4 14.5 39.8 11.9 30.4 17.9 43.0 12.7 28.6 15.7 47.1 13.3 26.4 13.2 100,0 2 .8 .8 2.4 .7 2.4 .7 2.5 2 .6 1.7 .9 2.5 .7 1.9 .9 2.5 .7 1 .8 .8 1 .8 1.7 .9 NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED Lost last iob____ ____________ Left last jo b ____ ___ . _____ Reentered labor fo rc e .. _____ Never worked before_________ 666 ■ PERCENT DISTRIBUTION Total unemployed_______ _ Lost last jo b ____________ Left last job......................... Reentered labor force____ Never worked before_____ 1 1.6 11 .0 29.1 12.5 11.8 1 1.0 30.4 13.5 44,3 13,0 30,8 11.9 « UNEMPLOYED AS A PERCENT OF THE CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE Lost last job________________ Left last jo b __ _ _____ Reentered labor force_____ _ Never worked before... ____ 2.7 .6 1 .8 .7 2.9 .7 2.8 1.8 1 .8 .8 .7 2 .6 .6 1 .8 .8 .7 2 .8 1.8 .8 .8 1.8 .9 1.1 .8 .7 1.4 .7 2.4 .7 1.7 .7 NOTE: For additional detail or for data unadjusted for seasonal factors (formerly carried in this space), see Employment and Earnings. 4 • 7- Unemployment rates, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted 1 Age and sex Annual average 1970 Total, 16 years and over....... 1971 - 1972 1971 July 4.9 15.3 17.1 13.8 5.9 16.9 18.7 15.5 5.9 16.5 18.3 15.0 8 .2 1 0.0 3.3 3.4 Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. 5.5 14.8 16.5 13.5 9.9 3.7 3.9 3.3 1 0.0 3.8 3.8 3.6 9.9 3.9 4.0 3.6 8.7 3.9 4.0 3.6 9.8 3.7 3.8 3.4 5.3 16.7 19.3 14.8 5.3 16.6 18.0 16.2 4.8 13.8 15.4 12.4 4.7 13.6 14.6 17.6 5.3 17.8 21.4 15.1 10.4 3.2 3.3 3.0 9.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 10.4 3.2 3.1 3.4 10.7 3.3 3.2 3.5 9.4 3.4 3.4 3.5 8.3 3.3 3.3 3.5 9.6 3.0 3.0 3.1 7.0 17.3 18.5 16.7 6.9 18.4 19.6 17.7 6.4 17.9 22.3 15.6 6 .8 6 .8 6.8 17.9 19.8 16.8 18.0 19.0 16.4 14.6 14.8 15.3 6.5 15.4 18.1 13.5 9.6 5.0 5.4 3.9 9.6 4.6 4.9 3.3 8.4 4.3 4.7 2.9 9.2 4.7 5.1 3.1 9.0 4 6 4.9 3.6 1 0.6 6 .0 17.3 18.8 16.3 5.9 17.8 19.1 16.8 1 0.0 10.4 4.0 4.2 3.4 8 .8 2 .8 9.2 4.0 4.3 3.0 10.1 4.1 4.2 3.5 9.6 4.0 4.3 3.2 10.1 4.0 4.2 3.4 9.8 4.0 4.2 3.2 4.1 4.3 3.4 3.7 3.9 3.1 3.6 3.7 3.1 4.4 15.0 16.9 13.4 5.3 16.6 18.6 15.0 5.2 15.8 18.4 13.7 5.5 17.2 19.4 15.0 5.4 16.3 18.6 14.6 5.3 16.5 20.3 13.7 5.4 16.2 18.1 14.7 5.4 17.3 19.0 16.0 5.3 17.3 18.7 16.1 8.4 10.2 3.4 3.5 3.1 10.5 3.6 3.6 3.3 10 .2 2.9 10.3 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.0 9.7 3.5 3.7 2.9 10.7 3.5 3.7 3.2 10.5 3.5 3.6 3.0 16 to 19 years........ . . . ._ 16 and 17 years........... 18 and 19 years_____ 5.9 15.6 17.4 14.4 6.9 17.2 18.7 16.2 6.9 17.2 18.3 16.4 7.0 16.9 19.5 15.1 6.9 17.6 18.0 17.3 6.7 17.0 19.2 15.6 6.9 17.3 18.7 16.2 20 to 24 years...... ........... .. 25 years and over_______ 25 to 54 years_______ 55 years and over___ 7.9 4.1 4.5 9.6 4.9 5.3 3.4 9.4 4.9 5.4 3.3 9.4 5.0 5.4 3.8 8.9 4.9 5.3 3.4 8 .6 1 0.0 4.9 5.3 3.0 4.8 5.2 3.7 20 to 24 years__________ 25 years and over............... 25 to 54 years......... 55 years and over___ Female, 16 years and over... 2 .8 2 .6 2 .8 1 These data have been adjusted to reflect seasonal experience through December 1971. For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis July 5.5 14.5 16.5 12.9 6 .0 16.7 18.3 15.4 16 to 19 years___________ 16 and 17 years_____ 18 and 19 years........... June 5.9 15.7 16.6 15.8 5.8 16.7 19.9 14.5 Male, 16 years and over____ May 5.9 17.3 19.1 1.5 6 .0 16.9 18.4 15.8 20 to 24 years___________ 25 years and over............. .. 25 to 54 years........... . 55 years and over___ Apr. 5.9 17.9 20.7 15.8 6.1 17.1 19.5 15.0 16 to 19 years___________ 16 and 17 years_____ 18 and 19 years___ _ Mar. 5.7 18.8 2 2.0 16.7 5.3 19.6 2 1.8 4.8 5.0 3.8 9.2 4.8 5.1 3.8 12.8 * 6.9 16.4 18.9 14.4 10.1 4.8 5.1 4.0 adjusted series, see the February 1972 issue of Employment and Earnines. * CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 8. HOUSEHOLD DATA 99 Unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted 1 1972 1971 Annual average Selected categories 1970 1971 July T otal (all civilian w o rkers)........... Men, 20 years and over........... . Women, 20 years and over____ Both sexes 16-19 years_______ 4.9 3.5 4.8 15.3 5.9 4.4 5.7 16.9 5.9 4.3 5.7 16.5 White__________ _____ ______ Negro and other........................... 4.5 5.4 8.2 5.4 9.9 Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. 5.9 4.2 5.5 17.8 5.7 4.0 5.0 18.8 5.3 Mar. Apr. May June 5.9 4.1 5.4 17.9 5.9 4 .3 5.4 17.3 5.9 4.3 5.9 15.7 5.5 4.0 5.5 14.5 14.8 5.3 10.5 5.4 9.6 5.3 10.7 5.0 9.4 5.0 9.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.7 7.2 9.9 5.3 7.3 10.7 5.0 6.1 6 .0 6 .0 4.5 5.7 16.9 5.8 4.3 5.5 16.7 6 .0 4.5 5.8 17.1 4.4 5.8 16.7 4.3 5.8 17.3 1 0.0 5.6 9.9 5.4 10.4 5.3 10.4 5.6 9.4 5.4 10.4 1 0.6 5.1 10.5 3.3 3.2 3.0 2 .8 2 .8 7.4 9.7 5.4 8 .6 8 .6 8 .1 12.3 5.6 12.7 5.4 10.3 6.4 July 5.5 3.9 5.7 Married men............................. . 2 .6 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.0 Vietnam Era veterans,2 men: 20 to 29 years___________ 20 to 24 years_______ 25 to 29 years_______ 6.9 9.3 4.3 8 .8 12.2 8 .6 11.2 9.8 12.3 7.6 8.5 8.4 9.7 6.5 12 .0 1 2.6 6.3 9.3 13.4 5.7 8 .0 5.7 5.6 5.1 8.5 12.3 5.6 Nonvet°rans, men: 20 to 29 years.............. ......... 20 to 24 years_______ 25 to 29 years.............. 6 .0 7.3 9.5 4.7 7.2 9.2 4.7 8 .0 6.7 7.5 9.8 4.5 7.0 9.0 4.4 7.6 10.3 5.5 10.1 1 0.0 4.1 4.6 7.1 9.1 4.5 8 .0 4.4 7.7 9.6 5.2 7.5 10.5 4.9 7.3 9.3 4.9 8.1 3.8 4.5 5.5 5.4 5.6 5.6 5.4 5.7 5.7 5.4 5.3 5.4 5 .4 5.6 5.0 5.1 .8 1.4 4.4 6.4 1.5 4.0 6.3 1.5 4.2 6.5 1.5 4.3 6.3 1.5 4.4 6.5 1.5 4.1 6.4 1.5 4.1 6.4 1.4 3.4 6.4 1.5 3.5 1.4 3.5 6.3 1.3 3.6 6 .3 1.4 3.7 6.3 1.3 3.6 5.5 6.0 3.5 2.9 4.3 4.8 3.5 2.3 4.6 4.9 3.5 2.3 4.4 4.9 3.4 4.1 4.8 3.4 2.4 3.9 4.7 3.4 2.5 3.9 4.6 3.6 2.5 4.0 4.9 3.1 1.7 4.0 4.8 7.4 4.7 8.3 7.2 5.1 7.5 5.3 8.3 7.7 5.3 8.3 7.1 4.7 7.8 7.5 4.6 7.5 4.8 8.1 8 .0 Full-time workers......... ........... .. Unemployed: 15 weeks and ove r3______ State insured ___________ Labor force time lo st5____ * 3.6 5.4 8 .6 6.1 6.5 4.6 6.5 8.6 3.7 1.3 3.7 OCCUPATION W h ite -co lla r w o rke rs.............. ......... Professional and managerial___ Sales workers____________ _ Clerical w orkers....................... . 2 .8 1.7 3.9 4.0 2 .2 B lu e -co lla r w o rke rs____________ Craftsmen and kindred workers. O peratives............................... .. Nonfarm laborers.___________ 6 .2 3.8 7.1 9.5 1 0.8 9.2 10.6 1 1.2 10.6 8 .2 11 .8 Service w o rk e rs ............................ . 5.3 6.3 6.5 6.5 6.5 6 .0 6 .6 3.6 3.3 2 .6 2 .2 4.4 4.7 4.0 4.7 8 .2 7.1 4.3 7.9 7.0 4.4 7.5 11.9 11.6 6.4 6.1 5.9 10.3 3.5 2.3 4.1 4.9 3.4 3.6 2 .1 2 .0 3.7 4.9 4.5 5.3 6 .8 6 .8 4.4 3.4 2.2 4.3 4.6 1 1.8 6.9 4.0 7.7 11.7 7.4 10.7 4.7 7.1 10.9 9.5 6.4 4.3 7.1 9.3 5.9 6 .6 6.3 6 .1 5.7 6.6 6.3 5.7 5.5 9.5 5.6 5.7 5.5 5.8 10.9 5.7 5.7 5.6 3.5 6.3 5.0 3.1 6.5 4.2 3.6 5 4.6 2.8 6.0 6.4 4.5 6 .8 INDUSTRY Nonagricultural private wage and salary w orkers 6 ............ ................... .................. .......... Construction.............................. ................... . Manufacturing........... ........... ..................... . Nondurable g o o d s ...____ __________ 5.2 9.7 5.6 5.7 5.4 Transportation and public utilities________ Wholesale and retail trade______ ____ ___ Finance and service industries___________ 3.2 5.3 4.2 3.8 6.4 5.1 3.1 6.4 5.2 Government wage and salary w o rkers.............. 2 .2 2.9 2.9 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.0 2 .8 2 .8 2.9 2.9 2.5 Agricultural wage and salary workers_________ 7.5 7.9 7.8 8 .8 8.5 7.0 9.6 7.5 8 .6 8.3 6 .0 6 .0 8.8 7.5 Durable goods_______________________ 6 .2 6.1 6 .2 6 .2 5.9 6 .2 6.3 6.1 10.4 9.8 6.7 9.9 1 0.2 6 .2 11 .2 6 .6 7.0 6.5 6 .8 6.9 9.7 6.9 7.0 9.7 6 .8 6 .8 6 .8 6.4 5.8 6.7 6.3 9.8 6.4 6.7 6.5 6.9 6.7 7.1 3.3 6.3 5.3 3.6 6.3 5.1 4.3 4.4 6.1 6 .6 4.9 5.1 4.1 6.5 4.9 6.8 1 These data have been adjusted to reflect seasonal experience through December 1971. For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally adjusted series, see the February 1972 issue of Employment and Earnings. 2 Vietnam Era veterans are those who served after August 4,1964; they are all classi fied as war veterans. Over 80 percent of Vietnam Era veterans of a ll ages are 20 to 29 years old. Not included in these figures are post-Korean peacetime veterans in ages 20 to 29. 3 Unemployment rate calculated as a percent of civilian labor force. 9. 6.1 5.9 6 .0 9.8 1 0 ,6 12.5 6 .2 5.8 5.8 5.9 6 .0 6 .0 6.1 6.3 6 .0 6.0 6.1 4.1 6.3 5.3 3.9 4.0 6.7 5.3 6 .2 4.9 3.7 6 .2 5.1 6 4 Insured unemployment under State programs as a percent of average covered employment. 5 Man-hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons (that is, those persons who worked less than 35 hours during the survey week because of slack work, job changing during the week, material shortages, inability to find full-tim e work, and so on) as a percent of potentially available labor force man-hours. 6 Includes mining, not shown separately. Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted 1 [Numbers in thousands] Period Annual average 1971 1972 1970 1971 July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June Less than 5 weeks_________ 5 to 14 weeks____ ____ 15 weeks and over 15 to 26 weeks_____ ____ 27 weeks and over_______ 2,137 1,289 662 427 235 2,234 1,578 1,181 665 517 2,150 1,532 1,255 704 551 2,320 1,553 1,291 735 556 2,317 1,567 1,250 683 567 2,140 1,529 1,253 628 625 2,290 1,650 1,311 741 570 2,410 1,509 1,273 724 549 2,358 1,502 1,198 636 562 2,142 1,454 1,294 634 660 2,311 1,412 1,224 591 633 2,169 1,521 1,137 482 655 2,223 1,514 1,180 587 593 2,175 1.437 1,148 594 554 15 weeks and over as a percent of civilian labor force__ Average (mean duration, in weeks)____________ .8 1.4 1.5 1 5 1 5 1 5 8 .8 11.4 11.5 11.6 1 2.0 12.5 1 These data have been adjusted to reflect seasonal experience through December 1971. For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis , 1 1.8 11.4 1 1.8 12.5 July 2,149 1,478 1,155 658 497 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 12.4 12.4 12.5 13.5 11.8 adjusted series, see the February 1972 issue of Em ploym ent and Earnings. 100 10. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 Unemployment insurance and employment service operations 1 [All items except average benefits amounts are in thousands] 1971 1972 Item June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Jan. Dec. Feb. Mar. May Apr. June Employment service:2 New applications for w ork................................... Nonfarm placements............................................ 1,005 365 815 315 779 366 767 353 663 288 763 317 1,152 1,468 1,277 1,043 1,048 1,336 1,623 1,643 '1,241 p 1,095 p 947 991 1,893 3.6 1,993 3.8 1,912 3.6 1,739 3.3 1,716 3.2 1,879 3.5 2,221 4.2 2,524 4.8 2,492 4.7 2,279 4.3 2,005 3.8 1,740 3.3 679 266 State unemployment insurance program: Initial claim s34.................................................... Insured unemployment* (average weekly volume)6............................................................. Rate of insured unemployment7. ...................... 1,634 3-1 Weeks of unemployment compensated.............. 7,542 6,740 6,503 5,923 5,561 '8,871 p 9,372 p 7,320 6,177 7,546 8,972 6,927 Average weekly benefit amount for total un$56.08 $52.09 $55.23 $56.25 $53.46 $53.96 $54.58 $55.35 '$56.71 p $56.63 p $56.9C $56.17 employment................................................. .. Total benefits paid________________________ $446,691 r$428,002 $433,636 r$400,329 $367,169 '$406,905 $489,566 $550,902 $589,509 $628,936 $472,916 $429,206 Unemployment compensation for ex-servicemen:86 Initial claim s36______________ ______ ____ Insured unemployment6 (average weekly volum e)............................................................. Weeks of unemployment compensated.............. Total benefits paid________ __________ ____ Unemployment compensation civilian employees:910 for 54 53 54 48 43 51 59 68 114 120 120 106 97 105 118 133 p 57 140 494 525 478 506 409 426 498 530 p 550 $30,117 r$30,449 $31,552 r$29,650 $25,012 $26,089 $29,180 $29,998 $33,580 136 p 48 47 127 p.119 110 519 p 623 p 508 $38,349 $31,668 $31,976 Federal Initial claim s3___________________ _______ Insured unemployment* (average weekly volum e).................................. .......................... 20 15 12 12 13 14 13 16 31 36 35 33 35 35 35 37 Weeks of unemployment com pensated.......... Total benefits paid ............................. .............. . 126 $7,843 r 142 r$8,605 157 $9,261 148 '$9,026 135 $8,224 144 $8,960 156 $9,811 147 $8,755 45 89 98 100 48 19 7 i 4 4 2 2 10 13 68 $58.97 $4,159 15 99 $46.07 $3,800 27 48 33 124 106 857 $61.95 p$100.32 $101.32 $7,616 $9,930 $8,891 36 87 $97.75 $8,007 27 63 $99.11 $6,212 26 64 $98.70 $5,983 23 48 $88.74 $4,113 15 4C $91.27 $3,462 $94.84 $2,839 2,332 2,431 3,097 3,123 2,431 2,105 1,952 12 p 11 p 11 12 36 34 30 28 146 p 157 $9,911 p 121 $7,674 122 $7,445 p p $9,008 28 Railroad unemployment insurance: Applications11____________________ ______ Insured unemployment (average weekly volum e)............................................................ .. Number of payments12. . . .................................. Average amount of benefit paym ent13.............. Total benefits paid14______ ____ _____ ____ 32 33 105 163 $83.28 $69.35 $8,698 $11,134 14 33 All programs:1* Insured unemployment6................................. 2,349 2,174 Includes data for Puerto Rico. Includes Guam and the Virgin Islands. 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. 5 Number of workers reporting the completion of at least 1 week of unemployment. • Initial claims and State insured unemployment include data under the program for Puerto Rican sugarcane workers. 7 The rate is the number of insured unemployed expressed as a percent of the average covered employment in a 1 2 -month period. ' Excludes data on claims and payments made join tly with other programs. ' Includes the Virgin Islands. 10 Excludes data on claims and payments made join tly with State programs. 11 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 1 2 3 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2,129 2,311 2,666 p 2,923 p periods in the same year. 12 Payments are for unemployment in 14-day registration periods. 13 The average amount is an average for all compensable periods, not adjusted for recovery of overpayments or settlement of underpayments. 14 Adjusted for recovery of overpayments and settlement of underpayments. 15 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. NOTE: Dashes indicate data not available. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Financial and Management Information Systems for all items except railroad unemployment insurance which is prepared by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board. p= preliminary. ' = revised. PAYROLL DATA 101 CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS à 11. Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division, 1947-71 1 [In thousands] 4 Year 1947......... .................. 1948______________ 1949______________ 1950______ _______ 1951..................... . 1952______________ 1953_________ ____ 1954____ _________ 1955______ _______ ► k ► M ining TOTAL Contract construc tio n M anufac tu rin g T rans portatio n and public u tilitie s W holesale and re ta il trad e Wholesale trade Total R etail trade Government Finance, in s u r ance, and real estate Services 5,050 5,206 5,264 5,382 Federal State and local 5,474 5,650 5,856 6,026 1,892 1,863 1,908 1,928 3,582 3,787 3,948 4,098 2,302 2,420 2,305 2,188 2,187 4,087 4,188 4,340 4,563 4,727 T otal 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 47,849 48,825 50,232 49,022 50,675 929 898 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 5,867 791 792 2,603 2,634 2,623 2,612 2,802 6,274 6,389 6,609 6,645 6,751 6,914 17,243 17,174 15,945 16,675 16,796 4,244 4,241 3,976 4,011 4,004 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 6,083 866 6,002 1956______________ 1957______________ 1958______________ 19592_____________ 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 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 6,868 1966______________ 1967______________ 1968______________ 1969............................. 1970......... ............. . 63,955 65,857 67,915 70,284 70,616 627 613 606 619 622 3,275 3,208 3,285 3,435 3,345 19,214 19,447 19,781 20,167 19,369 4,151 4,261 4,310 4,429 4,504 13,245 13,606 14,084 14,639 14,922 3,437 3,525 3,611 3,733 3,824 9,808 10,081 10,473 10,906 11,098 3,100 3,225 3,382 3,564 3,690 9,551 10,099 10,623 11,229 11,630 10,792 11,398 11,845 12,535 2,564 2,719 2,737 2,758 2,705 8,227 8,679 9,109 9,444 9,830 1971______________ 70,699 601 3,259 18,610 4,481 15,174 3,855 11,319 3,800 11,917 12,858 2,664 10,194 10,858 10,886 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data are published in Employment and Earnings, United States, 1909-71 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). These series are based upon establishment reports which cover all full-tim e and part-time employees in nonagricultural establishments who worked during, or receive pay for any part of the pay period which includes the 12th of the month. Therefore, persons 12. 12,202 6,315 6,550 7,248 7,696 who worked in more than one establishm ent during the reportin g period are counted more than once. P roprietors, self-em ployed persons, unpaid fa m ily workers, and dom estic 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] June 1971 State i* * June 1972 p State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California 576.7 550.4 6,966.0 1,035.1 100.7 621.1 554.7 7,064.6 1,040.1 108.3 620.4 565.0 7,137.9 Montana__________________ ___________ Nevraska______________________________ Nevada___ _ . __ . _ __ . __ . . . . . New Hanpshire_________________________ New Jersey____________________________ Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida 774.6 1,181.6 216.1 694.8 2,199.1 798.4 1,180.1 216.8 683.7 2,286.3 811.7 1,188.7 219.1 688.5 2,283.4 Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana 1,580.4 309.7 217.6 4,331.1 1,849.4 1,602.5 303.2 Iowa________ Kansas Kentucky Lousiana Maine »i May 1972 1,028.0 102.2 . . . . ___________________ Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri______________ .... ... _ ___ 220.6 4,293.8 1,878.3 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 212.5 491.4 May 1972 June 1972 p 213.8 506.2 265.4 2,638.8 208.6 501.3 215.1 262.2 2,609.0 272.8 2,654.0 New Mexico.............. ......................... __ . . . New York________________ _ ___ ___ North Carolina___________ ____________ North Dakota__________ ____ ___________ Ohio............. .......... __ _ ____ _____ 306.4 7,108.5 1,790.1 167.7 3,893.1 317.6 6,968.4 1,836.3 169.3 3,880.7 323.2 7,027.1 1,852.9 171.5 3,915.8 1,615.7 312.4 226.4 4,351.3 1,890.8 Oklahoma___ . . . __________________ Oregon________________________________ Pennsylvania______________ ____ _______ Rhode Island___________________________ South Carolina_________________________ 783.5 740.2 4,311.8 343.3 862.5 805.7 757.6 4,322.5 339.3 895.9 809.8 778.8 4,361.3 344.1 900.6 212.6 220.1 893.5 672.6 934.3 1,053.6 338.1 953.5 1,075.4 333.6 923.7 690.7 954.5 1,078.1 344.5 South Dakota__________ ____ __________ Tennessee.._____ _____________________ Texas_________________________________ Utah____________________ _______ _____ Vermont___ ____ ______________________ 183.8 1,361.1 3,685.2 374.7 148.9 182.2 1,401.9 3,767.7 388.2 148.8 188.2 1,412.2 3,781.5 388.6 152.1 1,334.2 2,275.2 3,007.6 1,322.1 592.2 1,644.3 1,350.3 2,273.0 3,034.7 1,330.0 609.3 1,640.3 1,365.7 2,293.2 3,046.7 1,340.1 609.7 1,651.6 Virginia________ ____ __________________ Washington____________________________ West Virginia__________________________ Wisconsin____________________ _____ _ Wyoming................................ ............... ........... 1,515.3 1,067.6 532.4 1,541.2 116.7 1,543.0 1,079.9 531.2 1,551.9 115.6 1,567.8 1,100.3 529.3 1,574.8 122.5 911.3 686.1 NOTE: Current State employment data by major industry division are published in Employment and Earnings, table B-7. For historical data in available industry detail, see the annual compendium, Em ploym ent and Earnings, States and Areas, 1939-70 (BLS Bulletin 1370-8). v June 1971 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 Em ploym ent and Earnings, p ==preliminary. 102 PAYROLL DATA 13. Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group 1 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 [In thousands] Annual average 1971 1972 Industry division and group 1970 1971 July Aug. Sept. TOTAL_____________________ ____ ______ 70,616 70,699 70,452 70,542 71,184 MINING_______________________________ 622 601 613 625 623 522 524 605 CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION____________ 3,345 3,259 3,480 3,509 3,471 3,478 3,410 3,177 MANUFACTURING________________ ____ _ 19,369 14,033 18,610 13,487 18,448 13,315 18,651 13,524 18,840 13,738 18,709 13,616 18,693 13,605 _ 11,198 8,043 10,590 7,612 10,487 7,512 10,485 7,514 10,657 7,695 10,605 7,650 Ordnance and accessories___________ Lumber and wood products. . . . . . . Furniture and fixtures___ ________ . Stone, clay, and glass products___. . . 242.1 572.5 459.9 638.5 193.0 579.8 459.1 628.5 189.9 596.4 452.1 638.6 189.9 602.3 459.1 643.8 190.2 601.5 468.3 644.0 Primary metal industries. . . . Fabricated metal products___________ Machinery, except electrical_________ Electrical equipment.. Transportation equipment . _ Instruments and related products____ Miscellaneous manufacturing________ 1,314.8 1,379.9 1,976.9 1,922.9 1,806.8 458.6 425.7 1,224.6 1,331.9 1,791.0 1,787.8 1,751.4 432.0 410.6 1,238.9 1,319.4 1,772.4 1,758.7 1,688.7 430.2 402.1 1,164.1 1,332.4 1,767.6 1,777.2 1,694.6 432.4 421.4 Nondurable goods___________________ 8,171 5,990 8,020 5,875 7,961 5,803 8,166 6,010 Production workers2_______________ Durable goods______________________ Production workers2, ........ .......... . Production w orkers2......... ............... Mar. Apr. May 70,643 70,776 71,374 71,928 72,533 73,361 602 596 599 597 602 612 613 2,965 2,880 2,974 3,117 3,246 3,401 3,399 18,595 13,514 18,440 18,537 13,373 13,465 18,653 13,572 18,713 13,626 18,824 13,723 19,137 18,766 14,005 13,639 10,612 7,660 10,575 7,629 10,522 7,581 10,590 7,648 10,671 7,723 10,732 7,781 10,811 7,852 10,962 7,987 10,722 7,750 188.3 601.8 472.8 637.7 187.3 598.1 475.8 636 3 185.5 591.8 478.3 627.3 184.2 584.5 477.8 620.5 183.0 587.3 479.3 621.7 182.9 591.8 481.2 631.3 183.9 596.0 482.0 641.1 185.5 604.5 482.7 652.6 189.5 628.8 491.4 670.5 192.7 627.9 481.2 667.2 1,176.0 1,354.1 1,788.4 1,803.2 1,768.7 434.8 428.1 1,165.4 1,349.2 1,774.4 1,800.2 1,749.4 436.2 429.6 1,165.2 1,350.7 1,778.9 1,806.7 1,750.6 436.7 425.8 1,168.6 1,343.4 1,786 2 1,805.8 1,743.3 435.3 409.8 1.180.5 1,333.1 1,782.3 1,793.6 1,730.1 435.1 400.2 1,186.7 1,338.7 1,806.6 1,800.8 1,741.5 436.8 407.3 1,214.0 1,349.0 1,808.2 1,816.9 1,754.8 438.1 412.7 1,223.1 1,355.5 1,814.2 1,811.3 1,767.6 440.6 416.7 1,232.0 1,365.5 1,827.8 1,822.1 1,774.1 444.9 418.8 1,240.8 1,386.9 1,849.2 1,848.0 1,775.5 452.8 428.8 1,222.8 1,366.6 1,835.2 1,809.8 1,652.0 450.2 416.6 8,183 6,043 8,104 5,966 8,081 5,945 8,020 5,885 7,918 5,792 7,947 5,817 7,982 5,849 7,981 5,845 8,013 5,871 8,175 6,018 8,044 5,889 Oct. Nov. Dec. 71,379 71,638 72,034 Jan. Feb. June p July p 72,413 Food and kindred p ro d u c ts ... ______ 1,781.7 1,753.5 1,797.0 1,882.8 1,879.3 1,803.8 1,770.8 1.734.0 1.688.2 1,668.9 1,676.1 1,672.0 1,685.7 1,758.8 1,792.6 Tobacco manufactures ............. 73.6 66.0 81.7 61.9 84.2 77.7 80.0 76.5 73 4 68.4 65.2 70.2 67.2 64.8 66.9 961.7 Textile m ill products. _ . ______ 985.6 977.6 948.6 964.5 964.7 965.5 973.7 976.3 972.3 976.6 989.8 1,007.5 985.0 978.7 Apparel and other textile products____ 1,372.2 1,361.5 1,304.1 1,366.1 1,374.2 1,379.0 1,380.6 1,355 6.1,335.7 1,365.9 1,371.5 1,365.1 1,361.3 1,374.5 1,285.4 Paper and allied products______ ____ 687.5 690.7 706.5 677.7 696.7 688.1 691.9 693.5 693.5 684.3 683.9 695.7 710.7 687.1 700.6 Printing and publishing_____________ 1,106.8 1,087.7 1,082.2 1,080.6 1,081.4 1,087.4 1,087.9 1,091.4 1.085.5 1,087.6 1,091.5 1,091.9 1,091.3 1,096.6 1,087.2 Chemicals and allied products_______ 1,051.3 1,014.8 1,018.2 1,015.4 1,009.4 1,004.7 1,003.6 1,001.0 1,001.2 996.6 995.3 1,003.1 1,013.8 1,011.4 999.6 187.8 Petroleum and coal products... . . . . 190.4 189.8 193.7 191.9 193.2 190.4 189.1 188.6 183.2 186.8 189.4 193.0 186.8 194.0 612.8 Rubber and plastics products, nec . _ 580.4 582.0 577.4 584.5 595.9 597.4 597.0 597.8 597.5 603.0 618.6 634.8 608.8 623.5 Leather and leather products________ 307.9 307.7 322.2 300.0 313.2 305.5 304.1 308.6 308.0 306.1 309.5 312.9 319.8 308.2 303.9 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES________________________________ 4,504 4,481 4,534 4,486 4,509 4,455 4,447 4,469 4,430 4,407 4,482 4,486 4,521 4,582 4.579 Wholesale trade_______________ _______ Retail trade__________ _ ______ 14,922 3,824 11,098 15,174 3,855 11,319 15,132 3,877 11,255 15,151 3,886 11,265 15,242 3,880 11,362 15,327 3,896 11,431 15,537 3,905 11,632 16,089 3,915 12,174 15,266 3,871 11,395 15,147 3,866 11,281 15,274 3,894 11,380 15,460 3,902 11,558 15,592 3,926 11,666 15,788 4,001 11,787 15,703 4,011 11,692 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE 3,690 3,800 3,867 3,865 3,829 3,826 3,836 3,841 3,833 3,844 3,867 3,885 3,913 3,965 3,986 11,630 11,917 12,040 11,994 11,986 12,020 12,032 12,029 11,926 12,031 12,131 12,279 12,401 12,519 Hotels and other lodging places__________ 774.2 812.1 761.9 878.1 882.9 736.0 759.0 784.5 746.8 750.3 760.6 809.4 872.8 771.4 Personal services... _ _ . . . . . . ... 946.1 992.3 933.3 939.6 932.2 946.4 939.9 925.9 935.3 934.6 922.1 919.6 930.6 921.4 Medical and other health services......... ....... 3,052.4 3,239.6 3,270.4 3,273.3 3,279.8 3,294.2 3,305.7 3,312.8 3.326.3 3,345.2 3,361.9 3,374.9 3,396.9 3,439.5 Educational services.. _ . _____ _. . 1,136.2 1,158.6 998.3 973 5 1,109.3 1,210 3 1,230 2 1 9 9 0 R 1 1 QQ R 1 n 1,238 9 11,573 WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE_______ SERVICES________________________________ GOVERNMENT______ Federal__________ State and local_____ . . 12,535 2,705 9,830 12,858 2,664 10,194 12,338 2,688 9,650 12,261 2,690 9,571 12,684 2,666 10,018 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data are published in Employment and Earnings, United States, 1909-71 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). 2 Production workers include working foremen and all nonsupervisory workers (including leadmen and trainees) engaged in fabricating, processing, assem bling, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 13,042 2,659 10,383 13,159 2,655 10,504 13,229 2,684 10,545 13,181 2,654 10,527 13,334 2,656 10,678 13,394 2,656 IO !738 13,391 2,664 10,727 13,434 2,662 10,772 13,357 2,659 10,698 12,794 2,650 10,144 inspection, receiving, storage, handling, packing, warehousing, shipping, maintenance, 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. NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table B-2. p=prelim inary. PAYROLL DATA CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 14. 103 Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted 1 [In thousands] 1972 1971 Industry d ivisio n and group July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June p TO TA L_____________________________________ 70,531 70,529 70,853 70,848 71,042 71,185 71,584 71,729 72,030 72,263 72,558 72,647 M IN IN G ____________________________________ 597 609 616 521 525 607 616 612 613 603 602 598 597 CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION________________ 3,228 3,219 3,250 3,290 3,320 3,245 3,320 3,236 3,272 3,233 3,256 3,242 3,153 M ANU FAC TU RING __________________________ Production w orkers2___________ ______ 18,533 13,440 18,457 13,371 18,616 13,515 18,560 13,462 18,603 13,505 18,566 13,474 18,609 13,527 18,690 13,597 18,777 13,677 18,870 13,770 18,973 13,852 18,995 13,884 18,898 13,802 Durable goods . ___ ______ ___ Production w orkers2__________________ 10,552 7,594 10,485 7,534 10,597 7,630 10,561 7,600 10,572 7,614 10,548 7,594 10,574 7,629 10,637 7,685 10,696 7,741 10,770 7,815 10,857 7,886 10,862 7,897 10,834 7,872 Ordnance and accessories____________ Lumber and wood products____________ ________ Furniture and fix tu re s ... Stone, clay, and glass p ro d u c ts .............. 191 579 461 625 191 583 456 627 190 591 465 633 189 597 467 631 186 601 470 634 184 600 474 632 183 604 478 640 182 603 481 641 183 604 484 645 185 608 486 646 187 608 489 655 190 608 490 65/ 193 610 491 653 Primary metal industries__________ . . . Fabricated metal products_____________ Machinery, except e le c tric a l___ . ... Electrical equipment ________________ Transportation equipment_____________ Instruments and related products______ Miscellaneous manufacturing___________ 1,226 1,335 1,770 1,773 1,751 431 410 1,156 1,331 1,775 1,772 1,754 430 410 1,182 1,346 1,794 1,791 1,758 435 412 1,187 1,341 1,791 1,793 1,720 437 408 1,178 1,339 1,797 1,791 1,732 436 408 1,176 1,331 1,793 1,793 1,719 434 412 1,186 1,336 1,784 1,792 1,716 436 419 1,187 1,345 1,798 1,803 1,736 438 423 1, 213 1,356 1,792 1,812 1,743 439 425 1,219 1,365 1,802 1,828 1,764 441 426 1,226 1,377 1,826 1,841 1,778 447 423 1,218 1,376 1,833 1,850 1,763 451 426 1,209 1,383 1,833 1,824 1,762 451 425 N ondurable goods_____________ _ ______ Production w orkers2__________________ 7,981 5,846 7,972 5,837 8,019 5,885 7,999 5,862 8,031 5,891 8,018 5,880 8,035 5,880 8,053 5,912 8,081 5,936 8,100 5,955 8,116 5,966 8,133 5,987 8,064 5,930 Food and kindred products____________ Tobacco manufactures___ _______ _____ Textile m ill products________________ . Apparel and other textile products . . . . . 1,762 69 959 1,349 1,748 70 959 1,351 1,755 72 960 1,361 1,728 69 963 1,365 1,750 71 970 1,370 1,748 69 974 1,357 1,757 71 979 1,353 1,749 71 981 1,365 1,757 73 988 1,365 1,751 75 989 1,376 1,750 74 995 1,364 1,761 74 995 1,360 1,757 75 989 1,329 Paper and allied products___________ . . Printing and publishing________________ Chemicals and allied products__________ Petroleum and coal products___________ Rubber and plastics products, nec______ Leather and leather products___________ 676 1,083 1,008 188 584 303 681 1,080 1,004 188 582 309 694 1,082 1,008 190 591 306 693 1,085 1,008 189 594 305 691 1,084 1,008 189 592 306 690 1,084 1,005 191 594 306 688 1,090 1,003 188 600 306 689 1,090 1,003 192 604 309 692 1,092 1,002 191 612 309 697 1,093 1,000 190 617 312 702 1,097 1,006 190 623 315 702 1,096 1,007 189 633 316 699 1,088 1,001 188 631 307 Ju ly p 72,565 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIE S . 4,476 4,428 4,460 4,442 4,434 4,465 4,502 4,479 4,536 4,522 4,539 4,532 4,520 WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE__________ Wholesale trade _ . . . ___ _ . _______ . . Retail trade.................... ........... . __________ 15,158 3,835 11,323 15,223 3,844 11,379 15,273 3,865 11,408 15,270 3,873 11,397 15,278 3,874 11,404 15,315 3,884 11,431 15,447 3,902 11,545 15,495 3,913 11,582 15,518 3,941 11,577 15,647 3,949 11,698 15,671 3,970 11,701 15,729 3,977 11,752 15,730 3,967 11,763 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE.. 3,806 3,804 3,821 3,834 3,851 3,860 3,872 3,879 3,890 3,897 3,921 3,934 3,923 SERVICES____________________________ _____ 11,921 755 933 3,241 i ; 142 11,946 760 935 3,260 i ; 139 11,962 796 938 3,283 1,160 11,996 784 937 3,297 1,165 12,044 785 941 3,306 1,168 12,089 801 932 3,323 1,165 12,120 813 293 3,336 1,160 12,177 813 933 3,252 1,171 12,217 814 929 3 369 1,185 12,254 806 927 3,385 1,187 12,303 813 926 3,414 1,183 12,358 834 920 3,416 1,172 12,449 GOVERNMENT______________________________ Federal______________________ ________ State and lo ca l............ ............................... ....... 12,812 2,643 10,169 12,843 2,650 10,193 12,855 2,674 10,181 12,935 2,675 10,260 12,987 2,669 10,318 13,038 2,669 10,369 13,098 2,675 10,423 13,161 2,672 10,489 13,207 2,669 10,538 13,237 2,669 10,568 13,293 2,670 10,623 13,259 2,625 10,634 13,295 2,606 10,689 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data are published in Employment and Earnings, United States, 1909-71 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). 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. NOTE: These data have been seasonally adjusted to reflect experience through May 1971. For additional detail, see September 1971 issue of Employment and Earn ings. p=prelim inary. 104 LABOR TURNOVER 15. Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1962 to date 1 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 [Per 100 employees] Year Annual average Jan. Feb. M ar. A p r. May June Ju ly Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total accessions 1962_______ ____ _ 1963______________ 1964______________ 1965______________ 4.1 3.9 4.0 4.3 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.8 3.5 3.7 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.8 4.3 3.9 3.9 4.1 5.0 4.8 5.1 5.6 4.6 4.3 4.4 4.5 5.1 4.8 5.1 5.4 4.9 4.8 4.8 5.5 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.5 3.0 2.9 3.2 3.9 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.1 1966______________ 1967________ _____ 1968______________ 1969______________ 1970____ _____ ____ 5.0 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.0 4.6 4.3 4.2 4.6 4.0 4.2 3.6 3.8 3.9 3.6 4.9 3.9 4.0 4.4 3.7 4.6 3.9 4.3 4.5 3.7 5.1 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.2 6.7 5.9 5.9 6.6 5.4 5.1 4.7 5.0 5.1 4.4 6.4 5.5 5.8 5.6 5.1 6.1 5.3 5.7 5.9 4.7 5.1 4.7 5.1 4.9 3.8 3.9 3.7 3.9 3.6 3.0 2.9 2.8 3.1 2.9 2.4 1971______________ 1972............................. 3.9 3.5 4.1 3.1 3.7 3.5 4.0 3.7 4.0 3.9 4 .8 4.9 p 5.3 4.0 5.3 4.8 3.8 3.3 2.5 New hires 1962. 1963. 1964. 1965. 2.5 2.4 2.6 3.1 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.4 2.1 1.8 2.0 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.2 2.8 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.8 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.5 3.3 3.6 4.3 2.9 2.7 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.9 3.1 3.2 3.5 4.0 2.5 2.6 2.8 3.5 1.8 1.8 2.2 2.9 1.2 1.4 1.6 2.2 1966. 1967. 1968. 1969. 1970. 3.8 3.3 3.5 3.7 2.8 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.3 2.9 3.1 2.7 2.7 3.0 2.5 3.7 2.8 2.9 3.4 2.6 3.6 2.8 3.2 3.5 2.6 4.1 3.3 3.6 3.8 2.8 5.6 4.6 4.7 5.4 3.9 3.9 3.3 3.7 3.9 3.0 4.8 4.0 4.3 4.3 3.5 4.7 4.1 4.6 4.8 3.4 4 2 3.7 4.0 4.0 2.7 3.1 2.8 2.9 2.8 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.1 1.4 1971. 1972. 2.5 2.0 2.5 1.9 2.4 2.2 2.7 2.3 2 .8 2.6 3 .6 3.5 p 4.1 2.7 3.4 3.3 2.7 2.2 1.6 T otal separations 1962______________ 1963______________ 1964______________ 1965______________ 4.1 3.9 3.9 4.1 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.8 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.4 4.1 4.4 4.3 5.1 4.8 4.3 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.6 4.4 4.1 4.2 4.5 4.0 3.9 3.6 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.7 4.1 1966______________ 1967_____ ________ 1968______________ 1969______________ 1970______________ 4.6 4.6 4.6 4 9 4.8 4.0 4.5 4.4 4 5 4.8 3.6 4.0 3.9 4 0 4.3 4.1 4.6 4.1 4 4 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.1 4 5 4.8 4.3 4.2 4.3 4 6 4.6 4.4 4.3 4.1 4 6 4.4 5.3 4.8 5.0 5 3 5.3 5.8 5.3 6.0 6 2 5.6 6.6 6.2 6.3 6 6 6.0 4.8 4.7 5.0 5 4 5.3 4.3 4.0 4.1 4 3 4Ì3 4.2 3.9 3.8 4 ? 4Ì1 1971____ _________ 1972______________ 4.2 4.2 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.8 4.0 3.7 3.7 3 .8 3.8 p 4.4 4.8 5.5 5.3 4.3 3.7 3.8 Q uits 1962______________ 1963____ _________ 1964______________ 1965______________ 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.9 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.7 3.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 2.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.7 .8 .8 1.0 1.4 1966______________ 1967............................. 1968______________ 1969______________ 1970____ _________ 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.3 2.1 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.1 1.9 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.0 2.5 2.2 2.2 2.6 2.1 2.5 2.2 2.4 2.7 2.1 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.1 2.5 2.1 2.4 2.7 2.1 3.6 3.2 3.8 4.0 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.2 4.4 3.3 2.8 2.5 2.8 3.0 2.1 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.1 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.2 1971______________ 1972........................... . 1.8 1.5 1.7 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.9 1.6 2 .0 1.7 2 .2 1.8 2.2 1.8 2.8 2.9 1.9 1.5 1.2 2.2 2.0 2.1 1.8 2.2 1.9 1.4 1.6 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.3 2.2 1.9 1.8 1.4 2.3 2.1 1.7 1.5 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 2.3 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.7 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.7 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.3 2.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.8 p Layoffs 1962................... ......... 1963______________ 1964______________ 1965______ _______ 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.0 1.6 1966____ _________ 1967............................. 1968_____ ________ 1969______________ 1970______________ 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.8 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.7 1971_____ ________ 1972............................. 1.6 1.9 1.4 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.1 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 .9 1.1 1.0 1.6 .9 1.7 .9 1.5 1.1 .9 .9 1.5 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.0 1.2 .8 1.2 p 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.5 1.4 1.1 1.5 1.1 1.0 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data are published in Employment and Earnings, United States, 1909-71 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). Month-to-month changes in total employment in manufacturing and nonmanufactur https://fraser.stlouisfed.org ing industries as indicated by labor turnover rates are not comparable with the changes Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1.0 1.0 shown by the Bureau's employment series because (1) the labor turnover series meas ures changes during the calendar month, while the employment series measures changes from midmonth to midmonth, and (2) the turnover series excludes personnel changes caused by strikes, but the employment series reflects the influence of such stoppages. p = preliminary. LABOR TURNOVER CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 16. 105 Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, by major industry group 1 [Per 100 employees] Separation rates _ Accession rates Layoffs Q uits Total New hires T otal M ajor indu stry group June 1971 May 1972 June 1972 p June 1971 May 1972 June 1972 p June 1971 May 1972 June 1972 p June 1971 May 1972 June 1972 p June 1971 May 1972 June 1972 p 4.9 3.7 4.8 4.7 5.3 4.0 3.5 2.4 3.6 3.5 4.1 2.9 3.8 4.1 3.8 4.1 4.4 4.8 1.8 1.9 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.3 1.2 1.5 .8 1.0 1.3 1.6 D urable goods________________________ 4.4 4.5 4.7 3.0 3.4 3.7 3.5 3.4 4.2 1.5 1.8 1.9 1.2 .7 1.4 Lumber and wood products__________ Furniture and fixtures_______________ Stone, clay, and glass products_______ 2 5 8.3 5.7 5.5 3 2 7.5 7.0 5.7 8.3 6.3 6.2 1.3 6.8 4.8 4.3 2.0 6.4 6.2 4.3 7.0 5.7 5.2 2.2 4.8 4.5 3.7 2.0 5.6 5.9 3.6 5.2 5.6 4.2 .8 3.2 2.7 1.9 .7 4.0 4.0 2.2 3.8 3.5 2.3 .7 .7 .8 .9 .7 .6 .5 .6 .5 1.0 .8 3.8 S ? 3.4 3 9 4.2 3.5 6.3 2.3 4.0 2.5 2.8 2.8 2.8 5.0 3.1 4.2 6.3 2.2 3.8 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.9 5.8 3.1 4.0 2.8 Instruments and related products____ Miscellaneous manufacturing________ 3.4 5 3 3.1 3 6 4 1 3.8 7.1 3.7 5.0 3.6 2.6 4.7 2.5 3.9 2.6 2.9 3.3 2.4 4.9 2.8 4.9 1.1 1.6 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 2.3 1.0 2.1 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.4 2.9 1.6 2.8 1.1 1.4 1.0 1.4 1.6 .6 1.4 .6 .9 .6 .4 1.0 .3 1.0 .5 1.2 Nondurable goods____________________ 5.6 5.2 6.0 4.1 3.9 4.7 4.2 4.5 4.6 2.2 2.6 2.7 1.2 1.0 l.i Food and kindred products__________ Tobacco manufactures______________ Textile m ill products________________ Apparel and other textile products------ 8.6 4.7 5.9 5.8 6.6 2.8 6.9 6.5 9.4 3.8 6.4 6.4 6.1 2.4 4.7 4.0 4.5 1.9 5.7 4.6 6.8 2.3 5.4 4.8 5.1 2.4 5.1 5.8 5.4 2.6 6.0 6.0 5.7 2.1 5.6 6.0 2.6 1.1 3.3 2.7 2.7 1.3 4.4 3.6 3.0 1.2 4.1 3.4 1.8 .5 .8 2.2 2.0 .5 .5 1.6 1.8 .3 .5 1.6 Paper and allied products____ ______ Printing and publishing_____________ Chemicals and allied products_______ Petroleum and coal products_________ Rubber and plastics products, nec____ Leather and leather products......... ....... 4.3 3.8 3.0 3.4 5.4 6.1 3.8 3.2 2.5 2.7 5.6 7.9 4.5 3.9 3.1 3.2 6.2 7.0 3.3 2.9 2.3 2.9 4.0 4.6 3.0 2.5 1.9 2.3 4.5 6.2 3.7 3.3 2.5 2.7 5.4 5.6 2.6 3.1 2.3 1.8 3.8 5.1 2.7 3.0 2.2 1.8 4.4 6.4 2.9 3.5 2.4 1.8 4.7 5.9 1.4 1.6 .9 .8 2.1 2.9 1.5 1.7 1.0 .6 2.7 4.2 1.6 2.0 1.0 .7 3.0 3.9 .5 .9 .8 .5 .7 1.2 .4 .7 .4 .6 .7 1.0 .5 .9 .7 .6 .7 1.1 M ANUFACTURING _______________________ Seasonally adjusted 2_______________ Primry metal industries-------------------Machinery, except electrical_________ ► A 3.6 3.9 2.7 3.2 1.2 1.5 .6 .9 changes from midmonth to midmonth, and (2) the turnover series excludes personnel changes caused by strikes, but the employment series reflects the influence of such stoppages. 2 These data have been seasonally adjusted to reflect experience through May 1971. For additional detail, see September 1971 issue of Employment and Earnings. 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data, are published in Employment and Earnings, United States, 1909-71 (BLS Bulletin 1312—8). Month-to-month changes in total employment in manufacturing and nonmanufactur ing industries as indicated by labor turnover rates are not comparable with the changes shown by the Bureau’s employment series because (1) the labor turnover series meas ures changes during the calendar month, while the employment series measures 17. 2.6 NOTE: For additional detail, see Em ploym ent and Earnings, table D-2. p=prelim inary. Job vacancies in manufacturing 1 1972 1971 Annual average In d u stry Apr. May June p Ill 124 127 122 0.5 .5 .6 0.6 .5 .6 0.7 .6 .7 0.7 .6 .7 0.6 .6 .7 .2 .5 .6 .4 .7 .2 .5 .7 .5 .7 .2 .6 .7 .5 .9 .3 .7 .8 .7 l.i .3 .7 .8 .6 1.1 .2 .7 .7 .7 1.3 .8 1.2 .3 .4 .9 1.2 .3 .4 1.1 1.4 .4 .5 1.2 1.3 .4 .6 1.2 1.4 .4 .5 1.0 1.3 .3 .5 1970 1971 June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. 132 88 90 90 106 98 90 79 78 90 97 .. 0.7 .6 .7 0.5 .4 .6 0.5 .4 .6 0.5 .4 .6 0.6 .5 .6 0.5 .5 .6 0.5 .4 .5 0.4 .4 .5 0.4 .4 .5 0.5 .5 .5 Selected durable goods industries: Primary metal industries. ................................. . . . Machinery, except electrical____________________________ Electrical equipment and supplies_______________________ Transportation equipment ............ . Instruments and related products............................................... .5 .7 .7 .5 1.0 .2 .4 .5 .4 .7 .2 .4 .5 .4 .9 .2 .4 .5 .5 .8 .2 .4 .6 .6 .8 .2 .5 .5 .5 .8 .2 .4 .6 .4 .7 .1 .4 .5 .4 .6 .1 .4 .5 .3 .6 Selected nondurable goods industries: Textile m ill products____ _ __ ____________ _____ Apparel and'other textile products_______________________ Printing and publishing ________ ____ _______ ___ Chemicals and allied products.................................................... .9 1.4 .6 .7 .8 1.2 .4 .4 .9 1.3 .3 .4 .8 1.3 .3 .4 1.0 1.4 .4 .4 .9 1.2 .3 .4 .9 1.2 .4 .4 .8 1.0 .3 .3 .8 1.1 .3 .3 ► Job vacancies in manufacturing (number in thousands)________ Mar. JOB VACANCY RATES 2 Manufacturing __ _ Durable goods industries_________ Nondurable goods industries. ___ * . ____ _ _____ _____ _ _ . . 1 Data have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment). For months prior to July 1971, data are not comparable to those published in the February 1972 and earlier issues of the M onthly Labor Review. 2 Computed by dividing the total number of job vacancies by the sum of employ- https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ment plus the total number of job vacancies and multiplying the quotient of 100. NOTE: For additional detail on this series, see Employment and Earnings, tables E—1, E—2, and E-3. p=prelim inary. 106 HOURS AND EARNINGS MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 18. Gross average hours and earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division, 1947-71 Year Average weekly earnings Average w eekly hours Average hou rly earnings Average weekly earnings Total p riv a te Average weekly hours Average hourly earnings M ining Average w eekly earnings Average weekly hours Average hourly earnings Average weekly earnings C ontract constructio n Average weekly hours Average hou rly earnings M anufactu rin g 1947.......................... ............ ......... 1948_________________________ 1949___________ ____ ________ 1 9 5 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_________________________ 1 9 6 4 ....____ ________________ 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_________________________ 1969_________________________ 1 9 7 0 ..._____ ________________ 98.82 101.84 107.73 114.61 119.46 38.6 38.0 37.8 37.7 37.1 2.56 2.68 2.85 3.04 3.22 130.24 135.89 142.71 155.23 163.97 42.7 42.6 42.6 43.0 42.7 3.05 3.19 3.35 3.61 3.84 146.26 154.95 164.93 181.54 196.35 37.6 37.7 37.4 37.9 37.4 3.89 4.11 4.41 4.79 5.25 112.34 114.90 122.51 129.51 133.73 41.3 40.6 40.7 40.6 39.8 2.72 2.83 3.01 3.19 3.36 1 9 7 1 ..._____ ________________ 126.91 37.0 3.43 171.72 42.4 4.05 213.36 37.3 5.72 142.44 39.9 3.57 T ranspo rtation and public u tilitie s W holesale and re ta il trade 1947.......................... ....................... 1948_________________________ 1949_________________________ 1950_________________________ $38.07 40.80 42 93 44.55 40.5 40 4 40 5 40 5 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 1956___________ _____________ 1957______________________ 1958_______________ 1959 2_______________________ 1960_________________________ 57 48 59.60 61 76 64.41 66.01 1961_______________ . . 1962_________________________ 1963_________________________ 1964_________________________ 1965_____________ __________ $0 T 1 1 940 010 060 100 Finance, insurance, and re a l estate Services $43 '45 47 50 21 48 63 52 37 37 37 37 9 9 8 7 $1 1 1 1 140 200 260 340 1 18 1 23 1 30 1 35 1.40 54 57 59 62 63 67 08 57 04 92 37 37 37 37 37 7 8 7 6 6 1 1 1 1 1 45 51 58 fifi 70 39 1 38.7 38 6 38 8 38 6 1 47 1.54 1 60 1 66 1 71 65 67 70 72 75 68 53 12 74 14 36 36 37 37 37 9 7 1 3 ? 1 1 1 1 2 78 84 R9 95 02 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 37J 37.2 2 09 2 17 7 75 2.30 2.39 $69.84 73.60 36.0 35.9 $1.94 2.05 $118.37 125.14 41.1 41.3 $2.88 3.03 67.41 69.91 72.01 74.28 76.53 1966_______________________ 1967________________________ 1968_______________________ 1969________________________ 1970______________________ 128.13 131.22 138.85 148.15 155.93 41.2 40.5 40.6 40.7 40.5 3.11 3.24 3.42 3.64 3.85 79.02 81.76 86.40 91.14 95.66 37.1 36,5 36.0 35.6 35.3 2.13 2.24 2.40 2.56 2.71 92.13 95.46 101.75 108.70 113.34 37.3 37.0 37.0 37.1 36.8 2.47 2.58 2.75 2.93 3.08 77.04 80.38 84.32 90.57 96.66 35.5 35.1 34.7 34.7 34.4 2.17 2.29 2.43 2.61 2.81 1971______________________ 169.24 40.2 4.21 100.74 35.1 2.87 121.36 37.0 3.28 102.26 34.2 2.99 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data are published in Employment and Earnings, United States 1909-71 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing; to construction workers in contract construction; and to nonsupervisory workers in transportation and https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services. These groups account for approximately four-fifths of the total employment on private nonagricultural payrolls. 2 Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning 1959. NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table C -l. ■* HOURS AND EARNINGS CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 107 19. Gross average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group 1972 1971 Annual average Industry division and group May June p July p 1970 1971 July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. TOTAL PRIVATE_______________________ 37.1 37.0 37.3 37.4 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.3 36.7 36.8 36.9 37.0 36.9 37.5 MINING_______________________________ 42.7 42.4 42.6 42.3 42.1 42.8 42.3 42.8 42.5 42.0 42.2 42.4 42.4 43.1 42.7 CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION____________ 37.4 37.3 38.1 38.3 36.9 38.2 37.9 36.5 35.8 36.0 36.8 36.6 36.8 37.7 38.3 MANUFACTURING_____________________ 39.8 3.0 39.9 2.9 39.8 2.9 39.8 3.0 39.8 3.1 40.0 3.1 40.2 3.1 40.7 3.2 39.8 2.8 40.1 3.0 40.3 3.1 40.5 3.3 40.5 3.3 40.9 3.5 40.5 3.4 Overtime hours____________________ 40.3 2.9 40.4 2.9 40.1 2.7 40.0 2.8 40.0 3.0 40.5 3.0 40.7 3.0 41.4 3.2 40.4 2.8 40.7 3.0 41.0 3.2 41.2 3.4 41.2 3.4 41.6 3.6 41.0 3.5 Ordnance and accessories___ _ ____ Lumber and wood p ro d u c ts .._______ Furniture and fixtures_______________ Stone, clay, and glass products_______ 40.6 39.7 39.2 41.2 41.7 40.3 39.8 41.6 41.3 40.4 39.7 42.0 41.7 40.5 40.4 42.3 41.9 40.4 40.0 41.9 41.8 41.0 40.4 42.1 42.0 40.6 40.4 41.9 42.4 40.8 40 9 41.6 41.7 40.0 39.7 40.9 42.2 40.4 39.8 41.2 42.2 40.9 40.2 41.8 42.2 41.1 40.2 41.9 42.0 41.3 40.2 42.0 42.4 41.7 41.1 42.5 42.1 41.0 40.4 42.5 Primary metal industries____ _____ _ Fabricated metal products__________ Machinery, except electrical_________ Electrical equipment. _ _____ _______ Transportation equipment___________ Instruments and related products......... 40.5 40.7 41.1 39.9 40.3 40.1 40.4 40.3 40.6 39.9 40.7 39.8 40.7 40.3 40.3 39.6 39.4 39.5 38.8 40.3 40.3 40.0 39.3 39.6 39.5 39.9 40.6 40.0 39.1 40.0 39.7 40.3 40.8 40.1 41.0 40.1 39.9 40.6 41.1 40.4 41.1 40.5 41.0 41.3 41.9 40.9 42.5 40.8 40.7 40.1 41.0 40.0 40.6 40.1 41.0 40.4 41.4 40.2 41.2 40.4 41.3 40.6 41.7 40.3 41.7 40.3 41.5 40.9 41.8 40.4 42.0 40.5 41.5 41.1 41.7 40.3 42.1 40.5 41.8 41.5 42.2 40.7 42.1 40.8 41.5 41.1 41.7 40.0 40.8 40.1 Overtime hours____________________ Durable goods ____________ _______ 37.7 38.7 38.9 38.6 39.2 38.9 39.3 39.5 39.5 38.7 39.2 39.3 39.5 39.2 39.6 38.6 Overtime hours____________________ 39.1 3.0 39.3 3.0 39.4 3.0 39.5 3.2 39.5 3.4 39.4 3.2 39.6 3.1 39.8 3.1 39.1 2.9 39.2 3.0 39.4 3.1 39.5 3.1 39.5 3.1 39.9 3.4 39.9 3.3 Food and kindred products__________ Tobacbo manufactures______________ Textile m ill products________________ Apparel and other textile products____ 40.5 37.8 39.9 35.3 40.3 37.0 40.6 35.5 40.6 39.3 40.1 35.8 40.7 37.4 40.8 36.0 40.9 37.8 40.6 35.5 40.1 36.0 41.0 35.9 40.1 35.7 41.4 36.3 40.6 36.0 41.5 35.9 39.8 34.1 40.8 35.3 39.6 33.1 41.0 35.9 40.0 33.3 41.3 36.0 40.0 33.1 41.3 35.9 40.2 33.5 41.1 35.6 40.7 34.8 41.7 36.0 41.1 33.7 41.1 36.2 Paper and allied products____ ______ Printing and pub lishing.. . ________ Chemicals and allied products............._ Petroleum and coal products_________ Rubber and plastics products, nec____ Leather and leather products________ 41.9 37.7 41.6 42.7 40.3 37.2 42.1 37.6 41.6 42.4 40.3 37.7 42.4 37.6 41.3 43.0 40.1 38.2 42.5 37.7 41.3 42.6 40.3 37.6 42.2 37.7 42.1 42.8 40.5 36.9 42.3 37.6 41.5 42.6 40.6 37.7 42.4 37.6 41.6 42.1 40.8 38.4 42.8 38.0 41.9 42.3 41.2 38.7 41.9 37.1 41.6 41.7 40.6 38.2 42.2 37.2 41.6 41.4 40.7 38.5 42.4 37.6 41.8 41.6 40.8 37.9 42.6 37.8 41.9 42.5 41.1 38.0 42.5 37.6 41.6 42.3 41.1 38.7 42.9 38.0 42.0 42.5 41.5 39.1 42.8 38.2 41.9 42.5 40.7 38.1 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES___________________________ 40.5 40.2 38.4 40.7 40.8 40.5 40.6 40.6 39.8 40.2 40.2 39.9 40.3 40.6 40.9 WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE_______ 35.3 35.1 36.1 36.0 35.2 35.0 34.9 35.5 34.7 34.6 34.8 34.8 34.8 35.6 36.2 Wholesale trade_______________________ Retail tra d e .. _________________ ______ _ 40.0 33.8 39.8 33.7 39.9 34.8 39.9 34.7 39.7 33.7 39.8 33.5 39.8 33.4 40.3 34.1 39.6 33.2 39.7 33.0 39.8 33.2 39.8 33.3 39.8 33.3 40.0 34.2 40.1 34.9 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE. 36.8 37.0 37.1 37.3 36.9 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.3 37.1 37.1 37.3 37.0 37.2 37.5 SERVICES_______________________ ____ _ 34.4 34.2 34.8 34.7 34.1 34.1 34.0 34.2 33.9 34.0 34.0 34.0 33.8 34.3 35.0 Miscellaneous manufacturing_____ . Nondurable goods_________ ____ ____ 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data are published in Employment and Earnings, United States, 1909—71 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing; to construction workers in contract construction; and to nonsupervisory workers in transportation and https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis public u tilitie s ; wholesale and re ta il trad e; finance, insurance, and real es tate; and services. These groups account fo r approxim ately fo u r-fifth s of the to ta l em ploym ent on private n o n agricultu ral payrolls. NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table C-2. p=prelim inary. 1 0 8 HOURS AND EARNINGS MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 20. Gross average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by indus try division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted 1971 Industry division and group July Aug. Sept. 1972 Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June p July p TOTAL PRIVATE__________ 36.9 36.9 36.7 37.0 37.1 37.2 37.0 37.2 37.1 37.3 37.0 37.3 MINING......... .......... 42.2 42.0 41.9 42.5 42.3 42.6 43.0 42.5 42.9 42.3 42.4 42.8 42.3 CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION 37.1 37.1 35.7 37.6 39.0 36.8 37.4 37.3 37.5 36.7 36.6 36.9 37.3 MANUFACTURING______ 40.0 3.0 39.8 2.9 39.5 2.8 39.8 3.0 40.1 3.0 40.3 3.1 40.0 2.9 40.5 3.2 40.4 3.3 40.8 3.6 40.5 3.4 40.7 3.4 40 7 3.5 Overtime hours______ 40.4 2.8 40.0 2.8 39.7 2.7 40.3 2.8 40.6 2.9 40.9 3.0 40.6 2.9 41.1 3.2 41.0 3.3 41.5 3.7 41.2 3.5 41.4 3.5 41 3 3.6 Ordnance and accessories. Lumber and wood products Furniture and fixtures Stone, clay, and glass products 41.9 40.5 40.1 41.8 41.9 40.2 39.9 41.8 41.7 40.1 39.4 41.4 41.8 40.7 39.7 41.8 41.9 40.8 40 0 41.9 42.0 40.8 39.9 41.6 41.2 40.9 40.3 41.8 42.4 40.9 40.7 42.0 42 3 40 9 40 5 42^2 42.4 41.1 40.8 41.9 42.0 40.9 40.6 41.8 42 2 41.2 40.9 42.2 42 7 41 1 Primary metal industries Fabricated metal products Machinery, except electrical Electrical equipment Transportation equipment Instruments and related products___ Miscellaneous manufacturing 40.6 40.7 40.7 40.1 39.5 39.8 39.2 38.8 40.2 40.8 40.0 39.9 39.8 39.2 39.5 39.3 40.5 39.6 38.5 39.7 38.7 40.1 40.1 40.8 39.9 40.5 39.9 38.9 40 1 40 4 41 1 40 1 40 5 40 2 39.1 41.0 40.9 41.3 40.3 41.7 40.4 39.2 40.6 40.4 41.0 40.1 40.7 40.3 39.0 41.1 41.0 41.4 40.7 41.9 40.8 39.6 41 3 40 8 41 4 40*3 42 1 40 3 39.3 41.4 41.2 41.8 40.8 42.9 40.7 39.6 41.4 41.1 41.7 40.4 42 0 40 7 39.3 41 5 41 2 42.2 40 5 42 n 40 7 39.5 39.3 3.0 39.3 3.1 39.1 3.1 39.3 3.0 39.5 3.0 39.5 3.0 39.4 3.1 39.6 3.2 39.6 3.3 39.8 3.3 39.7 3.2 39.8 3.4 39.8 3.3 Food and kindred products Tobacco manufactures Textile m ill products Apparel and other textile products 40.2 39.6 40.3 35.8 40.1 37.1 40.7 35.7 40.1 36.6 40.4 35.4 40.0 34.7 40.8 36.0 39.9 35.6 41 1 36.2 40.4 35.6 41.0 35.9 40.1 34.8 41.3 35.7 40.2 33.6 41 2 36.2 40.6 34.4 41 4 35.8 40.7 33.8 41.7 36.0 40.4 33 9 41 3 35.6 40.6 34 3 41 5 35.9 40.7 34 0 Paper and allied products Printing and publishing Chemicals and allied products Petroleum and coal products Rubber and plastics products, nec Leather and leather products 42.4 37.6 41.4 42.6 40.3 37.7 42.4 37.5 41.5 43.4 40.1 37.6 41.9 37.4 42.1 42.9 40.0 37.3 42.0 37.5 41.5 42.4 40.3 37.9 42 3 37.6 41.4 41.8 40.6 38.3 42.3 37.5 41.7 42.7 40.9 37.9 42.1 37.5 41.8 42.2 40.8 38.0 42 6 37.5 41.8 42.0 41.0 38.5 42 7 37.6 41.8 41.7 41.2 38.2 43.0 38.0 41.7 41.9 41.5 39.1 42 42 9 38Ü) 42.0 42.2 41.5 38.5 40.4 40.5 40.0 40.4 40.6 40.3 Overtime hours____ Durable goods____ Nondurable goods Overtime hou rs.. . . TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES.. 38.0 40.5 40.6 40.3 WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE 35.3 35.1 35.1 35.2 35.2 35.3 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.2 39.6 33.8 39.7 33.6 39.7 33.6 39.8 33.8 39.9 33.7 40.0 33.9 39.7 33.7 40.0 33.5 39.9 33.6 40.0 33.7 Wholesale tra d e .. Retail trade_____ fi 37 ! 7 41.6 41.6 41.2 38.7 37.3 40.8 42.3 41 4 41 5 42 ? 40 5 40 9 40 4 33.2 36.2 38.2 42.0 42.1 40.9 37.6 40.5 40.5 40.5 35.1 35.4 35.4 40.0 33.7 39.9 33.9 39.8 33.9 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE... 37.1 37.3 37.0 36.9 36.9 37.0 37.3 37.1 37.1 37.3 37.1 37.2 37.5 SERVICES_____ 34.4 34.3 34.2 34.2 34.1 34.2 34.1 34.2 34.0 34.1 34.0 34.2 34.6 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data are published in Employment and Earnings, United States, 1909-71 (BLS Bulletin 1312 -8). 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. NOTE: These data have been seasonally adjusted to reflect experience through May 1971. For additional detail, see September 1971 issue of Employment and Earn ings. p=prelim inary. HOURS AND EARNINGS CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 109 21. Gross average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group 1972 1971 Annual average Industry division and group 1970 1971 July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Junep July p TOTAL PRIVATE_______________________ $3.22 $3.43 $3.43 $3.45 $3.49 $3.49 $3.48 $3.51 $3.54 $3.55 $3.57 $3.60 $3.61 $3.61 $3.62 MINING_______________________________ 3.84 4.05 4.05 4.10 4.15 3.92 3.92 4.27 4.32 4.31 4.30 4.35 4.32 4.33 4.3Í CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION 5.25 5.72 5.68 5.75 5.86 5.90 5.90 5.93 5.99 5.98 5.97 5.99 6.03 5.96 5.9f MANUFACTURING_____________________ 3.36 3.57 3.57 3.56 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.69 3.71 3.72 3.74 3.77 3.79 3.79 3.7S Durable goods______________________ 3.56 3.80 3.79 3.79 3.83 3.82 3.83 3.93 3.95 3.96 3.99 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.02 Ordnance and accessories....... ........... .. Lumber and wood products__________ Furniture and fixtures______________ Stone, clay, and glass products _........... 3.61 2.96 2.77 3.40 3.85 3.14 2.90 3.66 3.89 3.19 2.91 3.70 3.88 3.19 2.94 3.73 3.90 3.21 2.95 3.75 3.91 3.21 2.93 3.73 3.88 3.20 2.93 3.71 3.98 3.19 2.98 3.74 3.98 3.21 2.98 3.76 4.04 3.21 2.99 3.78 4.02 3.22 3.01 3.82 4.06 3.25 3.03 3.84 4.07 3.29 3.03 3.87 4.09 3.31 3.05 3.89 4.11 Primary metal industries___________ Fabricated metal products_____ _ ___ Machinery, except electrical_________ Electrical equipment________________ Transportation equipment. . _______ Instruments and related products......... Miscellaneous manufacturing_________ 3.93 3.53 3.77 3.28 4.06 3.35 2.82 4.23 3.74 3.99 3.50 4.44 3.53 2.96 4.19 3.74 4.00 3.51 4.39 3.55 2.94 4.29 3.75 4.02 3.50 4.37 3.55 2.95 4.35 3.77 4.04 3.52 4.42 3.57 2.96 4.35 3.77 4.04 3.51 4.44 3.55 2.96 4.36 3.78 4.04 3.52 4.44 3.56 2.97 4.50 3.87 4.16 3.60 4.62 3.62 3.05 4.54 3.88 4.16 3.60 4.60 3.67 3.07 4.55 3.89 4.19 3.62 4.65 3.69 3.06 4.57 3.92 4.21 3.63 4 .6 / 3.70 3.06 4.60 3.95 4.23 3.64 4.72 3.71 3.08 4.62 3.96 4.24 3.66 4.74 3.72 3.09 4.64 3.98 4.26 3.67 4.73 3.71 3.08 4.6 3.9 4.2 3.6 4.6 3.7 3.0 Nondurable goods....... .................... ........ 3.08 3.26 3.29 3.27 3.31 3.29 3.29 3.36 3.38 3.40 3.41 3.43 3.44 3.45 3.4 3.60 3.47 2.71 2.57 3.59 3.52 2.72 2.59 3.5 3.92 4.46 4.20 4.94 3.58 2.70 3.9 4.4 4.2 ___________ 3.3) 3.0f 3.91 Food and kindred products_______ _ Tobacco manufactures________ Textile m ill products__________ ____ Apparel and other textile products____ 3.16 2.92 2.45 2.39 3.38 3.15 2.57 2.49 3.39 3 33 2.56 2.47 3.34 3.19 2.57 2.50 3.38 3.03 2.58 2.53 3.38 3.02 2.59 2.52 3.40 3.08 2.59 2.52 3.51 3.29 2.62 2.55 3.52 3.32 2.69 2.56 3.53 3.37 2.71 2.58 3.56 3.39 2.71 2.57 3.59 3.45 2.72 2.58 Paper and allied products_________ Printing and publishing_____________ Chemicals and allied products_____ . . Petroleum and coal products Rubber and plastics products, nec____ Leather and leather products________ 3.44 3.92 3.69 4.28 3.20 2.49 3.68 4.20 3.94 4.58 3.41 2.59 3.71 4.21 3.99 4.60 3.44 2.58 3.73 4.23 3.99 4.59 3.45 2.59 3.77 4.28 4.03 4.66 3.48 2.62 3.73 4.27 4.00 4.65 3.46 2.63 3.73 4.27 4,00 4.65 3.46 2.61 3.80 4.36 4.06 4.65 3.53 2.65 3.81 4.35 4.10 4.84 3.54 2.67 3.83 4.36 4.12 4.88 3.54 2.70 3.84 4.39 4.11 4.88 3.54 2.70 3.86 4.43 4.13 4.94 3.56 2.69 3.88 4.46 4.16 4.96 3.56 2.71 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES________________________________ 3.85 4.21 4 23 4.25 4.33 4.31 4.33 4.41 4.46 4.48 4.50 4.56 4.58 4.60 4.6 WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE_______ 2.71 2.87 2.87 2.88 2.90 2.91 2.91 2.91 2.97 2.98 2.99 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.0 Wholesale trade________________________ Retail trade___________________________ 3.44 2.44 3.67 2.57 3.67 2.58 3.70 2.57 3.72 2.60 3.72 2.60 3.74 2.60 3.79 2.61 3.82 2.66 3.82 2.66 3.83 2.67 3.86 2.68 3.84 2.68 3.85 2.69 3.8 2.7 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE. 3.08 3.28 3.29 3.30 3.30 3.31 3.30 3.34 3.40 3.40 3.41 3.45 3.43 3.42 3.4 SERVICES............ ................. .................... . 2.81 2.99 2.98 2.99 3.04 3.03 3.04 3.06 3.09 3.11 3.11 3.13 3.12 3.11 3.1 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data are published in Employment and Earnings, United States, 1909-71 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing; to construction workers in contract construction; and to .nonsupervisory workers in transportation and https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 3.4 2.7 2.5 4.9 3.6 2.7 public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services. These groups account for approximately four-fifths of the total employment on private nonagricultural payrolls. NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table C-2. p=prelim inary. lio HOURS AND EARNINGS MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 22. Gross average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group Annual average 1971 Industry division and group 1970 1971 July Aug. Sept. 1972 Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Junep Julyp TOTAL PRIVATE_________ $119.46 $126.91 127.94 $129.03 $129.13 $129.13 $133.20 $133.21 $135.38 $136.47 MINING_________________ 163.97 171.72 172.53 173.43 174.72 167.78 165.82 182.76 183.60 181.02 181.46 184.44 183.17 186.62 185.75 CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION__________ 196.35 213.36 216.41 220.23 216.23 225.38 223.61 216.45 214.44 215.28 219.70 219.23 221.90 224.69 228.27 MANUFACTURING________ 133.73 142.44 142.09 141.69 143.28 144.00 144.72 150.18 147.66 149.17 150.72 152.69 153.50 155.01 153.50 $128.76 $130.92 $129.92 $130.64 $131.73 Durable goods________ 143.47 153.52 151.98 151.60 153.20 154.71 155.88 162.70 159.58 161.17 163.59 165.62 166.04 168.06 164.82 Ordnance and accessories. Lumber and wood products____ . . . _ . Furniture and fixtures____ Stone, clay, and glass products_____________ 146.57 160.55 160.66 161.80 163.41 163.44 162.96 168.75 165.97 170.49 169.64 171.33 170.94 173.42 173.03 117.51 108.58 126.54 115.42 128.88 115.53 129.20 118.78 129.68 118.00 131.61 118.37 129.92 118.37 130.15 121.88 128.40 118.31 129.68 119.00 131.70 121.00 133.58 121.81 135.88 121.81 138.03 125.36 135.71 123.62 140.08 152.26 155.40 157.78 157.13 157.03 155.45 155.58 153.78 155.74 159.68 160.90 162.54 165.33 166.18 Primary metal industries.. Fabricated metal products. 159.17 143.67 170.89 150.72 170.53 150.72 166.45 151.13 171.83 150.42 172.70 151.93 173.96 153.47 184.50 159.83 184.78 155.59 186.55 157.16 188.74 159.15 190.90 161.56 191.73 162.76 193 95 165.17 192 98 163.17 Machinery, except electrical______ ______ Electrical equipm ent.......... 154.95 130.87 161.99 139.65 161.20 139.00 162.01 140.00 164.02 140.80 164.83 140.75 lfifi f)4 142.21 174.30 147.24 170.56 144.00 173.47 145.52 175.56 146.29 176.81 147.06 176.81 147.50 179.77 149.37 176.81 147.60 163.62 180.71 172.97 171.74 172.82 182.04 182.48 196.35 186.76 191.58 194.74 198.24 199.55 199.13 190.94 134.34 140.49 140.23 140.58 142.80 142.36 144.18 147.70 147.17 149.08 149.11 150.26 150.66 151.37 149.17 Miscellaneous manufactu rin g _______ ________ 109.13 115.14 113.48 115.64 115.14 116.33 117.32 120.48 118.81 119.95 120.26 121.66 121.13 121.97 118.89 Nondurable goods_____ 120.43 128.12 129.63 129.17 130.75 129.63 130.28 133.73 132.16 133.28 134.35 135.49 135.88 137.66 138.85 Food and kindred products____ ________ Tobacco manufactures___ 127.98 110.38 136.21 116.55 137.63 130.87 135.94 119.31 138.24 114.53 135.54 108.72 136 34 109.96 142.51 118.44 140.10 113.21 139.79 111.55 142.40 112.89 143.60 114.20 144.72 116.25 146.11 122.50 147.55 116.27 97.76 104.34 102.66 104.86 104.75 106.19 107.23 108.73 109.75 111.11 111.92 112.34 111.38 113.42 111.79 84.37 88.40 88.43 90.00 89.82 90.47 91.48 91.55 90.37 92.62 92.52 92.62 91.49 93.24 93.76 144.14 147.78 154.93 157.92 157.30 158.30 158.53 159.47 159.08 161.36 157.78 160.55 158 15 160.55 162.64 165.68 159.64 161.39 161.63 162.19 162 82 165.06 164.44 16/.45 164.90 167.70 168.17 169.48 169.49 171.52 Transportation equipm ent....................... Instruments and related products_____ _______ Textile m ill products.......... Apparel and other textile products_____________ Paper and allied products____ _ Printing and p u b lis h in g ... Chemicals and allied products________ _ . Petroleum and coal products......... ....... . . . 153.50 163.90 164.79 164.79 169.66 166.00 166.40 170.11 170.56 171.39 171.80 173.05 173.06 176.40 177.24 182.76 194.19 197.80 195.53 199.45 198.09 195.77 196.70 201.83 202.03 203.01 209.95 209.81 209.95 211.23 Rubber and plastics products, nec____ Leather and leather products____ _______ 128.96 137.42 137.94 139.04 140.94 140.48 141.17 145.44 143.72 144.08 144.43 146.32 146.32 148.57 147.74 92.63 97.64 98.56 97.38 96.68 99.15 100.22 102.56 101.99 103.95 102.33 102.22 104.88 105.57 102.87 155.93 169.24 162.43 172.98 176.66 174.56 175.80 179.05 177.51 180.10 180.90 181.94 184.57 186.76 190.19 102.08 101.85 101.56 103.31 103.06 103.11 104.05 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES. WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE.. . . 104.40 104.40 106.80 108.96 15? 43 88.64 153.63 89.24 152.83 89.24 154.00 92.00 155.19 94.23 126.14 126.51 128.69 126.91 127.22 129.00 105.74 105.74 106.42 105.46 106.67 109.20 95.66 100.74 103.61 103.68 Wholesale trade____ Retail trade_____________ 137.60 82.47 146.07 86.61 146.43 89.78 147.63 89.18 147.68 87.62 148.06 87.10 148.85 86.84 152.74 89.00 151.27 88.31 151.65 87.78 FINANCE, INSURANCE. AND REAL ESTATE_____ 113.34 121.36 122.06 123.09 121.77 122.47 122.10 123.58 126.82 96.66 102.26 103.70 103.75 103.66 103.32 103.36 104.65 104.75 SERVICES..____ ________ 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data are published in Employment and Earnings, United States, 1909-71 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing; to construction workers in contract construction; and to nonsupervisory workers in transportation and https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services. These groups account for approximately four-fifths of the total employment on private nonagricultural payrolls. NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table C-2. p = p re lim in a ry . HOURS AND EARNINGS 1 1 1 CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 23. Gross and spendable average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers * on private nonagricultural payrolls, in current and 1967 dollars, 1960 to date Manufacturing workers Private nonagricultural workers Spendable average weekly earnings Spendable average weekly earnings Year and month Gross average weekly earnings Gross average weekly earnings Current dollars 1967 dollars Current dollars 1967 dollars Worker with no dependents Worker with 3 dependents Worker with no dependents 1967 dollars Current dollars C urrent dollars 1967 dollars Current dollars 1967 dollars Worker with 3 dependents Current dollars 1967 dollars 1960.................................................. $80.67 $90.95 $65.59 $73.95 $72,96 $82.25 $89.72 $101.15 $72.57 $81.82 $80.11 $90.32 1961 ___________________ 1962.......................................... . 1963............................ ..................... 1964_________ ___ ______ ____ 1965...................... ..................... — 82.60 85.91 88.46 91.33 95.06 92.19 94.82 96.47 98.31 100.59 67.08 69.56 71.05 75.04 78.99 74.87 76.78 77.48 80.78 83.59 74.48 76.99 78.56 82.57 86.30 83.13 84.98 85.67 88.88 91.32 92.34 96.56 99.63 102.97 107.53 103.06 106.58 108.65 110.84 113,79 74.60 77.86 79.82 84.40 89.08 83.26 85.94 87.04 90.85 94.26 82.18 85.53 87.58 92.18 96.78 91.72 94.40 95.51 99.22 102.41 1966____ ________ ___________ 1967___________ _____________ 1968______________ ____ _____ 1969_____ ______ ____________ 1970.................... .......... ................ 98.82 101.84 107.73 114.61 119.46 101.67 101.84 103.39 104.38 102.72 81.29 83.38 86.71 90.96 95.94 83.63 83.38 83.21 82.84 82.49 88.66 90.86 95.28 99.99 104.61 91.21 90.86 91.44 91.07 89.95 112.34 114.90 122.51 129.51 133.73 115.58 114.90 117.57 117.95 114.99 91.57 93.28 97,70 101.90 106.62 94.21 93.28 93.76 92.81 91.68 99.45 101.26 106.75 111.44 115.90 102.31 101.26 102.45 101.49 1971_________ _______________ 126.91 104.62 103.51 85.33 112.12 92.43 142.44 117.43 114.97 94.78 124.24 102.42 1971: July......... ..................... ........... August.. ________________ September_______________ 127.94 129.03 129.13 105.04 105.68 105.67 104.27 105.07 105.15 85.61 86.05 86.05 112.93 113.79 113.86 92.72 93.19 93.18 142.09 141.69 143.28 116.66 116.04 117.25 114.71 114.42 115.59 94.18 93.71 94.59 123.97 123.65 124.89 101.78 101.27 102.20 October__________________ November________ _______ December.................. ............. 129.13 128.76 130.92 105.50 105.02 106.35 105.15 104.87 106.47 85.91 85.54 86.49 113.86 113.57 115.28 93.02 92.63 93.65 144.00 144.72 150.18 117.65 118.04 122.00 116.12 116.65 120.64 94.87 95.15 98.00 125.45 126.01 130.25 102.49 102.78 105.81 1972: January.................................... February ................................ March_____________ _____ 129.92 130.64 131.73 105.45 105.53 106.23 107.04 107.57 108.38 86.88 86.89 87.40 116.18 116.74 117.60 94.30 94.30 94.84 147.66 149.17 150.72 119.85 120.49 121.55 120.13 121.25 122.39 97.51 97.94 98.70 130.09 131.26 132.47 105.59 106.03 106.83 A p ril............................................. . May____ _______ ____________ June p _______________________ 133.20 133.21 135.38 107.16 106.82 108.30 109.46 109.47 111.07 88.06 87.79 88.86 118.76 118.77 120.48 95.54 95.24 96.38 152.69 153.50 155.01 122.85 123.10 124.01 123.85 124.44 125.55 99.64 99.79 100.44 134.00 134.63 135.81 107.80 107.96 108.65 July p.................... ........... ........ 136.47 108.74 111.87 89.14 121.34 96.69 153.50 122.31 124.44 99.16 134.63 107.27 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment). To reflect the retroactive tax exemption provisions of the Tax Reform Act of 1971, the spendable earnings series has been revised back to January 1971. Moreover, the Consumer Price Index has been revised back to August 1971, to reflect the retroactive repeal of the automobile excise tax. Because of these revisions, monthly data published in this table beginning with the January 1972 issue of the Monthly Labor Review are not comparable wiih such data in earlier issues. Com parable back data are published in Employment and Earnings, United States, 1909-71 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). Data relate to production w orkers in m ining and m anufacturing; to con s tru ctio n w orkers in co n tra c t constructio n; and to nonsupervisory workers in tran sp o rta tio n and pub lic u tilitie s ; wholesale and re ta il trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services. These groups account fo r approxi m ately fo u r-fifth s of the to ta l em ploym ent on private non agricultu ral pay rolls. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 99.66 Spendable average weekly earnings are based on gross average weekly earnings as published in table 22 less the estim ated am ount of the w o rk e r’ s Federal social sec u rity and income tax lia b ility . Since the am ount of tax lia b ility depends on the number of dependents supported by the w orker as w ell as on the level of his gross income, spendable earnings have been computed fo r 2 types of income receivers: (1) a worker w ith no dependents and (2) a m arried worker w ith 3 dependents. The earnings expressed in 1967 dollars have been adjusted fo r changes in purchasing power as measured by the Bureau’ s Consumer Price Index. These series are described in “ The Spendable Earnings Series: A Techni cal Note on its C a lculation,” in Employment and Earnings and Monthly Re port on the Labor Force, February 1969, pp. 6-13. NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table C-5. p = p re lim ln a ry . 1 1 2 PRICES 24. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 Consumer and Wholesale Price Indexes, annual averages and changes, 19 4 9 -7 1 1 [1967 = 100] Consumer prices Year A ll item s Index Comm odities Percent change Index W holesale prices Services Percent change Index Percent change A ll com m odities Farm products, processed foods and feeds Index Index Percent change In d u s tria l com m odities Percent change Index Percent change 1949______ __________________ 1950_________________________ 71.4 72.1 - 1 .0 1.0 78.3 78.8 -2 .6 .6 56.9 58.7 4.8 3.2 78.7 81.8 -5 .0 3.9 89.6 93.9 -1 1 .7 4.8 75.3 78.0 - 2 .1 3.6 1951______ ______ ___________ 1952_________________________ 1953_________________________ 1954_________________________ 1955_______ _________________ 77.8 79.5 80.1 80.5 80.2 7.9 2.2 .8 .5 -.4 85.9 87.0 86.7 85.9 85.1 9.0 1.3 - .3 - .9 - .9 61.8 64.5 67.3 69.5 70.9 5.3 4.4 4.3 3.3 2.0 91.9 88.6 87.4 87.6 87.8 11.4 -2 .7 - 1 .4 .2 .2 106.9 102.7 96.0 -9 5 .7 91.2 13.8 -3 .9 -6 .5 -.3 - 4 .7 86.1 84,1 84.8 85.0 86.9 10.4 -2 .3 .8 .2 2.2 1956____ __________ _____ _ 1957_________________________ 1958_________________________ 1959_________________________ 1960_________________________ 81.4 84.3 86.6 87.3 88.7 1.5 3.6 2.7 .8 1.6 85.9 88.6 90.6 90.7 91.5 .9 3.1 2.3 .1 .9 72.7 75.6 78.5 80.8 83.5 2.5 4.0 3.8 2.9 3.3 90,7 93.3 94.6 94.8 94.9 3.3 2.9 1.4 .2 .1 90.6 93.7 98.1 93.5 93.7 -.7 3.4 4.7 - 4 .7 .2 90.8 93.3 93.6 95.3 95.3 4.5 2.8 .3 1.8 .0 1961________ _____ __________ 1962________________ ____ _ 1963_______________ _____ _ 1964_________________________ 1965_________________________ 89.6 90.6 91.7 92.9 94.5 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.7 92.0 92.8 93.6 94.6 95.7 .5 .9 .9 1.1 1.2 85.2 86.8 88.5 90.2 92.2 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.2 94.5 94.8 94.5 94.7 96.6 - .4 .3 -.3 .2 2.0 93.7 94.7 93.8 93.2 97.1 .0 1.1 -1 .0 - .6 4.2 94,8 94.8 94.7 95.2 96.4 -.5 .0 -.1 .5 1.3 1966_________________________ 1967____ ____ _______________ 1968_________________________ 1969_________________________ 1970..__________ ____________ 97.2 100.0 104.2 109.8 116.3 2.9 2.9 4.2 5.4 5.9 98.2 100.0 103.7 108.4 113.5 2 6 1 8 3.7 4.5 4.7 95.8 100.0 105.2 112.5 121.6 3.9 4.4 5.2 6.9 8.1 99.8 100.0 102.5 106.5 110.4 3.3 .2 2.5 3.9 3.7 103.5 100.0 102.4 » 108.0 111.6 6.6 - 3 .4 2.4 r 5.5 '3 . 3 98.5 100.0 102.5 106.0 110.0 2.2 1.5 2.5 3.4 3.8 1971.................... ............. ............... 121.3 4.3 117.4 3.4 128.4 5.6 113.9 3.2 113.8 2.0 114.0 3.6 1 Historical price changes are shown in greater detail and for earlier years in the Bureau's Handbook of Labor S ta tistics, 1971 (BLS Bulletin 1705). 25. Consumer Price Index—U.S. average—general summary and groups, subgroups, and selected items [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] A nnual average 1971 General Summary 1971 1972 July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. A p r. May June 121.3 141.0 121.8 141.7 '122.1 '142.0 '122.2 '142.1 '122.4 '142.4 122.6 142.6 123.1 143.1 123.2 143.3 123.8 143.9 124.0 144.3 124.3 144.6 124.7 145.0 125.0 145.4 125.5 145.9 118.4 116.4 126.1 119.8 118.1 126.5 120.0 118.1 127.1 119.1 116.9 127.6 118.9 116.6 128.0 119.0 116.7 128.2 120.3 118.2 128.3 120.3 118.2 128.6 122.2 120.5 128.9 122.4 120.6 129.4 122.4 120.4 130.0 122.3 120.2 130.4 123.0 120.9 130.9 124.2 122.4 131.3 Housing__________________ Rent_____ ________ _______ _ Homeownership_________________________ 124.3 115.2 133.7 124.5 115.4 133.5 125.1 115.8 134.4 125.5 116.1 135.1 125.9 116.4 135.7 126.4 116.6 136.7 126.8 116.9 137.0 127.3 117.1 137.8 127.6 117.5 138.0 127.9 117.7 138.2 128.2 118.1 138.5 128.5 118.3 138.9 129.0 118.8 139.6 129.5 119.0 140.7 Apparel and upkeep______________________________ Transportation___________________________________ Health and recreation_________________ Medical care___________ . . . . 119.8 118.6 122.2 128.4 119.3 119.5 122.6 129.3 119.0 '119.3 123.1 130.0 120.6 '118.6 123.6 130.4 121.6 '119.3 123.5 129.6 121.9 118.8 123.7 129.7 121.8 118.6 123.9 130.1 120.2 119.0 124.3 130.5 120.7 118.3 124.7 131.0 121.3 118.4 125.0 131.4 121.8 118.6 125.5 131.7 122.5 119.5 125.8 132.0 122.1 c 119.8 126.1 132.4 121.1 120.3 126.3 132.7 Special All All A ll 119.3 122.1 120.9 120.0 122.4 121.4 '120,2 '122.7 '121.6 '120.2 '123.1 '121.7 '120.3 '123.5 '122.1 120.4 123.7 122.3 120.9 123.9 122.7 120.9 124.0 122.8 212.5 124.2 123.4 121.8 124.5 123.6 122.1 124.9 123.9 122.4 125.4 124.3 122.7 125.7 124.6 123.1 125.9 125.1 Commodities_______ . . Nondurables_________________________________ Durables___________________ Services_____ _______________ 117.4 117.7 116.5 128.4 118.1 118.3 117.5 128.8 '118.2 118.6 '116.9 '129.4 '118.1 118.7 '116.4 '129.8 '118.4 118.8 '117.1 '130.0 118.5 118.9 117.4 130.4 118.9 119.5 117.2 130.8 118.7 119.2 117.3 131.5 119.4 120.3 117.1 131.8 119.7 120.6 117.3 132.0 119.9 120.7 117.7 132.4 120.3 121.0 118.4 132.7 120.7 121.2 119.2 133.1 121.2 121.7 119.6 133.5 Commodities less fo o d ........................... Nondurables less food. _____________________ Apparel commodities___________________ . . Apparel commodities less footwear___ Nondurables less food and apparel__________ Household durables_____ _______ . . . _______ Housefurnishings_____________________________ 116.8 117.0 120.1 119.9 115.2 112.9 114.3 117.0 116.7 119.5 119.3 115.1 113.2 114.7 '117.1 117.2 119.1 118.6 116.2 113.4 114.8 '117.4 118.2 120.9 120.7 116.6 113.5 114.9 '118.0 118.7 122.0 121.9 116.8 113.6 115.1 118.1 118.7 122.4 122.3 116.5 113.6 115.1 118.1 118.8 122.2 122.1 116.8 113.7 115.3 117.7 118.1 120.3 119.9 116.8 113.7 114.9 117.8 118.4 120.9 120.6 117.0 113.6 115.0 118.2 118.9 121.6 121.3 117.3 114.1 115.6 118.5 119.1 122.1 121.8 117.4 114.4 115.9 119.2 119.7 122.9 122.6 117.9 114.8 116.2 119.4 119.5 122.4 122.0 117.9 115.1 116.4 119.4 119.3 121.3 120.7 118.2 115.3 116.4 Services less rent______________ ____ ._ . . Household services less rent_____ _____ Transportation services________________________ Medical care services________________ ______ _ Other services_______ _____ __________________ 130.9 132.6 133.1 133.3 122.5 131.2 132.5 134.3 134.4 122.6 '131.9 133.6 '134.1 135.1 122.8 '132.3 134.2 '133.8 135.6 123.7 '132.5 134.7 '133.9 134.6 123.8 132.9 135.4 134.0 134.8 124.0 133.3 136.1 134.2 135.3 124.1 134.1 137.0 135.6 135.8 124.3 134 4 137.4 135.7 136.4 124.5 134.7 137.7 135.5 136.9 124.7 135.0 138.1 135.6 137.3 125.1 135.3 138.5 135.8 137.6 125.3 135.7 138.9 136.0 138.0 125.6 136.2 139.6 136.3 138.4 125.8 A ll item s___________________ A ll item s (1957-59=100)______________________ Food_________ ________ . . . Food at home___ Food away from home________ ___ . __ groups items less shelter________________ _____ ____ items less food_____ __ ...... items less medical care______ ______ _______ See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis July CONSUMER PRICES 1 1 3 CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 25. Continued—Consumer Price Index—U.S. average Group, subgroup, and selected items 1972 1971 Annual average 1971 July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July 118.4 119.8 120.0 119.1 118.9 119.0 120.3 120.3 122.2 122.4 122.4 122.3 123.0 124.2 Food av/ay from home Restaurant meals.. Snacks................... 126.1 125.8 127.5 126.5 126.2 128.0 127.1 126.9 128.2 127.6 127.3 128.6 128.0 127.7 129.5 128.2 127.9 129.4 128.3 128.0 129.6 128.6 128.3 130.0 128.9 128.6 130.0 129.4 129.3 130.2 130.0 129.9 130.6 130.4 130.4 130.7 130.9 130.9 131.0 131.3 131.3 131.1 Food at home....... ............... ........ Cereals and bakery products Flour................................. Cracker meal.................... Corn flakes........................ Rice...................... ........... Bread, w h ite .................. Bread, whole wheat.......... Cookies............................ Layer cake...................... Cinnamon rolls.................. 116.4 113.9 118.1 114.8 101.3 130.8 109.0 109.6 113.9 118.4 109.9 120.3 118.8 118.1 114.5 101.2 131.1 105.6 109.9 112.9 118.7 110.0 121.2 119.1 116.9 114.6 101.5 131.5 104.2 110.1 113.4 119.1 109.9 121.5 118.6 116.6 114.3 101.1 131.6 103.6 109.9 112.1 119.2 109.9 120.7 119.6 116.7 114.1 101.1 131.7 103.5 109.8 112.0 119.3 108.7 120.5 119.2 118.2 113.8 100.5 131.9 103.0 110.0 111.4 118.5 109.3 120.8 118.5 118.2 113.7 100.8 132.2 102.5 110.3 111.2 118.9 109.2 119.6 119.0 120.5 114.3 100.9 133.9 102.2 110.3 112.7 119.3 109.7 119.2 119.2 120.6 114.8 100.8 134.9 102.0 110.0 113.2 119.2 110.7 120.4 120.0 120.4 115.0 100.4 135.4 101.4 110.0 113.3 120.5 111.2 120.1 120.8 120.2 114.7 100.2 135.5 101.0 109.7 112.7 120.3 111.4 119.8 120.8 120.9 114.5 99.4 135.9 100.3 109.3 113.0 119.3 109.5 119.9 121.3 122.4 114.4 99.2 135.9 118.0 117.6 126.6 124.4 126.7 128.1 122.4 129.3 125.1 127.5 114.5 144.6 118.7 118.4 126.8 125.3 125.0 128.1 124.1 129.9 126.0 127.1 114.3 145.5 119.1 118.8 127.7 126.1 127.8 129.5 124.0 130.8 125.9 128.3 114.0 146.0 118.4 118.3 127.1 U 5 .5 125.3 127.3 125.2 129.3 125.6 127.6 114.8 146.7 118.1 118.2 126.6 125.2 123.5 125.7 124.0 128.8 125.9 127.6 114.7 147.2 118.9 119.1 128.0 126.3 125.5 127.5 124.4 131.8 128.9 129.1 114.6 148.0 120.7 121.1 130.8 130.8 128.5 131.1 128.1 135.2 131.0 130.8 114.8 150.1 126.3 127.5 136.1 137.2 132.1 134.4 134.6 139.2 139.5 135.9 118.3 156.2 126.8 127.9 137.1 137.5 132.3 134.8 135.4 140.1 141.2 137.3 121.3 157.4 125.9 126.9 135.9 134.0 130.9 132.2 132.7 138 2 137.6 136.6 128.5 159.1 124.8 125.6 134.1 130.6 127.5 130.4 129.2 136.6 133.9 135.7 132.2 159.6 126.4 127.5 135.8 132.6 131.9 134.0 132.1 136.7 132.4 136.6 133.0 162.0 129.9 131.3 139.4 137.3 136.9 139.2 135.6 141.0 138.4 138.7 133.0 164.5 105.8 109.8 108.7 112.8 102.0 107.9 96.6 106.3 110.5 109.2 112.0 102.4 108.7 97.4 107.2 111.2 109.7 111.4 105.9 111.3 97.3 109.2 111.4 112.9 110.0 113.3 101.0 119.4 124.2 121.4 120.3 112.6 122.7 114.0 118.2 119.0 119.5 123.5 114.3 123.8 112.6 116.7 115.9 115.8 124.6 112.7 122.8 112.3 115.4 118.0 114.7 119.8 114.7 119.0 124.9 126.1 110.5 e 112.0 121.0 119.9 110.8 113.1 124.0 130.7 130.1 129.1 113.9 122.7 116.3 124.0 131.6 124.4 113.0 128.9 126.8 119.3 FOOD. Meats, poultry, and fish........... Meats________ ________ Beef and veal............... Steak, round.......... Steak, sirloin........ Steak, porterhouse. Rump roast............ Rib roast................ Chuck roast........... Hamburger............. Beef liver............... Veal cutlets........... 101.0 129.8 107.3 109.4 112.3 117.5 108.7 120.1 118.2 116.9 116.7 124.9 123.5 122.8 124.1 122.4 126.2 124.4 126.2 113.7 100.0 109.6 112.7 119.7 109.9 120.2 120.7 Pork..................... Chops_____ Loin roast__ Pork sausage. Ham, whole.. Picnics.......... Bacon........... 105.0 107.4 106.6 111.4 103.9 108.0 96.6 104.7 108.0 106.6 110.9 103.0 105.6 96.7 106.9 113.1 111.4 102.9 107.4 96.6 106.4 109.9 110.0 113.0 103.8 106.7 97.7 Other meats............. Lamb chops___ Frankfurters___ Ham, canned__ Bologna sausage. Salami sausage. Liverwurst____ 115.6 121.5 115.1 107.2 118.8 116.3 114.3 116.1 123.5 114.7 105.9 119.4 117.4 115.5 116.4 124.2 115.7 106.6 119.8 117.6 114.2 117.0 124.7 116.0 108.0 120.4 117.7 114.8 116.5 123.4 116.0 107.8 120.1 116.8 114.5 116.5 124.5 115.9 108.3 119.9 116.4 113.8 116.6 124.4 115.2 107.8 120.1 117.4 114.1 116.8 124.8 115.4 109.0 120.0 116.9 114.2 120.3 127.1 121.3 111.4 124.5 119.8 117.4 121.6 127.3 123.3 112.7 126.3 122.5 117.5 122.0 126.7 123.1 112.6 127.8 123.8 118.3 121.7 126.6 122.1 113.6 126.8 124.2 117.1 122.8 129.5 122.4 112.8 c 128.1 125.4 118.4 109.0 108.5 109.5 112.1 112.3 111.1 112.2 112.1 111.7 113.5 112.6 112.2 111.9 112.7 113.3 110.0 109.0 111.3 113.7 108.1 106.8 109.7 112.9 107.5 106.2 109.8 111.4 108.4 107.5 110.4 110.7 110.1 112.0 112.2 111.6 112.5 113.7 109.4 108.3 111.6 112.9 108.4 107.2 111.9 110.9 108.9 107.6 112.4 111.4 141.3 136.3 149.1 134.0 145.6 142.0 136.5 151.5 133.3 146.6 Poultry........ ........... Frying chicken.. Chicken breasts. Turkey............ . Shrimp, frozen......... Fish, fresh or frozen Tuna fish, canned... Sardines, canned__ Dairy products............... Milk, fresh, grocery.. Milk, fresh, delivered Milk, fresh, skim....... Milk, evaporated....... Ice cream_____________ Cheese, American process. Butter.............................. Fruits and vegetables.............. Fresh fruits and vegetables.. Fresh fruits....... .......... Apples................... Bananas......... ...... Oranges................ Orange juice, fresh Grapefruit___ Grapes 1........ Strawberries 1 Watermelon l _ 111.1 111.8 111.5 113.7 111.6 131.0 118.8 141.9 129.1 134.3 131.9 119.9 142.4 129.1 136.3 132.5 119.7 142.5 129.2 138.5 132.8 120.1 143.0 128.9 139.1 132.9 120.6 142.7 128.2 139.7 133.2 120.4 142.7 128.7 140.9 134.7 123.1 144.7 128.6 142.2 137.0 128.3 145.0 130.4 144.1 138.3 131.9 144.9 132.0 144.1 139.8 133.9 146.2 133.3 145.4 115.3 114.6 117.6 119.7 118.6 116.0 115.1 118.1 120.5 120.4 116.0 115.2 118.1 120.3 121.2 116.1 115.4 118.1 120.8 121.2 116.0 115.3 118.1 120.3 121.4 115.9 115.2 118.1 120.1 120.2 116.1 115.2 118.5 120.1 120.6 116.4 115.7 118.8 120.5 120.9 116.9 116.4 119.4 121.3 120.9 117.3 116.9 120.0 121.8 120.8 117.4 116.9 120.0 121.9 120.8 117.3 116.8 120.3 122.0 120.5 117.0 116.3 120.3 121.9 118.8 116.8 116.0 120.3 121.9 118.1 106.2 107.2 122.1 105.6 106.5 122.0 105.7 106.9 121.8 105.8 106.1 122.1 105.8 106.4 122.3 105.7 107.2 122.1 105.4 106.7 122.3 105.8 106.1 123.4 105.8 107.1 123.4 105.8 106.8 124.2 105.7 106.5 124.1 105.3 106.7 125.4 104.8 106.5 124.5 104.7 126.0 132.2 132.0 136.1 97.4 128.7 126.8 123.6 127.4 133.8 139.0 99.5 135.3 128.2 116.6 115.3 124.0 125.3 98.5 138.3 129.4 115.6 113.6 115.9 101.8 101.8 137.1 129.1 117.8 117.3 113.0 98.5 94.1 133.1 129.9 124.4 128.2 112.2 102.1 92.2 128.4 130.5 120.9 122.1 112.6 106.8 92.6 123.7 130.8 123.9 126.8 115.2 109.9 100.4 122.0 130.6 121.4 122.3 115.5 112.2 98.3 121.3 130.7 122.1 123.2 120.1 114.1 109.4 117.3 131.3 123.9 126.7 121.0 121.8 104.4 118.0 130.6 127.2 132.2 130.8 131.4 108.4 123.3 130.6 128.4 134.1 134.2 140.3 105.0 126.9 130.8 168.2 171.4 175.9 169.7 171.6 120.3 153.5 119.6 126.8 138 2 120.6 121.2 121.1 124.6 122.4 131.9 145.1 152.4 180.9 119.2 103.3 115.0 144.8 125.9 113.6 107.3 120.9 125.7 128.6 125.2 162.4 116.2 150.4 131.4 113.7 112.0 141.0 134.1 138.5 148.6 122.0 109.3 207.7 133.4 123.8 122.9 138.1 124.9 135.5 135.3 128.8 120.9 160.2 121.0 105.8 119.1 121.0 117.5 114.2 95.5 125.5 124.3 135.7 143.8 114.1 141.7 Lettuce............. 124.1 142.9 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 111.1 111.0 130.2 117.6 140.2 128.4 134.7 123.9 117.3 104.4 131.0 See footnotes at end of table. 111.1 140.2 133.7 147.7 133.7 145.7 Fresh vegetables... Potatoes.......... Onions........... Asparagus1. . . Cabbage_____ Carrots........... Celery______ Cucumbers___ Peppers, green 111.1 122.2 129.9 118.5 120.1 135.1 119.0 132.4 134.0 111.1 122.4 127.7 115.2 108.6 115.0 111.3 111.8 111.2 109.8 120.8 110.2 106.2 141.3 112.4 105.5 129.8 112.7 105.7 136.3 114.7 106.8 127 3 127.4 163.6 122.3 109.5 125.4 131.6 109.4 162.7 125.6 90.0 124.0 105.2 103.4 125.5 111.2 84.8 111.4 90.8 106.4 117.3 111.5 96.6 123.2 97.5 113.3 120.6 129.1 104.9 146.6 118.5 158.3 134.2 161.3 125.2 173.0 148.3 145.3 145.7 174.6 120.9 133.6 114.0 144.1 142.4 172.0 148.2 152.1 134.3 127.9 115.4 105.1 163.5 133.4 143.8 164.3 145.5 106.4 147.8 121.0 134.2 143.0 148.0 145.7 122.5 128.9 140.0 119.3 110.8 145.4 114 25. CONSUMER PRICES MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 Continued—Consumer Price Index—U.S. average Group, subgroup, and selected items Annual average 1971 1972 1971 July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July FOOD— Continued Spinach.................................................... Tomatoes................................ ................ 129.2 131.8 129.8 154.3 129.0 122.0 128.1 95.4 130.8 106.0 131.0 121,7 140.0 159.1 143.8 139.1 143 8 140.2 135.8 112.9 135.5 130.7 136.5 135.2 135.2 155.1 137. 130. Processed fruits and vegetables____ ____ ____ Fruit cocktail, canned................................... Pears, canned_________ ______________ Pineapple-grapefruit d rin k _____________ Orange juice concentrate, frozen................. Lemonade concentrate, frozen__________ 116.2 117.9 116.7 113.6 127.2 113.9 116.9 119.0 116.9 113.5 130.3 113.8 117.9 119.1 117.4 114.1 133.6 114.8 118.6 120.2 117.7 114.0 136.3 115.5 118.4 120.0 117.5 114.5 136.0 115.9 118.5 119.9 116.9 115.1 135.3 115.3 118.8 120.2 116.5 114.4 135.6 116.9 119.2 121.4 116.9 114.7 135.8 117.4 119.5 120.9 117.3 114.4 135.9 117.5 119.9 121.4 117.2 115.2 136.6 117.8 120.3 122.2 117.3 115.6 136.6 118.0 119.8 121.6 117.3 114.8 136.2 117.3 119.9 121.1 117.7 114.3 135.3 117.3 120. 121. 117. 115. 136. 115. Beets, canned............................. ................. Peas, green, canned___________________ Tomatoes, canned____________________ Dried beans.__________ ______________ Broccoli, frozen.............................................. 115.1 106.6 115.6 122.8 117.7 115.7 107.2 115.9 124.7 118.2 116.6 107.6 116.2 128.1 118.7 117.5 108.0 116.6 129.5 118.4 117.4 107.0 115.7 130.6 117.9 116.8 108.0 115.7 131.9 117.8 117.0 108.6 115.1 133.2 117.9 118.3 108.6 114.9 133.9 117.8 119.0 108.5 115.3 135.4 118.5 119.8 107.9 115.5 136.5 119.0 120.2 108.7 115.4 137.1 119.2 120.4 107.4 115.6 137.0 118.1 121.4 107.2 115.5 136.9 118.9 121. 107. 115. 137. 118. Other food at h o m e ................... ....................... Eggs------------- ---------------------------------------Fats and oils: Margarine........ ....... ............. ........... .. Salad dressing, Italian.................... .. Salad or cooking o il____ __________ 115.9 108.4 115.7 105.2 116.7 109.7 115.5 102.4 116.2 106.7 115.6 103.2 116.6 110.5 116.2 108.0 115.6 101.4 116.7 107.5 116.2 102.9 116.0 101.7 114.5 94.2 115. 101. 116.0 109.3 120.1 115.6 110.2 119.7 116.4 110.0 121.6 117.6 110.2 123.3 118.1 109 9 123.4 117.8 110.6 123.5 117.7 110.9 123.5 117.3 110.2 123.9 118.1 110.4 124.0 118.6 110.8 123.7 118.4 111.4 123.0 117.8 110.6 122.3 118.2 109.1 121.5 117. 109. 120. Sugar and sw e e ts .................... ................... Sugar____ ____ ____ _ _ ... Grape je lly _______________________ Chocolate bar________________ ____ Syrup, chocolate flavored______ ___ Nonalcoholic beverages________________ Coffee, can and bag_______________ Coffee, instant . . ____________ ___ Tea_________________________ Cola d rink______ _____ _ ____ Carbonated fruit d rink.................. 119.3 112.5 119.3 130.9 113.2 121.6 121.8 124.7 107.6 125.9 126.4 119.7 112.6 120.4 131.3 113.3 122.0 121.8 124.9 108.5 126.4 127.2 120.3 113.2 121.7 131.7 113.4 122.0 121.8 125.2 108.0 126.7 127.5 120.2 113.5 121.6 131.4 113.2 121.0 119.1 125.4 108.0 127.0 127.6 120.1 113.4 121.2 131.5 113.0 121.2 119.3 125.3 107.8 127.3 127.8 120.0 113.5 121.4 131.3 112.5 120.9 119.0 125.1 107.8 127.1 127.7 120.1 113.5 121.6 131.3 112.7 120.5 118.5 125.1 106.0 127.1 127.9 120.1 113.6 121.5 130.8 113.3 120.4 118.2 124.7 106.1 127.7 127.9 120.5 114.3 122.7 130.7 113.4 120.7 118.3 125.5 107.1 127.8 127.6 121.2 114.9 124.5 130.6 113.5 120.9 118.3 125.1 108.1 128.1 128.2 121.4 115.3 125.1 130.8 113.4 120.9 118.2 125.0 108.2 128.2 128.2 121.4 115.4 125.5 130.8 112.6 121.0 118.1 125.0 108.9 128.2 128.3 120.6 114.8 124.9 130.6 111 1 120.5 117.2 124.3 109.0 127.8 128.3 120. 114. 125 130 110 120 117 123 108 128 127. Prepared and partially prepared foods Bean soup, canned . . . ____ . Chicken soup, canned_________ Spaghetti, canned_____________ ___ 112.7 114.1 106.4 117.3 113.1 113.7 106.4 117.1 113.5 114.8 106.3 117.6 113.4 114.7 106.6 117.7 113.4 114.7 106.5 117.7 113.2 114.7 106.0 117.7 113.3 114.7 105.7 117.5 113.5 114.5 106.4 118.1 114.1 115.7 106.9 117.8 114.4 116.2 106.4 116.8 114.5 116.3 106.6 117.4 114.7 116.6 105.8 118.3 114.4 116.3 104 ? 118.9 114 116 104 119. Mashed potatoes, instant_______ Potatoes, French fried, frozen............ Baby food, canned____________ Sweet pickle relish.................. .. . Pretzel's_____________________ 110.8 110.1 110.9 117.4 113.1 112.4 110.8 111.0 117.4 114.5 111.9 110.9 111.8 118.9 114.1 110.4 110.3 111.8 119.5 114.5 110.4 109.9 111.6 120.0 114.4 110.7 108.5 111.3 120.6 114.0 111.0 109.3 111 1 121.2 114.5 111.5 108.5 111.1 122.0 114.1 112.2 110.0 111.2 122.5 114.5 112.3 110.4 111.4 124.4 115.2 111.3 111.0 111.4 125.2 115.0 112.2 110.8 111.3 125.2 115.5 11? 3 111 Ò 110 4 124 3 116.1 Ill 110 110 124 115. HOUSING_________________ 124.3 124.5 125,1 125.5 125.9 126.4 126.8 127.3 127.6 127.9 128.2 128.5 129.0 129. 128.8 115.2 133.7 128.8 115.4 133.5 129.5 115.8 134.4 130.1 116.1 135.1 130.6 116.4 135.7 131.3 116.6 136.7 131.6 116.9 137.0 132.3 117.1 137.8 132.5 117.5 138.0 132.7 117.7 138.2 133.0 118.1 138.5 133.4 118.3 138.9 134.1 118.8 139.6 134. 119. 140. Mortgage interest rates____________ Propérty taxes_______ ________ ___ Property insurance rates___________ Maintenance and re p a irs ........... ........ 120.4 131.1 119.9 133.7 117.4 130.5 121.5 134.7 118.1 132.2 121.5 135.8 118.7 133.1 121.5 136.8 119.1 134.6 122.4 137.0 118.9 136.3 122.4 137.1 118.6 137.6 122.4 137.4 118.4 141.1 122.4 137.8 118.2 141.8 122.4 138.0 117.7 143.6 122.4 138.6 117.1 144.7 122.6 139.2 117.0 145.0 122.7 139.9 117.1 144.8 122.6 140.6 117. 144. 123. 141. Commodities Exterior house paint_______ Interior house paint__ 119.0 115.9 114.5 119.9 115.7 114.2 120.6 115.3 115.2 120.9 116.5 115.5 120.9 116.5 115.6 120.8 116.5 115.3 120.8 116.8 115.4 121.3 117.7 115.8 121.3 117.9 115.6 122.0 118.2 116.3 122.4 118.5 116.4 123.3 117.5 117.2 123.9 117.4 117.5 124. 117. 117. Services_______ _ Repainting living and dining rooms_____ _________ Reshingling roofs_____ Residing houses__________ Replacing sinks____ ____ . . . Repairing furnaces_______ __ 140.0 141.2 142.4 143.7 144.0 144.1 144.6 144.9 145.2 145.9 146.5 147.1 147.8 148. 148.3 144.8 130.6 140.6 144.3 149.6 147.2 131.1 142.2 144 5 151.3 148.8 132.1 143.0 145.9 153.0 150.1 132.8 143.4 148.9 153.1 150.7 133.1 143.4 149.2 153.6 150.6 133.2 143.6 149.1 154.0 151.6 133.3 143.7 150.2 154.4 152.0 133.4 143.9 150.9 155.1 152.3 133.7 144.2 151.2 155.6 153.0 133.9 145.1 152.2 156.5 154.3 134.5 145.5 152.4 157.7 155.0 135.0 145.7 152.8 159.5 156.2 135.2 145.8 153.6 160. 156. 135. 146. 154. 115.1 117.5 116.1 114.7 116.3 113.2 115.5 117.5 116.1 114.7 116.1 113.5 116.3 117.8 116.4 115.7 116.8 114.6 116.3 117.8 116.4 115.7 116.8 114.6 116.3 117.8 116.4 115.7 116.8 114.6 116.8 118.1 116.4 116.2 118.1 114.5 117.9 118.1 116.4 118.2 120.5 116.0 118.7 118.7 116.5 119.0 121.7 116.6 119.3 118.7 116.5 119.4 121.9 117.0 119.6 118.7 116.5 119.7 122.2 117.2 119.9 118.6 116.5 102.2 122.3 118.2 120.1 118.7 116.5 120.5 122.2 118.9 120.1 117.8 116.5 120.3 121.2 119.5 120. 117. 116. 120. 121. 119. 108.0 133.4 108.9 135.0 110.2 135.0 110.2 135.0 110.2 135.0 110.2 136.4 110.7 136.4 111.8 136.4 113.5 136.4 113.5 137.7 113.7 137.7 114.0 137.7 114.9 137.7 115. 138. 118.1 114.3 111.6 113.9 110.0 107.8 118.4 118.9 114.7 111.3 112.0 110.7 106.7 119.3 119.1 114.8 111.1 110.2 111.5 107.0 118.9 119.4 114.9 111.9 114.0 111.3 107.4 118.8 119.5 115.1 112.2 113.4 111.5 107.8 119.5 119.5 115.1 112.9 116.5 110.9 108.4 119.0 119.6 115.3 113.1 116 5 110 6 108.8 119.1 119.5 114.9 110.8 110.1 110.3 105.1 118.9 119.6 115.0 112.1 114.1 111.2 106.9 119.6 120.1 115.6 113.2 114.4 110.9 109.8 121.2 120 5 115.9 113.7 116 0 111.3 111 0 121 1 120 8 116.2 113.6 114 9 112.2 111 5 121.7 121 0 116.4 114 2 llfi 7 112 1 111 6 1?? 7 171 116. 113 111.8 112.2 112.4 111.6 112.5 112 8 113.2 113.1 113.0 114.6 113.7 113.7 113.8 Shelter_______________ Rent_______________ _____ Homeownership. ____ Fuel and u t ilitie s . . Fuel oil and coal. . Fuel oil, #2_________ Gas and electricity_____ Gas______________ . Electricity__________ ____ . . Other utilities: Residential telephone____ Residential water and sewerage_________ Household fu rn ish in g s and ope rations_____ ____ House furnishings___ ___ Textiles____ _ _____ __ Sheets, percale, or muslin. . Curtains, tailored, polyester m arquisette.. Bedspreads, chiefly cotton .. . . Drapery fabric, cotton or rayon/acetate... Slipcovers, throws, ready made, chiefly cotton________ ___________________ See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 113 112 110 173 114. CONSUMER PRICES 1 1 5 CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 25. Continued—Consumer Price Index—U.S. average Group, subgroup, and selected items 1972 1971 Annual ïverage 1971 HOUSING—Continued July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Furniture and bedding ___________ Bedroom furniture, chest and dresser2 - Dining room chairs2 . . ____________ Sofas upholstered _________ Sofas dual purpose _ __ ___ Bedding, mattress, and box springs 3____ Cribs ______________________ 119.1 103.6 103.0 117.5 116.4 103.4 117.9 119.6 104.5 103.2 116.8 116.4 103.9 118.9 119.6 104.5 102.9 117.5 116.5 104.0 118.0 119.7 104.6 103.4 117.5 116.3 103.7 118.4 119.9 104.7 103.3 119.4 116.4 104.1 118.0 119.9 104.8 103.4 119.1 116.4 103.9 119.2 120.1 104.7 103.5 119.5 116.9 104.4 118.8 100.0 100.0 119.8 104.6 103.4 119.3 116.7 103.7 118.0 100.1 99.2 119.5 104.1 103.3 119.0 115.9 104.4 118.1 99.7 98.2 120.7 104.6 104.2 119.7 116.9 104.4 119.0 99.5 98.6 121.0 104.9 104.9 120.2 116.8 104.5 117.6 100.6 98.7 121.7 105.3 105.3 120.6 117.2 104.5 118.0 100.4 98.7 121.5 105.1 105.1 120.8 116.9 104.5 119.0 100.4 98.0 121.3 104.8 104.1 120.6 116.9 104.9 119.3 100.0 98.0 Floor coverings . ____________________ Broadloom carpeting, manmade fib e rs ., . ________________ Vinyl sheet goods . Vinyl asbestos tile . ________________ . . 106.3 102.3 114.7 116.6 106.3 102.1 114.9 116.9 106.8 102.7 115.9 116.4 106.5 102.2 116.1 116.7 106.5 102.3 116.0 116.7 106.3 101.8 116.3 117.0 106.6 102.1 116.5 117.4 106.3 101.9 115.6 117.6 106.1 101.4 116.3 117.6 106.3 101.5 116.7 117.8 106.5 101 6 117.7 117.9 106.7 101.8 117.7 118.3 106.4 101.4 117.9 118.2 106.8 101.7 118.6 118.2 Appliances ... _ _ ___ - -Washing machines, automatic___________ VacuunTcleaners, canister type_________ 105.5 109.4 103.8 105.7 109.7 104.3 105.7 109.9 104.3 105.8 110.1 104.3 105.8 110.0 104.1 105.7 110.0 103.9 105.8 110.0 103.6 105.8 110.2 104.0 105.7 110.4 103.8 105.8 110.6 103.7 105.7 110.4 103.7 105.7 110.4 103.8 105.8 110.5 104.0 105.8 110.6 103.8 Refrigerator-freezers . _____ . . _____ Ranges, free standing, gas or electric------- 108.1 111.0 108.3 111.7 108.2 111.4 108.3 111.2 108.3 112.0 108.2 111.0 108.3 111.3 108.2 111.2 108.3 110.4 108.3 110.5 108.0 110.4 107.9 107.9 110.0 o 111.0 107.9 111.3 Clothes dryers, electric________________ 112.4 110.2 108 1 110.1 113.1 111.4 113.2 111.0 113.4 113.1 113.0 113:0 113.3 113.5 113.7 111.1 114.4 111.0 114.5 110.9 110.Ï 110.2 110.3 108.5 110.3 108.9 110.4 108.6 110.9 108.4 111.0 113.6 110.4 108.5 111.0 113.6 110.4 108.0 110.2 111.2 111.0 111.0 111.0 117.8 120.4 121.0 118.4 120.4 121.9 118.9 121.5 122.3 119.2 121.7 122.2 119.3 122.1 122.0 119.2 122.0 122.2 119.4 121.8 121.8 120.1 122.0 122.0 121.0 122.2 122.2 122.2 121.4 121.7 122.6 121.8 122.2 122.9 121.6 121.8 123.7 122.9 123.0 125.4 123.7 124.4 Housekeeping supplies: Laundry soaps and detergents. _____ __ Paper napkins _ _ _________ _____ Toilet tissue __________ _______ 109.8 125.7 123.6 110.6 127.6 124.0 111.1 128.1 122.6 111.1 128.3 123.7 110.9 128.8 123.9 110.6 128.9 123.6 110.8 128.6 123.8 111.0 128.6 124.5 111.0 128.4 124.8 111.2 128.9 125.1 111.1 129.5 125.6 110.9 130.8 126.0 111.0 130.6 125.2 111.1 131.7 124.4 Housekeeping services: Domestic service, general housework________ Baby sitter service _____ . . ______ Postal charges __ . ___ ______ Laundry, flatwork ________ _________ Licensed day care service, preschool child____ Washing machine repair___________________ 133.8 130.0 138.1 133.3 118.2 135.3 134.5 130.5 146.6 133.9 118.0 137.3 134.9 130.7 146.6 134.6 119.0 137.3 135.1 132.1 146.6 135.0 119.1 137.4 135.3 132.3 146.6 135.4 119.4 137.6 136.0 132.4 146.6 135.6 119.1 138.2 136.1 132.8 146.6 136.3 119.4 138.2 136.4 133.4 146.6 136.4 119.4 138.1 136.4 133.8 146.6 136.6 120.0 138.4 136.9 134.8 146.6 137.0 120.3 138.9 138.4 135.0 146.6 137.6 120.8 138.9 138.9 135.3 146.6 138.0 121.3 140.4 139.2 135.6 146.6 138.5 122.2 140.8 139.4 136.6 146.6 139.0 122.4 141.1 Garbage disposal units _______ ______ Other house furnishings: Dinnerware earthenware ___________ _____________ Flatware stainless steel Table lamps with shade____ ________ - ______________ 119.8 119.3 119.0 120.6 121.6 121.9 121.8 120.2 120.7 121.3 121.8 122.5 122.1 121.1 Men's and boys’ _________________________ 120.3 119.9 119.6 120.8 121.8 121.8 121.6 119.9 119.7 120.3 121.9 122.4 121.9 120.4 127.1 125 1 112.2 117.3 131.0 113.5 127.7 121.9 130.5 123.4 132.4 124.4 133.0 124.2 131.5 121.2 126.5 119.5 125.6 Jackets lightweight ______________ Slacks, wool or blend ________________ Slacks cotton or blend ________ ____ Trousers, work, cotton_________________ 122 3 129.0 129 2 112.5 116.8 132.3 113.0 112.1 115.4 130.9 113.7 112.2 118.2 132.5 113.7 112.9 118.2 133.9 114.0 114.2 117.6 134.7 114.0 114.3 116.8 134.7 114.0 113.0 115.7 134.0 114.1 112.7 116.3 137.1 114.4 119.3 127.6 130.9 115.0 115.7 137.4 114.4 131.1 136.3 115.1 117.2 137.0 114.6 132.4 138.0 115.7 116.7 137.3 114.7 131.8 136.8 114.8 114.9 133.9 114.7 128.1 131.3 114.0 113.5 133.1 115.0 Shirt, work cotton ____________ Shirt, business, cotton ____ ______ -T-shirts, chiefly cotton . . . ______ Socks cotton or manmade f ib e r s . _____ Handkerchiefs, c o tto n ___ __ _______ 113.3 112.7 119.0 115.5 114.9 113.9 113.1 119.4 114.9 115.2 114.0 112.4 119.0 114.9 115.2 114.2 113.0 118.8 115.2 115.4 114.6 113.0 118.9 115.7 115.7 114.8 114.4 118.4 115.7 115.7 114.5 114.4 118.2 115.8 116.1 114.5 112.6 118.3 114.3 116.3 114.2 112.7 118.0 114.9 116.0 114.5 112.4 117.8 116.2 116.2 114.9 113.1 117.4 116.6 115.4 115.1 113.4 117.4 116.7 115.7 115.5 113.7 117.4 116.7 116.2 115.4 112.1 117.4 115.9 116.3 Boys’ : Coats, all purpose, cotton or cotton blend *. Sport coats, wool or blend 1_ - __________ Dungarees, cotton or b le n d __ ______ Undershorts, cotton __ ___ ___ _ 118.3 122.0 122.5 119.5 123.5 123.2 119.6 120.3 118.3 125.2 119.6 118.3 121.3 125.8 119.6 115.8 118.1 126.4 119.9 122.3 122.7 119.9 119 2 128.1 123.2 119.6 114.8 122.6 119.1 126.1 120.6 126.3 120.5 127.1 120.5 127.1 120.5 127.3 120.5 127.5 120.8 120.1 119.3 118.2 121.3 122.7 123.4 123.2 120.2 121.7 122.5 122.3 123.4 122.6 121.2 121.7 131.1 127.2 135.7 127.7 142.1 126 0 142.1 116.2 135.0 125.3 122 1 127.5 140.3 120.0 129.4 122.2 131.1 143 8 110.4 116.2 117.9 123.4 121.6 130.1 142.7 111.2 116.2 118.1 123.4 117.6 129.6 138.4 111.2 116.7 116.1 122.3 122.9 131.3 122.2 320.4 115.5 123.7 130.1 121.3 124.3 129.6 121.4 122.8 128.8 116.7 123.4 127.4 111.0 110.5 116.5 117.4 121.6 110.9 116.6 118.2 121.9 110.9 117.0 118.2 121.9 111.0 118.1 116.9 121.9 110.8 118.1 116.9 122.1 APPAREL AND UPKEEP Men's: Topcoats, wool or all weather coats, polySuits, year round weight_______________ Women's and girls' _ _____________ Women’ s: Coats, heavyweight, wool or wool blend * . . Skirts, wool or wool blend 1____________ Skirts, cotton or polyester cotton or man- 122.9 131.7 114.7 121.8 124.5 102 9 119.1 126.8 110.9 115.7 116.3 121.2 111.1 111.1 115.7 116.8 121.2 115.8 117.1 122.2 Blouses, co tto n .. . . ____________ Dresses, street, chiefly manmade fiber— Dresses, street, wool or wool blend 1-------Slips, nylon . . _____________ Panties acetate or nylon . ______ .. Girdles manmade blend _ _____ ___ Brassieres, nylon lace__ ______________ 114 O 121.9 127.6 140.4 110.7 115.2 116.2 120.9 Hose, or panty hose, nylon, seamless------Anklets or knee-length socks, various fibers ____________________ Gloves, fabric, nylon or cotton................... Handbags, rayon faille or plastic............... 98.9 99.2 98.6 97.9 98.1 98.2 98.3 97.4 97.7 97.5 96.1 96.5 96.0 96.4 115.8 109.6 132.4 115.6 110.5 132.1 114.8 109.7 134.2 114.8 109.9 135.6 114.6 109.5 134.8 115.6 109.7 136.8 116.4 109.8 138.2 115.9 110.2 138.9 115.8 109.8 140.2 116.1 110.3 141.5 115.9 110.7 142.5 114.9 111.2 143.2 114.4 111.7 144.6 114.4 109.9 142.8 See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 111.1 115.4 117.7 123.0 116.3 117.2 121.3 116 25. CONSUMER PRICES MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 Continued—Consumer Price Index—U.S. average Group, subgroup, and selected items APPAREL AND UPKEEP— Continued Girls’ : Raincoats, vinyl plastic or chiefly cotton l _ Skirts, wool or wool blend 1____________ Dresses, cotton,manmade fibers or blends Slacks, cotton 1________ ______________ Slips, cotton blend_______ _______ ____ Handbags____ ______ __________ ____ _ Footw ear. Annual average 1971 116.5 106.8 107.4 131.3 110.4 129.0 1971 1972 July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 105.2 107.4 115 6 105 2 109.3 110.4 129.7 109.8 126.9 111.0 128.3 118 5 109 0 110.3 131 8 110.9 129.3 119 5 107 1 109.4 131 5 111.3 130.0 119 3 108 6 109.3 131 7 111.9 129.3 117.1 117.3 100.2 107.2 108.9 131.1 111.7 c 112.1 127.5 124.1 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June 119.2 121.4 125.3 119.2 120.0 112.1 128.8 111.1 130.6 111.0 129.8 110.2 124.7 110.5 122.6 July 116.8 121.5 120.9 121.5 122.2 122.7 132.2 123.1 122.7 122.7 123.5 124.1 124.6 124.7 124.6 Men’ s: Shoes, street (oxford or buckle s tra p )___ Shoes, work, high______ ______________ 119.6 118.7 119.4 118.9 119.2 119.5 120.9 120.0 119.8 120.1 121.1 120.4 121.0 120.6 119.7 121.1 119.9 121.4 121.6 121.3 121.4 121.3 123.1 121.5 123.8 120.9 124.2 123.2 Women’s: Shoes, street, p u m p ... Shoes, evening, pump. Shoes, casual, p um p.. Houseslippers, s c u ff... 123.4 120.2 124.1 121.9 122.0 118.8 122.9 122.5 122.9 119.6 123.5 123.5 123.2 120.3 124.3 123.4 124.5 121.0 125.7 123.5 125.2 121.0 126.0 123.6 125.1 121.1 125.8 123.4 124.3 120.7 125.1 124.0 123.8 120.5 124.7 124.0 124.6 121.4 125.5 124.2 125.8 122.0 126.5 124.5 126.6 122.1 125.9 124.3 125.9 122.3 126.1 124.8 125.1 121.8 122.8 125.4 Children's: Shoes, oxford__________________ Sneakers, boys', oxford type____ Dress shoes, girls’, strap or pump. 122.3 118.8 125.8 122.1 119.4 124.4 122.4 119.4 126.4 122.8 119.5 127.3 123.8 119.7 128.4 124.4 119.9 128.6 124.1 120.3 128.4 122.4 121.0 128.6 123.6 121.5 128.7 124.6 122.3 128.7 125.9 122.6 129.5 126.5 123.1 129.8 126.9 123.5 129.8 127.3 124.2 130.1 M iscellaneous apparel: Diapers, cotton gauze or disposable. Yard goods, polyester blend_______ 112.0 122.1 112.3 122.4 112.5 121.9 112.7 122.1 112.8 122.1 113.3 122.3 113.3 121.9 113.0 120.6 113.0 120.5 113.2 118.9 113.5 118.1 114.0 117.8 114.5 119.0 115.3 119.1 Apparel services: Drycleaning, men’s suits and women’s dresses. Automatic laundry service_________________ Laundry, men’s shirts_____________________ Tailoring charges, hem adjustm ent_________ Shoe repairs, women’s heel lif t _____________ 116.6 113.8 119.1 128.5 112.0 116.8 112.9 119.1 12».3 112.3 116.8 113.2 119.2 129.0 112.4 117.1 113.3 119.1 129.6 113.5 117.2 113.3 119.2 130.0 114.0 117.0 113.8 119.2 131.2 114.0 117.1 113.9 120.4 131.6 113.8 117.2 113.7 120.5 131.7 113.8 117.4 114.3 120.7 131.8 113.8 117.4 114.2 120.9 132.1 114.0 117.4 114.9 120.6 132.1 114.6 117.5 115.1 120.8 132.5 115.1 117.5 114.8 121.0 132.5 115.4 117.6 114.9 121.6 132.9 115.6 TRANSPORTATION. P riv a te ________________________ Automobiles, new____________ Automobiles, used___________ Gasoline, regular and premium. Motor oil, premium__________ Tires, new, tubeless_________ Auto repairs and maintenance. Auto insurance rates________ Auto registration................ ....... Public____ _____ _____ ______ Local transit fares_________ Taxicab fares_____________ Railroad fares, coach______ Airplane fares, chiefly coach. Bus fares, intercity________ HEALTH AND RECREATION. M edical care______________________ Drugs and prescriptions_________ Over-the-counter ite m s ........... Multiple vitamin concentrates. Aspirin compounds_________ Liquid tonics____ ____ ____ Adhesive bandages, package. Cold tablets or capsules____ Cough syrup______________ Prescriptions............. ........... . Anti-infectives_________ Sedatives and hypnotics. Ataractics_____________ A n ti-spasm odics........... Cough preparations________________ Cardiovasculars and antihypertensives. Analgesics, internal________________ Anti-obesity_______________________ Hormones_____________ Professional services: Physicians’ fee____________________ General physician, office visits_______ General physician, house visits_______ Obstetrical cases___________________ Pediatric care, office visits__________ Psychiatrist, office visits____________ Herniorrhaphy, adult_______________ Tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy____ See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 118.6 119.5 '119.3 '118.6 '119.3 118.8 118.6 119.0 118.3 118.4 118.6 119.5 o 119.8 120.3 116.6 112.0 110.2 106.3 120.0 117.4 113.8 113.5 104.1 120.5 '117.3 '109.3 112.5 107.9 121.0 '116.4 '105.6 111.6 108.7 121.5 '117.2 '109.1 111.7 108.8 121.7 116.6 109.6 110.2 106.9 121.8 116.3 110.4 107.2 107.3 121.9 116.4 112.2 105.3 106.7 122.3 115.7 111.9 103.0 105.7 122.5 115.9 111.7 103.9 106.1 122.7 116.1 111.7 106.4 105.0 122.9 117.1 0 117.3 111.4 111.3 110.0 c 112.0 106.2 105.6 123.3 123.4 117.8 111.0 112.7 106.9 123.9 116.3 129.2 141.4 123.2 116.2 130.3 142.7 123.8 117.3 131.0 142.9 123.7 117.5 131.2 142.9 123.7 117.6 131.3 141.8 123.7 118.8 131.6 141.8 123.7 118.3 131.9 141.8 123.7 117.9 133.1 141.0 127.1 117.4 133.6 140.8 127.1 116.6 134.0 140.9 127.1 116.0 134.3 140.7 127.5 116.3 134.6 140.6 127.5 115.8 134.9 140.7 127.5 116.0 135.2 141.1 127.5 137.7 143.4 126.5 126.8 126.9 132.7 139.0 143.8 131.7 127.4 129.6 132.9 139.1 144.0 131.7 127.4 129.6 132.9 139.3 144.0 131.7 127.7 129.6 135.9 139.3 144.0 131.7 127.7 129.6 135.9 139.3 144.0 131.7 127.6 129.6 135.9 139.7 144.4 132.8 128.2 lz 9 .6 136.1 143.4 150.2 132.8 128.2 129.6 136.1 143.5 150.3 132.8 128.2 129.6 136.1 142.3 148.4 132.9 126.9 129.6 137.6 142.7 149.1 132.9 127.0 129.6 137.6 142.7 149.1 132.9 127.0 129.6 137.6 143.0 149.9 133.6 122.7 129.2 138.1 143.3 150.3 133.6 122.9 129.2 138.1 122.2 122.6 123.1 123.6 123.5 123.7 123.9 124.3 124.7 125.0 125.5 125.8 126.1 126.3 128.4 105.4 110.2 96.6 114.1 129.3 105.5 110.0 95.4 114,3 130.0 105.6 110.2 95.3 114.2 130.4 105.7 110.3 95.1 115.1 129.6 105.6 110.4 95.4 115.8 129.7 105.7 110.5 95.4 115.4 130.1 105 6 110.2 95.1 114.0 130.5 105.5 110.3 95.1 114.1 131.0 105.5 110.6 95.0 114.5 131.4 105.5 110.8 95.1 115.0 131.7 105.5 110,9 95.2 115.4 132.0 105.7 111.7 95.3 117.7 132.4 105.8 111.6 95.0 118.1 132.7 105.6 111.2 95.1 116.6 101.3 122.6 111.3 112.4 101.2 123.2 111.8 111.2 101.3 123.8 112.2 111.3 100.7 124.1 112.0 111.4 100.9 123.6 112.0 111.4 100.8 123.6 113.2 111.2 100 8 124 1 112 9 111.3 100.8 123.8 112.8 111.7 101.2 123.7 113.1 112.7 101.2 123.9 113.5 112.9 101.2 124.1 113.2 112.8 101.3 124.1 113.9 114.1 101.3 123.6 113.9 113.9 101.2 123.4 114.2 113.5 101.3 80.2 122.9 101.7 107.1 101.6 80.4 123.9 101.2 108.1 101.7 80.0 123.8 102.3 108.1 101.8 79.9 124.2 li.2 .6 108.1 101.6 79.6 123.8 102.5 107.9 101.6 79.4 124.6 102.6 107.8 101 7 79 1 124 8 102 6 108.0 101.5 78.9 124.7 102.6 107.9 101.2 77.4 124.9 102.7 107.7 101.1 76.7 125.1 102.8 107.8 100.9 76.0 125.2 102.8 107.8 100.7 75.2 125.9 102.7 107.9 100.9 75.4 126.5 102.9 108.0 100.9 74.7 127.4 103.3 108.0 126.0 111.1 107.8 114.9 94.9 126.8 111.7 108.2 115.9 94.6 127.3 112.0 108.2 116.6 94.8 127.9 112.0 108.3 117.1 94.9 127.4 112.0 107.7 117.0 94.7 127.2 112.0 107.9 117.0 94.6 127 2 112 1 108.3 117.3 94.8 127.1 112.0 108.2 117.7 94.0 127.8 111.8 109.1 117.7 94.0 128.5 111.8 109.2 117.5 93.8 128.9 111.8 109.4 116.7 94.0 129.7 111.4 109.5 117.1 92.9 130.7 111.4 109.5 117.2 92.8 131.9 111.5 109.6 118.0 92.5 129.8 131.4 131.0 129.0 132.0 124.8 123.4 125.2 130.3 132.2 131.6 129.0 132.6 125.1 123.6 125.0 131.2 132.7 132.0 130.9 133.4 125.7 124.3 128.0 131.5 133.0 133.6 131.3 133.5 125.7 124.4 128.0 131.7 133.0 133.9 131.5 133.6 125.9 125.2 128.2 132.0 133.1 134.1 131.5 134.7 127.2 126.2 128.7 132.2 133.3 134.6 131.6 135.3 127.3 126.4 128.7 132.3 133.3 134.8 132.0 135.3 127.9 126.8 128.7 132.6 133.5 135.1 132.3 135.6 128.3 127.0 129.2 132.9 134.0 135.5 132.8 135.5 128.5 127.4 129.2 133.2 134.2 135.6 133.9 135.6 128.5 127.8 129.6 133.3 134.3 135.8 134.0 135.6 128.5 127.9 129.8 133.9 135.0 137.0 134.0 135.8 129.0 128.2 130.0 134.0 135.1 137.2 134.2 135.9 129.2 128.2 129.8 CONSUMER PRICES CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 25. 1 17 Continued—Consumer Price Index—U.S. average Group, subgroup, and selected items 1972 1971 Annual average 1971 July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July HEALTH AND RECREATION—Continued Dentists’ fees _ ________ .... _______ Fillings, adult, amalgam, one surface____ Extractions, adult_________ ______ Dentures, fu ll uppers__________________ 127.0 128.0 126.9 124.9 127.5 128.7 127.3 125.1 127.9 129.3 127.4 125.6 128.2 129.5 127.7 126.0 129.6 131.0 128.9 127.7 129.8 131.0 129.4 127.7 130.0 131.3 129.6 127.7 130.5 131.8 130.4 128.2 130.6 131.8 130.6 128.3 131.0 132.3 131.0 128.3 131.6 133.0 131.5 128.8 131.9 133.4 131.9 129.0 132.4 133.9 132.6 129.1 132.7 134.2 132.8 129.5 Other professional services: Examination, prescription, and dispensing of eyeglasses.. Routine laboratory tests__________ ___ 120.3 116.1 120.5 115.7 121.9 117.2 122.1 117.6 122.6 117.8 122.9 117.8 122.9 118.6 163.1 156.2 124.9 164.8 157.8 125.9 165.8 156.7 126.4 166.8 158.0 126.5 167.0 159.1 126.5 167.0 159.0 126.6 167.9 162.6 126.9 123.1 118.7 100.0 169.6 163.5 127.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 123.8 118.9 100.6 171.1 165.0 127.9 100.9 99.7 99.7 101.9 100.5 100.5 101.2 124.0 119.4 101.2 172.2 166.0 128.6 101.4 100.0 99.9 102.5 101.4 100.7 101.5 124.5 119.7 101.5 172.7 166.6 129.0 101.5 100.9 100.6 102.8 101.5 100.8 101.6 124.7 120.7 101.8 173.2 167.3 128.9 101.9 100.3 101.1 102.8 101.9 101.9 101.7 125.0 120.7 102.0 173.8 167.2 128.8 102.0 100.1 101.9 102.8 102.2 102.0 101.9 125.0 120.7 102.4 174.9 168.6 129.3 102.3 99.8 101.7 102.8 102.3 102.1 102.0 ............ .. . . Toilet goods___ . . . . . Toothpaste, standard dentifrice___ _ . . . Toilet soap, hard m illed______ _____ . . Hand lotions, liqu id__________________ 116.8 113.8 107.7 114.1 119.5 117.1 114.2 107.2 115.4 117.5 117.5 114.5 107.7 116.8 119.0 117.6 114.6 108.6 115.2 119.7 117.9 114.9 108.8 118.4 120.5 117.9 114.8 108.3 118.8 120.0 117.9 114.8 109.3 119.7 120.4 118.1 115.1 109.9 119.7 121.2 118.4 115.4 109.6 120.3 124.0 118.7 115.8 119.5 121.1 123.8 119.1 116.3 108.8 121.0 125.1 119.7 117.1 109.9 122.9 125.2 120.0 117.4 109.4 122.6 126.0 120.0 117.3 110.0 122.5 124.9 Shaving cream, aerosol_____ _ . _____ Face powder, pressed____ _______ ____ Deodorants, aerosol_______ . ____ _ Cleansing tissues_____ _ . . ____ Home permanent wave sets______ ____ 106.6 123.5 105.6 123.3 110.9 107.3 123.8 105.7 124.8 111.7 106.9 124.0 106.0 124.2 111.5 107.2 124.1 106.4 124.1 111.7 107.1 123.9 106.3 122.6 111.8 107.8 122.4 105.9 123.6 111.7 107.3 122.0 105.9 121.8 111.6 107.1 122.0 104.9 124.4 111.3 106.4 123.1 105.0 123.1 111.3 107.2 125.1 105.6 123.4 110.5 107.5 126.2 105.6 125.4 110.9 108.0 131.4 106.0 124.3 109.1 108.2 133.3 105.5 125.1 109.1 107.0 135. U 105.6 124.5 109.2 Personal care services___________ ______ . Men's haircuts______ ___________ . . . Beauty shop services__________________ 120.0 122.6 118.2 120.2 122.5 118.5 120.6 123.2 118.8 120.8 123.4 118.9 121.0 123.7 119.1 121.2 123.7 119.4 121.2 123.9 119.2 121.3 123.9 119.4 121.5 124.1 119.7 121.7 124.2 119.9 122.0 124.4 120.4 122.4 124.9 120.7 122.7 125.1 121.0 122.9 125.3 121.2 Reading and recreation...... ... ........................ . . Recreational goods. ._ . . . ________________ TV sets, portable and console_______ . . TV replacement tubes_________________ Radios, portable and table model________ 119.3 106.6 100.1 122.5 98.5 119.6 106.8 99.9 122.2 98.4 119.7 106.9 99.9 122.1 98.4 120.5 107.1 100.0 123.4 98.5 120.5 107.2 100 2 124.1 98.1 120.8 107.2 100.3 124.5 98.4 121.1 107.3 100.3 124.7 98.4 121.4 107.4 99.9 126.4 98.4 121.5 107.3 99.7 126.9 98.4 121.7 107.6 100.0 128.8 98.5 122.3 107.7 99.8 129.8 98.9 122.5 107.8 99.6 130.6 99.0 122.9 108.0 99.5 131.1 99.1 123.0 108.1 99.4 131.8 99.1 Tape recorders, portable___________ _ _ Phonograph records, stereophonic_______ Movie cameras, Super 8, zoom lens___ _ Film, 35mm, c o lo r... _________ _____ Bicycle, boys’ . . . . . . . . . . . ______ Tricycles.. . . . __________________ . . . 94.2 103.5 89.4 108.3 112.6 111.2 94.1 104.9 89.3 108.6 113.9 111.6 93.6 105.8 89.3 108.4 114.0 111.9 93.0 106.5 89.1 108.4 113.7 112.0 92.7 106.5 89.2 108.3 114.0 111.9 92.5 106.5 88.9 108.5 113.6 111.7 93.1 107.1 88.9 108.7 113.3 112.2 93.4 107.2 88.3 108.6 113.8 112.6 93.3 107.0 88.7 108.3 114.2 113.0 93.3 106.6 88.8 108.3 114.9 113.4 93.8 106.4 88.8 108.3 114.8 112.7 94.4 106.5 87.5 108.2 116.0 113.1 94.7 107.2 88.2 108.1 117.0 114.0 94.9 107.5 88.3 108.0 117.4 114.3 Recreational services__________ . . . ---------Indoor movie admissions_______________ 125.2 137.6 126.1 138.8 126.1 138.2 126.3 138.9 126.2 138.3 126.6 138.7 126.4 137.9 126.9 139.0 127.0 138.6 127.3 139.2 127.8 140.7 128.0 141.2 128.7 142.5 128.9 144.1 Drive-in movie admissions, adult________ Bowling fees, evening_________________ Golf greens fees 1 TV repairs, picture tube replacement____ Film developing, color_____ _. ______ 140.1 116.3 127.5 98.0 116.7 141.9 116.3 128.6 98.2 117.4 142.5 116.1 128.8 98.1 117.7 142.5 116.1 128.4 98.5 118.3 142.3 116.7 128.3 98.4 118.1 142.3 117.7 142.5 117.6 143.1 117.9 143.5 118.4 143.7 119.1 98.5 118.3 98.6 118.2 98.6 118.2 98.5 118.3 98.3 118.2 143.8 119.3 129.6 98.1 118.1 145.9 118.9 129.0 98.0 117.8 147.8 118.6 130.7 98.2 116.6 146.7 118.4 130.8 98.0 116.5 129.6 121.0 130.4 120.7 130.5 120.7 130.6 121.4 130.5 121.5 130.6 121.5 130.7 121.5 130.7 121.6 130.9 122.0 130.8 122.1 131.6 122.1 131.8 122.2 132.8 122.2 133.1 122.3 Cigarettes, nonfilter tip, regular size_________ Cigarettes, filter, king______ _______ ._ _. Cigars, domestic, regular_______________ . . . 120.9 126.4 127.9 128.1 107.1 121.2 126.9 128.5 128.6 106.3 121.8 127.9 129.6 129.6 107.3 122.4 128.9 130.2 130.8 108.5 122.6 128.9 130.2 130.8 108.7 122.8 129.0 130.3 130.8 109.3 123.0 129.2 130.6 131.1 109.5 123.5 130.2 131.6 132.2 109.7 124.3 132.0 133.2 134.3 110.3 124.6 132.5 133.7 134.8 110.6 125.1 132.7 133.9 135.0 110.7 125.4 133.2 134.4 135.5 110.7 125.6 134.0 135.6 136.1 110.9 125.8 134.0 135.6 136.1 110.9 Alcoholic beverages_______________________ .. Beer________ _________ ______ _________ Whiskey, spirit blended and straight bourbon.. Wine, dessert and ta b le ___ ___ . . _ ____ Beer, away from hom e... ___ _______ ____ 116.9 112.9 106.4 122.3 126.4 117.0 113.3 106.3 123.0 126.2 117.4 113.3 107.0 123.9 126.8 117.6 113.4 107.0 124.5 127.1 117.9 113.6 106.8 124.7 127.7 118.3 113.7 106.9 124.9 128.8 118.4 113.8 107.0 125.1 128.8 118.5 113.5 107.4 125.3 129.3 118.7 113.6 108.5 125.6 129.0 118.9 113.9 108.5 125.9 129.1 119.3 114.1 108.6 126.4 130.1 119.5 114.2 108.6 126.5 130.5 119.1 113.1 108.5 126.7 130.7 119.6 113.4 109.0 127.5 131.2 Financial and miscellaneous personal expenses: Funeral services, adult______ _____________ Bank service charges, checking accounts... . . Legal services, w ill________________________ 117.2 110.6 135.5 117.7 110.8 133.6 118.3 110.9 133.9 118.4 110.9 137.4 118.8 109.3 139.9 119.1 109.3 140.2 119.2 109.5 141.4 119.5 109.7 141.7 120.2 108.5 141.8 120.6 108.2 141.9 120.6 107.4 149.3 120.7 107.4 149.3 121.1 107.4 150.6 121.3 107.0 150.2 Hospital service charges5 Semiprivate rooms________________________ Operating room charges___________________ X-ray, diagnostic series, upper G .l----------------Laboratory test urinalysis5 Anti-infective tetracycline HCL5 Tranquilizer chlordizepoxide HCL5 Electrocardiogram5 1ntravenous solution saline5 Physical therapy whirlpool bath5 Oxygen inhalation therapy5 Personal care. _ ___. _ ______ _ Reading and education: Newspapers, street sale and d e liv e ry ... _ Piano lessons, beginner. ___________ OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES________________ Tobacco products. ____ . . _. ------------------ 1 Priced only in season. * March 1970=100. » June 1970=100. 4 December 1971 = 100. 5 January 1972=100. NOTE: For a description of the general method of computing the monthly Con sumer Price Index, see BLS Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies (BLS https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Bulletin 1711, 1971), chapter 10. r = revised. These figures have been recalculated to reflect the retroactive repeal of the automobile excise tax. Indexes for August recalculated to reflect adjustments for refunds on new cars in the August 15-31 period. Indexes for services reflect revision of auto finance charges which are imputed to changes in new car prices. °=corrected. 118 26. CONSUMER PRICES Consumer Price Index MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 1 — U.S. city average, and selected areas [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] Area2 Annual average 1971 1971 July Aug. Sept. 1972 Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. M ar. A p r. May June Ju ly A ll items U.S. c ity average3. ................... 121.3 Atlanta, G a..................................... Baltimore, Md....... ......... ............... Boston, Mass.................................. Buffalo, N.Y.................................... Chicago, I II.-Northwestern Ind__ Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky............ 121.7 123.4 122.8 121.8 120.8 120.7 Cleveland, Ohio.............................. Dallas, Tex___________________ Detroit, Mich................................... Honolulu, Hawaii............................ Houston, Tex................................... Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas............. 121.8 r122.1 -122.2 -122.4 122.6 123.1 123.2 123.8 124.0 124.3 124.7 125.0 125.5 -122.0 -124.4 (4) (4) (4) 123.1 121.8 (4) 123.5 125.1 (4) (4) 122.3 121.9 (4) (4) 124.9 (4) 122.1 (4) (4) (4) (4) 124.9 123.0 (4) 132.8 124.9 (4) (4) 123.2 123.0 (4) (4) 126.2 (4) 123.3 (4) (4) (4) (4) 126.1 123.7 (4) 124.8 125.5 (4) (4) 124.2 124.6 (4) (4) 127.1 (4) 124.4 (4) (4) 122.9 (4) 120.9 (4) (4) (4) (4) r122.8 r121.5 (4) (4) -121.7 -121.4 (4) (4) -124.5 (4) -121.7 (4) 122.8 121.3 121.7 118.9 120.9 120.5 (4) (4) 121.8 (4) 121.3 (4) -123.2 -122.7 -122.8 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) -122.8 -121.2 (4) -121.5 (4) (4) -122.8 (4) -122.4 (4) 124.4 122.4 123.4 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) 123.7 121.1 (4) 121.4 (4) (4) 124.2 (4) 123.2 (4) 125.9 123.7 124.9 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) 125.0 122.4 (4) 122.4 (4) (4) 125.0 (4) 124.8 (4) 126.1 124.6 125.5 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) 126.0 122.2 (4) 123.9 (4) (4) 126.7 (4) 125.2 (4) Los Angeles-Long Beach, C a lif... Milwaukee, Wis.......................... .. Minneapolis-St. Paul, M inn_____ New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J. Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J..................... Pittsburgh, Pa................................ Portland, Oreg.-Wash.5................. 118.5 120.1 121.7 125.9 123.5 121.5 116.1 119.1 (4) 121.9 126.8 123.7 121.8 116.2 -119.5 -121.4 (4) -126.9 -123.6 (4) (4) -120.0 (4) (4) -127.3 -124.6 (4) (4) -120.3 (4) -123.4 -127.5 -125.0 -122.9 -117.4 120.1 120.9 (4) 127.6 124.7 (4) (4) 120.1 (4) (*) 128.0 125.0 (4) (4) 120.2 (4) 123.8 128.4 124.7 123.2 118.1 120.4 122.2 (4) 129.5 125.2 (4) (4) 121.2 (4) (4) 130.0 125.8 (4) (4) 121.3 (4) 124.2 130.3 126.0 124.7 118.4 121.4 122.8 (4) 130.5 126.1 (4) (4) 121.7 (4) (4) 130.9 126.5 (4) (4) 122.8 (4) 125.5 131.4 127.0 125.5 119.6 St. Louis, M o.-lll______________ San Diego, Calif.............................. San Francisco-Oakland, Calif___ Scranton, Pa.5................................ Seattle, Wash................................. Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va.............. 119.6 119.9 120.2 121.4 116.4 122.7 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) -120.7 (4) -123.2 -117.6 -123.5 -120.5 (4) -120.9 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) « (4) 120.9 (4> 122.6 117.6 124.2 120.9 (4) 121.8 (*) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) 122.3 (4) 123.6 119.0 124.7 120.8 (4) 122.9 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) 123.8 (4) 125.1 118.8 125.6 121.9 (4) 124.3 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (*) (V Food U.S. c ity a v e ra g e ....................... 118.4 119.8 120.0 119.1 118.9 119.0 120.3 120.3 122.2 122.4 122.4 122.3 123.0 124.2 Atlanta, Ga........................ ............. Baltimore, Md................................ Boston, Mass............................... Buffalo, N .Y ................................... Chicago, lll.-Northwestern I nd__ Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky............ 118.1 121.0 118.5 119.7 118.5 118.4 119.1 122.0 119.0 121.4 120.5 119.2 119.3 122.6 119.2 122.0 120.7 119.7 119.0 122.2 118.5 119.6 119.4 118.7 118.4 121.8 118.4 119.8 118.9 118.9 118.7 121.7 118.8 119.8 119.2 118.9 119.6 123.2 119.9 120.9 119.6 120.7 120.6 121.9 119.5 121.1 119.8 120.5 122.1 123.2 121.2 122.9 122.8 123.6 122.6 123.9 122.3 122.8 122.7 123.6 123.7 122.7 122.5 122.5 122.3 123.2 123.3 122.7 122.8 122.5 122.3 123.5 123.6 123.2 122.9 123.2 123.9 122.4 124.3 125.0 124.0 124.4 124.3 125.6 Cleveland, Ohio.............................. Dallas, Tex..................................... Detroit, Mich................................... Honolulu, Hawaii........................... Houston, Tex................................... Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas............. 118.9 117.8 117.3 118.1 118.8 118.6 120.3 118.8 118.9 116.5 120.1 119.6 119.0 119.5 119.4 119.6 120.5 120.3 118.2 118.6 118.4 121.4 120.1 120.0 118.1 118.7 117.8 121.8 120.2 119.5 118.4 118.5 117.8 120.4 120.0 119.8 119.2 120.6 119.2 120.9 121.5 120.8 118.9 120.8 119.7 120.7 121.9 120.9 121.7 122.5 122.1 123.7 123.2 122.8 122.1 122.1 122.0 123.2 124.0 122.8 121.7 121.4 121.3 122.8 123.6 122.5 121.6 121.6 121.1 122.3 123.2 122.0 122.9 122.1 122.4 121.3 123.6 123.2 124.4 123.0 124.2 122.1 124.8 124.1 Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif__ Milwaukee, Wis.............. .............. Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn_____ New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J..................... Pittsburgh, Pa................................. Portland, Oreg.-Wash 5................. 114.9 115.7 119.2 123.1 120.1 118.9 113.4 115.8 117.6 121.8 124.8 121.4 120.3 114.6 115.8 117.6 122.1 124.9 121.8 120.1 115.1 116.8 119.5 124.2 121.4 119.4 115.3 116.3 119.1 124.3 121.0 119.0 112.5 115.8 116.3 119.2 124.3 120.6 119.4 116.6 117.2 120.6 125.2 122.0 120.9 117.5 117.0 120.5 125.2 122.2 120.9 114.9 118.9 119.4 122.0 126.9 123.8 122.6 118.8 119.4 122.8 127.4 124.3 123.1 119.2 119.1 122.9 127.4 124.2 122.4 HR 4 119.0 119.4 123.3 127.3 123.0 121.5 120.0 120.1 124.1 128.1 123.0 121.5 121.3 120.9 125.3 129.5 124.0 123.0 118 9 St. Louis, M o.-lll............................ San D ie g o ,C a lif........................... San Francisco-Oakland, Calif___ Scranton, Pa.5......................... .. Seattle, Wash.................................. Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va.............. 118.0 117.3 116.1 120.1 115.9 120.2 119.6 120.0 118.2 116.6 122.8 117.0 122.2 118.8 117.8 115.5 118.3 117.7 116.3 119.4 119.5 118.9 119.7 120.0 119.1 121.0 122.0 119.7 123.5 124.2 122.4 r ÍÍ8 .2 122.0 118.4 120.9 119.0 124.0 119.1 123.8 121.4 122.3 120.9 121 7 119.3 122.9 122.0 123.4 121.2 116.3 121.4 120.9 121.8 120.2 123.6 119.6 123.7 120.8 121.8 119.8 116.8 121.3 118.5 118.6 116.9 119.6 116.5 121.2 120.4 124.8 121.1 126.1 1 2 118.3 117.2 116.7 121.4 See table 25. Indexes measure time-to-time changes in prices. They do not indicate whether it costs more to live in one area than in another. 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. Average of 56 “cities" (metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan urban places beginning January 1966). 3 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4 5 6 All items indexes are computed monthly for 5 areas and once every 3 months on a rotating cycle for other areas. Old series (old market basket components). In the March and April 1971 Monthly Labor Review, these indexes were on a 1957-59=100 base. Indexes are now on a 1967=100 base. r revised. These figures have been recalculated to reflect the retroactive repeal of the automobile excise tax. Indexes for August recalculated to reflect adjustments for refunds on new cars in the August 15-31 period. WHOLESALE PRICES CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 27. 119 Wholesale Price Index,1 by group and subgroup of commodities A [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]2 > Code Commodity group Annual average 1972 1971 1971 All commodities_________________________ All commodities (1957-59=100)............. ......... Farm products and processed foods and feeds______ ____ _______________ ____ Industrial commodities_____ ___________ ► July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 113.9 120.9 114.6 121.6 114.9 121.9 114.5 121.5 114.4 121.4 114.5 121.5 115.4 122.4 116.3 123.4 117.3 124.5 117.4 124.6 113.8 114.0 115.0 114.5 114.6 115.1 113.0 115.0 113.0 115.0 113.6 114.9 115.9 115.3 117.4 115.9 119.6 116.5 112.9 120.1 100.9 118.3 100.3 92.8 118.8 100.8 109.2 115.4 113.4 109.3 102.5 121.3 121.1 92.6 119.5 89.4 114.4 113.3 113.2 115.9 92.8 121.3 100.8 93.4 119.3 110.1 114.3 113.9 110.5 103.6 89.0 119.1 102.8 95.2 119.2 107.8 108.9 115.6 111.3 115.8 88.3 120.9 93.5 96.3 119.2 92.4 107.9 115.4 112.2 127.1 87.8 121.0 92.3 97.3 118.8 88.5 109.0 111.8 115.8 126.3 95.3 124.7 87.2 102.5 119.0 114.4 109.2 117.3 117.8 124.9 94.1 132.2 94.3 109.5 120.5 92.6 108.7 118.0 114.3 111.4 116.0 115.4 114.3 119.2 115.8 130.9 128.8 134.8 121.1 113.2 104.4 116.0 111.5 119.6 116.2 115.9 119.4 115.9 135.7 136.7 135.5 122.8 113.8 106.9 115.4 111.4 117.7 115.4 116.2 120.5 116.1 144.0 147.5 140.7 124.6 113.8 104.7 114.6 111.3 117.5 115.4 115.7 119.8 116.0 136.5 135.6 133.6 123.3 113.0 101.3 114.1 111.3 116.9 116.4 115.3 118.7 116.4 132.1 128.9 127.9 122.8 112.7 98.7 114.4 111.5 117.1 116.3 115.4 119.1 116.6 130.1 128.6 130.4 122.8 113.0 100.3 115.9 111.6 120.4 117.4 115.8 120.2 116.4 122.3 118.2 122.7 122.0 113.1 104.5 108.6 110.6 93.5 100.8 112.9 104.2 117.2 109.2 111.9 92.6 101.9 113.3 104.8 119.9 109.7 112.5 92.7 103.1 113.6 104.8 117.2 109.7 112.2 92.5 103.1 113.8 104.1 119.8 109.6 112.2 92.4 102.5 113.8 104.1 120.8 109.8 112.5 92.3 103.2 113.8 104.1 121.2 114.0 115.1 112.5 116.8 108.3 114.2 114.0 114.4 116.8 108.2 114.4 114.6 114.4 117.1 108.2 114.7 117.7 113.4 117.1 109.0 114.7 117.2 113.4 117.1 109.0 114.2 181.8 148.7 108.0 113.6 113.2 106.8 114.4 182.9 150.5 107.7 113.5 113.2 107.2 114.8 182.9 150.5 107.2 115.3 113.2 107.3 115.3 182.9 150.5 108.4 116.4 113.2 107.3 104.2 102.0 115.6 101.5 102.4 133.5 104.4 102.4 115.9 99.8 102.6 130.8 104.3 102.4 115.9 99.8 102.7 134.2 92.2 88.9 112.1 93.4 88.6 112.5 109.2 112.2 99.3 109.2 118.0 94.7 101.1 99.2 127.0 135.5 120.7 114.7 118.8 May June July 117.5 124.7 118.2 125.4 118.8 126.0 119.7 127.0 119.1 116.8 118.3 117.3 120.0 117.6 121.3 117.9 124.0 118.1 120.7 127.5 93.0 139.6 105.4 113.2 120.5 91.9 110.2 116.8 119.7 112.8 93.8 136.7 107.6 114.3 121.8 107.7 114.4 117.5 119.1 117.6 96.0 133.8 94.1 122.1 122.1 87.2 118.5 118.0 122.2 120.6 97.5 139.8 96.3 130.1 122.5 90.6 116.9 119.5 124.0 121.7 94.5 146.4 102.9 127.3 121.7 91.9 116.9 119.9 128.0 129.9 96.3 152.4 118.4 125.4 117.2 112.2 125.4 117.3 116.0 120.1 116.4 121.4 114.2 121.0 121.7 113.6 103.8 118.8 112.4 130.5 117.5 116.1 121.1 116.8 133.5 116.8 120.1 121.1 113.8 103.7 118.6 112.6 127.3 118.0 116.7 121.9 116.7 130.4 115.6 120.6 120.8 113.7 108.5 117.7 112.8 123.6 117.5 118.3 121.1 117.2 127.8 118.9 120.9 120.7 113.8 108.5 118.6 113.3 126.8 117.4 119.0 120.8 117.2 127.3 112.8 119.6 120.7 115.0 108.4 119.6 113.3 131.4 115.3 119.5 121.3 117.8 125.8 112.0 119.1 121.5 114.4 107.7 121.5 113.6 135.8 117.7 119.6 110.6 113.6 91.5 104.3 113.8 106.1 136.2 111.3 116.7 92.0 105.4 113.8 106 2 137.4 112.0 118.0 92.2 105.9 114.0 108.5 141.6 112.1 119.6 92.0 106.1 114.1 108.7 130.9 112.6 120.5 93.0 107.2 114.1 108.7 131.1 113.3 121.5 98.3 108.0 114.3 109.3 129.8 113.6 122.6 99.2 108.6 114.4 109.5 125.8 114.0 123.0 115.1 123.1 113.5 117.1 109.1 116.2 128.6 117.0 117.1 109.8 117.8 136.0 120.0 118.1 110.6 119.1 148.9 120.6 118.5 111.2 123.0 173.8 128.4 120.1 111.9 127.2 188.6 138.1 122.4 113.7 129.5 200.3 137.8 124.6 115.3 130.9 204.1 138.6 125.8 116.7 131.6 212.5 138.1 126.5 116.5 114.8 182.9 150.5 108.8 116.3 113.2 106.3 114.7 182.9 150.5 108.8 116.2 113.2 106.2 115.0 190.2 150.5 107.9 116.3 113.2 106.1 116.0 192.7 150.5 110.0 118.9 113.2 106.1 116.1 192.6 155.0 110.2 120.0 113.2 105.5 116.5 192.6 155.0 110.9 120.0 113.2 106.3 116.9 191.2 155.3 112.5 120.5 113.2 106.6 117.5 191.2 155.3 113.0 121.2 113.2 107.3 118.2 191.2 155.3 112.9 121.5 113.2 108.5 118.6 191.2 155.3 113.2 113.2 109.1 104.3 102.4 115.9 99.7 102.6 132.9 104.2 102.4 115.9 99.7 102.6 129.0 103.8 101.7 115.9 99.7 102.4 125.3 103.4 101.1 115.9 101.9 102.5 115.9 103.4 101.4 116.2 102.7 102.3 111.3 103.5 101.4 117.3 102.7 102.2 110.7 103.4 101.0 117.9 102.7 102.5 103.5 104.1 101.5 118.3 103.0 102.4 112.2 104.4 101.4 118.3 103.5 102.8 116.0 104.3 101.4 118.3 103.9 103.1 115.9 104.2 101.5 118.3 104.2 103.2 113.2 91.0 89.0 112.4 91.0 89.5 112.4 90.4 89.9 112.5 90.3 89.2 112.5 90.3 89.0 112.4 90.3 88.6 112.4 90.2 89.3 112.5 90.6 88.9 112.7 92.2 88.3 113.5 92.1 88.6 114.1 92.3 87.9 113.8 91.9 87.9 113.3 109.7 113.2 98.8 111.2 118.7 94.0 100.6 99.7 109.8 113.7 99.6 111.4 119.3 94.1 100.1 98.6 109.7 113.7 99.3 110.8 119.8 94.7 100.0 98.6 109.5 113.3 99.0 110.8 119.2 94.6 100.0 98.2 109.5 113 3 98.5 110.8 119.2 94.1 100.1 98.0 109.4 113.3 98.5 110.8 119.2 93.8 100.0 97.9 109.5 113.4 99.2 110.3 119.7 93.7 100.0 98.2 109.2 113.0 98.8 108.4 120.4 93.8 99.9 98.6 108.9 112.9 98.5 108.4 120.4 93.6 98.9 98.1 108.7 112.9 98.2 108.4 120.4 93.6 98.4 98.4 108.8 113.0 98.6 108.4 120.4 93.3 98.5 98.4 108.9 113.3 98.6 108.7 120.8 93.5 98.1 97.9 109.2 113.8 98.8 109.5 121.3 93.3 98.2 98.3 130.6 142.5 122.8 111.7 119.0 134.6 146.7 123.8 120.5 118.9 134.3 146.8 123.7 119.1 118.9 131.8 142.7 123.7 116.2 118.8 131.3 141.9 123.7 115.9 119.5 132.7 143.8 124.3 117.8 119.1 134.9 146.9 124.9 120.2 119.6 137.7 150.4 125.5 125.1 119.9 139.5 152.4 125.8 128.9 120.1 141.1 155.1 126.6 128.9 121.1 142.7 157.0 127.6 130.3 122.7 144.2 159.0 128.4 131.7 123.4 146.1 161.6 129.6 132.9 125.6 FARM PRODUCTS AND PROCESSED FOODS AND FEEDS A * 01 01-1 01-2 01-3 01-4 01-5 01-6 01-7 01-8 01-9 Farm products....................... ............. ........ _ 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............ ............... 03 03-1 03-2 03-3 03-5 03-6 03-7 Textile products and apparel_____ _______ 04 04-1 04-2 04-3 04-4 Hides, skins, leather, and related products. 05 05-1 05-2 05-3 05-4 05-61 05-7 Fuels and related products and power____ 06 06-1 06-21 06-22 06-3 06-4 06-5 Chemicals and allied 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___________________ Cereal and bakery products_____________ Meats, poultry, and fish___ ____________ Dairy products___ ____ _______________ Processed fruits and vege tables................ Sugar and confectionerv____________ _ Beverages and beverage materials_______ Animal fats and oils_____________ ____ Crude vegetable oils. _________________ Refined vegetable oils______________ . . . Vegetable oil end products_______ _____ Miscellaneous processed foods_________ Manufactured animal feeds_____________ 122.0 102.2 116.8 121.8 122.2 117.9 124.1 106.9 115.8 121.4 114.4 110.9 INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES A ► 06-6 06-7 Cotton products____________ _________ Wool products________________________ Manmade fiber textile products___ _____ Apparel______________________________ Textile housefurnishings____________ Miscellaneous textile products_________ Hides and skins_______________ ______ _ Leather______________________________ Footwear.. ___________________ _____ _ Other leather and related products______ Coal______ __________ _____________ Coke________________________________ Gas fuels________________________ ____ Electric power________________________ Crude petroleum__________ _____ ____ Petroleum products, refined____________ Industrial chemicals____ _ _______ Prepared paint________________________ Paint materials_______________________ Drugs and pharm aceuticals... ______ . . Fats and oils, inedible____ ____________ Agricultural chemicals and chemical products_____ ______ __________ . . . Plastic resins and materials____________ Other chemicals and allied products_____ 07 07-1 07-11 07-12 07-13 07-21 07-22 07-23 Rubber and plastic products___________ . 08 08-1 08-2 08-3 08-4 Lumber and wood products............. ......... . . Rubber and rubber products........................ Crude rubber_____ ___________________ Tires and tubes____ __________________ Miscellaneous rubber products. ________ Plastic construction products3_____ ____ Unsupported plastic film and sheeting * . . . Laminated plastic sheets, high pressure Lumber_____________ ______ ____ M illw o r k . .. ............ ....... ... ........... _ Plywood_____________________________ Other wood products________ ______ _ See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 100.0 108.9 115.1 109.5 122.6 122.1 120 27. WHOLESALE PRICES MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 Continued—Wholesale Price Index,1 by group and subgroup of commodities [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]2 Code Commodity group Annual average 1972 1971 1971 July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES—Continued 09 09-1 09-11 09-12 09-13 09-14 09-15 09-2 Pulp, paper, and allied products_______ Pulp, paper, and products, excluding building paper and board, __ Woodpulp_______________ Wastepaper_________________ ____ Paper_______ _ ____ Paperboard_______ _______ Converted paper and paperboard products. Building paper and board____ _________ 10 10-1 10-13 10-2 10-3 10-4 10—5 10-6 10-7 10-8 Metals and metal products_____ 11 11-1 11-2 11-3 11-4 11-6 11-7 11-9 Machinery and equipment_______________ 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 Nonmetallic mineral products _______ . 13-5 13-6 13-7 13-8 13-9 Iron and steel________________ Steel m ill products_____ _ Nonferrous m e ta ls ___ Metal containers____ . . . Hardware____________ ______ Plumbing fixtures and brass fittings.......... Heating equipment____________________ Fabricated structural metal products_____ Miscellaneous metal p ro d u c ts ._____ Agricultural machinery and equipment___ Construction machinery and equipment__ Metalworking machinery and equipment. General purpose machinery and equipment. Special industry machinery and equipment. Electrical machinery and equipment__ _ Miscellaneous machinery _______ . . . Household furn iture___________________ Commercial fu rn itu r e ... ______ ______ Floor coverings_________ ___ Household appliances________ . Home electronic equipm ent.. ... .. Other household durable goods........ ......... Flat glass... _____ Concrete ingredients________ _____ ____ Concrete products.. ______ ____ ______ Structural clay products excluding refrac to rie s ... _____ Refractories___________ . . . . Asphalt roofing_________________ . ___ Gypsum products___ ________ _______ Glass containers____ _ .... Other nonmetallic minerals___ . _____ 14 14-1 14-4 Transportation equipment3________ ____ 15 15-1 Miscellaneous products__________ ____ 15-2 15-3 15-4 15-9 Motor vehicles and e q u ip m e n t... . . ___ Railroad equipment________ _____ Toys, sporting goods, small arms, ammuni tion____ . . . . Tobacco products.. _ . Notions______ ______ _____ Photographic equipment and supplies____ Other miscellaneous products____ ______ 110.1 110.5 110.6 110.6 110.6 110.6 110.7 110.8 111.6 112.3 112.8 113.2 113.5 113.7 110.4 112.0 111.9 114.1 102.4 109.7 103.0 110.8 112.4 111.8 114.6 102.8 110.1 103.6 110.8 112.4 112.8 114.7 102.8 110.1 104.3 110.8 111.5 114.5 114.7 102.8 110.2 104.5 110.9 111.5 117.2 114.7 102.9 110.1 104.6 110.9 111.5 117.2 114.7 102.9 110.1 104.7 111.0 111.5 124.6 114.7 102.7 110.1 104.6 111.1 111.5 124.9 114.9 102.7 110.3 104.7 111.9 111.5 126.6 115.3 103.5 111.4 104.7 112.5 111.5 129.3 115.7 103.6 112.2 105.6 113.1 111.5 131.0 115.9 105.6 112.7 106.1 113.4 111.5 130.5 115.9 105.8 113.3 106.5 113.8 111.5 137.7 116.2 106.0 113.5 106.6 114.0 111.5 137.7 116.7 106.0 113.7 106.8 119.0 121.8 123.0 116.0 121.7 116.5 116.4 115.5 118.2 119.0 119.4 121.9 123.4 116.9 123.0 116.7 117.9 115.9 118.2 119.3 121.1 125.3 128.1 117.1 124.2 117.7 118.3 116.8 119.6 119.8 121.1 125.6 128.2 116.5 124.2 117.7 118.3 116.7 120.3 119.9 121.0 125.5 128.1 116.3 124.2 117.7 118.3 116.3 120.3 119.7 120.9 125.3 128.2 116.0 124.2 117.7 118.3 116.5 120.3 119.7 120.8 125.3 128 2 114.9 124.2 117.7 118.4 116.3 120.4 120.9 121.4 126.8 129.6 114.4 124.2 118.4 118.2 115.9 121.6 121.3 122.6 128.2 131.0 115.0 127.1 119.0 118.6 116.2 122.0 123.2 123.4 128.3 130.9 117.2 127.1 119.2 118.9 117.0 122.1 124.1 123.5 128.3 130.9 117.6 127.3 119.6 119.0 117.9 122.1 124.3 123.6 128.3 130.7 117.8 127.3 120.2 119.0 118.1 122.0 124.4 123.6 128.1 130.4 117.6 128.8 120.4 119.7 118.6 122.2 124.4 123.5 128.3 130.3 116.8 129.9 120.5 119.7 119.0 122.2 124.2 115.5 117.2 121.4 117.3 119.1 120.9 109.5 117.2 115.7 117.4 121.6 117.7 119.8 121.6 109.5 117.3 116.1 117.5 121.9 118.1 120.3 121.6 109.9 118.0 116.0 117.5 121.8 118.0 120.2 121.7 109.7 117.8 116.0 117.5 121.8 118.1 120.2 122.0 109.6 117.8 115.9 117.5 122.0 118.2 120.2 122.0 109.3 117.8 116.2 118.6 123.2 118.4 120.5 122.1 109.3 117.9 116.5 119.9 124.3 118.5 120.8 122.6 109.5 118.3 117.1 121.5 124.7 118.9 121.2 123.1 110.0 118.8 117.3 122.0 125.0 119.4 121.5 123.0 110.1 119.0 117.6 122.1 125.7 119.7 121.9 123.4 110.2 119.6 117.9 122.3 125.6 120.0 122.2 123.5 110.5 120.3 118.1 122.7 125.9 120.2 122.7 123.7 110.6 120.7 118.3 122.7 125.9 120.5 122.9 123.9 110.7 120.8 109.9 114.8 118.1 98.8 107.2 93.8 120.9 110.0 115.3 118.1 98.2 107.0 93.9 121.6 110.2 115.5 118.2 97.6 107.4 94.0 122.1 110.2 115.6 118.2 97.6 107.6 93.8 122.1 110.2 115.6 118.2 97.6 107.5 93.8 121.9 110.2 115.4 118.2 97.6 107.6 93.4 122.0 110.2 115.5 118.2 97.9 107.4 93.4 122.1 110.2 116.0 118.3 98.1 106.9 93.3 122.3 110.8 116.7 118.3 98.2 107.5 92.9 124.1 110.9 116.8 118.7 98.2 107.4 93.0 124.5 111.0 116.9 119.2 98.2 107.5 92.8 124.5 111.1 117.1 119.4 98.2 107.2 92.9 125.0 111.2 117.2 119.5 98.6 107.1 92.6 125.4 111.4 117.4 119.8 98.8 107.3 92.4 126.4 122.4 123.9 121.9 120.6 123.3 122.5 123.3 121.5 124.2 124.3 124.0 122.8 124.2 124.3 124.1 122.6 124.1 124.3 124.1 122.6 124.0 123.1 124.3 122.6 124.2 123.6 124.2 122.9 124.3 123.6 124.4 123.4 124.6 123.6 124.6 123.8 124.8 122.4 124.6 124.5 125.6 121.1 126.4 125.1 125.9 121.5 126.7 125.1 125.8 121.1 126.8 125.3 126.2 121.8 126.9 126.0 114.2 126.9 125.5 106.8 131.6 124.1 114.5 126.9 131.2 112.7 131.5 125.6 114.9 126.9 131.2 114.3 131.5 125.7 114.9 126.9 131.2 114.5 131.5 125.7 114.9 127.1 131.2 113.6 131.5 125.7 114.9 127.1 131.2 112.1 131.5 125.6 114.9 127.1 131.2 114.1 131.5 125.6 114.8 127.1 131.2 113.4 131.5 125.7 116.1 127.1 131.2 112.8 131.5 125.9 116.2 127.1 131.2 115.3 131.5 126.4 117.2 127.1 131.2 114.9 136.2 126.4 117.2 127.1 131.2 113.4 136.2 128.4 117.4 127.1 131.2 113.9 136.2 127.4 117.5 127.1 131.2 115.7 136.4 127.1 110.3 114.7 121.1 110.3 114.7 121.5 110.5 114.9 122.5 109.6 113.8 122.5 110.7 115.2 122.5 110.8 115.3 122.5 112.9 117.5 122.6 113.4 117.9 123.7 113.6 118.0 123.9 113.6 118.0 127.3 113.7 118.0 128.4 113.8 118.1 129.6 114.2 118.5 129.6 114.1 118.4 130.2 112.8 112.8 113.0 113.0 113.0 113.1 113.2 113.7 114.0 114.2 114.1 114.1 114.2 114.9 112.6 116.7 111.6 106.1 112.3 112.6 116.6 111.7 106.2 112.4 112.6 116.8 111.7 106.3 112.9 112.6 116.8 111.7 106.3 112.9 112.6 116.8 111.7 106.3 112.9 112.8 116.8 111.7 106.5 112.9 113.1 116.7 111.7 106.5 113.0 113.5 117.4 111.7 106.4 113.9 114.0 117.4 111.7 106.7 114.4 114.5 117.4 111.7 106.9 114.5 114.1 117 5 111 7 lfifi ? 114'9 114.4 117.5 111.7 106.2 115.2 114.5 117.5 111.7 106.3 117.4 1 As of January 1967, the index incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 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. 2 As of January 1971 the indexes were converted from the former base of 1957-59 = 100 to the new base of 1967 = 100. Technical details and earlier data on the 1967 base furnished upon request to the Bureau. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 114.0 117.4 111 7 106 2 115.0 3 December 1969 = 100. 4 December 1970 = 100. 5 December 1968 = 100. NOTE: For a description of the general method of computing the monthly Whole sale Price Index, see BLS Handbook of Methods (BLS Bulletin 1711, 1971), Chapter 11. CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS WHOLESALE PRICES 121 * 28. Wholesale Price Index for special commodity groupings 1 [1 9 6 7 = 1 0 0 u n le s s o th e r w is e s p e c ifie d ] 2 Commodity group A nnual average 1971 1971 1972 July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. A p r. May June July ► , „ * ,. A ll com modities-— less farm products_____________ A ll fo o d s______________________________ Processed foods______ _____ __________ . . 114.0 115.5 115.6 114.7 115.8 117.3 115.1 116.6 116.9 114 9 115.1 116.4 114 8 115.3 116.1 114 8 116.3 116.2 115 4 118.1 117.5 116 1 118.9 119.2 116.9 120.8 121.2 117.1 119.3 120.3 117 3 118.0 119.1 117 8 119.4 120.2 118 2 120.7 121.5 118.7 123.4 123.5 Textile products, excluding hard and bast fiber products. Hosiery________________________ . .. Underwear and nightwear_________________________ 103.7 95.6 108.1 104.6 95.5 108.3 105.2 95.5 108.6 105.0 95.5 108.4 104.7 95.5 108.4 105.1 95.5 108.4 106.1 96.0 108.4 107.6 96.0 108.7 108.7 96.0 109.6 109.1 96.0 109.6 110.0 96.0 109.6 111.4 96.0 109.8 112.2 96.4 110.0 112.5 96.2 110.1 Refined petroleum products_____________________ . East Coast_________ ___ . . . . . Mid-Continent___________________ .. Gulf Coast_______________________ Pacific Coast________________ _ _ Midwest________________ Chemicals and allied products, including synthetic rubber and manmade fibers and yarns3 ___ 106.8 120.0 103.3 100.0 112.7 112.5 107.2 121.8 103.1 100.7 112.4 113.1 107.3 120.8 103.1 100.7 113.0 113.1 107.3 120.8 103.1 100.7 113.3 113.1 106.3 120.4 101.6 98.4 113.8 113.1 106.2 119.2 101.6 98.4 113.8 113.1 106.1 119.2 101.6 98.4 112.7 113.1 106.1 119.2 101.6 98.4 113.3 113.1 105.5 119.9 100.2 96.9 114.1 113.1 106.3 119.9 100.2 99.2 113.3 112.8 106.6 119.9 103.1 99.2 113.3 112.8 107.3 119.9 103.1 99.2 113.3 112.8 108.5 119.9 103.1 102.3 113.3 113.0 109.1 119.9 103.1 103.8 113.3 113.0 103.2 103.5 103.3 103.3 103.3 103.0 102.9 103.0 103.2 103.2 103.7 103.9 103.8 103.7 Pharmaceutical preparations______________ . _. Lumber and wood products, excluding m illwork and other wood products 3___ ______ . Special metals and metal products 5____ Fabricated metal products6 Copper and copper products7______________________ Machinery and motive products___________ Machinery and equipment, except electrical_____ _ Agricultural machinery, including tractors.. . _ _____ Metalworking m a ch in e ry_______________ . Numerically controlled machine tools (Dec. 1971 =100) Total tractors________ Industrial valves________ . Industrial fittings Abrasive grinding wheels....... ................. Construction materials________________ . . . . . . 102.2 102.4 102.5 102.5 102.5 102.3 102.4 102.2 102.1 102.5 102.4 102.8 103.1 103.2 130.1 117.6 118.4 116.6 115.3 118.9 117.3 118.6 134.7 117.9 118.8 118.4 115.5 119.3 117.6 119.2 140.0 119.0 119.7 117.8 115.8 119.6 117.7 119.4 139.7 118.7 120.0 117.0 115.3 119.6 117.7 119.2 135.9 119.0 119.9 116.7 115.8 119.6 117.7 119.3 135.3 119.0 119.9 116.0 115.8 119.7 117.7 119.5 120.7 116.3 122 4 122.1 119.5 120.8 118.1 122.6 123.7 120.9 120.8 118.6 122.6 123.5 122.9 120.8 118.6 122.6 123.5 123.0 120.8 118.6 122 6 123.5 122.2 120.8 119.1 122.6 123.5 122.0 137.2 119.7 120.4 114.0 116.7 120.1 118.9 119.8 100 0 122.5 119.1 123.0 123.5 122.4 140.1 120.3 121.0 115.0 117.2 120.6 120.4 119.9 100 0 124.1 119.1 123.8 123.5 123.2 143.9 121.1 122.2 116.3 117.6 121.1 122.1 120.3 100.5 124.6 120.2 123.1 123.8 124.2 146.4 121.6 122.7 120.1 117.7 121.4 122.6 120.8 100 6 125.0 120.2 123.1 126.5 124.9 148.4 121.7 122.8 119.9 117.9 121.8 122.7 121.2 101 5 125.4 120.2 124.2 126.8 125.7 150.2 121.8 122.9 119.4 118.2 122.1 122.8 121.5 10? 8 125.6 120.5 124.2 126.8 126.2 152.1 121.9 123.2 118.8 118.5 122.4 123.2 121.6 10? 3 125.7 121.3 121.9 126.8 126.6 154.3 121.8 123.3 116.9 118.5 122.6 123.2 121.9 102 3 125.7 121.3 121.3 126.8 127.2 p- ► » r 29. Wholesale Price Index,1 by durability of product [1 9 6 7 = ► 100P Commodity group r , A nnual average 1971 1971 1972 July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July AII commodities_____ Total durable goods______ Total nondurable goods... 113.9 117.0 111.7 114.6 117.5 112.4 114.9 118.4 112.4 114.5 118.2 111.7 114.4 118.2 111.6 114.5 118.1 111.8 115.4 118.6 113.0 116.3 119.2 114.1 117.3 120.0 115.3 117.4 120.4 115.2 117.5 120.7 115.1 118.2 121.0 116.2 118.8 121.2 117.0 119.7 121.4 118.5 Total manufactures_____ D u r a b le ...___ _____ Nondurable..................... 113.8 117.0 110.5 114.5 117.5 111.4 114.9 118.5 111.2 114.7 118.3 111.0 114.5 118.3 110.6 114.5 118.3 110.7 115.1 118.8 111.3 115.7 119.3 112.0 116.5 120.0 112.8 116.7 120.4 112.9 116.9 120.8 112.9 117.4 121.0 113.6 117.8 121.3 114.3 118.3 121.5 115.1 Total raw or slightly processed goods . Durable________ Nondurable__________ 114.4 112.2 114.6 114.7 111.4 115.0 114.8 110.4 115.1 113.2 111.1 113.4 113.8 110.4 114.0 114.3 108.9 114.6 116.8 107.4 117.3 118.9 110.3 119.3 120.9 113.1 121.3 120.7 116.2 121.0 120.4 115.0 120.7 122.4 115.0 122.7 123.3 114.1 123.8 126.3 114.2 127.0 W ► • base furnished upon request to the Bureau. 3 Introduced in february 1971. 4 Formerly titled "Lum ber and wood products, excluding m illwork.” 5 Metals and metal products, agricultural machinery and equipment, and motor vehicles and equipment. 6 Introduced in July 72. See Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes, July 72 for a description. 7 Formerly titled "Copper and copper base metals.” 1 As of January 1967, the index incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 1963 values of shipments. Changes were also 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 previously published. See W holesale Prices and Price Indexes, January 1967 (final) and February 1967 (final) for a description of the changes. 2 As of January 1971 the indexes were converted from the former base of 1957-59 = 100 to the new base of 1967 = 100. Technical details and earlier data on the 1967 1 As of January 1967, the index incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 1963 values of shipments. Changes were also 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 previously 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 2 As of January 1971 the indexes were converted from the former base of 1957-59 = 100 to the new base of 1967 = 100. Technical details and earlier data on the 1967 base furnished upon request to the Bureau NOTE For a description of the series by durability of product and data beginning with 1947, see W holesale Prices and Price Indexes, 1957 (BLS Bulletin 1235. 1958). 122 30. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 WHOLESALE PRICES Wholesale Price Index,1 by stage of processing [1 9 6 7 = 100] « Annual average Commodity group 1972 1971 1971 A ll com m odities ____ ____________ _ __ . . . _____ 113.9 July Aug. Sept. Oct. 114.6 114.9 114.5 114.4 Mar. Apr. May June 116.3 117.3 117.4 117.5 118.2 118.8 119.7 120.2 123.1 123.1 123.0 125.5 127.2 130.1 119.3 122.9 122.0 121.0 124.0 126.7 131.2 121.3 121.5 121.2 123.2 123.5 121.5 122.7 123.0 121.5 122.6 122.8 121.5 146.9 137.6 159.1 147.3 138.1 159.4 147.2 138.0 159.4 147.5 138.4 159.6 Jan. 114.5 115.4 117.0 115.8 .. 115.0 116.6 115.2 113.9 114.3 114.3 ______ 114.2 116.6 114.5 112.1 112.6 112.7 Crude m ate rials fo r fu rth e r processing________ Feb. Dec. Nov. July RAW MATERIALS Foodstuffs and fe e d stu ffs______ - 110.5 109.7 119.1 110.4 109.5 119.6 110.2 109.3 120.1 111.1 110.3 120.3 111.1 110.3 120.3 111.1 110.2 120.5 112.8 112.2 120.4 115.4 115.1 120.7 117.3 117.1 120.9 119.5 119.5 121.0 138.5 129.6 150.4 139.7 130.7 151.5 139.3 130.2 151.2 140.3 131.4 152.0 140.6 131.8 152.2 140.6 131.8 152.2 142.7 132.8 155.7 145.4 135.5 158.4 145.6 135.7 158.6 146.2 136.5 159.0 Interm ediate m a te ria ls: Supplies and com ponents. 114.0 114.8 115.6 115.4 115.0 115.0 115.4 115.9 116.7 117.2 117.7 118.2 118.5 118.8 M ate rials and components fo r m a n u fa c tu rin g . Materials for food manufacturing___ . . . . . Materials for nondurable manufacturing______ Materials for durable manufacturing___ ____ Components for manufacturing_____ __ ____ 113.0 116.2 105.6 118.8 114.7 113.6 117.5 106.1 119.6 114.9 114.6 118.3 106.3 121.7 115.5 114.4 117.1 106.2 121.6 115.6 114.2 116.6 105.9 121.4 115.4 114.2 116.8 105.9 121.2 115.6 114.4 117.3 106.3 121.0 115.8 114.9 117.9 107.0 121.5 116.0 115.7 119.4 107.4 122.7 116.5 115.9 118.6 107.5 123.3 116.6 116.4 117.8 108.7 123.7 117.0 116.9 118.5 109.3 123.9 117.6 117.1 119.2 109.6 123.8 118.0 117.3 120.1 109.7 123.8 118.1 M ate rials and com ponents fo r c o n s tru c tio n ___ 119.5 120.8 122.5 122.5 121.9 121.8 122.3 123.1 124.2 124.9 125.5 125.9 126.3 126.7 Processed fu e ls and lu b ric a n ts .. _ ____ ____ 113.4 115.2 110.6 113.4 115.1 110.9 114.6 116.6 111.5 115.3 117.5 111.9 114.6 117.2 110.6 114.4 117.0 110.4 114.3 117.0 110.1 116.0 119.2 111.0 116.8 120.4 111.1 116.9 120.4 111.5 117.3 120.8 111.9 118.1 121.7 112.6 118.7 122.0 113.7 119.3 122.5 114.4 Nonfood m aterials except fu e l --------- ----------------_ _________ M anufa c tu rin g ... . . . ___ __ Construction_____ _________________________ Crude fu e l______ ______ _____ . . _______ Manufacturing industries_________ __________ . .. Nonmanufacturing industries__________ INTERMEDIATE MATERIALS Manufacturing industries_____________ ______ Nonmanufacturing industries__________ . . . . C o ntainers______ ___________________________ 116.6 117.2 117.5 117.6 117.6 117.6 117.6 117.8 119.5 120.0 121.2 121.3 122.0 122.4 Supplies___ 110.9 113.1 109.9 104.3 112.6 111.9 113.2 111.3 107.2 113.2 111.3 113.2 110.4 104.6 113.2 110.3 113.2 109.0 100.8 113.0 109.6 113.2 107.9 97.9 113.0 110.1 113.2 108.6 99.8 113.0 111.1 113.2 110.2 104.4 113.0 111.0 113.2 110.1 103.6 113.2 111.4 113.9 110.3 103.3 113.8 112.8 114.2 112.3 108.3 114.1 113.0 114.5 112.4 108.1 114.3 113.3 114.8 112.8 108.1 115.0 113.4 114.9 112.8 107.3 115.5 114 .4 115.0 114.2 110.7 115.8 ______ . . . _________ . . . . . . . Manufacturing industries------ ---------- ----------Nonmanufacturing industries_______ _______ Manufactured animal fe e d s ... Other supplies___________________ . . . . FINISHED GOODS F inished goods (in c lu d in g raw foods and fu e ls )___ 113.5 113.8 114.1 113.6 113.8 114.0 115.0 115.5 116.3 116.1 115.8 116.4 116.9 117.8 Consumer goods_______________ . . . ________ 112.7 115.2 115.8 115.0 111.3 110.9 113.0 115.6 109.0 116.7 111.6 111.0 113.3 116.1 115.8 116.1 111.8 111.1 112.7 114.9 109.6 115.8 111.9 110.4 112.9 115.0 112.2 115.5 111.7 111.3 113.1 115.7 116.1 115.6 111.7 111.3 114.2 117.7 121.5 117.0 111.8 112.6 114.7 118.7 117.4 118.8 112.0 112.9 115.6 120.6 117.9 121.0 112.1 113.2 115.2 119.4 115.7 120.0 112.4 113.1 114.8 118.0 113.4 118.7 112.7 113.2 115.5 119.5 115.1 120.2 113.1 113.1 116.1 120.7 115.6 121.6 113.5 113.2 117.3 123.3 121.2 123.6 113.8 113.5 116.6 117.3 116.0 116.8 117.7 116.1 117.1 117.9 116.4 116.9 117.8 116.0 117.1 117.9 116.3 117.0 117.8 116.3 117.8 118.2 117.4 118.4 118.7 118.1 118.8 119.1 118.4 119.0 119.2 118.8 119.3 119.5 118.9 119.4 119.6 119.1 119.6 119.8 119.4 119.7 120.0 119.4 122.6 123.4 125.6 127.0 129.1 129.3 129.9 129.8 130.2 Foods_______________________________________ Crude_________________ _________ ____ Processed________________ ____________ Other nondurable goods_____________________ Durable goods______________________________ Producer finished goods________ ____________ Manufacturing industries________________ . . . Nonmanufacturing industries________________ i* SPECIAL GROUPINGS Crude materials for further processing, excluding crude foodstuffs and feedstuffs, plant and animal fibers oilseeds, and leaf tobacco__________________________ Interm ediate materials, supplies and components ex cluding intermediate materials for food manufacturing and manufactured animal feeds_________________ Consumer finished goods, excluding consumer fo o d s ... 122.7 122.7 122.3 123.0 114.3 111.2 114.9 115.9 115.9 115.7 115.6 115.8 116.4 117.2 117.6 118.2 118.6 119.0 119.2 111.4 111.5 111.3 111.6 111.6 112.1 112.3 112.5 112.7 112.9 113.1 113.4 113.7 1 As of January 1967, the index incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 1963 values of shipments. Changes were also 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 previously published. See W holesale Prices and Price Indexes, January 1967 (final) and Feb ruary 1967 (final) for a description of the changes. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 122.9 2 As of January 1971 the indexes were converted from the former base of 1957-59 = 100 to the new base of 1967 = 100. Technical details and earlier data on the 1967 base furnished upon request to the Bureau. NOTE: For a description of the series by stage of processing see Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes, January 1967 (final) and February 1967 (final). CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 31. INDUSTRY PRICES 123 Industry-sector price indexes for output of selected industries 1 [1 9 6 7 = 1 0 0 u n le s s o t h e r w is e i n d i c a t e d ] 2 Annual average 1963 SIC code Industry 1971 1972 1971 July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July m i 1211 1311 1421 MINING Anthracite____ ______________ ___________ Bituminous coal________________ . Crude petroleum and natural gas.. Crushed and broken stone________ 144.9 185.0 113.0 117.7 144.7 186.1 113.3 118.5 144.7 186.1 113.1 118.5 145.6 186.1 113.5 118.5 144.7 186.2 113.6 118.5 144.7 186.2 113.6 118.8 144.7 194.1 113.3 118.8 146.4 196.6 113.9 119.1 146.4 196.6 114.0 119.4 146.4 196.6 114.2 119.4 146.4 195.0 114.6 119.7 146.4 195.0 114.8 120.1 146.4 195.0 114.8 120.1 146.4 195.0 114.8 120.1 1442 1475 1476 1477 Construction sand and gravel___ . . . Phosphate rock............... ............. Rock salt__________________ Sulfur_______________________________ 120.6 79.8 118.3 5 9.8 120.8 79.8 124.4 5 9.8 121.9 79.8 124.4 59.8 122.3 79.8 124.4 59.8 122.3 79.8 124.4 59.8 122.3 79.8 124.4 5 9.8 122.2 79.8 124.4 5 9.8 122.5 79.8 124.4 59.8 122.5 79.8 124.4 59.8 122.7 79.8 124.4 59.8 122.8 7 9.8 124.4 5 9.8 123.0 7 9.8 124.4 5 9.8 123.1 7 9 .8 124.4 5 9.8 123.2 7 9 .8 124 .4 5 9.8 117.5 111.4 112.0 113.4 113.7 117.5 110.2 113.0 113.5 113.0 117.1 112.0 106.0 113.6 112.5 117.1 112.4 104.9 113.6 112.6 120.8 114.9 100.8 114.2 113.0 125.4 117.4 106.8 113.9 113.3 130.6 124.5 114.1 114.0 112.9 126.0 124.0 115.3 113.8 113.6 123.0 122.1 104.9 113.7 114.6 128.0 123.5 107.6 113.5 114.9 133.4 125.2 113.0 113.5 115.6 136.6 128 .6 124 .4 113.6 115.5 148.4 145.3 145.3 150.0 158.1 165.3 167.9 166.0 173.2 167.9 164.1 165.8 97.8 100.2 100.5 120.6 99.5 101.7 100.5 122.2 9 8.7 101.9 100.5 123.0 97.9 102.2 103.1 123.1 97.7 101.6 103.1 121.2 9 7.7 102.8 103.1 122.2 .. MANUFACTURING 2011 2013 2015 2021 2033 Meat slaughtering p la n ts . .. .......... Meat processing plants.. Poultry dressing plants __ Creamery butter______ ____ . _ Canned fruits and vegetables_____ _____ _ . . 115.6 110.7 113.1 111.7 117.7 111.6 127.1 113.3 113.3 2036 2041 Fresh or frozen packaged fish_______________ Flour and other grain m ill products (12/71 = 141.2 141.0 111.0 100).............. ............................... .......................... Prepared animal feeds (12/71 = 100) 9 8.9 119.3 99.3 119.6 99.3 119.6 99.3 119.6 99.3 119.6 99.3 119.6 100.5 119.6 98.4 100.5 100.5 119.6 Raw cane sugar . . . Cane sugar refining________________________ Beet sugar___________________ _ _. . _ Chewing gum___________ . Malt liquors_____________ . . 116.9 118.3 116.8 123.6 110.2 117.7 119.5 117.1 126.2 110.2 119.5 119.8 117.3 126.2 110.2 116.7 119.4 117.0 126.2 110.2 116.7 119.4 117.0 126.2 110.2 118.1 119.6 117.0 126.2 110.9 121.3 120.0 117.3 126.2 110.6 126.7 120.9 118.0 125.9 110.7 123.5 123.0 119.7 125.9 110.9 126.1 123.6 120.2 125.9 110.4 123.6 125.4 121.2 125.9 110.7 119.5 124.9 120.8 125.9 110.6 120.9 125.1 120.9 125.9 110.7 125.0 125.5 121.5 125.9 110.7 2083 2084 2091 2092 2094 M alt______ _ _ Wines and b r a n d y ____ . _ Cottonseed oil m ills_________________ _____ Soybean oil m ills___ _________ __________ Animal and marine fats and oils_____________ 98.5 117.0 111.4 111.4 125.7 9 8.9 120.4 113.1 120.8 122.8 98.9 120.4 120.0 120.8 124.4 98.9 120.4 118.1 109.2 125.4 98.9 120.5 105.2 110.3 122.6 9 8.9 102.5 104.9 110.9 120.3 9 4.2 119.4 108.5 111.3 114.0 94.2 119.7 106.7 109.6 U 3 .1 94.2 125.0 106.4 112.7 115.7 94.2 125.1 106.4 120.0 117.0 94.2 125.2 104.9 123.1 125.6 9 4.2 125.2 103.6 121.8 129.1 9 4.2 125.3 102.7 120.0 128.9 9 4 .2 126.1 107.2 125.7 128.3 2096 2098 2111 2121 2131 Shortening and cooking oils________________ Macaroni and noodle products______________ Cigarettes_________ . . Cigars________ _ . Chewing and smoking tobacco____ _________ 121.0 106.3 117.4 108.1 125.0 122.9 106.5 117.3 107.6 125.1 125.0 106.4 117.3 109.6 125.1 123.3 106.5 117.3 109.6 125.1 122.4 105.8 117.3 109.6 125.1 122.2 105.8 117.3 109.6 125.1 121.1 105.8 117.3 109.1 125.1 120.6 105.8 118.2 109.1 125.1 120.2 105.8 118.2 109.1 125.1 119.8 105.9 118.2 109.1 125.1 119.8 106.0 118.2 109.1 125.1 119.8 106.2 118.2 109.1 125.8 120.5 106.2 118.2 109.1 125.8 120.3 106.2 118.2 109.1 125.8 2254 2272 2281 2311 2321 Knit underwear m i l l s __ . Tufted carpets and rugs. Yarn mills, except wool (12/71 = 1 0 0 ) . . . . . . . Men's and boys’ suits and coats. . . ___ Men’s dress shirts and nightwear____________ 107.8 96.0 107.8 95.2 108.3 94.2 108.3 94.2 108.2 94.2 108.3 94.2 108.2 94.5 128.0 111.9 127.7 112.2 129.1 112.3 131.0 112.4 131.2 112.4 131.3 111.4 131.3 111.1 108.7 94.8 101.0 131.5 H i.5 109.8 95.1 102.5 131.3 111.7 109.8 94.7 103.1 131.2 111.9 109.8 9 4 .9 104.2 131.0 112.0 110.1 9 4 .9 105.4 131.3 112.0 110.2 9 5 .5 106.2 131.8 112.3 110.3 9 5.8 106.6 132.7 112.7 2322 2327 2328 2337 Men’s and boys’ underwear___ . . . ___ Men's and boys' separate trousers___________ Work clothing___ . . . .. Women’s suits, coats and skirts (12/71 = 1 0 0 ).. 110.3 110.6 113.7 110.2 110.7 113.4 110.6 110.9 114.7 110.6 111.0 114.6 110.6 111.0 114.6 110.5 111.0 114.6 110.5 111.0 114.9 lll.O n o .7 H 5 .0 loo. 0 111.7 111.0 115.1 100.0 111.8 111.0 115.1 100.0 111.8 108.3 116.3 100.0 112.0 108.4 116.9 100.0 112.1 108.1 117.1 100.0 112.1 107.1 117.1 100.5 2381 2421 2426 2431 2432 Fabric dress and work gloves Sawmills and planing mills (12/71 = 1 0 0 ) . ___ Hardwood dimension and flooring _ . _____ Millwork plants (12/71 = 100) Veneer and plywood plants (1 2 /7 1 = 1 0 0 ). . . . 111.8 111.7 111.7 11L8 111.8 111.5 111.5 115.5 116.2 118.8 118.5 118.2 118.2 119.4 113.2 102 2 120.6 100.5 102.3 113.6 104.8 120.8 100.6 106.8 115.0 106.4 121.9 101.3 110.5 118.7 108 2 124.9 102 2 110 7 120.1 109.5 125.6 103.2 112.2 121.5 111.0 127.0 104.1 113.6 122.3 112.7 127.6 104 6 115 0 2442 2511 2512 2515 2521 Wirebound boxes and crates (1 2 /6 7 = 100). Wood furniture, not upholstered (12/71 = 1 0 0 ).. Wood furniture upholstered (12/71 = 100)_____ Mattresses and bedsprings____ . _ . ._ Wood office furn itu re .. 117.6 117.9 117.9 117.9 117.9 118.3 118.5 108.8 117.1 108.9 117.1 109.0 117.3 109.0 117.3 109.0 117.3 109.0 117.5 109.0 117.5 119.8 100.7 100.3 108.9 117.5 120.1 101.4 100.6 109.6 117.5 120.5 101.7 100.2 109.6 117.9 121.6 101.7 100.6 109.6 118.5 122.3 101.8 100.6 110.9 118.9 123.9 101.9 100.6 110.9 119.1 123.9 102.0 101.2 111.0 119.1 2647 2654 2819 2822 2823 Sanitary paper products___________ _______ Sanitary food containers____ ... ... Inorganic chemicals, nec. (1 2/71 = 100) Synthetic rubber________ . . . . . . ___ Cellulosic man-made fibers 119.1 106.0 119.5 106.2 119.5 106.2 119.5 106.2 119.5 106.2 119.5 106.2 119.5 106.2 119.5 106.2 100.1 99.7 104.3 119.6 106.3 100.2 99.7 104.8 119.6 106.4 100.2 99.7 105.6 120.1 107.2 101 5 99.7 105. 121.1 107.6 101.7 106.0 121.1 107.7 101.7 o 100.0 106.0 121.1 107.2 101.5 100.2 106.0 2824 2834 2841 2844 2871 Organic fibers, noncellulosic................................. Pharmaceutical preparations (12/71 = 100)___ Soap and other detergents (12/71 = 100 )______ Toilet preparations (1 2/71 = 100)___ . . . ___ Fertilizers___________ _____ ____ ____ ____ 98.1 99.8 100.0 100.1 89.5 98.1 100.1 100.0 99 8 90.2 98.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 90.6 98.1 100.4 100.2 99.7 9 0.5 98.1 100.6 100.1 9 9.7 9 0 .6 9 8.1 100.7 100.1 9 7.9 9 0 .6 2042 2044 2052 Rice m illing_____ _ Biscuits, cfackers and cookies. 2061 2062 2063 2073 2082 See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis _ _______ 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 102.5 102.5 102.8 102.8 102.9 99.7 102.7 99.7 103.7 98.0 9 8.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 9 8.0 98.0 89.7 100.0 100.0 89.7 99.9 9 1.8 93.7 89.7 89.7 89.8 89.8 99.9 124 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 1972 INDUSTRY PRICES A 31. Continued—Industry-sector price indexes for output of selected industries 1 [1 9 6 7 = 1 0 0 u n le s s o t h e r w is e i n d i c a t e d ] 2 A nnual 1963 SIC code Industry 1971 1972 a v e ra g e 1971 Ju ly Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. M ar. Apr. May June 102.4 112.8 106.3 102.5 112.8 105.3 102.4 112.8 105.2 102.3 112.7 105.0 102.3 112.7 105.1 102.9 120.4 101.5 112.7 104.5 106.7 121.1 102.9 112.9 105.2 106.7 129.0 103.3 113.1 105.6 106.8 139.0 103.1 114.6 105.9 106.8 138.7 103.3 114.9 107.1 106.9 139.5 103.3 114 .4 107.7 106.9 138.9 126.6 101.1 100.0 131.4 128.1 125.8 102.6 99.5 131.4 128.1 126.9 104.7 9 9.0 136.1 131.5 127.0 106.7 9 8 .9 136.1 131.8 136.8 107.6 9 8 .8 136.1 131.9 136.2 108.2 9 8.9 136.3 132.1 July M ANUFACTURING— Continued 2872 2892 2911 3021 3111 Fertilizers, mixing only---------------- -------- -----------Explosives___________________________________ Petroleum refining------------------ -------- ----------------Rubber footwear (1 2/71 = 100) Leather tanning and finishing________________ 102.5 112.8 105.7 102.8 112.9 106.2 102.3 112.8 106.2 113.0 114.7 114.7 113.9 114.0 114.0 117.5 3121 3141 3211 3221 3241 Industrial leather belting_____________________ Shoes except rubber (12/71 — 100) Flat giass (12/71 — 100) 1 . . Glass containers________________ _________ Cement, hydraulic.......................................... ............. 125.5 125.5 126.0 125.6 125.6 126.3 126.3 131.5 124.6 131.4 126.7 131.4 127.6 131.4 127.8 131.4 127.8 131.4 127.8 131.4 127.8 125.6 100.7 100.0 131.4 127.8 3251 3255 3259 3261 3262 Brick and structural clay tile ________________ Clay refractories________________ ______ ______ Structural clay products nee__________________ Vitreous plumbing fixtures____ __________ Vitreous china food utensils__________________ 119.1 128.7 109.2 112.1 132.4 119.1 128.7 109.9 114.0 133.4 120.0 128.7 109.9 114.3 133.4 120.0 128.7 110.0 114.6 133.4 120.0 128.9 110.0 114.8 133.4 120.0 128.9 109.9 114.4 133.4 120.0 128.9 109.9 114.7 133.4 119.9 128.9 109.9 113.9 133.4 122.5 128.9 109.9 114.4 135.8 122.7 128.9 109.9 114.9 137.9 123.2 128.9 109.9 115.3 137.9 123.3 128.9 109.9 115.3 137.9 123.5 128.9 109.9 116.0 137.9 123.5 128.9 110.5 116.2 140.2 3263 3271 3273 3275 3291 Fine earthenware food utensils_____ _________ Concrete block and brick_____________________ Ready mixed concrete________________________ Gypsum products_____________ _____ _________ Abrasive products (1 2/71 — 100) 125.5 118.4 122.5 107.0 129.7 118.4 123.3 112.7 131.1 118.9 124.8 114.4 131.1 119.1 124.6 114.5 131.1 119.1 124.6 113.7 131.1 119.1 124.6 112.3 131.1 119.1 124.9 114.1 134.6 120.0 125.3 113.4 100.0 134.8 120.5 125.8 113.0 100.3 140.3 120.8 126.7 115.3 101.3 140.3 122.0 127.3 114.9 101.9 140.3 122.5 127.3 113.6 102.1 140.3 122.9 127.4 114.0 102.2 140.4 123.8 128.1 115.7 102.5 3312 3315 3316 3317 3321 Blast furnace and steel m ills_________________ Steel wire drawing, etc______________________ Cold finishing of steel shapes________________ Steel pipe and tube ___ ____ _ .. Gray iron foundries (1 2 /6 8 = 1 0 0 )_____________ 123.4 120.2 124.1 121.9 115.1 124.0 119.2 126.2 120.7 116.0 128.2 124.3 128.5 128.4 116.1 128.3 125.3 128.9 128.4 116.2 128.3 125.2 128.9 128.2 116.3 128.3 125.7 128.9 128.2 116.4 128.3 125.7 128.9 128.2 116.4 129.6 127.1 127.9 128.6 116.1 130.9 127.6 132.4 128.5 116.7 130.9 127.7 132.4 128.7 116.9 130.9 127.9 132.1 129.2 116.8 131.0 127.9 130.7 129.2 116.9 130.6 128.2 129.9 129.2 117.7 130.6 128.2 129.9 129.4 117.9 3333 3334 3339 3341 3351 Primary zinc....... ..................................... .................. Primary alum inum ___________________________ Primary nonferrous metals, nec______________ Secondary nonferrous metals (1 2/71 = 100 )__ Copper rolling and d ra w in g ..._______________ 113.3 115.9 112.8 112.8 115.9 111.2 118.8 115.9 111.8 118.8 115.9 106.5 118.8 115.9 104.9 118.8 115.9 105.1 118.8 115.9 107.2 119.0 120.5 120.5 120.0 120.0 119.7 118.3 119.0 101.5 110.4 96.3 120.3 119.1 99.2 112.2 96.0 122.2 119.2 95.9 114.2 99.7 125.6 122.3 9 5.9 115.4 100.5 125.4 126.1 9 5 .9 117.8 100.0 125.6 126.0 9 5 .9 120.4 99.1 125.5 126.1 9 6.3 123.6 9 9.6 123.6 3352 3356 108.2 108.3 108.4 108.4 108.3 108.3 108.3 108.3 108.2 108.3 108.6 108.9 108.8 108.8 3411 3423 3431 Aluminum rolling and drawing (1 2 /6 8 = 100)__ Nonferrous rolling and drawing, nec. (12/71 -1 0 0 ) ____________ Metal cans__________________________________ Hand and edge tools (1 2 /6 7 = 1 0 0 ) — ................ Metal plumbing fixtures______________________ 121.9 120.8 114.0 124.0 121.3 116.2 124.0 123.1 117.7 124.0 123.1 117.7 124.0 123.0 117.6 124.0 123.2 117.8 124.0 123.2 117.8 100.1 124.0 124.4 116.9 101.1 127.5 125.0 116.9 101.3 127.6 125.0 117.5 101.8 127.6 125.9 117.9 102.2 127.6 126.0 118.0 102.1 129.3 126.4 119.3 102.1 130.0 126.7 119.4 3493 34Q4 3496 3498 3519 Steel springs________________________________ Valves and pipe fittings (12/71 — 100) Collapsible tubes____________________________ Fabricated pipe and fittings__________________ Internal combustion engines_________________ 111.9 110.2 111.5 113.3 113.1 114.3 115.9 118.4 133.0 117.4 119.9 135.6 116.8 120.0 135.6 118.4 120.0 136.7 118.5 119.9 136.7 118.5 119.9 136.7 118.5 119.9 136.7 119.3 116.6 100.3 119.9 136.7 120.2 118.7 100.6 120.5 136.7 120.9 118.9 100.6 120.7 136.7 121.1 119.0 100.9 120.8 136.7 121.1 119.0 101.1 120.9 136.7 121.5 119.0 100.9 120.8 136.7 121.4 119.0 100.8 120.8 136.7 121.1 3533 3534 3535 Oil field machinery_______ ______ ____________ Elevators and moving stairways______________ Conveyors and conveying equipment (12/71 = 100) . ________ Industrial trucks and tractors---------------------------Machine tools, metal cutting types (1 2 /7 1 = 100) ________________ 123.3 121.0 123.8 102.6 124.0 122.2 123.9 122.2 123.9 122.2 123.9 122.2 123.9 122.2 125.3 122.3 125.6 122.3 125.6 122.3 126.5 122.3 128.4 122.3 128.7 122.3 129.6 122.3 120.4 121.6 123.5 121.7 121.7 121.7 124.2 100.2 124.2 101.1 123.3 101.1 123.4 101.2 123.5 101.5 123.5 102.1 123.3 102.1 123.6 100.2 100.7 100.9 101.4 102.0 102.1 102.2 100.3 111.0 115.0 103.5 116.5 100.7 111.3 115.7 104.0 116.5 101.4 111.3 116.2 104.4 117.6 101.4 111.4 116.8 104.5 117.8 101.4 111.4 117.6 104.5 118.5 101.4 111.1 117.6 104.7 118.6 101.6 111.2 117.6 104.7 119.0 100.5 94.4 112.0 113.4 99.7 100.7 94.1 112.1 113.4 99.9 101.2 9 4.3 112.4 113.4 100.1 101.2 9 5 .5 111.7 113.4 9 9 .8 100.2 95.4 111.0 113.6 99.4 100.3 95.1 111.5 114.3 9 9 .4 100.3 9 5 .3 111.5 114.1 9 9 .4 100.4 114.5 101.1 113.2 139.8 101.8 116.3 101.1 113.2 139.9 101.8 117.4 101.5 113.2 139.9 101.8 117.7 101.8 111.2 144.1 101.8 117.6 101.8 111.2 144.1 102.0 117.6 102.1 111.2 144.1 3537 3541 Machine tools, metal forming types (12/71 = 100) ____ _________ Textile machinery (1 2 /6 9 = 100)_ ........................... Ball and roller bearings______________________ _____________________________ Typewriters Scales and balances.. ______________________ 108.9 114.2 103.4 114.3 109.7 114.0 103.4 114.1 109.8 114.6 103.5 114.1 110.1 114.6 103.5 114.1 110.4 114.6 103.5 114.5 110.4 114.6 103.5 114.5 110.4 114.6 103.5 114.5 3611 3612 3613 3624 3634 Transform ers. _____________________________ Switchgear and switchboards_________________ Carbon and graphite products (1 2 /6 7 = 1 0 0 ) — 9 7.3 113.3 113.1 96.7 113.1 113.3 95.6 113.1 113.3 95.5 112.7 113.3 94.8 113.0 113.3 92.4 112.5 113.3 93.0 112.3 113.3 3635 3641 Household vacuum cleaners__________________ Electric la m p s ____________________ ________ 100.4 113.6 100.5 113.3 100.5 113.8 100.5 113.8 100.5 114.3 100.5 114.0 100.4 114.2 3652 3671 Phonograph records. ___ ____ ____ . . Electron tubes, receiving type--------------------------- 106.8 132.0 105.4 132.2 105.4 132.2 105.4 132.2 105.4 132.2 105.4 132.2 105.4 132.2 100.4 114.2 100.3 113.2 132.1 3672 3673 3674 3692 3693 Cathode ray picture tubes____________________ Electron tubes, transmitting__________________ Semiconductors . __________________________ Primary batteries, dry and w et_______________ X-ray apparatus and tubes (1 2/67 = 100 )--------- 86.4 111.4 9 3.9 118.9 128.5 87.7 111.7 93.3 121.8 129.5 87.7 111.7 93.7 123.0 129.5 83.3 111.6 93.5 123.0 129.5 8 3.0 111.6 93.5 123.0 129.5 8 3.0 111.6 93.5 123.0 129.5 8 3.0 111.4 93.0 123.0 129.5 8 3.0 111.4 9 3.0 123.0 132.1 82.9 111.2 93.1 123.0 132.1 83.1 112.1 92.5 123.0 132.1 8 2.8 112.4 9 2.3 123.1 132.1 83.7 114.1 9 2.5 123.1 132.1 8 3 .7 114.1 9 2.5 123.1 131.9 8 4.1 114.1 9 2 .6 123.2 132.1 3661 3941 Games and toys_____________________________ 112.9 113.0 113.0 113.0 113.0 113.0 113.1 100.0 113.3 100.3 114.3 100.5 115.5 9 9 .9 115.7 9 9.9 115.7 9 9 .9 115.8 100.0 115.8 3542 3552 3562 3572 3576 1 For a description of the series, see BLS Handbook o f Methods (BLS Bulletin 1711, 1971), Chapter 12. See also "Industry and Sector Price Indexes,” in the M onthly Labor R e vie w . August 1965, pp. 974-982. As of January 1971, the indexes were converted from the former base 1957-59 = 100 to the new base of 1967 = 100. Other bases are shown in parenthesis following 2 the title. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 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. c =corrected. 4 <* * A CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 32. LABOR MANAGEMENT DISPUTES 125 Work stoppages resulting from labor-management disputes 1 Workers involved in stoppages Number of stoppages M an-days idle durin g m onth or year M onth and year Beginning in m onth or year 1945 .............................. in effect durin g m onth 4,750 Beginning in m onth or year (thousands) In effect d u rin g m onth (thousands) Number (thousands) Percent of estim ated w o rk in g tim e 3,470 38,000 0.31 1.04 .30 .28 .44 .33 1946______________ .. 1947______ 1948______ _____ . 1949........................ 1950. . 4,985 3,693 3,419 3,606 4,843 4,600 2,170 1,960 3,030 2,410 116,000 34,600 34,100 50,500 38,800 1951______ . 1952. . .. 1953___________ 1954 . 1955________ 4,737 5,117 5,091 3,468 4,320 3,540 2,400 1,530 2,650 2,220 22,900 59,100 28,300 22,600 28,200 .18 .48 1956__________ 1957______ 1958 . . . 1959. . I960. 3,825 3,673 3 j 694 3,708 3’ 333 1,900 1,390 2,060 1,880 1,320 33,100 16,500 23,900 69,000 19,100 .24 1961____ 1962_______ 1963___ . 196 4-..1965.-. 3,367 3 j 614 3,362 3,655 3,963 1,450 1,230 941 1,640 1,550 16,300 18,600 16,100 22,900 23,300 .11 .13 .11 .15 .15 196 6--.. 1967______ 1968___ 1969... 1970-.- 4,405 4; 595 5,045 5,700 5,716 1,960 2,870 2,649 2,481 3,305 25,400 42,100 49,018 42,869 66,414 .15 .25 .28 .24 .37 197 1.--- 5,135 1970: 1971: 1972: -. .22 .18 .22 .12 .18 .50 .14 47,417 .26 January___________ February M arch..'___________ 279 330 427 458 529 630 71.1 116.3 316.2 269.9 329.6 402.5 3,710.8 ,110.6 2,471.2 2 .25 .15 .16 A p ril______________ May___________ June___________ __ 640 699 657 884 1,050 1,060 451.1 331.1 288.1 523.1 675.4 538.0 5,431.1 6,650.7 5,845.6 .34 .46 .36 Ju ly ______________ August- . September.................. 585 527 560 989 950 971 242.2 127.3 591.1 467.1 340.7 785.0 5,112.1 3,851.8 8,669.5 .32 .26 .57 October................ .. November_________ December____ ___ 448 340 224 881 695 529 231.1 83.6 455.5 753.9 552.0 919.9 11,573.6 7,798.0 3,188.7 January______ ____ F eb ru a ry .................. M arch............ 416 359 457 647 632 725 234.5 128.4 150.0 319.9 206.0 260.0 A p ril_____________ May______________ June______________ 550 612 617 859 957 1,031 180.5 726.9 280.4 July____ _________ August____________ September________ 499 437 351 938 890 668 October___________ November_________ December_________ 304 315 218 January r __________ February r ________ March r ___ _______ April r ___.................. MAY r ____________ June p ____________ 3,263 2,868.2 269.3 817.7 420.0 2,388.6 4,000.1 4,093.6 .15 .28 .26 747.8 182.5 108.2 937.6 489.8 316.0 7,894.8 5,022.5 3,109.5 .52 .32 551 561 485 245.6 234.6 43.7 311.9 450.3 236.2 5,480.6 5,032.4 3,102.8 310 320 400 470 480 580 80 61 127 155 140 165 2,303 1,618 1,544 .09 440 510 425 640 720 670 146 126 311 217 203 388 2,031 2,139 3,513 .21 1 The data include all known strikes or lockouts involving 6 workers or more and lasting a fu ll day or shift or longer. Figures on workers involved and man-days idle cover all workers made idle for as long as 1 shift in establishments directly involved in a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or secondary effect on other establish- https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis .73 .54 .20 .20 1,934.5 2,489.5 .14 .15 .20 .36 .33 .20 .15 .11 .14 .13 ments or industries whose employees are made idle as a result of material or service shortages. p = preliminary. r =revised. 126 PRODUCTIVITY MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 33. Indexes of output per man-hour, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, private economy, seasonally ad justed [ 1967=100] O utpu t per m an-hour M an-hours O utput Compensation per m a n -h o u r1 Real compensa tio n per m a n -h o u r2 U n it labor costs U n it nonlabor pay m e n ts 3 Im p lic it price d e fla to r Year and q u a rte r P riv a te P rivate nonfarm P rivate P rivate nonfarm P rivate P rivate nonfarm P rivate P rivate nonfarm P rivate P rivate nonfarm P rivate 107.3 107.7 108.2 107.5 107.7 107.4 108.1 108.5 107.9 108.0 103.4 104.2 104.5 104.0 104.0 104.0 104.9 105.4 105.2 104.9 103.7 103.4 103.6 103.3 103.5 103.2 103.0 103.0 102.5 102.9 112.5 114.5 116.7 119.5 115.8 111.9 113.7 115.6 118.0 114.8 104.9 104.9 105.5 106.5 105.5 104.2 104.2 104.5 105.2 104.5 108.5 110.7 112.7 115.6 111.9 106.8 107.3 107.9 106.5 107.1 107.0 107.3 108.1 106.5 107.2 103.7 103.1 104.9 104.0 103.1 103.0 104.0 105.8 105.6 104.6 103.2 104.9 104.4 103.6 121.5 123.1 126.0 127.7 124.5 119.9 121.9 124.5 126.1 123.1 106.6 106.4 107.6 107.7 107.0 105.2 105.3 106.4 106.3 105.8 117.9 118.3 119.1 120.9 119.0 108.7 103.7 110.4 112.3 110.3 108.7 109.8 110.5 112.7 110.4 107.3 107.8 108.8 109.9 108.5 106.1 106.9 107.6 109.1 107.4 130.1 132.0 134.1 135.9 133.0 128.4 130.7 132.5 134.4 131.5 108.8 109.3 109.9 107.5 108.2 108.6 109.6 108.4 122.4 123.2 123.6 1972: 1 st................... 114.3 d . .................. e 117.0 114.9 p 117.7 110.3 P ill.6 138.6 p 140.5 137.3 p 138.9 110.9 P ill.4 125.1 p 124.9 1969: 1st.................... d __________ 3d__________ 4th_________ 2 A n n u a l a v e r a g e _______ 1970: 1st__________ d__________ 3d.................... 4th ............. 2 A n n u a l a v e r a g e .............. 1971: 1 s t........... .. d .............. 3d__________ 4 th _________ 2 A n n u a l a v e r a g e _______ 2 102.0 100.8 102.0 102.4 103.5 101.3 101.7 101.4 102.5 103.1 p 104.0 104.2 p 105.4 102.8 102.6 102.2 103.3 102.8 101.7 110.8 p 112.5 102.0 110.8 109.6 112.0 p 112.7 P rivate nonfarm P rivate 102.6 102.8 103.0 102.1 111.6 102.6 117.5 102.1 108.3 110.4 112.3 115.1 118.1 118.7 120.7 118.8 121.2 121.1 122.3 123.1 123.3 122.4 122.6 p 104.2 105.7 107.4 104.9 P rivate nonfarm 102.6 102.6 103.0 101.8 102.5 P rivate 106.2 107.6 108.9 110.4 108.3 101.6 111.8 104.1 112.8 105.8 107.9 104.9 110.6 110.3 111.6 111.7 112.5 112.5 112.6 112.3 111.8 111.8 124.5 124.4 113.5 p 115.2 113.1 p 114.7 6.7 7.7 7.1 1.5 0.7 -3 .6 1.5 - 4 .6 P rivate nonfarm 106.2 107.4 108.8 110.1 108.1 111.5 112.8 113.9 115.6 113.5 113.9 115.9 113.5 117.0 118.2 119.0 119.3 118.4 117.1 118.3 119.1 119.1 118.4 120.6 120.2 p 121.2 p 120.7 4.2 5.5 4.9 5.4 4.4 4.9 5.0 4.9 0.5 5.2 3.8 3.8 6.3 5.2 4.9 3.7 7.2 4.7 4 3 8 4.5 4 0 -0 .6 i!o 0.1 3.0 p 5.6 4.2 p 2.0 Percent change over previous q u a rte r a t annual r a te 4 1969: 1st__________ d __________ 3d__________ 4th_________ 1.7 -2 .5 1970: 1st__________ d __________ 3d____ _____ 4th................. - 2 .6 1.7 2.3 - 5 .1 1971: 1st__________ d .............. 3d 4 t h . . . ........ .. 8.7 8.7 2.5 7.2 2 2 1.8 2 1972: 1st_________ d ................ 2 3.2 2.5 3.6 7.0 p 9.7 1.8 -2 .5 -3 .0 1.1 2.9 -5 .7 8.6 4.1 2.4 8.1 8.1 p IO.O 3.4 3.3 .9 - 1 .6 4.2 3.6 1.9 -.7 - 1 .4 - 2 .2 - 4 .3 -4 .5 - 1 .2 - 3 .6 - 3 .5 -4 .0 2.1 2.1 1.0 1.7 - 1 .2 3.0 - 0 .5 3.6 p 3.5 3.5 P4.8 2.6 0.2 .8 - 1 .5 - .0 1.0 -1 .8 - 1 .2 4.0 7.0 - 1 .8 4.8 - -.6 6.6 - 1 .7 3.8 4.1 6.4 3.1 2.9 5.4 3.3 p 6.0 4.5 p 5.0 6.5 2.0 6.1 7.0 8.2 1.0 -1 .1 9.8 5.6 6.6 7.0 8.6 - 6 .9 5.4 9.6 5.6 6.5 7.1 8.9 4.9 7.7 7.8 7.2 5.6 6.1 6.4 5.6 8.1 p 5.6 6.0 8.7 p 4.7 1.1 .1 2.2 3.8 0.6 0.6 1.1 - .3 2.7 0.2 5.9 8.6 7.3 10.8 8.2 - 1 .0 4.9 .5 4.1 -.4 4.3 2.3 3.3 4.4 2.7 1 5 3.6 4.0 2 5 1.5 4.6 p 2.4 5.1 p 1.6 4.7 p -0 .4 .2 1.6 1.4 2.5 6.3 1.1 10.6 .6 1.0 .1 8.4 0.2 8.2 6.2 6.4 10.2 6.7 8.1 1.3 4.0 11.3 4 9 10.5 4 0 2.2 2.1 6.8 2 7 0.5 4.0 p - 0 .2 3 2 0.2 3.5 P6.1 2 7 2 2 7 p 3.7 1.8 Percent change of previous y e a r 5 1st.................. 2d __________ 1.8 1.6 2.2 2.3 2.3 5.5 2.3 3d__________ 4 th ................... 1972: 1 s t . . . ............ d _____ ____ 5.1 p 6.6 5.6 p 7.1 2 5.8 -2 .3 - 1 .3 - 0 .5 1.4 1.8 p 2 .2 -2 .3 - 1 .2 -0 .4 1.3 1.6 p 2.6 4.2 3.7 2.9 4.1 4.0 3.5 4.4 3.3 p 4.3 4.0 p 4 .4 7.1 7.2 6.4 6.4 2.6 6.6 p 6.4 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. 3 Nonlabor payments include profits, depreciation, interest, rental income and indirect taxes. 4 Percent change computed from original data. * Current quarter divided by comparable quarter a year ago. 7.2 7.2 6.4 6.7 6.9 p 6.2 2.1 2.1 2.7 2.9 2.9 p 3.1 2.1 2.7 2.0 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.4 2.3 3.2 p 2.9 3.2 p 2.1 3.1 3.5 3.7 2.1 2.8 p 1.7 8.0 7.2 6.4 4.8 2.9 p 3.2 8.8 7.3 6.3 4.1 4.7 4.8 4.5 3.2 2.3 p 2.6 3.1 p 2.5 5.1 4.9 4.6 2.8 2.6 p 2.1 NOTE: Data for 1969, 1970, and the first two quarters of 1971 have been adjusted to new benchmarks and are not comparable to those previously published in the M onthly Labor Review. SOURCE: Output data from the Office of Business Economics, U.S. Department of Commerce. Man-hours and compensation of all persons from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. p=Preliminary. Professional positions at BLS The Bureau of Labor Statistics invites inquiries about job openings (1 ) from experienced professional economists, statisticians, systems analysts, and techni cal editors, and (2 ) from outstanding college grad uates planning careers in these fields. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Current openings range from GS-5 ($7,319-$9,515) to GS-15 ($25,583-$33,260). Inquiries should be addressed to William T. McGuigan, Personnel Officer, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 441 G Street, N.W., Room 2415, GAO Building, Washington, D.C. 20212. ☆ U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1972 5 1 2 -3 6 0 /1 •à PUBLICATIONS OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS P eriodical subscription s and individual publications m ay be ordered through the Bureau’s regional offices or directly from the S uperintendent o f D ocum ents, G o vern m en t P rinting Office, W ashington, D .C . 20402. M ake check or m on ey order payable to the Super in ten den t o f D ocum en ts. U se order blank on next page. Periodicals M O N T H L Y L A B O R R EV IEW . $9 a year; $11.25, foreign; single copy, 75 cents. A rticles on em ploy m ent, labor force, w ages, prices, productivity, unit labor costs, collective bargaining, worker satis faction, social indicators, and labor developm ents abroad. Regular features include a review o f developm ents in industrial relations, significant court decisions in labor cases, book reviews, and current labor statistics. E M P L O Y M E N T A N D E A R N IN G S . M onthly. $10 a year; $12.50, foreign; single copy, $1. Current data for the U n ited States as a w hole, for in dividual States, and for more than 200 local areas on em ploym ent, hours, earnings, and labor turnover. O C C U P A T IO N A L O U T LO O K Q U A R T E R L Y . $1.50 for four issues during the school year; $2, foreign; single copy, 45 cents. Current inform ation on em ploym ent trends and outlook, supplementing and bringing up to date inform ation in the O ccupational O u tlook H an dbook. C U R R E N T W A G E D E V E L O P M E N T S. M onthly. $4.50 a year; $5.75, foreign; single copy, 45 cents. W age and benefit changes resulting from collective bargaining settlem ents and m anagem ent decisions; statistical summaries; and special reports on wage trends. E M PL O Y M E N T AND E A R N IN G S , U N IT E D STATES Annual. Latest edition ( 1 9 0 9 - 7 1 ) , Bul letin 1 3 1 2 -8 . $5. D etailed industry statistics on em ploym ent, hours, and earnings of the nonagricultural work force. D IR E C T O R Y OF N A T IO N A L AND IN T E R N A T IO N A L LABOR U N IO N S IN T H E U N IT E D STATES. Biennial. Latest edition ( 1 9 6 9 ) , B ulle tin 1665, $1.25. N am es o f officers and professional em ployees, number o f mem bers, and number of locals of each union, along with sections on union mem bership, structure, and function. H A N D B O O K OF M E TH O D S. Latest edition (1 9 7 1 ), Bulletin 1711, $2. Brief account o f each major statistical program o f the Bureau o f Labor Sta tistics, sources o f original data, definition o f terms and concepts, m ethodology and techniques, uses and lim itations o f data. A sampling of other publications BLA C K A M E R IC A N S: A D E C A D E O F O C C U P A T IO N A L C H A N G E . Bulletin 1931, 40 cents. Com panion report to Bulletin 1699. V isual pres entation o f data on 1 9 6 0 -7 0 progress o f blacks in m oving up the occcupational ladder toward higher paid jobs. BLA C K A M E R IC A N S , A C H A R T B O O K . Bulletin 1699, $1.25. V isual presentation o f data on prog ress and problems o f blacks in recent years. W A G E C A L E N D A R 1972. Bulletin 1724, 50 cents. Resume o f collective bargaining activity antici pated in 1972, with detailed tables on agreements scheduled to expire, contract reopenings, and de ferred w age increases due. Handbooks H A N D B O O K O F L A B O R STATISTIC S. Annual. 1971 edition, Bulletin 1705, $3.25. Historical tables o f major series published by BLS. Related series from other governm ent agencies and foreign countries. O C C U P A T IO N A L O U T LO O K H A N D B O O K . Bien nial. 1 9 7 2 -7 3 edition, Bulletin 1700, $6.25. E m ploym ent outlook, nature o f work, training, requirem ents for entry, line o f advancem ent, loca tion o f jobs, earnings, and working conditions for 700 occupations in 30 major industries, including farming. E M P L O Y M E N T A N D E A R N IN G S , STATES A N D A R E A S. A nnual. Latest edition ( 1 9 3 9 - 7 0 ) , Bulle tin 1 3 7 0 -8 , $4.50. H istorical State and area em ploym ent and earnings statistics in the nonfarm sector o f the econom y. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis LABO R LAW A N D PR A C T IC E IN V E N E Z U E L A . Report 386, 70 cents. One o f a series o f studies providing background inform ation on the labor scene in foreign countries. D escribes the country and its workers, the structure o f governm ent, labor, and m anagem ent, and conditions o f em ploym ent. A B R IE F H IST O R Y O F T H E A M E R IC A N LABO R M O V E M E N T . 1970 edition, Bulletin 1000, $1. PRICES, E SC A L A T IO N , A N D E C O N O M IC ST A B IL ITY . Interpretive pamphlet, 1971, 30 cents. T H E M E A N IN G A N D M E A S U R E M E N T OF P R O D U C T IV IT Y . Bulletin 1714, 30 cents. A R E A W A G E S U R V E Y : C H A R L O T T E, N .C . M E T R O PO L IT A N A R E A , IA N U A R Y 1972. Bulletin 1 7 2 5 -4 8 , 35 cents. One o f a series sum marizing results o f wage surveys in 90 metropolitan areas, with data on occupational earnings, establish ment practices, and supplementary wage benefits. Various pagings and prices. IN D E X E S O F O U T P U T P E R M A N -H O U R , SE L EC T ED IN D U S T R IE S . Annual. Latest edition (1 9 3 9 and 1 9 4 7 -7 0 ), Bulletin 1692, $1.25. A nnual indexes o f output per m an-hour, output per em ployee, and unit labor requirements. A lso, indexes for related data on output, em ploym ent, and man-hours. D IG E ST O F SE LE C TE D P E N S IO N P L A N S. 1970 edi tion, $5. (Subscribers receive basic volum e and pe riodic revision sheets.) Principal features o f selected pension plans for (1 ) em ployees under collective bargaining and (2 ) salaried em ployees. IN D U S T R Y W A G E SU R V E Y : W O M E N ’S A N D M ISSES’ C O A TS A N D SU ITS, A U G U S T 1970. Bulletin 1728, 35 cents. One o f a series sum m ariz ing results o f surveys o f wages and related benefits in a specific industry. V arious pagings and prices. To order any of the publications listed, please complete the order form below and mail it to the Superintendent of Documents or to the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, at any of the regional addresses shown on the inside front cover. Make check or money order payable to the Superintendent of Documents. O rder Enclosed find $______________________ for the publications listed below: Form Name___________ _______________________________________ _________________________________ St reet___________ ___________________ ____________________________________________________ City— — — ________________________ State____________________________ Zip__________________ Q uantity Item (title and publication number, if any) Price For prom pt, accurate shipm ent please fill in the follow ing label— please p rin t or typew rite U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS DEPARTMENT WASHINGTON. D.C. 20402 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Name Street Address City, State, Zip Code U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE POSTAGE AND FEES PAID https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M onthly Labor Review the award-winning professional journal in econom ics and the social sciences U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFIÖE* PUBLIC DOCUMENTS DEPARTMENT ¡TAGE AND FEES PAID WASHINGTON, D.C. 20402 U.S. GOVERNMENT . PRINTING. OTLI9E OFFICIAL BUSINESS https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis /i PENALTY FOR PRIVATI (ikossc Arbeiter ^cuumstration. 9Konfire=Wcft, paratie unii ^k=9ttc ------ aller— — gemerli*- u. jlrOetter-'^lttions unter ben Slufptcieu ber tum *Retv ?)orf uni» Hingegen*, îùenjiag, lien 5. ©ejitemfier, P i e erp te p i n i f i i m bcfteljt au« ©erocrifclfaftcn non ©rooFlpn, Oerfeìj Siti; mtb Siero 9)orf bi« unterhalb S a n a i © tr ., unb oerfammelt ftd; im Siti) |) a i l sjSarf. p i e f t t ie it e p i t t i f u m um faßt alle ©eroerffdfaftcn ber C ftfeite oberhalb S a n a i © tr . SDiefe SDitùfion berfammett ftd; beim Sooper 3 n ftitu t. P i e b r ü t e P i n i f t o n um faßt bic ©crocrtfdjaftcn ber SBeftfeitc obero tjalb ber S a n a i © tr , SDtcfclben bcrfamntclu ftd; am S a fljiu g to n © quarc. ]iriiii-s IO Jlfjr V orm ittags marfd;trt bic erftc QDroifion ben SSroabroat; l;tuauf, roo. ftd; an ber 4 . © trage bte ¿mette SDimftou aufdjliefst. S)ic britte iDimftou fd;ltc§t ftd; am SBaoerlt; “ißlace an. 3)cr 3 u 9 bcgtebt ftd; bann ben Sroabroat; Ijinattf bt« ¿ut 1 4 . © trage, con ba ab ttad; ber 4 . Slocnuc, btefe Ijtnaitf ¿tir 1 7 . © traßc ttttb non ba ¿ur 5 . Sluenue. Slm Siefernotr ^ a r f, 4 2 . © trage unb 5 . Sloeuue, roirb fid^ ber 3 n g auflöfcn. Das Committee. £ > ä n g t * ie 3 a n e in e t a n ffa llc n tie n © te ile a u f .
@FedFRASER